Schizophrenia May Be Eliminated

 Expurgation (4)

   The title may be misleading. It is the word 'schizophrenia' that is likely to disappear, not the mental disorder. The sub-title may be puzzling since it refers to three other posts I have provided, none of which you will have read. They all have to do with arguments about the purging of words from our dictionaries, just as we are now also arguing about the elimination of names from our maps. The first is about the word 'Accident', which tort lawyers, in particular, want removed (I just looked back at that one and it isn't bad.) The second is, "Illegal Aliens,"since there are none to be found on this planet. The third is  "Mistress",  because there is not a corresponding term to define the person your wife may be fooling around with. This fourth one may be my last, because keeping up with these linguistic battles is a full time job.

    Schizophrenia has surfaced since there seems to be a stigma associated with the illness. I pointed out recently that the American Medical Association wants practitioners to avoid troublesome words like, 'vulnerable' and 'high-risk'. Now the members of the American Psychiatric Association may opt not to label someone as suffering from 'schizophrenia', and the diagnosis may be dropped from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Those involved in the construction of the DSM are well practiced at this type of endeavour and in some cases have gone so far as to even eliminate the 'disease' - 'homosexuality' - for example. Those in the profession seem to be split about how to describe those with a 'split personality'.

  Clearly, yet again, I have tackled a subject about which I am not sufficiently credentialed. So, I will point you to the sources and let you decide this linguistic matter for yourself. The place for laypeople to begin is here: ‘Schizophrenia’ Still Carries a Stigma. Will Changing the Name Help?" Karen Brown, New York Times, Dec. 20, 2021.

"Many people with or connected to the mental illness approve of updating the name, a new survey shows. But some experts are not convinced it’s the answer....The idea is that replacing the term “schizophrenia” with something less frightening and more descriptive will not only change how the public perceives people with the diagnosis, but also how these people see themselves."

Good arguments for both sides are presented, including some mundane ones, like if the patient, loses the label, they could lose their insurance coverage. And, as Dr. Carpenter argues, "A rose by any other name would smell the same...“And if you make the change, how long until the stigma catches up with it?”

   Those serious about schizophrenia should have a look at the survey which is found here and the abstract is provided. 

"Are We Ready for a Name Change for Schizophrenia? A Survey of Multiple Stakeholders,"

(many authors), Schizophrenia Research, Volume 238, December 2021, Pages 152-160.

Abstract

"About one in 100 people worldwide are diagnosed with schizophrenia. Many people advocate for a name change for the condition, pointing to the stigma and discrimination associated with the term “schizophrenia”, as well as to how the name poorly characterizes features of the illness. The purpose of this project was to collect opinions from a broad, diverse sample of stakeholders about possible name changes for schizophrenia. The project represented a partnership between researchers, clinicians, and those with lived experience with psychosis. The group developed a survey to assess opinions about the need for change in the name schizophrenia as well as potential alternate names. We accumulated 1190 responses from a broad array of community stakeholders, including those with lived experience of mental illness, family members, clinicians, researchers, government officials, and the general public. Findings indicated that the majority of respondents (74.1%) favored a name change for schizophrenia. Most (71.4%) found the name stigmatizing. Of the proposed alternate names, those with the most support included “Altered Perception Syndrome”, “Psychosis Spectrum Syndrome”, and “Neuro-Emotional Integration Disorder”. Survey findings provide strong support for renaming schizophrenia. Most expressed hope that a name change will reduce stigma and discrimination."

   This issue was raised a few years ago, in this article which also includes many examples of how 'schizophrenia' is defined in other languages: "Name Change for Schizophrenia," (many authors), Schizophrenia Bulletin, Volume 40, Issue 2, March 2014, Pages 255–258.

I suppose the first order of business will be to change the name of the two journals in which these studies appear.

Those interested in the illness rather than the word should see:

"A Brief History of Schizophrenia: Schizophrenia through the Ages, Neel Burton, Psychology Today, May 4, 2020 and "10 Facts You Should Know About Schizophrenia," Michele Debczak, Mental Floss, Aug. 29, 2019.

The Bonus:

   If you are interested in words and those who used to be called 'crazy' or 'mad', have a look at: The Professor and the Madman by Simon Winchester (it was published in England as, The Surgeon of Crowthorne.) For a shorter version see: Chapter 7, "The Hermit and the Murderer" in his book: The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary. If you don't enjoy this recommendation, I will give back all of your money.

Expurgations (2) Illegal Aliens

Undocumented Immigrants

Under discussion here is the phrase “illegal alien”, not any policy issues relating to that subject. Actually the subject of “illegal alien” is likely to disappear even if the phrase does not. Let me explain.

In my attempt to keep you au courant about language issues I indicated to you a few weeks ago that the phrase “automobile accident” is now generally frowned upon and should be avoided. That is now the case with “illegal alien” which is to be replaced  in polite circles with “undocumented immigrant”. The story begins on campus as many language stories do, this time at Dartmouth. A student being assisted by a librarian was apparently looking for material related to immigration matters and noticed that they were typically led to the subject heading “illegal aliens” which, as a formerly “undocumented immigrant”,  she found offensive.

She took the issue to the Dartmouth student group, CoFIRED (Coalition For Immigration Reform, Equality and DREAMers) which is also concerned with such tenets as “intersectionality” and “inter-community.” They then asked the Dartmouth library people to change the heading, only to realize that they were not in a position to do so since such terms are determined by the Library of Congress. The phrase ultimately found its way to the American Library Association where it was decided that it had to go. The resolution to replace the term with “undocumented immigrants” which  was sent to the Library of Congress contains about a dozen Wheras’s and here are a few samples:

“Whereas the terms "illegal" and "alien," when used in reference to people, have undergone pejoration and acquired derogatory connotations, becoming increasingly associated with nativist and racist sentiments;”

“Whereas referring to undocumented immigrants as "illegal" is increasingly viewed as dehumanizing, offensive, inflammatory, and even a racial slur;”

“Whereas college students have petitioned the Library of Congress to retire the subject heading Illegal aliens;

Etc.

The Library of Congress ultimately agreed to move to more neutral subject headings such as “non-citizens” and “unauthorized immigration”.

Although Library of Congress subject headings do change over time, there has been some opposition to this one since it was viewed as being motivated more by political than linguistic correctness.  Representative Diane Black (Republican TN) released the following statement:

“This needless policy change by the Library of Congress embodies so much of what taxpayers find enraging about Washington. By trading common-sense language for sanitized political-speak, they are caving to the whims of left-wing special interests and attempting to mask the grave threat that illegal immigration poses to our economy, our national security, and our sovereignty. My constituents know that illegal immigration by any other name is still illegal, and we should identify it as such. That is why my bill directs the Library of Congress to continue using the term ‘illegal alien’ just as they were previously. Hopefully this bill will give Washington the push needed to stop thinking up the most politically correct ways to describe illegal immigration and start thinking about solutions to address it,”

Soon after in May, four Senators (Ted Cruz being one) wrote a letter accusing the Library of being on an “Orwellian trajectory” and concluded with this statement:
“There is no other way to put this: the Library has bowed to the political pressure of the moment.”

Representative Brown has introduced a bill called the Stopping Partisan Policy at the Library of Congress Act which demands that “illegal aliens” be kept as a subject heading.

I confess that I was not sufficiently sensitive. I assumed that perhaps those included under such a description were mainly objecting to “alien” which can be related to rather scary characters in Japanese sci-fi movies. The term “alien” legally has a long history and refers basically to any foreigner or outsider. “Illegal” as a word also has a long history, but it is now argued that it should not be applied to a person.

In any case, we seem to have come a fair distance. When looking for instances of the phrase historically one often comes up with headlines such as this: “Plans Set to Round Up Wetbacks…” Los Angeles TImes, June 13, 1954.

For sources see:

“The Library of Congress Will Ditch the Subject Heading “Illegal Aliens”, Erin Blakemore, Smithsonian.com, March 29, 2016.
“Another Word for ‘Illegal Alien’ at the Library of Congress: Contentious,” Jasmine Aguilera, The New York Times, July 22, 2016.

“Library of Congress to Stop Using Term “Illegal Alien,” Steve Padilla & Selene Rivera, Los Angeles Times, April 3, 2016.