I'm just not sure why we have to get so bent-out-of-shape about the naming of things. Whether someone is an "accelerated learning student" or "gifted" is a difference of the utmost minute semantics. Just because a gifted program doesn't perfectly identify students doesn't mean it's not a gifted program.
Why have we become so terrified of assigning adjectives to people? Why can't a person be "smart" or "dumb" or "beautiful" or "ugly" or "strong" or "weak" or "disabled" or "retarded"? Just because some of these things are subjective doesn't mean that they are useless. Why have we started to pay such close attention to the feelings of some people assigned to categories they don't care for? "gifted" is just a word to denote such a category. If people don't like being "not gifted" they will learn to dislike "non-accelerated learning student" just as well.
I think the reasons are certainly cultural. Underneath it all, some of the reasons for adjective-assigning reticence are:
1. An expansion of the concept of 'harm', so that now even casual word usage is thought to be evidence of causing harm. (ex: "Indirectly suggesting some students are 'not gifted' harms them")
2. Operating on an ideal that we are all born equal (not speaking of 'rights' here, but competencies, value to society, etc.). We are but a blank slate, to be molded by social structures. Any unequal outcome on anything has to be a sort of 'systemic discrimination'. (ex: "I see that there's some group that is underrepresented in that gifted program, therefore they obviously are discriminated against")
3. Operating as if humans do not have free will. Any underperformance on anything is not their fault, it's "the system".
I agree with your assessment. I guess I'm having a hard time coming up with any way to oppose these trends beyond finding them laughably absurd. Do you have any suggestions for how to seriously engage with proponents of these ideas?
I certainly haven't tried extensively yet, so I'm really just speculating here. I think one of the growing challenges to objectively and critically thinking through issues in the West (particularly America) is the growing obsession with 'groups' over 'individuals'.
America seems to be rekindling a bent for things like racial essentialism and wanting to bring the idea of identity groups to the forefront of any conversation on anything. This tendency has a way of clouding the underlying reality on any given issue. Culturally, there is an expectation that you must reinforce these ideas in conversation, and pay lip service to the group-based narratives or else be labeled a 'group-ist'. It then becomes very difficult to actually talk about the underlying principles and factors at play on any given issue.
My personal take is you have to sort of utilize this group-based thinking yourself as a sort of trojan horse, to then attempt to highlight the true underlying principles/factors at play in the conversation. It's a way to sort of short-circuit the uncritical thinking that many have around issues of the day.
Why oppose it at all? Why get so hung up on the term? If anything, "accelerated learning" seems like a better term for these programs than "gifted and talented". Gifted and talented are non-specific and poorly-defined terms. Accelerated learning is exactly what it sounds like.
"Accelerated learning program" describes the program, whilst "gifted student" describes the person. -- I think that's a significant difference. Putting labels on people can lock them into certain roles (like "not gifted"). But "I didn't join that program" sounds more neutral to me.
I'm guessing some kids who would fit in those programs, might feel it's not for them, simply because they don't think about themselves as "gifted"? Maybe especially often kids from a poorer background?
Regarding these two in particular, they were stops on a euphemism treadmill:
Frequently, over time, euphemisms themselves become taboo words, through the linguistic process of semantic change known as pejoration, which University of Oregon linguist Sharon Henderson Taylor dubbed the "euphemism cycle" in 1974,[18] also frequently referred to as the "euphemism treadmill"
Mentally disabled people were originally defined with words such as "morons" or "imbeciles", which then became commonly-used insults. The medical diagnosis was changed to "mentally retarded", which morphed into a pejorative against those with mental disabilities. More specific diagnoses were created, like "autism", but—while less common--"autistic" is still sometimes used as an insult. To avoid the negative connotations of their diagnoses, students who need accommodations because of such conditions are often labeled as "special needs" instead, although "What are you, special?" has begun to crop up as a school-yard insult.[23] As of August 2013, the Social Security Administration replaced the term "mental retardation" with "intellectual disability".[24] Since 2012, that change in terminology has been adopted by the National Institutes of Health and the medical industry at large.[25]
I'm aware of the euphemism treadmill. What I don't understand is why we cater to the sensitivities of the people who keep it going. Names for things should be as clear, unambiguous, and, crucially, permanent as possible. We have a hard enough time communicating as-is. The constant change and inconsistent versioning of the protocol does far more harm than good.
> What I don't understand is why we cater to the sensitivities of the people who keep it going. The constant change and inconsistent versioning of the protocol does far more harm than good.
Part of the trouble we have with communicating between one another has to do with the fact that the inner states of interlocutors are only partially observable to one another. i.e. I have no idea what you are feeling in your head and what you have experienced apart from what you communicate to me through expressions or words, and vice versa. You can use any words you want with a person, but you have no idea how the words you use will impact their internal state. You can make a guess, but it's not guaranteed.
When some words are used by bullies to bring violence onto other children, it adds a new dimension to an otherwise benign word. I play the violin and the word "retard" is used often, because it means to play the music "slowly". But when it's also being used as an invective against a child by a bully, well now it has a darker meaning.
I can go through life simply saying this word without thinking about other people's feelings. But it's going to change the way some people perceive certain conversations. For instance, if I am conversing with someone who has not played violin and does not speak French, and has only seen this word being used by bullies to make other children feel lesser, or has been bullied themselves using such words, that is going to increase anxiety in the internal state of this person. They will wonder why I am using that word, and they may question whether or not I have bullied people in the past using that word. They may recall memories of themselves being bullied. Now all of a sudden the conversation is derailed just because you said the word "retarded", even without any ill-intentions.
While it would be nice if we could write down a word and settle on a definition for all time, that's never going to happen. The reason for this is we will never be able to settle on a universal dictionary definition for all words, and even if we could, no person can really know the dictionary definition of all the words they use, so it definitions would end up being ad hoc anyway. The meaning of words therefore comes from the dictionary as well as our own personal experience with the way those words are used. Unfortunately, we all have different experiences with the way words are used -- for me the word "retard" is the word I see at a beautiful violin solo before I play it. For others it's the word they hear before getting stuffed in the locker. In order to maintain copasetic conversations with all individuals I encounter, I strive to understand these "sensitivities" as you call them, but really they are just different perspectives, and no one is more or less valid than another.
People's internal emotional states are their own to manage. Language is a tool for communication, and we should strive to maximize its effectiveness in that capacity. This is done by eliminating as much ambiguity as possible.
Since people's internal states are unknowable, it's impossible to predict them accurately 100% of the time. Dictionaries provide an oracle for parsing language. If we're forced to consider how people might feel in response to any factual statement that we make, we end up in absurd situations[1].
I'm suggesting that we shift the burden of managing emotional states away from the speaker and towards the listener. Just like with laws (codified social/behavioural protocol), so with language (codified communication protocol) ignorance of a word or definition is your problem, not everyone else's. Don't impose your ignorance on others. If you're not sure, the right thing to do is ask "Why are you using that word? What does it mean?" not jump immediately to offense.
In order to maintain copasetic (great word, thank you for it) conversations, I personally strive not to be offended by anything and expect others do the same.
> While it would be nice if we could write down a word and settle on a definition for all time
I mean, we can and many languages with prescriptive dictionaries do. All we have to do is collectively agree that clear communication is more important than people's feelings. The value proposition seems clear enough.
> People's internal emotional states are their own to manage. Language is a tool for communication...
It is not very good communication to not consider how people understand what you say.
Communication has two ends and simply blaming people for not understanding you when you were aware that a word has multiple meanings in general usage makes no sense.
Also, word meanings change through usage. A non-pejorative word becomes pejorative. Ignoring that is not good communication.
This is not just about "internal emotional states" but simply what the word means to someone else objectively. I.e. "internal rational states", if you will.
A word whose common usage has become pejorative is in rational fact, and in any up-to-date definition, pejorative. If you are not trying to be pejorative, you achieve better communication by not using it. Even if in the past it did convey what you wish it still did.
What we name something is not semantics, it's a foundational component of how we view and shape the world around us. In a very real sense we are incapable of thinking of things without naming them and the name we give them informs how we think of them.
Also, we are not 'terrified' of adjectives - we are 'terrified' of a world that is unable to continue the gradual march of empathy to larger and larger groups that humanity has thus far been able to maintain and is critical for our long-term survival. If our monkeybrains were unable to evolve social constructs allowing the cooperation and common action of more than 7 people we'd still be stone age apes barely capable of using tools.
The key social "technology" that enables that is empathy with a monkey whose experience doesn't match the small tribe of individuals we're personally capable of caring about. It's an abstraction that enables everything else and it's important.
> unable to continue the gradual march of empathy to larger and larger groups that humanity has thus far been able to maintain and is critical for our long-term survival
I'm having a hard time parsing this, but I think you're arguing that the world is getting less empathetic, and therefore less cooperative? I disagree, and think the reverse is true. The more we can disregard emotions and work as cogs in a machine, the more productive we ultimately are. It's exactly this capability that allows us to cooperate in groups of many hundreds of thousands: the ability to interface with each other not as emotionally complex primates, but as executors of a function.
No, i'm not saying the world is getting less empathetic. I am saying that in order for humanity to survive as more people interact with more people it is necessary for empathy to increase at a similar rate and scale.
Natural human empathy has very, very low limits. You can only really care about 7 or 8 people at any given time. The rest is social constructs that allow a sort of abstract empathy where in-groups are gradually expanded.
Human civilization simply doesn't work without this kind of social construct. We degrade to feces-slinging apes pretty quickly.
Why have we become so terrified of assigning adjectives to people? Why can't a person be "smart" or "dumb" or "beautiful" or "ugly" or "strong" or "weak" or "disabled" or "retarded"? Just because some of these things are subjective doesn't mean that they are useless. Why have we started to pay such close attention to the feelings of some people assigned to categories they don't care for? "gifted" is just a word to denote such a category. If people don't like being "not gifted" they will learn to dislike "non-accelerated learning student" just as well.