The R-word — its history and use (2024)

FEATURE

A look back into the origins and historical usage of the ableist slur.

Jacob Antigha

8 min read

Sep 27, 2023

Origins and Use in Medicine

In the early 20th century, people with disabilities were often thrown into institutions with deplorable living conditions and a lack of staff care. These institutions were frequently referred to as “homes for the feeble-minded” or similar terms. The careless institutionalisation of people with disabilities created implicit, preconceived notions against them based on their living conditions and treatment by staff. The saying “There’s no smoke without fire” is a perfect way to see why this was.

Doctors and nurses are celebrated for their tireless efforts and their devotion to keeping their patients in good health. However, when doctors and nurses these individuals violated their oath to do no harm, during their mistreatment of patients with disabilities, it was difficult to the people at the time to understand why someone who has dedicated their life to helping others would act with disregard. So rather than deadling with the issue and it’s complexities, a lot of people just assumed that it must be the fault of the patient rather than questioning the morality of the doctors and nurses.

Fortunately, however, as society’s understanding of disability evolved, it became clear that the term was being used in derogatory and hurtful ways. So people with disabilities, as well as their allies, began to object to its use in the medical field.

Use in the Eugenics Movement

In the early 20th century, the eugenics movement promoted the idea that methods such as selective breeding and involuntary sterilization would improve the human race because such methods were to be used in a way to get rid of people…the kind of people who eugenics described as r-words and feeble-minded, and not because they cared to be medically accurate in their vocabulary.

“It’s a nasty part of our country’s history that’s not very fun to confront. It’s not very pretty to think about ways in which Nazi eugenics policies were practically modelled on American eugenics policies.”

— Nathaniel Comfort, author of “The Science of Human Perfection”

This popular sentiment and effect of the eugenics movement can be seen in the 1912 book The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness. In this book, author, and American psychologist, Henry H. Goddard concluded that intellectual disabilities, and by extension people who have them, are the root cause of many of our social problems.

Using the case of a resident in his institution named Deborah “Kallikak” (Kallikak being a fictitious name derived from the Greek words for “good” and “bad”), Goddard learned that Deborah’s great-grandfather, Martin, was a Revolutionary War soldier of “normal intelligence” who had relations with a “feeble-minded” barmaid, producing a child. Later, Martin returned home to America where he married a woman of the upper class. From this case, Goddard traced the lineage of Martin’s upper-class family and found only successful, upstanding individuals of normal or better intelligence. Of Martin’s lineage through his offspring with the barmaid, however, Goddard found criminals, prostitutes, and people of “below normal intelligence”. This was how Goddard came to his conclusion that neurodivergence is hereditary and that people with disabilities could ruin the genetic strain.

Although Godard’s research methods were questionable, they went unquestioned because scientific research wasn’t as developed and, more importantly, the book told many people what they wanted to believe.

Historically, children with disabilities were segregated from mainstream education and placed in special education settings, which were derogatorily referred to as “schools for the mentally retarded.” This segregation brought attention to the differences between the two classes of children leading to children in mainstream education fostering the divisive “us vs. them” mentality. As a result, the formation of biases, and discrimination that most often took the form of bullying, began.

The R-word was, and still is, weaponised against people with disabilities from a young age as they were subjected to verbal abuse, ridicule, and exclusion, contributing to their social isolation. While specific examples may not be documented, instances of ableist bullying in more recent years typically involve the use of the term in hurtful and exclusionary ways. From this, we can assume that this was the same, if not worse when looking into older methods of ableist bullying such as:

Name-Calling: Children have used the r-word as a derogatory term to insult, taunt, and belittle their peers with disabilities.
Exclusion: Bullying often involves excluding individuals with disabilities from social activities, such as break-time games or cliques, with the r-word being used to justify their exclusion. Children may say things like, “You can’t play with us; you’re just a ‘r*tard.’”
Mockery: Children have used the r-word to mock their peers with disabilities by mimicking their speech, behavioural patterns, and actions in a demeaning and reductive manner
Adoption of the Word: Children who use the “r-word” in bullying, and more often casually, may influence their peers to adopt derogatory language, contributing to an ableist environment.

In modern times, while the usage of such a derogatory term hasn’t completely stopped, unfortunately, it is no longer acceptable to say in classrooms as conversations about ableism have brought attention to this issue. Saying the slur can result in punishment, and continued ableism in the class can result in the suspension or exclusion of students, something that was a pipe dream for people with disabilities in the past.

Use in the Legal Field

The historical use of the r-word also had legal implications as the word was often used to justify affecting legal areas for people with disabilities. Their basic rights human rights were curbed based on diagnoses and discrimination. Some examples of affected human rights include, but are by no means limited to:

Marriage and Family Laws: In some regions laws prevented people with disabilities from marrying, often citing their “r*tardation” as a reason for such restrictions. This is evident in
California’s eugenics law, enacted in 1909, which allowed officials to order the forced sterilisation of people they deemed “r*tarded” or “feeble-minded” as they were believed to be unfit to have children, infringing on their right to family life.

Guardianship Restrictions: The legal field used the r-word to justify the appointment of guardians for people with disabilities. These guardianships often resulted in the removal of decision-making rights and personal autonomy from people with disabilities based on the assumption that they were incapable of making decisions related to their healthcare, housing, finances, and personal relationships on their own. An instance of such legislation was the New South Wales, Guardianship Act 1987 in Australia.

Inheritance Disputes: In cases involving inheritance, derogatory language was sometimes used to question the competence of disabled people as heirs with regard to managing their share of the estate. This is reflected in the United Kingdom, The Poor Law 1834 which imposed restrictions on the inheritance rights of individuals who received poor relief, which includes disabled people.

Since these times, efforts to combat such discriminatory practices have included legal reforms, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities. These legal reforms are vital in the fight for an ableist-free future as they legally protect the rights and autonomy of people with disabilities while minimising discrimination based on outdated and prejudiced terminology.

Alternatives and Guidelines

The significance of eliminating the R-word from our vocabulary cannot be overstated. By choosing to abandon such a term, we not only shed ourselves of the use of a derogatory label, but we also acknowledge the inherent worth of everyone, regardless of their physical, emotional and mental capabilities.

To embrace this change, we can turn to more respectful alternatives. Here are some politically correct terms to use when talking about or to people with disabilities, provided by the Association of University Centers on Disabilities.

Beyond word choice, it’s essential to also understand the principles of inclusive language, recognise the person over their disability, and, perhaps most importantly, listen and learn from those with disabilities about their preferences and experiences. In this way, we can break down barriers, promote understanding, and foster a society where every voice is heard and valued.