Someone who has an addiction can also be a family member or friend
Someone with schizophrenia can be a classmate or coworker
Language is powerful: calling someone “an addict” or “a schizophrenic” fails to recognize the whole person. Sure it takes a little longer to say, but think about if someone defined you in one, simple, (and pretty negative) way.
Carry on.
But calling someone a “family member,” “friend,” “classmate,” or “coworker” also fails to recognize the whole person.
You seem worked up about nothing really. If someone wants to highlight a person’s addiction, they call them an addict. If they want to highlight their family relation, they call them a “sister” or whatever.
I would hardly compare the aforementioned. Would you say “I’d like you to meet my sister” as interchangeably as “meet this crack addict”? I think it’s worth getting worked up over because there are kinder ways of making the same point…“my sister struggles with cocaine dependence” is an example. Would you say to someone’s face “you are a schizophrenic”?
I’m going to take this opportunity to also state, I get annoyed when people use race or ethnicity for no valid reason when telling a story. “Theres this black guy at work who is always sending stupid chain emails…” Like why is that even relevant?
People first language has its place in society, but it’s awkward and often a little too precious.
I’m a black woman. I am also a person of color who identifies as the female gender. Guess which one I roll with when talking about myself?
If I had schizophrenia, I would probably say “I have schizophrenia”, but I wouldn’t take offense at “I am schizophrenic”. The two communicate different things. The former expresses a condition–something subject to change. While the latter communicates either a fixed identity (similar to “I am deaf”) or a state (similar to “I am anxious” or “I am depressed”). I don’t see either phrasing as being superior to the other.
I get that language is powerful, but sometimes being so intentional just makes the whole thing more awkward than it has to be. A person who has a one-dimensional view of someone is not going to suddenly have their mind open just because they start talking all gingerly and politically correctly. If anything, the struggle to find the right phrasing will only make the issue that much more of a “thing” in their heads.
You don’t find this combo too often, I’d imagine.
It’s mainly a matter of convenience. It’s why we say “waiter” instead of “person sometimes tasked with serving food at a restaurant,” and “Floridian” instead of “Cuban-American or Jewish Retiree,” or “troll” instead of “person who repeatedly registers a series of pseudonymous accounts in order to flood a discussion forum with as much silliness as possible before inevitably being banned.”
I never say African American or person of color. I also don’t say Latino/a. That’s all scholarly crap that can actually be more insulting and “off” than just saying “black” or “puerto rican.” (In my experience).
And as for “schizophrenic coworker”—why would you think that? Is your assumption that people with this diagnosis don’t/can’t live healthy, functioning lives?
(sorry for the random capitalization–my arrow key is off.)
I am not being snarky here. I actually feel quite passionate about this topic. I think again, while convenient, saying “waiter” is not the same as “a drunk”—these arguments are somewhat straw men…
What exactly is the problem here? Sure, the addict is someone’s relative, and the schizophrenic is someone’s coworker. But everyone knows that, and there’s no need to point it out if it’s not germane to the discussion at hand. Perhaps if you provide a specific example of what’s bugging you we could understand why you felt compelled to post this.
I noticed this happen on the news a lot. Everyone is either a shooter, victim, motorist, or witness. Rodney King will forever be a motorist.
Someone whose addiction is currently active is truly an addict before they’re a parent, child, sibling, employee, co-worker, etc. That’s because said addict is putting their addiction ahead of all those other roles.
So at times it’s a pretty good description.
QtM: that’s actually a really good point. On the other hand, I think that it’s precisely the strategy (reminding people of what exists/could exist beyond their use) used in interventions.
Not really. Defining someone by a small portion of the whole person is just how language works. If we had to make an exhaustive list of who and what someone is in order to talk about them, every conversation would read like the formal introductions in an Earth’s Children book and nobody would ever get anything said.
"My husband, son of Soandso and Thusandsuch, brother of MissThang, nephew of the Whosits, cousin to Thing 1 and Thing 2, friend of Dooflitchy, physician, musician, volunteer DJ, NPR donor and listener, cook, gardener, Wildcats fan, and general smartass, and I, daughter of What’shisface and Whoever, sister of Buttface, aunt to CutiePie, niece of the Thingumbobs, friend of XYZ, medical assistant, quilter, crocheter, gardener, keeper of animals, and possessor of the Rack of Doom, are thinking about going to Cancun.
Nobody’s going to talk like that, and if they did, nobody would listen.
Sometimes we’re defined by positive or neutral slices of who we are, and sometimes by negative ones, depending on what part of us is most relevant to the current discussion/situation. If it matters most that you’re my husband/mother/coworker because we’re having a cookout, I’ll use that narrow definition for you. If it matters most that you’re an addict because you’re robbing my grandparents to buy drugs, guess what I’m going to call you?
People aren’t limited to one description, but isn’t that obvious? This is why it aggravates me so much when a (hack) writer says something “Can only be descrbed as” something or other. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything that can only be described one way. That goes for people, too, but it doesn’t mean they can’t be described.
Sounds like an entmoot.
A-lalla-lalla-rumba-kamanda-lindor-burúmë!
I actually know one case where this has worked out quite well. The schizophrenic in question isn’t my co-worker but he works at a place that we do a lot of business with. He’s actually a quite nice guy and does a good job. You just have to warn people who don’t know him to just let him go when he starts ranting about aliens or the chips the government has implanted in his brain or whatever else he happens to be having delusions about that day.
For someone whose reality is clearly quite different than ours, he gets along surprisingly well with his co-workers. He’s even friendly to regular customers (like me) that he recognizes.
Why? There are treatments for schizophrenia and not all the patients are confined to mental hospitals. I think there’s evidence that for some patients, the symptoms get less severe with age. Usually schizophrenia symptoms manifest during puberty.
I think there’s few things more amazing than watching someone with this diagnosis function fully in the world. We’ve come a long way since Cuckoo’s Nest. 
(oh and sorry for being a “hack writer” and misusing language…)
This is the serious point behind the joke.