Are these prominent taken-for-granted terms in the medical and sociological lexicon doing more harm than good? I've often wondered. I realise my chances chances of shifting these entrenched concepts are slim, but I offer up these ruminations as food for thought. As always I recognize that language evolves and my objections may not resonate especially with younger generations.

Assess, assessment, assessor
Dementia
Race
The Vulnerable
Welfare

A list of specific arguments and alternatives for these individual term here

Most of us use these words with the best of intentions of promoting health, wellbeing, and social justice.

But I see these words as problematic for a variety of reasons. Including that some

breathe life into outdated and pernicious concepts that are best forgotten,
are frequently misunderstood,
some
trigger extreme emotional reactions and conflict or
embody the language of dominance and submission

I base my ideas on Richard Dawkins' Meme Theory or Memetics:

Memetics are analogous to genetics. Memes are ideas and thoughts that reproduce similarly to viral genes. You could consider them as thought viruses, transmitted from host to host by discourse, i.e. by communicating them by any medium. Once we “hear” a meme, our minds become its hosts, ready to transmit it to other minds. A meme's strength grows every time it is transmitted.

And here is the bad news for those who care about the common good:

Whether you are for or against a meme, as long as you transmit it, its power grows. It doesn't matter whether your intent is Pro-social or Anti-social.

The only way to attenuate a virus is to try to fade it out.

A perfect example: I have often said to people who want to stamp out the Neurodiversity Movement,

As long as you keep talking about the Neurodiversity Movement, you are the Neurodiversity Movement!

The Race Meme

One well-known thought virus is the idea of "Race"

While the term "Race" has a long history, its current usage as a tool of discrimination dates back to the pernicious "discoveries" of 19th century pseudoscientists. Their claims that there are vast genetic gulfs between different ethnic groups, have long been refuted

"Race" is not a biological fact. It was socially constructed for anti-social ends, as an artefact of European colonialism which need to justify its enslavement, exploitation and robbery of the "Other" and ended up in the horror of the Nazi holocaust

Nevertheless as long as the word exists, it continues to spark bigotry.

We have a problem: while Race is not real, Racism is.

Therefore in order to fight Racism we are inadvertently keeping the bogus concept of Race alive.

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is a pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.Wikipedia

To reiterate the Bad News: whether you are a Racist or an Anti-Racist, as long as you keep mentioning Race, the false idea that “Race” is a biological reality persists and grows stronger

Possible Solutions:

Use Prejudice, Bigotry or Hatred instead because they can be qualified by their objects. e.g. Prejudice against [Minority Group]
Always put scare-quotes around "Race"

Assess / Assessment/ Assessor

What’s wrong with it?

The current usage of Assessment has segued from its official meaning below, to the accepted term for the process by which the Helping Professions diagnose individuals, often for the purpose of determining their eligibility and entitlement to benefits.

But check out the dictionary meanings e.g.

The dictionary.com definition of the verb "Assess"

To assess means to oversee a complete set of information and make an overall judgment.

It's fine to assess inanimate objects: documents, sites and situations. But one flawed human cannot “judge” another human in their entirety.

This language signals an awkward power relationship especially when Helping Professionals are in theory ethically required to be "on the side of" their client, and their interests. Yet when they take on the role of Assessors, they are placed in the difficult position of serving two masters. They become the gatekeepers of "welfare" systems

It is dehumanizing to treat humans as objects to be assessed. Especially when it involves the reduction of individuals to fit to criteria or boxes to tick which in most cases, and especially in NeoLiberal, are chiefly concerned with minimizing taxes and welfare expense.

Thought experiment:

Visualize the scene of an Assessor assessing the Assessee: Who sits where? What is their spatial relationship, and what does it signify

This is NOT a criticism of individuals - often social workers and other helping professionals, mostly women, I imagine. In my experience, helping professionals do their best not to dehumanize their clients but to make the welfare system work for them.

My criticism is of neoliberal "welfare" systems and their language of “power over”

Replacement:

Consultation
Social Security Eligibility Interview
Social Security Advice and Advocacy Service

Dementia

What’s wrong with it?

Dementia is one of the most terrifying words in the English language, that's what! It's up there with Schizophrenia, though it isn't as scary to look at.

Dementia is un unhappy ending you can start dreading just prior to turning 30.

It terrifies by implying a total loss of mind.

It is soaked in stigma. Especially as it is horribly reminiscent of demented (crazily dangerously insane), or “dementors” (fictional evil beings).

The reality: most often a gradual loss of memory and functionality and a part of Neurodiversity.

Whether this loss of cognitive functions becomes a negative or positive experience is largely dependent on the kinds of accommodations that are offered and the attitudes of the people around you.

But like everything that affects the human mind/body, it doesn’t mean that some people won’t suffer. Im not against a cure. I just want to say to the psycho-medical profession, “Change the name” and stop terrifying us.

Replacement:

Semnesia (loss of memory due to ageing or premature ageing)

Vascular Semnesia or
The name of the specific syndrome. e.g Alzheimer's Syndrome

The replacement should evoke respect for elders, suggest a gradual turning inward and withdrawal from the day-to-day in preparation for death and a gracious acceptance of help by those who have made their contributions to society and more…

Poverty

What’s wrong with it?

It is loaded with stigma. It shames and devalues individuals

It hides structural injustice - the reasons behind individual poverty

Replacements:

Impoverishment reminds us that social forces often cause poverty, and not necessarily the fault or choice of an individual

The categories of Intersectionality

In my original work I proposed a new category "Neurodiversity" to be added to the "Intersections of Class, Race, Gender, Disability". This was before I had heard the term "Intersectionality". I now have reservations about Intersectionality and Identity Politics, even though I was an eager early participant. But that is a huge topic out of the scope of this blog post.

The original Intersections were Class, Gender, Race, Ethnicity. Disability

These are unlikely to changed in the near future, but FWIW this is how I see them.

It seems to me that Intersectionality refers to the categories of Heritage. Thus my favoured terms are Asset Heritage, Genetic Heritage, Ethnic Heritage, Deep Heritage

I have singled out Race because it is the only descriptor that has no scientific validity, either within the natural sciences or the social sciences. It is thus an especially harmful and pernicious memetic concept that should ideally be dimmed out of our consciousness. The derivative "Racist" however is of some utility if the original meaning of "race" is forgotten.

A disclosure of my status on these is on my To-Do list in the biography of this blog. In the meantime it can be gleaned from my book.

Original	How I see it
Class	Asset Heritage differentiated as Inherited Capital Assets Inherited Cultural Capital
Disability	Genetic Heritage Disambiguate into Ability Difference Impairment
Race and Ethnicity Racism Racist	Combine into Ethnic Heritage Differentiate into Deep Heritage or GeoHeritage Ethnic Identity Dominant ethnic groups Minority ethnic groups Bigotry Bigoted
Gender	Differentiate as biological sex including intersex gender identity sexual orientation

So-called "Race"

What’s wrong with it?

The term is irretrievably mired in an ugly morass of misconception and the worst of human impulses. While science shows there is no such thing as “Race”, we cannot deny that there are clusters of superficial traits of appearance that originate from our early geographical dispersal, which allow the identification and mistreatment of minorities.

Replacements:

Deep Heritage
GeoHeritage
Diaspora Minorities

To my mind, Deep Heritage resonates with deep respect for our ancient origins, our extraordinary adaptations to the diverse planetary regions our ancestors dispersed to, and the rich cultural styles they developed. It is a constant reminder of the genius of human creativity.

But what about the derivatives, Racism, Racist, Racists?

Since the noun ‘race’ is discredited, why use the derivatives?

Because they remain useful in political action.

On the other hand, the adjective Racist is so overused that it has become the subject of endless denial and fruitless passing the moral hot potato. We've all heard

“I’m not a racist, but...”

Which switches focus from the big picture, that hatred of the “Other” eventually rebounds on all of us, to a defensive individual reaction that derails further discussion and entrenches prejudice.

Thus the association with science legitimizes it amongst those who use it ignorantly.

Do we need replacements?

Language is dynamic and we do not remember the origins of the words we use. The best hope is that the derivatives are decoupled from the pseudoscientific R-word as it is gradually forgotten. Replacements need to signal strong cultural disapproval, thus:

Bigotry, Bigoted, Bigots

Or, as #BlackLivesMatter shows there are other positive ways to fight for minority rights for diaspora peoples

Welfare

Thought experiment

Imagine a person or people “on welfare”, imagine a government "welfare" agency. What images come to mind?

What's wrong with it?

Like the word “vulnerable”, Welfare suggests passive recipients who are devoid of agency, initiative, and capacity for choice.

Replacements:

Social Security

The word security reminds us that this is a form of insurance

Social Security is that portion of the tax that most of the currently “able” pay forward against future incapacity or misadventure whether to themselves or their families. It also comes out of general revenue, which is why it is important that business pay their taxes, and why corporate tax-dodging is so reprehensible.