I think it's a great idea to avoid using the word intelligence (or anything) as a compliment in writing because it cuts around description and can turn what could be better writing into mediocre writing. Same goes for ableist language. (Though I think the topic of offensive language is tricky in some situations - e.g., if I were writing about an abusive boyfriend, does he hurl misogynistic language at her? Is that okay to write? What can be avoided? What's necessary to portray and why? Etc.)
But I don't think 'intelligent' is a hard opposition to those with learning, intellectual, or other disabilities in the past that have been written off with ableist language - or an automatic compliment. When people call my uncle 'intelligent' it doesn't specifically oppose him to anyone with disabilities. It compares him to the people who are saying it, and to all people around him in his life. I don't take offense at that as someone honestly less intelligent than him or as someone with an LD. Likewise, him being smarter than most people around him doesn't leave him with an advanced understanding of morality, make him more empathetic, socially balanced, etc. (In fact, my uncle has very little social fluency; his idea of visiting and having fun IME is to try to walk people through difficult math concepts and anomalies.)
It's also a failing of an author to assume that higher intelligence means more advanced morality, more kindness, automatically good at things outside their interests, or anything else anyway. I mean, as one example of failed if/then logic there - sociopaths are likely to be highly intelligent. But they lack empathy, conscience, and while they often can be great with understanding social cues it's just to benefit them. And I do see these problems (false authority, automatically assumed morality or sophistication, automatic assumption of a person having more or less social fluency based on intelligence alone) when people write for books or television. And that is ableist and needs to be stomped out.
(Bones irritates me for these reasons - there's a lot of false authority in the show, and Bones herself doesn't make any sense because based on her whole character development she never should have been able to complete a dissertation as a cultural anthropologist. They should have made one of her dissertations something more aligned with hard-science, mathematics, etc.)
Yes, very good points. I don't think it's ableist at all to use intelligent as a compliment or descriptor, but as you say it is ableist to associate intelligence with morality etc.
The statements I found most interesting at the original post:
But geek culture is centered around the valorization of intelligence.
And I don't think it's just geek culture.
One thing these words have in common is that unlike "intelligent", they don't suggest an innate quality that a person is born with that can never be added to or subtracted from.
I'm a fan of the idea of different kinds of intelligence, also. I'll have to think about this more.
I would agree that people tend to valorize intelligence. Though I think a lot of those traits actually are at least to some degree innate; probably not much more or less than the general description of 'intelligence' itself. People who were hard-working adults probably started off as hard working kids. Sometimes it doesn't pan out that way but a lot of the time it does.
I think ableism is a really hard thing to confront overall. I mean, all oppressions are hard to fight but ableism gets really complicated in ways some other things don't. It has such a broad spectrum from people with invisible disabilities (learning disabilities, mental illness, etc.) to disabilities people can notice immediately and discriminate against as such. And my friends and I (with LDs or MIs or other issues) will get into discussion on some of this stuff and it gets so hard to muddle through. Which would be its own post if I could stay awake long enough to think it out.
Edited (wanted to trade for a non-animated icon.) Date: 2012-09-18 08:34 pm (UTC)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-09-18 04:32 pm (UTC)But I don't think 'intelligent' is a hard opposition to those with learning, intellectual, or other disabilities in the past that have been written off with ableist language - or an automatic compliment. When people call my uncle 'intelligent' it doesn't specifically oppose him to anyone with disabilities. It compares him to the people who are saying it, and to all people around him in his life. I don't take offense at that as someone honestly less intelligent than him or as someone with an LD. Likewise, him being smarter than most people around him doesn't leave him with an advanced understanding of morality, make him more empathetic, socially balanced, etc. (In fact, my uncle has very little social fluency; his idea of visiting and having fun IME is to try to walk people through difficult math concepts and anomalies.)
It's also a failing of an author to assume that higher intelligence means more advanced morality, more kindness, automatically good at things outside their interests, or anything else anyway. I mean, as one example of failed if/then logic there - sociopaths are likely to be highly intelligent. But they lack empathy, conscience, and while they often can be great with understanding social cues it's just to benefit them. And I do see these problems (false authority, automatically assumed morality or sophistication, automatic assumption of a person having more or less social fluency based on intelligence alone) when people write for books or television. And that is ableist and needs to be stomped out.
(Bones irritates me for these reasons - there's a lot of false authority in the show, and Bones herself doesn't make any sense because based on her whole character development she never should have been able to complete a dissertation as a cultural anthropologist. They should have made one of her dissertations something more aligned with hard-science, mathematics, etc.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-09-18 05:50 pm (UTC)The statements I found most interesting at the original post:
But geek culture is centered around the valorization of intelligence.
And I don't think it's just geek culture.
One thing these words have in common is that unlike "intelligent", they don't suggest an innate quality that a person is born with that can never be added to or subtracted from.
I'm a fan of the idea of different kinds of intelligence, also. I'll have to think about this more.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-09-18 08:33 pm (UTC)I think ableism is a really hard thing to confront overall. I mean, all oppressions are hard to fight but ableism gets really complicated in ways some other things don't. It has such a broad spectrum from people with invisible disabilities (learning disabilities, mental illness, etc.) to disabilities people can notice immediately and discriminate against as such. And my friends and I (with LDs or MIs or other issues) will get into discussion on some of this stuff and it gets so hard to muddle through. Which would be its own post if I could stay awake long enough to think it out.