September 23, 2024
Why am I for person centered language for people who are system-contacted? Because I am such a person.
“We also firmly believe that if we cannot persuade you to refer to us, and think of us, as people, then all our other efforts at reform and change are seriously compromised.” (Ellis, 2007; person who is formerly incarcerated)
As a person who is formerly incarcerated (FI), I can firmly state that I use person centered language (PCL) when discussing my background in situations that I deem the use of such language contextually relevant. Of course, I do not go about my days continually announcing to strangers and acquaintances that I am FI. I do not refer to my FI friends or myself with identity-first terms such as a convict, inmate, prisoner, super-predator, or criminal. I also expect my colleagues and friends to respect my language preferences, and not refer to me with identity-first terms. Yet, and this is a big YET, I am not here to police the language of how people would like to refer to themselves, I respect language autonomy. Individuals can refer to themselves however they like. This is a discussion about respecting the humanity and liberties of others, and ensuring the personhood and dignity of our fellow system-contacted friends, loved ones, and neighbors, whether that be in day to day interactions or in the astute writings of academic literature.
What is PCL? It’s a type of language usage that was first coined in disability self-advocacy movement of the 1970s (Harney et al., 2022), after people with disabilities grew tired of being dehumanized, ignored, and referred to in dehumanizing language, such as ‘clients’ by the medical field. This type of inclusive language usage, sometimes also referred to as person first language, gained traction in other fields and institutions such as criminology, criminal legal studies, and the criminal legal system (amongst many other fields). PCL’s intent is to humanize and protect the dignity of the populations or groups that are being referred to, and also to avoid stigmatizing and attaching negative labels to people.
Why do I adhere to these language preferences? In addition to being a person who is FI, I am also an associate professor of criminology, and work as a critical activist-scholar. Through my prison lived-experiences, readings, and scholarship, I have learned a great deal about the impacts of stigmatization and labeling. Thus, not only have I lived through such stigmatization, but I have also studied and produced research about the impacts of such stigmatization upon people who are FI, and I center the voices of people who are FI in the process. Most of the many FI people that I have interacted with throughout the 17 years that I have been working with, mentoring, advocating for, and conducting research with our population find identity language such as the institutional terms of convict, prisoner, criminal, and inmate to be dehumanizing and are insulted when they are referred to by such terms. These are the terms of the oppressors, those who perpetuate and reinforce systems of inequality. Since I respect my friends and colleagues, and do not appreciate being dehumanized, criminalized, and marginalized by demeaning language, I choose not to refer to myself or my friends with similar experiences in that manner.
Further, when I put on my academic cap, I understand that using dehumanizing language serves to reinforce the systems of discrimination and bias that people who are FI have fought so hard to overcome, and I cannot with a clear conscious take part in reversing the valuable progress we have made. Further, the use and application of labeling or categorizing language is often enforced by differentials of power; often by those with greater power and privileges upon those with less power and privilege. So, from the perspective of many system-contacted activist-scholars, rejecting the language of oppressive institutions such as the criminal legal system and segments of criminological academia that are pro-system (essentially functioning as extensions of the criminal legal system) and choosing person centered language is a powerful and meaningful act of defiance and resistance. This is not to be dismissed off hand or understood as the misguided or naive actions of a few overly passionate students, or opinions of a couple new and inexperienced scholars --- this is part of the process of emancipation of a new social movement of empowered system affected academics (Tietjen, 2025; https://www.ucpress.edu/books/justice-lessons/paper) organizing at universities and centers of research/learning around the world. We are people, and we will be referred to as such – this is bigger than academia (yet includes academia).
REFERENCES:
Ellis, E. (2007). An open letter to our friends on the question of language [Online]. Center for NuLeadership, New York. Available at: https://prisoneducation.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CNUS-lang-ltr_regular.pdf (accessed 3 July 2020).
Harney, B. L., Korchinski, M., Young, P., Scow, M., Jack, K., Linsley, P., ... & Bartlett, S. R. (2022). It is time for us all to embrace person-centred language for people in prison and people who were formerly in prison. International Journal of Drug Policy, 99, 103455.
Tietjen, G. (2025). Justice Lessons: System-Affected Scholars and the Future of Criminal Justice Transformation. In Justice Lessons. University of California Press (https://www.ucpress.edu/books/justice-lessons/paper)