Why Words Matter: A Positive Systems Approach to Language, Respect, and Human Dignity

Yesterday, The New York Times published an important opinion article documenting an unsettling trend: the resurgence of the “R-word,” a slur long understood as hurtful and demeaning to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/us/r-word-slur-disability.html)

The authors (Dan Barry and Sonia A. Rao, Jan. 26, 2026) describe how this word — once broadly regarded as taboo — is now reappearing across social media, public commentary, and even in political rhetoric, with adverse effects on individuals and the broader culture. 

The core message of that article is simple but profound: words matter. They are not merely semantics or abstract symbols. They shape how we see one another, how we interact, and how people come to understand themselves and their place in society. This truth resonates deeply with the philosophy I outline in What if It’s Not Just the Behaviour.

In that book, I argue that challenging behaviour cannot be understood or addressed in isolation from context — including culture, relationships, and language. To dismiss harmful language as mere “words” is to overlook the very systems within which people live, learn, and grow.

Language as Social Environment

Psychologically and socially, language functions like climate: it influences every interaction, overt and subtle. A Positive Systems Approach — one that seeks to understand behaviour in full context — places language at the center of that context. When a community tolerates words that degrade, demean, or stereotype, it is not creating a neutral environment; it is creating a system that implicitly signals the value (or lack of value) of certain people.

The history of the R-word illustrates this clearly. Once used clinically as a descriptor, it became weaponized over decades into a term of insult and exclusion. Advocacy and disability rights movements worked for years to remove the word from public discourse precisely because it reinforced harmful stereotypes about intellectual disability and diminished people’s full humanity. 

When that word resurfaces — whether on social media or broadcast to millions — it does more than offend. It reinforces a culture of exclusion and stigma. It sends a message, intentional or not, that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are to be mocked rather than respected. That message seeps into social norms and affects how educators teach, how peers relate, how employers hire, and how families engage. In short, it becomes another variable in the system that shapes behaviour and opportunity.

Words Matter: Intent, Impact, and Systemic Effect

Some defend their language as a joke, or as an exercise of free speech. Others claim it does not harm “real” people with disabilities. But the lived experience of those affected tells a different story. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities have said clearly that hearing such words — in jest or in anger — feels dehumanizing and painful. 

From a Positive Systems standpoint, intention matters but impact matters more. It is not enough to say “I didn’t mean harm.” If a word reactivates stigma, exclusion, or shame, the system has been altered in a way that disadvantages the very people we purport to include. A respectful language environment supports dignity and growth; a derogatory one corrodes trust and reinforces barriers.

A Call to Action: Language as a Practice of Respect

Responding to the resurgence of this slur is not about policing vocabulary in a superficial way. It is about reaffirming the values of dignity, inclusion, and respect that underlie a positive, humane approach to human differences. A community committed to behaviour that supports well-being must attend to the language it uses. For practitioners, families, educators, and policymakers, this means upholding language that aligns with the lived reality of individuals — people first, not labels.

The disability rights movement’s embrace of People First Language is an example of this principle in action: choosing words that honor the person before the condition, and in doing so affirming their full human identity. 

Conclusion: Words Shape Systems, Systems Shape Lives

Words are not neutral. They are tools that can build up or tear down. As I have argued in What if It’s Not Just the Behaviour, we cannot separate behaviour — human action, expression, choice — from the broader linguistic and cultural systems in which it occurs. When language devalues people, it contributes to environments that make challenging behaviours and exclusion more likely. When language upholds dignity, it creates conditions for participation, growth, and belonging.

The resurgence of a slur that many believed was relegated to history is a stark reminder that progress in consciousness is not guaranteed nor linear. It must be defended and affirmed every day — in our words, in our policies, and in the systems we build together.