Australian Federation of Disability Organisations

An organisation’s name is important. It’s the means by which we let the public know exactly who we are, what we do, what we’re on about.

There’s been a disturbing trend lately, in names chosen for disability organisations. Increasingly, names of disability organisations are becoming very vague and generalised – giving the public absolutely no idea of what the organization does, what its work is.

In the past, disability organisations’ names were plain and clear. The Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind; the Spastic Society of Victoria; the Deafblind Association – all these and others, were clearly understood. People with a disability, or a disabled family member, would know just where to go for help and guidance.

But now, the trend is towards vague, generalised names, that give the “man in the street” no idea of what the organization does. The various blindness organisations have merged into Vision Australia. The Spastic Society of Victoria is now Scope. The Deafblind Association has become the Able Association. (In fairness, the federal body of cerebral palsy associations is still the Cerebral Palsy Association).

What would the outsider make of these names? “Scope” – scope of what? “Able Association” – what are they able to do? – what’s their line of business? “Vision Australia” – oh, probably something to do with sight and vision, and eye care – but what, exactly?

Logos, too, are becoming more abstract, less clear in giving a visual representation to the public, of what the organization stands for. Vision Australia’s new logo is a case in point. The old RVIB “lighthouse” logo – which people understood – has become the Braille letters V and A. But what does this mean to a sighted person who doesn’t know the Braille alphabet? The logo looks like the standard letter L made up of green dots, with a black dot alongside it.

The logo would be meaningless to most people – its symbolism is only clear to “insiders” – those working with Vision Australia, who know the Braille alphabet. To the general public, it means nothing.

Most commercial businesses have names that clearly denote the firm’s line of business; and a logo that gives a clear visual representation of the firm’s activities. This is sound marketing practice. People know exactly what the firm does, how it can help them. (The exception here, as far as logos are concerned, would be the Commonwealth Bank. Its logo looks like a Sao biscuit dipped in Vegemite! – doesn’t suggest anything to do with banking!)

What has caused this trend toward vague, unclear names for disability organisations? “Political correctness” – whose mission seems to be to make everything as vague as possible – because it’s “offensive” to mention skin colour, disability, disadvantage?

By giving disability organisations names that don’t spell out the disability clearly and simply, we are giving the message that disability is something to be ashamed of, something “not to be talked about”. But a disability is nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to speak in hushed tones about. We did not choose to be disabled – we have nothing to hide, or only talk in whispers about.

Also, unclear names of disability organisations make it more difficult for people seeking help and advice in coping with a disability. Parents with a disabled child; someone who has become disabled through illness or accident – they need to know just where to turn for help. An organization whose name doesn’t denote the disability, doesn’t say “We help with your disability – it’s what we are here to help with”. For example, parents of a deafblind child, wouldn’t know that the “Able Association” dealt with deafblindness. They wouldn’t even look under “Able” in the phone book for direction! – they’d look under “deafblindness” – but find nothing explicit there, to direct them to a source of help.

So, disability organisations, in deciding on a name, need to bear the following in mind:

• Does our name clearly indicate exactly what we do? Is it a name people would look for in the phone book, to seek help in managing a particular disability?
• Are we comfortable with mentioning the disability clearly and simply, with no subterfuge? (This is a message constantly given by Epilepsy Victoria, to help dispel stigma. Their journal’s editorial column is titled, “Speaking Openly”). Being clear, open and direct with the name, gives the message that the disability isn’t something to be evasive about, but rather, accepted naturally.
• What about our logo? Does it give good visual symbolism to the general public? Or would only “insiders” understand it?

Mind you, there are still some disability groups that do state clearly what their mission is. I’m Deafness Forum’s representative on the Board of AFDO; and also on the Committee of Management of the Victorian branch of Better Hearing Australia.

In 1981, the International Year of Disabled People, much work was done to foster acceptance of disability. We mustn’t undermine this – but do everything in our power, to make disability acceptable in the wider community.

The best way to do this, is to speak of disability clearly and naturally. Don’t go for vagueness or subterfuge. Speak openly and plainly. In so doing, we’ll be furthering acceptance of disability; and giving people clear direction in seeking help.