[nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical question?

Thu Apr 23 01:33:38 UTC 2009

Marc,

I don't buy a lot of what you are saying. Blindness is not only a physical 
descriptor. It is not escencially meaningless. I see your argument about 
social reactions to blindness, and simply don't agree.

Perhaps reading and discussing Jernigan's points in Handicap or 
characteristic is in order, but we need to be a little more honest with 
ourselves about the challenges blindness does pose day in and day out.

Antonio Guimaraes

If an infinite number of rednecks riding in an infinite number of pickup 
trucks fire an infinite number of shotgun rounds at an infinite number of 
highway signs, they will eventually produce all the world's great literary 
works in Braille.

Shop online and support the NFB of RI at no additional cost to you.
http://www.givebackamerica.com/charity.php?b=169
Givebackamerica.org, America's Online Charity Shopping Mall
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <mworkman at ualberta.ca>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list" 
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical question?

> An interesting question, and I'm going to throw out an opinion with which, 
> I
> suspect, quite a few will disagree at first, but maybe I can persuade some
> of you.
>
> Blindness is not a disability.  It is an impairment.  The distinction
> between impairments and disabilities goes back nearly 40 years and is
> well-entrenched in the field of disability studies.  It was even codified 
> in
> the World Health Organizations International Classification of 
> Impairments,
> Disabilities, and Handicaps.
>
> In short, an impairment is a physical descriptor of the body.  Any trait 
> or
> characteristic that lands near the outer edges of the bell curve could be
> construed as an impairment.  But impairments are essentially meaningless
> until you situate them in a social context, and in certain social 
> contexts,
> impairments can become disabling.  In other words, disabilities are 
> imposed
> on impairments by certain social arrangements.
>
> Let me give you an example.  I live on the fifteenth floor of my building.
> The building of course has an elevator, but when it stops working, many
> people who are not normally defined as disabled become more disabled than 
> me
> with respect to my building.  I often voluntarily walk up the fifteen
> flights, but many who are use to taking the elevator would find this
> difficult or impossible, and would become disabled at least with respect 
> to
> my building.  This is rarely a problem though because we put elevators in
> tall buildings, but what if we also put ramps, automatic door openers,
> accessible washrooms, etc in all our buildings too? Then many people in
> wheelchairs would no longer be disabled, as their impairments would not
> significantly impact on their lives.
>
> I am certainly disabled, but not by my blindness, by social arrangements,
> lack of adequate blindness training in Canada, quiet automobiles that make
> travel dangerous, discrimination, and the list goes on and on.  All of 
> these
> things, however, are social factors that are imposed on my blindness.  My
> blindness is essentially neutral, and I think this is what Jernigan had in
> mind when calling blindness a characteristic, though it's been a while 
> since
> I read his work.
>
> I realize that this is not how disability is defined in the ADA, but 
> that's
> because the people who defined disability in the ADA screwed up.  They
> didn't go far enough in recognizing the social construction of disability.
> But that's not surprising when you consider the one's who wrote the law 
> were
> a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats.  So if I have to identify as disabled 
> in
> order to receive the supports, legal and otherwise, that are available, 
> then
> I will, but not because I am, just because I have to, and this is yet
> another example of how social arrangements are disabling.
>
> I think there are some problems with what I've said above.  I only put it
> out there as a way of thinking about blindness and disability I find
> persuasive and interesting.  And in closeing, I'm going to paste a 
> quotation
> taken from the homepage of the NFB site.  I think it tends to support the
> position I've outlined.
>
> The real problem of blindness is not the loss of eyesight. The real 
> problem
> is the misunderstanding and lack of information that exist. If a blind
> person
> has proper training and opportunity, blindness can be reduced to a 
> physical
> nuisance.
>
> In other words, the disabling aspect of blindness is not the lack of eye
> sight (i.e., not the impairment).  It is the misunderstanding and lack of
> information (i.e., the social forces) that exist.  If we get rid of the
> disabling social forces, blindness is no more than a physical nuisance
> (i.e., a neutral characteristic).
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
> Behalf Of Antonio Guimaraes
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:57 AM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical
> question?
>
>
> Hello, Just wanted to quickly throw in my two scents.
>
> Blindness is a disability. We who are blind are not able to do certain
> things. We benefit From or fight against services for disabled students, 
> we
> receive disability checks from the government, and we have loss of a major
> life function, sight.
>
> Jernigan never argued that the blind are not disabled, he argued for blind
> people not to see themselves as handicapped. There is a difference.
>
> I am disabled by definition, and clearly make an attempt to minimize my
> disability with the use of adapted technologies, and a positive attitude,
> but I am unequivocally disabled.
>
> Antonio M. Guimaraes Jr.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualberta.
> ca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/iamantonio%40cox.net 