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

[Christopher Kchao]

Hello,
I really doubt that I can fully buy into this. While social context is
certainly important and a definite determining factor in how blindness is
perceived, it isn't the only barrier we face and certainly doesn't encompass
blindness in its entirety. For example, I can't even begin to ponder the
idea that the difficulty I face with navigating the construction sites that
are so ubiquitous in New York city is a result of social arrangements. I
feel like such heavy emphasis on social factors often distorts our view of
blindness. In all blindness circles, I've observed discussion about how
ignorant sighted people are, or the stupid things sighted people do in
regards to our blindness. A lot of us shrug blindness off as being the norm,
but I suppose it's only that in our own heads. How many sighted people can
adequately use their cellphones while driving and dial by touch? How many
sighted people will turn on a light to look for an item in a cabinet right
in front of them? Blind people have no choice but to dial by touch, and the
light will be of little to no use.
Being blind is certainly no picnic but at the same time, it isn't something
that will stop our lives from progressing. The little bit of frustrationI
periodically experience as a result of being blind doesn't come from all the
things I wish I could see or everything I'm missing out on. The frustration
comes from things like searching an entire room for a piece of paper smaller
than a credit card that fell on the floor. While empowerment is certainly
important among the blind community, we can't afford not to be realistic and
dismiss the practical setbacks imposed by blindness. We as blind people are
most certainly not self made.
Therefore, I cannot simply shrug blindness off as a neutral or meaningless
characteristic, not in good conscience anyway. There are numerous people,
both blind and sighted that have worked to increase our ability to integrate
and adapt in the sighted world. These people helped to enable us.
Personally, I believe that viewing blindness as a characteristic is more
relevant to our identity; it does not magically make us inside the norm in a
sighted society.
-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of mworkman at ualberta.ca
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:50 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
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/thisischris89%40gmai
l.com