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

Thu Apr 23 20:05:15 UTC 2009

Blindness is a disability in anyway you look at it. Legally, blindness
falls under a idsability.

Sincerely
Nathan Clark

On 4/23/09, Jedi <loneblindjedi at samobile.net> wrote:
> Well, sight can be distorted since sight is basically what happens when
> light bounces off of objects into the human eye. Anything that
> interferes with that process will certainly distort what one sees.
>
>
> Original message:
>> I think part of the picture that is missing is that the situations you
>> guys
>> keep coming up with where blindness is annoying are all constructs of our
>> society.  Take for example the piece of paper, if paper were not the form
>> of
>> keeping information, but someother form of data retainment and
>> transmission
>> that did not involve physical objects to be viewed using photons, then it
>> would not be a problem.  I agree with the original argument that blindness
>> is a social construct.  As argued, if the society was designed not around
>> seeing things but say, around hearing things, then blindness would be less
>> important to the blind and then the deaf would more in our position.  what
>> about if all was constructed around feeling things.  then far fewer of us
>> would be 'disabled.'  This argument is very abstract and somewhat
>> difficult
>> to understand fully, and i am not sure if i understand it either.  things
>> that are unusual become disabling because our society builds its structure
>> around the majority, sight, white skin, hearing, walking.  The antynim of
>> all these things are the things that have been disabling to people and we
>> have constructed laws to reduce this disablement.  I would postulate that
>> sight is the main thing we rely on in our society because it is the
>> furthest
>> reaching in distance, and can transmit data without distortion or
>> environmental variables effecting or degrading it.
>> Bill VP
>> Oregon Association of Blind Students
>> 503-768-8982
>> cassonw at gmail.com
>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Christopher Kchao
>> <thisischris89 at gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>
>>> 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<http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/thisischris89%40gmai%0Al.com>
>
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/cassonw%40gmail.com
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
>
> --
> REspectfully,
> Jedi
>
> Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit
> www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/troubleclark%40gmail.com
>