[nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical question?
Haben Girma
habnkid at aol.com
Sun Apr 26 06:10:11 UTC 2009
Hey Jedi,
I totally get your argument about how easily the tongue slides over the
phrase "disabled person" while the phrase "person with a disability"
would send the tongue tumbling along a needless marathon...I'm not sure
how the phrase "person with a disaiblity" implies that a disaiblity is
something that should not be brought into attention. Could you explain
that? And thanks for the article, I"ll go find it for some fascinating
reading.
Haben
Jedi wrote:
> Well, I look at it this way. If we can indeed possess love or
> intelligence, we don't say "she has love." or "She has intelligence."
> Or, we don't say "A person with intelligence" or "A person with love."
> we say a loving person or an intelligent person. I think Jernigan had
> a lot going for him when he said that we only talk symantics with
> phrases that have a negative connotation or that are considered
> negative or stigmatizing characteristics. Let's take disability.
> Jernigan would argue that "disabled person" is effectively the same as
> "person with a disability" except that "disabled person" is less
> linguisticly awkward when used multiple times in a document or in
> speech. He would also argue that "person with a disability" might
> actually increase the stigma because we're effectively saying that the
> disability part is something we're not supposed to bring any attention
> to. Jernigan wrote an article in 1993 called "Euphemisms Excoriated."
> It's an interesting article. As for me, i just say I'm a blind person
> and let people qualify that as they may. If they take the time to get
> to know me, they will undoubtedly find that whatever negative
> assumptions they have are dead wrong.
> Original message:
>
>> Hi Mark,
>
>> I feel that the terms "persons with disabilities" and "disabled persons"
>> are both a bit vague and interpretable in various ways. One could read
>> it as "persons with disabilities caused by a lack of universal designs"
>> or "persons with disabilities that prevent them from being full
>> participants in society." I find that the message one gets from these
>> terms depends on the attitudes they approach them with. I think it would
>> take a lot of positive thinking to see that the term "disabled person"
>> means social forces are restricting the person's participation. Someone
>> with a negative attitude might hear the phrase "disabled person" and
>> think "Oh, that guy just can't do it." The term "disabled person" would
>> probably be interpreted as an inherently incompetent person rather than
>> the more open-minded interpretation of one affected by social forces.
>> Come to think of it, most people would be more likely to adopt a
>> negative interpretation from both terms. I do like that the term
>> "persons with disabilities" acknowledges that the subjects are persons
>> before going to stress that the persons have disabilities. Consider the
>> term "persons with socially incurred impairments." Can one possess a
>> "socially incurred impairment?" Like a disability, a socially incurred
>> impairment is abstract. So now I've come to that philosophical realm
>> where we ask whether abstract concepts, such as love and intelligence,
>> can be possessed. If not, then it would seem OK to use the term "persons
>> with disabilities" because it would not mean that we possess the
>> disabilities. If we can possess abstract concepts, if we can possess
>> disabilities, then we can also possess "socially incurred impairments"
>> because that's precisely what disabilities are, as you've described it.
>> So if we can also possess socially incurred impairments, then it would
>> seem philosophically appropriate to use the term persons with
>> disabilities. Not that disabled persons is wrong, of course. Both terms
>> can be interpreted in a variety of ways, as I said at the start, and
>> I've just been thinking out some of those possibilities.
>
>> Yes, I, too, detest the term special needs. I would swallow it as a kid
>> thinking that was how grown-ups wanted to get ablebodied children to be
>> nice to disabled children. "Special" is a nice and simple word that all
>> kids can understand. I now question it's use for any group, but it's
>> especially repulsive to hear it used for adults.
>
>> Haben
>
>> mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote:
>>> Haben, since you asked, and since you seem genuinely interested, in
>>> most of
>>> my writings on disability I try to say disabled persons, rather than
>>> persons
>>> with disabilities. The latter phrase suggests that I possess a
>>> disability
>>> whereas to be disabled is to have something imposed on me. I can be
>>> disabled by social arrangements that are constructed to suit a
>>> particular
>>> kind of body, but if I am a person with a disability, then the
>>> problem is in
>>> me.
>
>>> That said, even though I think language is important in shaping how
>>> we think
>>> about things, I recognize that we have bigger problems than whether
>>> we are
>>> referred to as disabled people or people with disabilities, and I
>>> end up
>>> using the latter phrase quite a bit out of habit, so I wouldn't try to
>>> correct someone who said persons with disabilities.
>
>>> However, today I met with some representatives from Bell, one of
>>> Canada's
>>> major telecommunications companies, and they have something called the
>>> "Special Needs Centre". And Among the many topics my colleagues and I
>>> raised with Bell was the atrocious name of this centre. I really can't
>>> stand the name special needs; it makes me shutter a little every
>>> time I say
>>> it. And I think it really reflects a bad way of thinking about
>>> disability.
>>> To connect it to what we've been talking about, I would argue that
>>> it only
>>> seems like we have special needs because we have built most of our
>>> institutions without any consideration for blindness. For example,
>>> there
>>> was likely a time when many buildings didn't have women's washrooms, a
>>> legislative building in the early twentieth century for instance. When
>>> women began getting elected to office, washrooms had to be built,
>>> and this
>>> could have been viewed as a special need. In fact, the problem was
>>> that the
>>> designers of the building just ignored women in their plans for the
>>> building. Something similar happens in the case of disability
>>> today. Far
>>> too often, characteristics outside the norm just aren't taken into
>>> consideration in the design of things. Then when we ask for things
>>> to be
>>> change to better suit people with different kinds of bodies, it gets
>>> labelled as a special need rather than a failure in design. So the
>>> special
>>> needs centre is a situation where I think the attitude reflected in the
>>> language was important enough for us to bring it up at the meeting,
>>> and it
>>> gave us a chance to try to encourage them to start thinking about
>>> disability
>>> differently.
>
>>> A quick response to Nathan. Just because blindness is legally a
>>> disability,
>>> which I fully recognize, doesn't mean that blindness is a disability
>>> anyway
>>> you look at it. Legal definition is only one way of looking at it,
>>> and for
>>> the reasons I've mentioned in the last few messages, I really don't
>>> think
>>> it's the right way of looking at it.
>
>>> Best,
>
>>> Marc
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
>>> Behalf Of Haben Girma
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:33 PM
>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical
>>> question?
>
>
>>> Marc, you mention that you don't like using the phrase "persons with
>>> disabilities" because it implies that the characteristics are the
>>> problem, not the societal forces. How might use the English language so
>>> that blame is not places on the characteristics?
>
>>> Haben
>
>>> mworkman at ualberta.ca wrote:
>
>>>> I don't usually like to get into debates on lists because I feel
>>>> guilty
>>>> about cluttering up people's inboxes, but it's too hard to resist with
>
>>> this
>
>>>> topic.
>
>>>> Antonio, I didn't intend to suggest that blindness is meaningless.
>>>> What I
>>>> tried to get across is that blindness receives its meaning from being
>>>> situated in a social context. I see how this might imply that
>>>> blindness
>
>>> is
>
>>>> meaningless outside of a social context, but the point is moot because
>>>> blindness can't exist outside a social context. In other words,
>>>> blindness
>>>> definitely always has meaning; it just gets its meaning through social
>>>> factors.
>
>>>> This is also why I can completely agree with you that blindness is
>>>> associated with tremendous challenges day in and day out. Where we
>>>> seem
>
>>> to
>
>>>> disagree is that I don't think these challenges are inherent to
>>>> blindness.
>>>> I think that most, if not all, of the challenges could be
>>>> eliminated if
>>>> institutions, programs, policies, attitudes, physical structures, in
>
>>> short,
>
>>>> society itself, were different.
>
>>>> If I thought blindness were inherently negative, I'd be spending my
>>>> time
>
>>> and
>
>>>> effort volunteering for the Foundation Fighting Blindness, rather than
>>>> working to change society with the Alliance for Equality of Blind
>
>>> Canadians.
>
>>>> If social factors weren't at least partly responsible for the
>>>> challenges
>>>> blind people face, there would be no need for the NFB. It's possible
>>>> blindness is inherently bad. I honestly don't know. I won't trust my
>>>> instincts on this question because I have spent my entire life
>>>> living in a
>>>> society that views blindness as a terrible fate. Imagine a world
>>>> where
>>>> every book was available in alternative formats, where blindness was
>
>>> viewed
>
>>>> as a unique way of experiencing the world, an experience of the
>>>> world to
>
>>> be
>
>>>> valued in its own right, where every blind person received the best
>
>>> training
>
>>>> possible, where inventors and business people took blindness into
>>>> consideration when designing products and services, where blind people
>>>> didn't face misconceptions and negative attitudes about blindness. I
>>>> realize it sounds utopian, but we're always using wacky thought
>
>>> experiments
>
>>>> in philosophy. In this imagined world, would it be a tragedy to be
>>>> blind?
>
>>> I
>
>>>> don't think so, but until we remove every social barrier that exists,
>
>>> we'll
>
>>>> never really know for sure.
>
>>>> To Jedi, totally agree with what you say about the term impairment.
>
>>>> To Haben, a disability is something that is imposed on impairments, or
>>>> characteristics outside of the norm, as Jedi puts it. A disability
>>>> is not
>>>> something a person possesses. You can be disabled by social
>>>> forces, but
>
>>> you
>
>>>> don't possess a disability, which is why I typically avoid the phrase
>>>> persons with disabilities. You're absolutely right that some
>>>> characteristics outside the norm have disabilities imposed on them
>>>> more
>
>>> than
>
>>>> others, but I'm not sure if that means it is inherently worse to
>>>> possess
>>>> those characteristics rather than the others. Remember, certain skin
>>>> colours throughout history have had negative attitudes and significant
>>>> challenges associated with them that weren't associated with other
>>>> skin
>>>> colours, but this doesn't mean that it was inherently worse to
>>>> possess the
>>>> former skin colour. We now realize that society was wrong in those
>>>> cases,
>>>> and I'm cautiously opptimistic that the hard work of individuals and
>>>> advocacy groups fighting to remove social barriers will eventually
>>>> result
>
>>> in
>
>>>> society coming to realize that it was wrong about blindness too.
>>>> Here's
>>>> hoping anyways.
>
>>>> Best,
>
>>>> Marc
>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
>>>> Behalf Of Antonio M. Guimaraes
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:34 PM
>>>> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] "Blindness" vs. "Disability" a philosophical
>>>> question?
>
>
>>>> 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
>>>
>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/habnkid%40aol.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/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/habnkid%40aol.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
>>
>
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list