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

[Jedi]

I'd have a harder time of explaining it than Jernigan did. I suggest 
your read the article.
Original message:
> 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



> _______________________________________________
> 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.