[nabs-l] Body language and facial expressions

[Marc Workman]

Bridgit wrote,
And as I've stated earlier, I believe asking u to cover, hide, something
like our eyes is equal to bleaching skin or straightening hair or
covering accents/dialects; I don't, however, think that changing certain
behaviors, such as rocking, can be equated to this.

The reason then offered for drawing this distinction, as far as I can tell, is that some behaviours are associated with other disabilities or with having experienced abuse.  And where a blind person does not have these other disabilities or has not experienced abuse, it then becomes acceptable to pressure that person, where pressure can be either overt or subtle, to stop exhibiting those behaviours.

I'm entirely puzzled by this argument.  I see no reason why the fact that society has associated a set of behaviours with various disabilities/experiences makes it acceptable to try to stamp out those behaviours in people who do not have those disabilities/experiences.  If this line of thinking is right, then whenever women act, walk, talk, dress, etc in ways that are typically associated with the ways in which men act, walk, talk, dress, etc, it would be perfectly appropriate to make them feel like they are doing something wrong, to dissuade them from exhibiting those behaviours, and to teach them the "proper" way for women to act, walk, talk, dress, etc.  Personally, I see a problem with this.  Perhaps, though, the argument is only meant to apply in cases where the behaviours are associated with cognitive or intellectual disability.  I confess that I can't think of a good reason why behaviours associated with cognitive disability are to be avoided among those without such disabilities but where behaviours typically associated with men may appropriately be exhibited by women.  Unless, that is, we view men and women as equal but do not view people with and without intellectual disabilities as equals.  I would take issue with that myself.

Greg wrote,
It is important to give blind kids the tools they need to communicate effectively in a majority sighted world.  If I were to get a job at a company that has me working with many Chinese companies and traveling to China to make business deals, it would be an excellent strategy to learn as much as I can about Chinese customs and forms of communication to make sure I don't accidentally send the wrong messages.  I think the same applies for blind people in a sighted world.  I want to learn to use non verbal communication well so that I can communicate exactly what I want to to the people around me.

A few comments by way of response: firstly, this seems to presuppose that communicating in these non-verbal ways is inherently more effective.  It may be true that people rely on these non-verbal forms of communication, and so blind people who do not use them may find it harder to communicate, but this doesn't actually demonstrate that one form is more effective than the other.  In fact, it could turn out that relying on non-verbal communication is actually less effective and that we would all communicate better if we didn't rely on non-verbal so much.  However, even if it turns out that non-verbal is more effective, it's not clear that we, meaning everyone, would be better off trying to teach approximations of it rather than trying to teach a greater openness to various kinds of communication.  I think the latter would be better myself.  Secondly, I think the analogy of getting a job requiring travel to China and Ashley's example of moving to France don't quite fit.  The important difference is that we do not choose to live in a sighted world.  I'm not aware of any viable alternative to living in a sighted world, and I do not consider withdrawing from society to be a viable alternative.  If you choose to get a job requiring travel to China or move to France, then it makes some sense that you would want to learn about Chinese and French customs, behaviours, communication, etc.  Even then, I think challenging, questioning, reforming these customs, behaviours, communications is acceptable and maybe morally required in some cases.  But what if a person was forced against her will to move to France and then told she cannot have friends or a job until she sufficiently mimics french people.  To me, this would be a better analogy, and it strikes me as wrong.  She may learn to mimic french people out of necessity, but I think it's obviously wrong to require this of her.

Cheers,

Marc
On 2011-11-19, at 12:30 PM, Bridgit Pollpeter wrote:

> This is such a dodgy issue. It is a fine balance, and while I understand
> we shouldn't use and act in ways completely unnatural to us, we also
> should try to follow behavior that's not indicative of other
> disabilities associated with mental and cognitive issues.
> 
> Most body language and facial expressions are learned behavior. Since
> most of the population is sighted, we learn facial expressions and body
> language from observing others.
> 
> Babies and little children often mimic what they see others doing. As we
> grow older, we tend to adopt body and facial expressions natural to us
> as individuals, but often associated, whether conscious or unconscious,
> through learned behavior.
> 
> It stands to reason that if a person is trying to adopt behavior
> nonvisually, one would work with another person to adopt, and
> understand, certain facial and body expressions. Just because we learn
> the behavior, A. K. A. facial expressions and body language, through a
> nonvisual medium, does not necessarily imply that the facial and body
> expressions a blind person replaces with either more stoic and rigid
> expressions or movement, or rocking or inappropriate movements, is
> inorganic, or unnatural, to that individual. If you learn, though
> nonvisually, a different way to move and express yourself, why does it
> have to be unnatural and arbitrary? Like sighted people, we're adopting
> behavior, just in a different way; it's learned behavior though learned
> in a nonvisual manner.
> 
> And as I've stated earlier, I believe asking u to cover, hide, something
> like our eyes is equal to bleaching skin or straightening hair or
> covering accents/dialects; I don't, however, think that changing certain
> behaviors, such as rocking, can be equated to this.
> 
> First, all people have physical movements often unique to them as an
> individual whether noticeable or not. It's often instinctive and
> unconscious. However, some movements are associated with mental,
> cognitive or psychological disabilities/concerns. In particular, rocking
> is often associated with developmental disabilities or abuse victims.
> Certain facial expressions are also associated with developmental
> disabilities and other psychological issues. Obviously people who are
> blind, while many do have multiple disabilities, don't have
> developmental disabilities, but because some of the "blindisms" are also
> linked to such disabilities, I don't think it's a problem to expect
> people who are blind to correct such behavior. I don't see this similar
> to changing, or concealing, body parts or internal attributes associated
> with race or ethnicity, or in the case of disabilities that can't be
> controlled such as the functioning of eyes or missing limbs.
> 
> In a nutshell, which I have problems fitting things into, smile, my
> point is that body language and many facial expressions are picked up
> through learned behavior. Whether we learn this behavior visually or
> nonvisually, it doesn't mean we're just going through the motions-
> acting as it were. It's the same process just done nonvisually. Just as
> we learn to read and write Braille or use adaptive technology with
> computers. We're doing the same things, just in a different way.
> 
> I also don't think we can compare certain changes nade , physically or
> internally, indicative of race or ethnicity, to correcting social
> behavior such as body language or facial expressions either linked to
> other disabilities or inappropriate to a given situation.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
> Read my blog at:
> http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/
> 
> "History is not what happened; history is what was written down."
> The Expected One- Kathleen McGowan
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:26:31 -0700
> From: Marc Workman <mworkman.lists at gmail.com>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blindness versus other minority groups
> Message-ID: <039F2609-C62A-4985-83E1-FBC50C239F70 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Carly wrote,
> How can facial expressions and other body language convey meaning if
> they are not naturally, ocuring? For this reason I don't see a reason to
> sort of put on nonverbal, expression if, behind it there is little,
> meaning?
> 
> I want to take Carly's point further and suggest that pressuring blind
> people to look and act like others is in itself wrong.  I'm not
> suggesting there is no value to it, nor am I saying it should never be
> done, but it makes me uncomfortable.
> 
> The subject of this thread is comparing blindness to other minorities.
> I think there's a parallel between pressuring blind people to look and
> act like everyone else and things that some minorities used to do and
> still do for similar reasons.  In the past, among African Americans,
> there existed the practice of skin bleaching and hair straightening for
> the purpose of appearing less black and/or more white.  I can't give
> evidence to show how common this was, but Malcolm X talked about trying
> to remove the kink from his hair himself and finding it a physically and
> emotionally painful process.  There are also surgeries performed to give
> people of East Asian descent more "white looking" eyes and Jews more
> "white looking" noses.  These are just a couple of examples.  Pressuring
> minorities to adopt the dominant group's style of dress, gate, diction,
> body language, etc also often happens.
> 
> I hope we can agree that this is at the very least unfortunate.  There
> may be psychological and other explanations for why this occurs, but
> feeling pressured to get a nose job or to bleach your skin so that you
> look more like one particular group in society is problematic to say the
> least.  So what's the difference between these cases and pressuring a
> blind person to adopt the behavioural habits, facial expressions, body
> language etc of some sighted people?
> 
> You might say that we live in a sighted world and so we have to adapt.
> There is something to this, but I wonder if it would be equally
> acceptable to say we live in a white-dominated world so non-whites have
> to adapt.  It may be the case that blind people who don't "look blind"
> are more successful and integrate better, and it also may be that
> non-whites who look and act white are more successful and integrate
> better, but in neither case is it just that the minorities need to
> assume the dominant groups characteristics in order to be successful.
> 
> What ultimately needs to happen is not that blind people begin to look
> and act like sighted people, but that we all become more accepting of
> differences that are arbitrary and irrelevant.  Most, if not all, so
> called blindisms are irrelevant, and I see no more reason to stamp them
> out than I do for trying to eliminate various differences in behaviour
> and appearance possessed by other minority groups.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman.lists%40gmail.com