[nagdu] The Definition of Blindness

Fri May 29 13:19:06 UTC 2009

Hi Marion.  I hadn't read this before.  I like the presentation for the 
definition.  Thanks for providing it to the list.

Sincerely yours,

Bob Hicks,
The Seeing Hand Association, Inc.
<bob at seeinghandassociation.com>
304-232-4810
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marion & Martin" <swampfox1833 at verizon.net>
To: "NFBF List" <nfbf-l at nfbnet.org>; "flagdu list" <flagdu at yahoogroups.com>; 
"NAGDU List" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:38 AM
Subject: [nagdu] The Definition of Blindness

Dear All,
    During the recent convention of the National Federation of the Blind of 
Florida, the Florida Asociation of Guide Dog Users adopted several 
amendments to its Constitution. Among these changes was the removal of the 
term "legally blind", substituting simply "blind" wherever that term 
appeared. This minor change, I explained,was made to keep in philosophical 
alignment with the beliefs of the NFB. Afterward, one member approached me 
to express disagreement with the change, sharing the opinion that there was 
a difference between "visually impaired", "legally blind", and "totally 
blind". During this conversation, this member asserted that it was deceptive 
for someone with residual vision to call themselves "blind". In defense of 
my opinion, I cited Kenneth Jernigan's article, "The Definition of 
Blindness". For everyone's consideration, I have pasted this article below 
and have attached it to this mesage. I hope you enjoy it - if you are 
reading it for the first time - or learn something new, if you have read it 
before!

Fraternally yours,
Marion Gwizdala-Schoch

The Definition of Blindness

By Kenneth Jernigan

Before we can talk intelligently about the problems of blindness or the 
potentialities of blind people, we must have a workable definition of 
blindness.

Most of us are likely familiar with the generally accepted legal definition: 
visual acuity of not greater that 20/200 in the better eye with correction

or a field not subtending an angle greater than 20 degrees. But this is not 
really a satisfactory definition. It is, rather, a way of recognizing in 
medical

and measurable terms something which must be defined not medically or 
physically but functionally.

Putting to one side for a moment the medical terminology, what is blindness? 
Once I asked a group of high school students this question, and one of them

replied-apparently believing that he was making a rather obvious 
statement-that a person is blind if he "can't see." When the laughter 
subsided, I asked

the student if he really meant what he said. He replied that he did. I then 
asked him whether he would consider a person blind who could see light but

who could not see objects-a person who would bump into things unless he used 
a cane, a dog, or some other travel aid and who would, if he depended solely

on the use of his eyesight, walk directly into a telephone pole or fire 
plug. After some little hesitation the student said that he would consider 
such

a person to be blind. I agreed with him and then went on to point out the 
obvious-that he literally did not mean that the definition of blindness was 
to

be unable to see.

I next told this student of a man I had known who had "normal" (20/20) 
visual acuity in both eyes but who had such an extreme case of sensitivity 
to light

that he literally could not keep his eyes open at all. The slightest amount 
of light caused such excruciating pain that the only way he could open his

eyes was by prying them open with his fingers. Nevertheless, this person, 
despite the excruciating pain he felt while doing it, could read the eye 
chart

without difficulty. The readings showed that he had "normal sight." This 
individual applied to the local Welfare Department for Public Assistance to 
the

Blind and was duly examined by their ophthalmologist. The question I put to 
the student was this: "If you had been the ophthalmologist, would you have

granted the aid or not?"

His answer was, "Yes."

"Remember," I told him, "under the law you are forbidden to give aid to any 
person who is not actually blind. Would you still have granted the 
assistance?"

The student said that he would. Again, I agreed with him, but I pointed out 
that, far from his first facetious statement, what he was saying was this:

It is possible for one to have "perfect sight" and still in the physical, 
literal sense of the word be blind.

I then put a final question to the student. I asked him whether if a sighted 
person were put into a vault which was absolutely dark so that he could see

nothing whatever, it would be accurate to refer to that sighted person as a 
blind man. After some hesitation and equivocation the student said, "No." 
For

a third time I agreed with him. Then I asked him to examine what we had 
established.

1. To be blind does not mean that one cannot see. (Here again I must 
interrupt to say that I am not speaking in spiritual or figurative terms but 
in the

most literal sense of the word.)

2. It is possible for an individual to have "perfect sight" and yet be 
physically and literally blind.

3. It is possible for an individual not to be able to see at all and still 
be a sighted person.

What, then, in light of these seeming contradictions is the definition of 
blindness? In my way of thinking it is this: One is blind to the extent that 
he

must devise alternative techniques to do efficiently those things which he 
would do if he had normal vision. An individual may properly be said to be 
"blind"

or a "blind person" when he has to devise so many alternative 
techniques-that is, if he is to function efficiently-that his pattern of 
daily living is

substantially altered. It will be observed that I say alternative not 
substitute techniques, for the word substitute connotes inferiority, and the 
alternative

techniques employed by the blind person need not be inferior to visual 
techniques. In fact, some of them are superior. The usually accepted legal 
definition

of blindness already given (that is, visual acuity of less than 20/200 with 
correction or a field of less that 20 degrees) is simply one medical way of

measuring and recognizing that anyone with better vision than the amount 
mentioned in the definition will (although he may have to devise some 
alternative

techniques) likely not have to devise so many such techniques as to alter 
substantially his patterns of daily living. On the other hand, anyone with 
less

vision than that mentioned in the legal definition will usually (I emphasize 
the word usually, for such is not always the case) need to devise so many

such alternative techniques as to alter quite substantially his patterns of 
daily living.

It may be of some interest to apply this standard to the three cases already 
discussed:

First, what of the person who has light perception but sees little or 
nothing else? In at least one situation he can function as a sighted person. 
If, before

going to bed, he wished to know whether the lights are out in his home, he 
can simply walk through the house and "see". If he did not have light 
perception,

he would have to use some alternative technique-touch the bulb, tell by the 
position of the switch, have some sighted person give him the information,

or devise some other method. However, this person is still quite properly 
referred to as a blind person. This one visual technique which he uses is 
such

as small part of his overall pattern of daily living as to be negligible in 
the total picture. The patterns of his daily living are substantially 
altered.

In the main he employs alternative techniques to do those things which he 
would do with sight if he had normal vision-that is, he does if he functions

efficiently.

Next, let us consider the person who has normal visual acuity but cannot 
hold his eyes open because of his sensitivity to light. He must devise 
alternative

techniques to do anything which he would do with sight if he had normal 
vision. He is quite properly considered to be a "blind person."

Finally, what of the sighted person who is put into a vault which has no 
light? Even though he can see nothing at all, he is still quite properly 
considered

to be a "sighted person." He uses the same techniques that any other sighted 
person would use in a similar situation. There are no visual techniques 
which

can be used in such circumstances. In fact, if a blind person found himself 
in such a situation, he might very well have a variety of techniques to use.

I repeat that, in my opinion, blindness can best be defined not physically 
or medically but functionally or sociologically. The alternative techniques 
which

must be learned are the same for those born blind as for those who become 
blind as adults. They are quite similar (or should be) for those who are 
totally

blind or nearly so and those who are "partially sighted" and yet are blind 
in the terms of the usually accepted legal definition. In other words, I 
believe

that the complex distinctions which are often made between those who have 
partial sight and those who are totally blind, between those who have been 
blind

from childhood and those who have become blind as adults are largely 
meaningless. In fact, they are often harmful since they place the wrong 
emphasis on

blindness and its problems. Perhaps the greatest danger in the field of work 
for the blind today is the tendency to be hypnotized by jargon.

__________ NOD32 4108 (20090527) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/bob%40seeinghandassociation.com
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 4108 (20090527) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
> 