[nfb-talk] Wanting to See and the notion of the, defective
Heather Field
missheather at comcast.net
Fri Jan 6 16:53:52 UTC 2017
Hello John,
You have made some interesting points that I'd like to explore a little.
I believe that a problem exists in applying the definition of, defective.
The problem with this approach to understanding blindness is one of degree.
At what point does one become, defective.
Is my friend who wears glasses, defective? What about my sibling who can't
walk more than about one hundred yards because of their obesity and the pain
in their knees?
It is a fact that most people gradually lose vision by degrees as they age
and will, at some point, need glasses. At what point do these so-called,
nondefective, people step into the defective group?
A relative of mine only grew to be four feet tall and, since she was not of
average height, she had to be very innovative in some circumstances to get
things done. Should she be called, defective, since she couldn't do things
the same as everyone else of average or above-average height?
And, keeping the topic on the blind community, at what point does the amount
of sight one has get one into the nondefective range? For example, I have an
acquaintance who has extremely strong glasses which allow him to function as
an average seeing person. Without those glasses he cannot see well enough to
function as a seeing person. Is he, defective, or does the ability to
benefit from the technology to produce high-powered spectacles somehow
negate his membership in the, defective, group, even though his eye
condition remains? If he is defective, then what about all the others
wearers of spectacles who can't function without their glasses? At what
point does one's degree of vision without one's glasses put one in the,
defective, group? It doesn't seem possible to answer these questions
sensibly. Is one's membership of the defective group to be judged by the
amount of assessed vision, or by one's competence with aids such as glasses.
If one opts for the functional definition, then I know many extremely
capable blind people, whose achievements and functioning as successful
people far exceed the majority of sighted people I know.
How about conditions other than vision loss. how does one decide which of
the mental conditions classify one as defective? History is replete with
characters who suffered from manic depression or bipolar disorder who
achieved astonishing things; composers, painters, writers, preachers,
military generals and so on, despite their mental health issues. Should we
call them defective.
And, what about those millions of folks who are second or third generation
welfare recipients, who have not learned how to function as working,
budgeting, educated members of this society, but cannot manage without
welfare? Clearly, they are dependent on welfare for their support. Are these
folks to be considered, defective, and, if so, at what point do those who
are working with organisations to get an education and learn work skills,
budgeting and good parenting skills, become nondefective? What about those
who are living in a country where they cannot speak the language? Clearly,
they are at an incredible disadvantage and are surely far less able to make
their way successfully in society than those who speak, read and write the
native language? Is it useful to class them as, defective, if they refuse to
learn the language, as many migrant women did when they moved to new
countries during the 1960s? Is there, then, a place for classifying certain
people as, socially defective? By that definition, should we classify those
who commit serious crimes as socially defective and spare them from the
legal consequences of their antisocial behaviour. And, if we do, at what
level of crime does one move into the defective class? I'm not being at all
facetious here, I believe I'm raising legitimate problems with the approach
of deciding which humans are, essentially, broken or not perfect. What
constitutes a perfect human and what measure can be applied to assess when
an individual has enough difference to move into the, defective, category.
It seems much more helpful to me so see human difference as just that,
differences. Though differences vary by degrees in terms of how they effect
individuals, it seems like a fairly arbitrary activity to try and decide
which differences render people defective. And, in the final analysis, what
does the application of such a set of measures achieve? Is it socially
beneficial for the obese man who is socially isolated and cannot work
because his weight prevents him from leaving his house, to think of me as
defective because I cannot see, although I am employed, mobile and socially
involved? If those of us who don't have schizophrenia think of those who do
as defective, even though there are many with that condition who use
medication and do just fine, how does this benefit society? And, should
those with schizophrenia consider blind people as defective when they
themselves need medication to enable them to function to their potential in
society?
Having thought about this approach, I don't believe that it can be a
functional model, since the criteria for determining, the defective, is
necessarily arbitrary.
Warmly,
Heather
-----Original Message-----
From: John Heim via nfb-talk
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 9:27 AM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Cc: John Heim
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Wanting to See
But saying someone has a defect doesn't imply that they're not fully
human. In fact, I've made that point on this list many times over the
years. I am not the slightest bit hesitant to admit that I have a
defect. It means nothing to me as a person.
And this is an important point. It comes up when we're demanding
accommodations. I think that part of the reason the NFB once fought
audible walk signals is that some members felt in their hearts that
admitting that they were defective made them less of a person. They
didn't reaally embrace this concept that being blind has absolutely
nothing to do with your value as a human being.
That's just a feeling I got from arguing with people at the time. I have
no way of knowing what was really going on in their heads. I just
always felt that they didn't agree that true acceptance of blindness is
when you can say, "Sure, I'm defective. So what?"
On 01/06/2017 09:06 AM, Buddy Brannan via nfb-talk wrote:
> The lovely thing about being a human being is that we're adaptable and
> flexible. When you say that"
>> But human beings aren't built to do without sight.
>
> By extension, you're saying that any human being who is "built" some other
> way, without sight, or hearing, or movement let's say, is therefore
> defective, a notion that I soundly reject.
>
> What makes me human is much more.
>
> --
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
> Phone: 814-860-3194
> Mobile: 814-431-0962
> Email: buddy at brannan.name
>
>
>
>
>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 9:18 AM, John Heim via nfb-talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> There may be people who were blind from birth who honestly mean it when
>> they say they don't want to see. But human beings aren't built to do
>> without sight. It takes an enormous amount of compensating to do without
>> it. There are times when you come out ahead though. I honestly think rock
>> climbing is a better experience if you are blind, not just blindfolded,
>> than it is if you can see.
>>
>> When I'm rock climbing, I'm using my blind sense of space to it's
>> fullest. You know what I mean by blind sense of space? Even sighted
>> people have a 3 dimensional map of the world in their heads. That's why
>> they can reach out and shut off the alarm clock in the morning without
>> turning on the light. But most blind people develop this 3D map to an
>> extent that sighted people do not. Rock climbing is like doing a verticle
>> obstacle course. You're building this map of the obstacle course in your
>> mind and pushing yourself to the physical limit at the same time. And
>> you're probably smelling the rock, hearing the call of a hawk on the
>> wind, and feeling every little cleft in the rock. It is an awesome
>> experience.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/06/2017 02:52 AM, Buddy Brannan via nfb-talk wrote:
>>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Munawar Bijani via nfb-talk
>>>> <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm sure everyone who says they never do are simply too afraid to admit
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> And I'm sure that you're wrong, because sweeping generalizations like
>>> this generally are.
>>>
>>> Sure it's normal to want things we can't have sometimes, whether it's
>>> sight or something else. Personally, I don't really think, for my life
>>> anyway, sight is any more desirable than other things, and perhaps less
>>> desirable than some. That you may want it doesn't mean you're damaged,
>>> but that I, generally speaking, could take it or leave it, doesn't mean
>>> I'm hiding some deep seated fear of admitting I'm somehow imperfect (a
>>> thing that I admit at least daily).
>>>
>>> Oh sure, I'd love some of the conveniences that sight would bring me,
>>> but that doesn't mean that I necessarily want sight, nor does it mean
>>> that I'm somehow in denial because I don't. When I was a kid, I would
>>> tell people, oh sure, I wish I could see, but I don't think I really
>>> understood what that meant. I understood that other people thought it
>>> was a desirable thing, and I probably got some sense that some people
>>> believed that I was somehow less fortunate, or damaged, or broken, or
>>> something. Who knows? I was a kid. As I got older though and became more
>>> comfortable in my skin, and gained more of an understanding of the world
>>> and my place in it, not that I have reached anything approaching perfect
>>> understanding of either, I also grew to understand that sight wasn't a
>>> huge deal. My life was, and is, fulfilling already, problems and
>>> difficulties notwithstanding. Everybody's got those. And I'm really not
>>> convinced that a sudden onset of sightedness would measurably improve my
>>> life; it might even be more trouble than blessing. That someone else
>>> feels differently doesn't mean s/he is a "bad blind person" or
>>> "maladjusted". That I feel the way I do doesn't mean I'm in denial.
>>> --
>>> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>>> Phone: 814-860-3194
>>> Mobile: 814-431-0962
>>> Email: buddy at brannan.name
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Munawar Bijani via nfb-talk
>>>> <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're human. It's normal to yearn for things. I'd give almost anything
>>>> to see. And it's ok to feel sorry for yourself. I'm sure everyone who
>>>> says they never do are simply too afraid to admit it. Being blind sucks
>>>> ass, and just because we've adapted doesn't mean it sucks any less or
>>>> that we have to like being blind.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Jen via nfb-talk <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> As I posted on my "driverless cars" thread, I'm totally blind from
>>>>> birth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have always been interested in visual things. They include
>>>>>
>>>>> * pictures, especially pictures of pictures
>>>>> * colors
>>>>> * the sky
>>>>> * videos
>>>>> * light and the various ways it can be manipulated, like with shadows
>>>>> and
>>>>> optical illusions
>>>>> * rainbows
>>>>>
>>>>> ... and so many others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now here's my question. I wish I could see sometimes. Is this normal
>>>>> for a
>>>>> blind person? I'm not consumed by these feelings. I don't feel sorry
>>>>> for
>>>>> myself for being blind, and I have incorporated alternative techniques
>>>>> into
>>>>> my life. So personally, I consider myself as a well-adjusted blind
>>>>> person.
>>>>> At the same time though, I wouldn't want my sight back because, since
>>>>> I've
>>>>> never had it, everything would be too much clutter for me. Also, I
>>>>> have my
>>>>> own pictures of visual things in my mind's eye, and I wouldn't want to
>>>>> ruin
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> My family and friends, who are sighted, tell me it is normal to have
>>>>> these
>>>>> feelings. But it would be great to get some feedback from my fellow
>>>>> Federationists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/munawarb%40gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> nfb-talk:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/buddy%40brannan.name
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nfb-talk:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.com
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfb-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/buddy%40brannan.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfb-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.com
>
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfb-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/missheather%40comcast.net
More information about the nFB-Talk
mailing list