[Nfbv-announce] blindness defined

[John Bailey]

As a chapter President who works with members of my local community, I am
often asked how do I define my vision. Do I call myself blind, visually
handicapped, etc. Below is an excerpt from an article from the NFB that
might help clear up some of these definitions you or the public might have. 

This is a great item to bring to chapter meetings to get a discussion going.

http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/Publications/fr/fr1/Issue4/f010406.html

Future Reflections July 1982, Vol. 1 No. 4 


Myths and Facts About Blindness
Visually impaired, partially sighted, visually disabled, visually
handicapped, low vision, partially blind, visually limited, sightless . . .
blind.

The list of terms used to describe our children's vision seems endless and
often confusing. It seems that every book and professional journal about
blindness, and every special teaching program, teacher, and rehabilitation
counselor of the blind have their own set of terms with their own set of
definitions.

Of course, in one sense it is necessary and appropriate that we have words
which we can use when we need to easily and quickly indicate we are talking
about someone with usable vision.

However, the proliferation of these terms goes beyond this need and has
become a way to avoid at all costs the word "blind". This tendency is one
indication of some very harmful myths about blindness.

We will deal directly with some of those myths in our next issue. In this
issue, we will lay the groundwork, so to speak, by defining what we mean by
"blindness". Dr. Jernigan has given, I believe, the best possible definition
in his article "A Definition of Blindness". The following is an excerpt from
the article. The complete article may be obtained free by writing to:
National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD 21230.

>From "A Definition of Blindness"

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 than 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.

In my way of thinking . . . one is blind to the extent that he must devise
alternative techniques to do efficiently those things which he would do with
sight 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 than 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.

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 wishes 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 a 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 vision 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.

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 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.