[Ohio-Talk] I need someone to point me to a definition

Fri Apr 14 14:34:45 UTC 2023

Thank you for this. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ohio-Talk <ohio-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Richard Payne
via Ohio-Talk
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2023 8:11 AM
To: 'NFB of Ohio Announcement List' <ohio-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Richard Payne <rchpay7 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ohio-Talk] I need someone to point me to a definition

This is just one of the items that could assist in getting to the
information that you seek. I would always refer those of us who seek out
information about blindness to visit www.nfb.org which has a tremendous
amount of information.

A Definition of Blindness
by Kenneth Jernigan

Kenneth Jernigan
Kenneth Jernigan
Editor's Note: It may seem odd to begin a special issue about low vision
with a definition of blindness, but sometimes the fastest route to a
destination is not the most direct. As you read this issue, you will find
the words low vision, visually impaired, partially sighted, legally blind
(and maybe a few others) used interchangeably with the word blind. Over the
decades professionals have often attempted to establish definitions for
these terms based on a hierarchy of degree of vision loss; all of those
attempts failed. In other words, there is no one accepted definition of, for
example, "low vision" or "visually impaired." But the National Federation of
the Blind does not view this as a problem. Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, president
of the NFB from 1968 to 1986 and an active leader of the organization right
up to his death in 1998, explained it this way:

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.

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 she was making a rather obvious
statement--that a person is blind if she "can't see." When the laughter
subsided, I asked the student if she really meant what she said. She replied
that she did. I then asked her whether she would consider a person blind who
could see light but who could not see objects--a person who would bump into
things unless she used a cane, a dog, or some other travel aid and who
would, if she depended solely on the use of her eyesight, walk directly into
a telephone pole or fire plug. After some little hesitation the student said
that she would consider such a person to be blind. I agreed with her and
then went on to point out the obvious-that she 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?"

Her answer was, "Yes."

"Remember," I told her, "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 she would. Again, I agreed with her, but
I pointed out that, far from her first facetious statement, what she 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 her 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 her. Then I asked her 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
the individual 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 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.

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 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 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 she can see nothing at all, she is still quite properly
considered to be a "sighted person." She 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 herself in such a situation, she 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.

Richard Payne,  President
National Federation of the Blind of Ohio
937/829/3368
Rchpay7 at gmail.com
The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the
characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the
expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles
between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want;
blindness is not what holds you back.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ohio-Talk <ohio-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of marianne denning
via Ohio-Talk
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 8:20 PM
To: 'NFB of Ohio Announcement List' <ohio-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: marianne at denningweb.com
Subject: [Ohio-Talk] I need someone to point me to a definition

I believe one of the presidents of the NFB provided a definition of
"functionally blind." I would appreciate anyone who can point me where to
find this definition. 

_______________________________________________
Ohio-Talk mailing list
Ohio-Talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Ohio-Talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/rchpay7%40gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Ohio-Talk mailing list
Ohio-Talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Ohio-Talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/ohio-talk_nfbnet.org/marianne%40denningweb
.com