Blindness—Concepts and Misconceptions
by Kenneth Jernigan
When an individual becomes blind, he faces two major problems: First,
he must learn the skills and techniques which will enable him to carry
on as a normal, productive citizen in the community; and second, he
must become aware of and learn to cope with public attitudes and
misconceptions about blindness—attitudes and misconceptions which go
to the very roots of our culture and permeate every aspect of social
behavior and thinking.
The first of these problems is far easier to solve than the second.
For it is no longer theory but established fact that, with proper
training and opportunity, the average blind person can do the average
job in the average place of business—and do it as well as his sighted
neighbor. The blind can function as scientists, farmers, electricians,
factory workers, and skilled technicians. They can perform as
housewives, lawyers, teachers, or laborers. The skills of independent
mobility, communication, and the activities of daily living are known,
available, and acquirable. Likewise, the achievement of vocational
competence poses no insurmountable barrier.
In other words the real problem of blindness is not the blindness
itself—not the acquisition of skills or techniques or competence. The
real problem is the lack of understanding and the misconceptions which
exist. It is no accident that the word "blind" carries with it
connotations of inferiority and helplessness. The concept undoubtedly
goes back to primitive times when existence was at an extremely
elemental level. Eyesight and the power to see were equated with
light, and light (whether daylight or firelight) meant security and
safety. Blindness was equated with darkness, and darkness meant danger
and evil. The blind person could not hunt effectively or dodge a
spear. In our day society and social values have changed. In civilized
countries there is now no great premium on dodging a spear, and
hunting has dwindled to the status of an occasional pastime. The blind
are able to compete on terms of equality in the full current of active
life. The primitive conditions of jungle and cave are gone, but the
primitive attitudes about blindness remain. The blind are thought to
live in a world of "darkness," and darkness is equated with evil,
stupidity, sin, and inferiority. Do I exaggerate? I would that it were
so. Consider the very definition of the word "blind," the reflection
of what it means in the language, its subtle shades and connotations.
The 1962 printing of the World Publishing Company's college edition of
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines
"blind" as follows: "without the power of sight; sightless; eyeless.
lacking insight or understanding done without adequate directions or
knowledge: as, blind search. reckless; unreasonable. not controlled by
intelligence: as, blind destiny. insensible. drunk. illegible;
indistinct. In architecture, false. walled up: as, a blind window."
The 1960 edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says: "blind.
Sightless. Lacking discernment; unable or unwilling to understand or
judge; as, a blind choice. Apart from intelligent direction or
control; as, blind chance. Insensible; as, a blind stupor; hence,
drunk. For sightless persons; as, a blind asylum. Unintelligible;
illegible; as, blind writing." There are a number of reasons why it is
extremely difficult to change public attitudes about blindness. For
one thing, despite the fact that many achievements are being made by
the blind and that a good deal of constructive publicity is being
given to these achievements, there are strong counter-currents of
uninformed and regressive publicity and propaganda. It is hard to
realize, for instance, that anyone still exists who actually believes
the blind are especially gifted in music or that they are particularly
suited to weaving or wickerwork. It is hard to realize that any
well-educated person today believes that blind people are compensated
for their loss of sight by special gifts and talents. Yet, I call your
attention to a section on blindness appearing in a book on government
and citizenship which is in current use in many public high schools
throughout our country. Not in some bygone generation, but today,
hundreds of thousands of ninth-grade students will study this passage:
Caring for the Handicapped
The blind, the deaf, the dumb, the crippled, and the insane and the
feeble-minded are sometimes known collectively as the defective—people
who are lacking some normal faculty or power. Such people often need
to be placed in some special institution in order to receive proper
attention.
Many blind, deaf, and crippled people can do a considerable amount of
work. The blind have remarkable talent in piano-tuning, weaving,
wickerwork, and the like. The deaf and dumb are still less handicapped
because they can engage in anything that does not require taking or
giving orders by voice.1
I confess to being surprised when I learned that the book containing
the foregoing passage was in general use. It occurred to me to wonder
whether the text was unique or whether its "enlightened" views were
held by other authors in the field. The results of my investigation
were not reassuring. I call your attention to the selection on
blindness appearing in another text in common use throughout the high
schools of our nation.
The blind may receive aid from the states and the federal government,
if their families are not able to keep them from want. There are over
one hundred institutions for the blind in the United States, many of
which are supported wholly or partly by taxes. Sometimes it seems as
if blind people are partly compensated for their misfortune by having
some of their other talents developed with exceptional keenness. Blind
people can play musical instruments as well as most of those who can
see, and many activities where a keen touch of the fingers is needed
can be done by blind people wonderfully well. Schools for the blind
teach their pupils music and encourage them to take part in some of
the outdoor sports that other pupils enjoy.2
If this is not enough to make the point, let me give you a quotation
from still another high school text in current use:
Kinds of Dependents.
There are many persons who do not take a regular part in community
life and its affairs, either because they cannot or will not. Those
who cannot, may be divided into the following classes—(l) 'The
physically handicapped': the blind, the deaf, and the crippled; (2)
the mentally handicapped the feeble-minded and the insane; (3) the
unemployed those incapable of work, the misfits, and the victims of
depression; and (4) the orphaned those children left in the care of
the state or in private institutions. The community should care for
these people or help them to care for themselves as much as possible.
Those who will not play their part in community life are the criminals
. . . schools have been established where the blind are taught to read
by the use of raised letters called the Braille system. They are also
taught to do other things such as to weave, make brushes, tune pianos,
mend and repair furniture, and to play musical instruments . . . It is
far better for the blind to attend these institutions than to remain
at home because here they can learn to contribute to their own
happiness.3
In attempting to change public attitudes, not only must we overcome
the effects of Webster's dictionary and a host of textbooks, but we
must take into account another factor as well. Several years ago the
agency that I head was attempting to help a young woman find
employment as a secretary. She was a good typist, could fill out
forms, handle erasures, take dictation, and other-wise perform
competently. She was neat in her person and could travel independently
anywhere she wanted to go. She was also totally blind. I called the
manager of a firm which I knew had a secretarial opening and asked him
if he would consider interviewing the blind person in question. He
told me that he knew of the "wonderful work" which blind persons were
doing and that he was most "sympathetic" to our cause but that his
particular setup would not be suitable. As he put it, "Our work is
very demanding. Carbons must be used and forms must be filled out.
Speed is at a premium, and a great deal of work must be done each day.
Then, there is fact that our typewriters are quite a ways from the
bathroom, and we cannot afford to use the time of another girl to take
the blind person to the toilet."
At this stage I interrupted to tell him that during the past few years
new travel techniques had been developed and that the girl I had in
mind was quite expert in getting about, that she was able to go
anywhere she wished with ease and independence. He came back with an
interruption of his own.
"Oh, I know what a wonderful job the blind do in traveling about and
accomplishing things for themselves. You see I know a blind person. I
know Miss X, and I know what a good traveler she is and how
competent." I continued to try to persuade him, but I knew my case was
lost. For, you see, I also know Miss X, and she is one of the poorest
travelers and one of the most helpless blind people I have ever known.
There is a common joke among many blind persons that she gets lost in
her own bedroom, and I guess maybe she does. The man with whom I was
talking was not being insincere; far from it. He thought that the
ordinary blind person, by all reason and common sense, should be
completely helpless and unable to travel at all. He thought that it
was wonderful and remarkable that the woman he knew could do as well
as she did. When compared with what he thought could normally be
expected of the blind, her performance was outstanding. Therefore,
when I told him that the person that I had in mind could travel
independently, he thought that I meant the kind of travel he had seen
from Miss X. We were using the same words, and we were both sincere,
but our words meant different things to each of us. I tremble to think
what he thought I meant by "good typing" and "all-around competence."
When I go into a community to speak to a group and someone says to me,
"Oh I know exactly what you mean; I know what blind people can do,
because I know a blind person," I often cringe. I say to myself, "And
what kind of blind person do you know?"
This gives emphasis (if, indeed, emphasis is needed) to the constantly
observed truth that all blind people are judged by one. If a person
has known a blind man who is especially gifted as a musician, he is
likely to believe that all of the blind are good at music. Many of us
are living examples of the fallacy of that misconception. Some years
ago I knew a man who had hired a blind person in his place of
business. The blind man was, incidentally, fond of the bottle and
was(after, no doubt, a great deal of soul searching on the part of the
employer) fired. The employer still refuses to consider hiring another
blind person. As he puts it, "They simply drink too much."
Once I was attending a national convention made up largely of blind
people, and a waitress in the hotel dining room said to me, "I just
think it is wonderful how happy blind people are. I have been
observing you folks, and you all seem to be having such a good time!"
I said to the waitress, "But did you ever observe a group of sighted
conventioneers! When they get away from their homes and the routine of
daily life, they usually let their hair down and relax a bit. Blind
people are about as happy and about as unhappy as anybody else."
Not only is there a tendency to judge all blind people by one, but
there is also a tendency to judge all blind people by the least
effective and least competent members of the larger, sighted
population. In other words, if it can't done by a person with sight, a
"normal person," then, how can it possibly be done by a blind person?
One of the best illustrations of this point that I have ever seen
occurred some time ago when an attempt was being made to secure
employment for a blind man in a corn oil factory. The job involved the
operation of a press into which a large screw-type plunger fed corn.
Occasionally the press would jam, and it was necessary for the
operator to shut it off and clean it out before resuming the
operation. The employer had tentatively agreed to hire blind man, but
when we showed up to finalize the arrangements, the deal was off. The
employer explained that since our last visit, one of his sighted
employees had got his hand caught in the press, and the press had
chewed it off. It developed that the sighted employee had been
careless. When the press had jammed, he had not shut it off, but had
tried to clean it while it was still running. The employer said, "This
operation is dangerous! Why, even a sighted man got hurt doing it! I
simply couldn't think of hiring a blind man in this position!" It was
to no avail that we urged and reasoned. We might have told him (but
didn't)that if he intended to follow logic, perhaps he should have
refused to hire any more sighted people on the operation. After all it
wasn't a blind man who had made the mistake. There is still another
factor which makes it difficult to change the public attitudes about
blindness. All of us need to feel superior, and the problem is
compounded by the fact that almost everyone secretly feels a good deal
of insecurity and inadequacy—a good deal of doubt regarding status and
position. On more than one occasion people have come to the door of a
blind man to collect for the heart fund, cancer research, or some
other charity, and have then turned away in embarrassment when they
have found they were dealing with a blind person. Their comment is
usually to the effect, "Oh, I am sorry! I didn't know! I couldn't take
money from a blind person!" In many instances, I am happy to say, the
blind person has insisted on making a contribution. The implication is
clear and should not be allowed to go unchallenged. It is that the
blind are unable to participate in regular community life, that they
should not be expected to assume responsibilities, that they should
receive but not give as others do.
More than once I have seen confusion and embarrassment in a restaurant
when it came the blind person's turn to treat for coffee or similar
items. At the cash register there was an obvious feeling of
inappropriateness and shame on the part of the sighted members of the
group at having restaurant employees and others see a blind person pay
for their food. Something turns, of course, on the question of means;
and the blind person should certainly not pay all of the time; but he
should do his part like any other member of the group. Recently I
registered at a hotel, and the bellboy carried my bags to my room.
When I started to tip him (and it was a fairly generous tip), he moved
back out of the way with some embarrassment. He said, "Oh, no, I
couldn't! I am a gentleman!" When I persisted he said, "I am simply
not that hard up!"
It is of significance to note that he had an amputated hand and that
he was quite short of stature. What kind of salary he made I do not
know, but I would doubt that it was comparatively very high. His
manner and tone and the implication of his words said very clearly, "I
may be in a bad way and have it rough, but at least I am more
fortunate than you. I am grateful that my situation is not worse than
it is." There was certainly no ill intent. In fact, there were both
charity and kindness. But charity and kindness are sometimes
misplaced, and they are not always constructive forces.
Let me now say something about the agencies and organizations doing
work with the blind. Employees and administrators of such agencies are
members of the public, too, and are conditioned by the same forces
that affect other people in the total population. Some of them (in
fact, many)are enlightened individuals who thoroughly understand the
problems to be met and who work with vigor and imagination to erase
the stereotypes and propagate a new way of thought concerning
blindness and its problems; but some of them(unfortunately, far too
many) have all the misconceptions and erroneous ideas which
characterize the public at large. Regrettably there are still people
who go into work with the blind because they cannot be dominant in
their homes or social or business lives, and they feel (whether they
verbalize it or not) that at least they can dominate and patronize the
blind. This urge often expresses itself in charitable works and
dedicated sincerity, but this does not mitigate its unhealthy nature
or make it any less misguided or inappropriate.
Such agencies are usually characterized by a great deal of talk about
"professionalism" and by much high-flown jargon. They believe that
blindness is more than the loss of eyesight; that it involves multiple
and mysterious personality alterations. Many of them believe that the
newly blinded person requires the assistance of a psychiatrist in
making the adjustment to blindness, and, indeed, that the psychiatrist
and psychotherapy should play an important part in the training
programs for the blind. They believe that the blind are a dependent
class and that the agencies must take care of them throughout their
entire lives. But let some of these people speak for themselves. One
agency administrator has said: "After he is once trained and placed,
the average disabled person can fend for himself. In the case of the
blind, it has been found necessary to set up a special state service
agency which will supply them not only rehabilitation training but
other services for the rest of their lives." The agencies "keep in
constant contact with them as long as they live."
This is not an isolated comment. An agency psychiatrist has this to
say: "All visible deformities require special study. Blindness is a
visible deformity and all blind persons follow a pattern of
dependency." Or consider this by the author of a well-known book on
blindness: "With many persons, there was an expectation in the
establishment of the early schools . . . that the blind in general
would thereby be rendered capable of earning their own support—a view
that even at the present is shared in some quarters. It would have
been much better if such a hope had never been entertained, or if it
had existed in a greatly modified form. A limited acquaintance of a
practical nature with the blind as a whole and their capabilities has
usually been sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of this
conception." 4
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the foregoing quotations
represent individual instances and not the total judgment of the
agencies and organizations doing work with the blind. Opinions and
approaches vary as much with the agencies as with the general public.
I would merely make the point here that being a professional worker in
the field does not insure one against the false notions and erroneous
stereo-types which characterize the public at large. For that matter,
being a blind person is no passport to infallibility either. Public
attitudes about the blind too often become the attitudes of the blind.
The blind are part of the general public. They tend to see themselves
as others see them. They too often accept the public view of their
limitations and thus do much to make those limitations a reality.
There is probably not a single blind person in the world today
(present company included) who has not sold himself short at one time
or another.
At one time in my life I ran a furniture shop, making and selling the
furniture myself. I designed and put together tables, smoke stands,
lamps, and similar items. I sawed and planed, drilled and measured,
fitted and sanded. I did every single operation except the final
finish work, the staining and varnishing. After all, as I thought, one
must be reasonable and realistic. If anyone had come to me at that
time and said that I was selling myself short, that I should not
automatically assume that a blind person could not do varnishing, I
think I would have resented it very much. I think I would have said
something to this effect: "I have been blind all my life, and I think
I know what a blind person can do; you have to use common sense. You
can't expect a blind person to drive a truck, and you can't expect him
to varnish furniture either."
Later when I went to California to teach in the State's Orientation
Center for the Blind, I saw blind people doing varnishing as a matter
of course. By and by I did it myself. I can tell you that the
experience caused me to do a great deal of serious thinking. It was
not the fact that I had hired someone else to do the varnishing in
those earlier days in my shop. Perhaps it would have been more
efficient, under any circumstances, for me to have hired this
particular operation done so that I could spend my time more
profitably. It was the fact that I had automatically assumed that a
blind person could not do the work, that I had sold myself short
without realizing it, all the while believing myself to be a living
exemplification of progressive faith in the competence of the blind—a
most deflating experience. It made me wonder then, as it does today:
How many things that I take for granted as being beyond the competence
of the blind are easily within reach? How many things that I now
regard as requiring eyesight really require only insight, an insight
which I do not possess because of the conditioning I have received
from my culture, and because of the limitations of my imagination?
There is also the temptation to have our cake and eat it too, the
temptation to accept the special privileges or shirk the
responsibility when it suits us and then to demand equal treatment
when we want it. Some years ago when Boss Ed Crump was supreme in
Memphis, an interesting event occurred each year. There was an annual
football game, which was called the "ball game for the blind."
Incidentally, Mr. Crump also conducted an annual watermelon-slicing
for the Negro. With respect to the "ball game for the blind," Mr.
Crump's friends went about contacting the general public and all of
the businesses of the area soliciting donations and purchases of
tickets. Probably a good deal of arm-twisting and shaming were done
when necessary. The total take was truly impressive. In the
neighborhood of one hundred thousand dollars was raised each year. The
money was then equally divided among all known blind persons in the
county, and a check was sent to each. It usually amounted to about one
hundred dollars and was known as the "Christmas bonus for the blind."
Most of the blind whom I knew from Shelby County gladly received these
checks, and most of the rest of us in the State(either secretly or
openly) envied them their great good fortune. How short sighted we all
were! The blind people of Memphis were not being done a favor! They
were being robbed of a birthright. As they gave their money and bought
their tickets, how many businessmen closed their minds (although
without conscious thought) to the possibility of a blind employee? How
many blind people traded equal status in the community, social and
civic acceptance, and productive and remunerative employment for one
hundred dollars a year? What a bargain!
As I said in the beginning, the real problem of blindness is not the
loss of eyesight but the misconceptions and misunderstandings which
exist. The public (whether it be the general public, the agencies, or
the blind themselves) has created the problem and must accept the
responsibility for solving it. In fact, great strides are being made
in this direction.
First must come awareness, awareness on the part of the blind
themselves, and a thorough consistency of philosophy and dedication of
purpose; an increasing program of public education must be waged;
vigilance must be maintained to see that the agencies for the blind
are staffed with the right kind of people; with the right kind of
philosophy; and the movement of self-organization of the blind must be
encouraged and strengthened. This last is a cardinal point, for any
disadvantaged group must be heard with its own voice, must lead in the
achievement of its own salvation. Accomplishments are made of dreams
and drudgeries, of hope and hard work. The blind of the nation are now
moving toward a destiny, a destiny of full equality and full
participation in community life. That destiny will be achieved when
the day comes on which we can say with pleasure and satisfaction what
we must now say with concern and consternation: "Public attitudes
about the blind become the attitudes of the blind. The blind see
themselves as others see them."
1. Building Citizenship, McCrocklin, James (1961, Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., pub.; Boston) p. 244.
2. Good Citizenship, Hughes, R. 0. (1949, Allyn and Bacon, pub.;
Boston)
p.
55.
3. Fundamentals of Citizenship, Blough, G. L., and David S. Switzer,
and Jack T. Johnson (Laidlow Brothers, pub.; Chicago) pp. 164-167.
4. From an address entitled "Within the Grace of God" by Professor
Jacobus ten Broek, delivered at the 1956 Convention of the National
Federation of the Blind in San Francisco.
https://static.cmptch.com/v/lib/mng.html?131#180#360
--
efforts may fail but don't fail to make efforts.
Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing
accessibility
of
mobile phones / Tabs on:
http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Search for old postings at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/
To unsubscribe send a message to
accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in
with the subject unsubscribe.
To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes,
please
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
Disclaimer:
1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking
of
the
person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its
veracity;
2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the
mails
sent through this mailing list..
