Blindness-Left Handed

Blindness-Left Handed

Blindness—A Left-Handed Dissertation
by Kenneth Jernigan

Everyone is familiar with the "revolution of rising expectations "
which has raised the consciousness of deprived" and dependent populations
the world over during the generation since World War II. Abroad this trend
has taken the form of independence movements, the rise of new nations, and
the decline of the old colonial empires. Within the United States it has found
famous expression in the civil rights movement of the "black-brown-red-yellow"
revolt; the feminist movement, known AS women's liberation; the aggressive
youth counterculture of the sixties; and a variety of other self-assertive
and self-directing mobilizations—such as those of the poor, the aged,
and the sexually deviant.

Whatever their ultimate validity or vitality, most of these
domestic movements and causes have been attended with considerable fanfare and
commotion. They have captured the imagination and stirred the understanding
of the general public. Not so with the blind. It is not that we have lacked
sympathy or goodwill or widespread support. We have had plenty of that. Rather,
it is that we have not (in present day parlance) been perceived as a minority.
Yet, that is exactly what we are—a minority, with all that the term implies.
As with other minorities, we contend with an "establishment,"
which tries to put us down and keep us out and which denies that we even exist
as a legitimate and cohesive group—with common problems, common aspirations,
and common interests. Not only is our "establisbment" composed of
the general sighted public but, more particular of the network of governmental
and private social service agencies specifically created to give us aid. Principal
among these repressive agencies are the American Foundation for the Blind and
the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually
Handicapped (NAC).
We have organized to take concerted action. In fact, the National
Federation of the Blind (established in 1940) pre-dates most of the activist
groups today. We, too, have our Uncle Toms. We have tokenism; we have efforts
to divide and conquer; we have attempts to buy off the troublemakers; we have
threats and intimidations; we have professional-sounding studies and reports;
we have impressive meetings and conferences; we have talk about positive and
constructive action; we have the force and prestige of tradition and custom;
and have a hundred other delays and obstacles.
But underlying all of these things (and far more complex) are
our own problems of self-awareness and the need for public education and public
understanding. We of the National Federation of the Blind, for instance, affirm
that the ordinary blind person can compete terms of equality with the ordinary
sighted person, if he gets proper training and opportunity. We know that the
average blind person can do the average job in the average place business, and
do it as well as his sighted neighbor. In other words the blind person can be
as happy and lead as full a life as anybody else.
Even so, blindness has its problems. Properly understood and
dealt with, it need not be the major tragedy which it has always been considered.
It can be reduced to the level of a mere physical nuisance, but it cannot be
reduced below that point. Even if we were to contend (and we don't contend
it, as I will shortly indicate) that there is absolutely nothing which can be
done with sight which cannot be done just as easily and just as well without
it, blindness would still be a nuisance, as the world is now constituted. Why?
Because the world is planned and structured for the sighted. This does not mean
that blindness need be a terrible tragedy or that the blind are inferior or
that they cannot compete on terms of equality with the sighted.
For an exact analogy, consider the situation of those who are
left-handed. The world is planned and structured for the right-handed. Thus,
left-handedness is a nuisance and is recognized as such, especially by the left-handed.
Even so, the left-handed can compete on terms of equality with the right-handed
since their handicap can be reduced to the level of a mere physical nuisance.
If you are not left-handed (I am not. I am a "nomal."),
you may not have thought of the problems. A left-handed person ordinarily wears
his wristwatch on his right arm. Not to do so is awkward and causes problems.
But the watch is made for the right-handed. Therefore, when it is worn on the
right arm, the stem is toward the elbow, not the fingers. The watch is inconvenient
to wind, a veritable nuisance.
Then there are butter knives. Many of them are so constructed
that the lefthanded must either spread the butter with the back of the knife,
awkwardly use the right hand, or turn the wrist in a most uncomfortable way—nuisances
all. But not of the sort to ruin one's psyche or cause nightmares, just
annoying. The garden variety can opener (the one you grip in your left hand
and turn with your right—that is, if you are "normal") is made
for "normals." If you hold it in your right hand and turn it with
your left (as any respectable left-hander is tempted to do), you must either
clumsily reach across it to get at the handle or turn it upside down so that
the handle is conveniently located, in which case it won't work at all.
Likewise, steak knives are usually serrated to favor the right-handed. Scissors,
egg beaters, ice cream dippers, and other utensils are also made for the same
group.
So are ordinary school-desk classroom chairs. How many have
you seen with the arms on the left side? Of course, a few enlightened schools
and colleges (with proper, present-day concern for the well-being of minorities)
have two or three left-handed chairs in each of their classrooms, but this is
the exception rather than the rule. It succeeds only in earning the ill will
of chauvinist right-handers, who must use the desks when the room is full and
the left-handed are absent. Of course, these occasional left-handed desks are
the most blatant form of tokenism, the groveling gratitude of occasional left-handed
Uncle Toms to the contrary notwithstanding.
In at least one case, it would seem, the problem of the left-handed
is not just a side effect of the fact that the world is constructed for the
right-handed but a real, inherent weakness. When the left-handed person writes
with ink (the ballpoint pen was a blessing, indeed), his hand tends to smear
the ink as it drags over what he has written. Of course, he can hold his hand
up as he writes, but this is an inferior technique, not to mention being tiresome.
Upon closer examination even this apparently inherent weakness is not really
inherent at all but simply another problem created by society in its catering
to the right-handed. There is no real reason why it is better to begin reading
or writing at the left side of the page and move to the right, except that it
is more efficient and comfortable for the majority, the right- handed. In fact,
it would be just as easy to read or write from the right to the left (more so
for the left-handed), and thus the shoe would be on the other foot-or, more
precisely, the pen would be in the other hand.
The left-handed have always been considered inferior by the
right-handed. Fomerly (in primitive times--twenty or thirty years ago) parents
tried to make their left-handed children behave normally—that is, use their
right hands. Thereby, they often created trauma and psychiatric problems—causing
complexes, psychoses, and emotional disturbances. Today (in the age of enlightenment)
while parents do not exactly say, "left is beautiful," they recognize
the rights of minorities and leave their lefthanded progeny to do their own
thing.
(Parenthetically, I might say here that those who work with
the blind are not always so progressive. Parents—and especially educators—still
try to make the blind child with a little sight read large type, even when Braille
would serve him better and be more efficient. They put great stress on reading
in the normal" manner and not being "conspicuous." They make
him ashamed of his blindness and often cause permanent damage.)
But back to the left-handed. Regardless of the enlightenment
of parents and teachers, the ancient myth of the inferiority of the left-handed
still lingers to bedevil the lives of that unfortunate minority. To say that
someone has given you a "left-handed compliment" is not a compliment
to the left-handed. It is usually the left hand that doesn't know what the
right hand is doing, rarely the other way around; and it is the right hand that
is raised, or placed on the Bible, to take an oath. Salutes and the Pledge of
Allegiance are given with the right hand. Divine Scripture tells us that the
good and the evil shall be divided and that, at the day of final judgment, the
sheep shall be on the right hand and the goats on the left, from whence they
shall be cast into hell and outer darkness forever and ever. The guest of honor
sits on the right hand of the host, and in an argument one always wants to be
right. No one ever wants to be behind. Whether these uses of the words "left"
and "right" are subtleties of language—reinforcing the stereotype
and bespeaking deeply ingrained, subconscious prejudice—or whether they
are accidental, as the "normals" allege, who can say? It may simply
be that the lefthanded are supersensitive, wearing chips on their shoulders
and looking for insult where none is intended.
It is hard to make this case, however, when one considers the
word gauche. The 1971 edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary
of the English Language, Unabridged, says: "gauche ... left, on the left,
French ... lacking in social graces or ease, tact, and familiarity with polite
usage; likely or inclined to commit social blunders especially from lack of
experience or training ... lacking finish or exhibiting crudity (as of style,
form, or technique) ... being or designed for use with the left hand: LEFT-HANDED.
Synonym see AWKWARD. gauchely, adverb: in a gauche manner: AWKWARDLY, CLUMSILY,
CRUDELY."
Whatever else may be said, there is nothing subtle about all
of that; nor is there anything subtle about the term "bar sinister,"
which comes from the Latin sinistral, meaning left- handed. The 1971 edition
of Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged, says: "bar sinister ... the fact or condition of being of illegitimate
birth ... an enduring stigma, stain, or reproach (as of improper conduct or
irregular status)." Supersensitive? Quibbling? Not on your life. Left-handers
arise. You have nothing to lose but your chains. They probably don't fit
you anyway, being made for the right-handed. Look for the new slogans any day:
"Left is lovely," and "Get righty!"
As with other oppressed minorities, the subtleties of language
and prejudice carry over into the job market. I know of a girl, for instance,
who lives in Kansas and who sought employment in a factory in that state. She
was interviewed and passed every test with flying colors. The prospective employer
terminatcd the interview by telling her, "You are in every way qualified
for the job, and I would hire you immediately, except for your handicap."
In outrage and indignation she demanded to know what he meant. "Why,"
he said, "it's obvious! You are left-handed. The machines on our assembly
line are made for the right-handed. You would slow down the entire operation."
This is not fantasy but fact. The company makes greeting cards. The girl did
not get the job.
If, in truth and in fact, the left-handed girl would have slowed
the assembly line, it is hard to see how the action of the employer can be called
discriminatory. He could not be expected to buy new machinery simply to give
her a job, nor could he be expected to redesign the entire factory. The "normal"
person is right-handed, and it is reasonable for the factory to be designed
accordingly.
Or does all of this miss the whole point? Is this not exactly
the way employers and the general public think and talk about the blind? How
did the employer know that the girl would slow down the assembly line? How did
he know she was less efficient? Perhaps she had alternative techniques. Perhaps,
in fact, she could have done the job better than most of the other people he
had on the line. He decided (based on what he doubtless called "obvious"
and "common sense" reasons) that she couldn't do the work. Accordingly,
she was never even given the opportunity to try. Beware the "obvious,"
and look very carefully at so-called "common sense. "
Do you still say there is no discrimination against the left-handed?
Probably you do—unless you begin to think about it, unless you get the
facts--and even then, some people will say you are quibbling, that you are exaggerating.
How very like the case of the blind. How easy to make quick judgments and have
all of the answers, especially when you are not confronted with the problem
or compelled to look at reality.
From all ofthis, you can see that the life of theleft- hander
is not easy. Nevertheless, his infirmity can be reduced to the level of a mere
nuisance. It need not mean helplessness or inferiority. It does not necessarily
cripple him psychologically. With reasonable opportunity he can compete on terms
of equality with his right-handed neighbor. The average left-hander can do the
average job in the average place of business and do it as well as the average
right- hander.
So far as I can tell, there is no inherent weakness in left-handedness
at all. The problems arise from the fact that society is structured for the
right-handed. But these problems (annoying though they be) do not keep the left-handed
from leading normal lives or competing with others. They are at the nuisance
level.
Therefore, even if blindness (like left-handedness) had no
inherent problems, it would still be a nuisance since society is structured
and planned for the sighted—sometimes when it could be arranged more efficiently
otherwise. For instance, most windows in modern buildings are not there for
ventilation. They are scaled. They are there only so that the sighted may look
out of them. The building loses heat in winter and coolness in summer, but the
sighted (the majority) will have their windows.
I think, however, that blindness is not exactly like left-handedness.
I think there are some things that are inherently easier to do with sight than
without it. For instance, you can glance down the street and see who is coming.
You can look across a crowded room and tell who is there.
But here, it seems to me, most people go astray. They assume
that, because you cannot look across the room and see who is there or enjoy
a sunset or look down the street and recognize a friend, you are confronted
with a major tragedy—that you are psychologically crippled, sociologically
inferior, and economically unable to compete. Regardless of the words they use,
they feel (deep down at the gut level) that the blind are necessarily less fortunate
than the sighted. They think that blindness means lack of ability. Such views
are held not only by most of the sighted but by many of the blind as well. They
are also held by many, if not most, of the professionals in the field of work
with the blind. In the Journal of Rehabilitation for January-February 1966,
an article appeared entitled: "Social Isolation of the Blind: An Undertated
Aspect of Disability and Dependency." This article was written by none
other than Dr. D. C. MacFarland, Chief of the Office for the Blind, Social and
Rehabilitative Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Dr. MacFariand
says:
"Let me repeat a statement which I violently oppose. There
is a slowly evolving fiction which can be summed up in the generalization, 'Blindness
is a mere inconvenience.' I do not agree with this, and I do not know what
to call such exaggeration in reverse. I think it has done its share of harm,
throwing some very well-intentioned people off the track about what blindness
really amounts to in people's lives."
It seems to me that Dr. MacFarland is as far off the track
as the person who would contend that blindness is not even important enough
to be considered a nuisance. I think it would be pleasant to look at a sunset.
I think it would be helpful to look across a room and see who is there, or glance
down the street and recognize a friend. But I know that these things are peripheral
to the major concerns of life. It is true that it is sometimes a nuisance to
devise alternative techniques to get the same results I could have without effort
if I were sighted, but it is just that (a nuisance), not a tragedy or a psychological
crisis or an international incident.
It seems to me that many of the problems which are regarded
as inherent in blindness are more like those of the left-handed—in other
words, created as a natural side effect of the structuring of society for the
sighted. It seems to me that the remaining problems (those that are truly indigenous
to blindness) are usually vastly overrated and overdramatized.
Blindness can, indeed, be a tragedy and a veritable hell, but
this is not because of the blindness or anything inherent in it. It is because
of what people have thought about blindness and because of the deprivations
and the denials which result. It is because of the destructive myths which have
existed from the time of the caveman—myths which have equated eyesight
with ability, and light with intelligence and purity. It is because the blind,
being part of the general culture, have tended to accept the public attitudes
and thus have done much to make those attitudes reality.
As far as I am concerned, all that I have been saying is tied
up with the why and wherefore of the National Federation of the Blind. If our
principal problem is the physical fact of blindness, I think there is little
purpose in organizing. However, the real problem is not the blindness but the
mistaken attitudes about it. These attitudes can be changed, and we are changing
them. The sighted can also change. They can be shown that we are in no way inferior
to them and that the old ideas were wrong—that we are able to compete with
the sighted, play with the sighted, work with the sighted, and live with the
sighted on terms of complete equality. We the blind can also come to recognize
these truths, and we can live by them.
For all these reasons
I say to you that the blind are able to compete on terms of absolute equality
with the sighted, but I go on to say that blindness (even when properly dealt
with) is still a physical nuisance. We must avoid the sin and the fallacy of
either extreme. Blindness need not be a tragic hell. It cannot be a total nullity,
lacking all inconvenience. It can, as we of the National Federation of the Blind
say at every opportunity, be reduced to the level of a mere annoyance. Right
on! We the blind must neither cop out by selling ourselves short with self-pity
and myths of tragic deprivation, nor lie to ourselves by denying the existence
of a problem. We need your help; we seek your understanding; and we want your
partnership in changing our status in society. There is no place in our movement
for the philosophy of the self-effacing Uncle Tom, but there is also no place
for unreasonable and unrealistic belligerence. We are not out to "get sighty."
Will you work with us?