If Blindness Comes: Who is Blind

If Blindness Comes: Who is Blind

Who is Blind?
by Kenneth Jernigan

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 he was making a rather obvious statement that
a person is blind if he can't see. When the laughter subsided, I asked the student
if he really meant what he said. He replied that he did. I then asked him whether
he would consider a person blind who could see light but who could not see objects
a person who would bump into things unless he used a cane, a dog, or some other
travel aid and who would, if he depended solely on the use of his eyesight,
walk directly into a telephone pole or fire plug. After some little hesitation
the student said that he would consider such a person to be blind. I agreed
with him and then went on to point out the obvious that he 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 governmental agency for
assistance 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?"
His answer was, "Yes."
"Remember," I told him, "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 he would.
Again, I agreed with him, but I pointed out that, far from his
first facetious statement, what he 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 him
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 him. Then I asked him to examine what we had
established:

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.)

It is possible for an individual to have "perfect sight" and
yet be physically and literally blind.

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 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.
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 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 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 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
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
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.
Back to top

Copyright © 1994 by the National Federation of the Blind All Rights Reserved.