On Tuesday, this folk (Hennie) gave me this paper she’d written on self-image and adjustment to disability. She wanted me to read it and comment on it next week. I could comment on it in one word: “Agree.” However, it contained some interesting points that made me think, once again, about the acceptability of alternative techniques for the blind and my feeling that I ought to be “normal”.
Throughout the paper, it was stated without question that sticking to the standards of non-disabled people was, for people with disabilities, a sign of poor adjustment. At first, I was annoyed to extremes by the ease with which this was argued: of course some people with disabilities experience direct impairments, like mobility impaired folks, but the blind don’t, do they? And this folk is herself blind and she gave her paper to me, a blind person, for commentary. I feel reluctant to make any alterations to “sighted” standards for fear of being seen as having internalized negative attitudes about blindness. I mean, I have no problem being seen as poorly adjusted to blindness - I am, after all -, but I don’t want people to think that I hold the view that blind people are helpless. I don’t want to buy into the negative sterotypes people are presumed to hold of the blind - and the fact that I don’t fully agree with that statement only reinforces my fear, since that may be an indication that I’ve internalized the bad attitudes. I want to give a positive example of the capabilities of blind people, even if I don’t feel at the gut level that this is true: I have enough knowledge of what is supposed to be a positive philosophy of blindness to present it to clueless sighted folks and I am eager to attribute my troublred feelings over the last two years to over-protection and low expectations.
However, as I got to read through the paper, I realized that making alterations to “sighted\” standards does not mean abandoning them. The folks who invented the term “alternative techniques” are the same people that argue that blindness is only a characteristic and that blind people can do the same as sighted people. Doesn’t that very coincidence prove that as a blind person, one shouldn’t rigidly follow the exact standards sighted people hold? I mean, the same people who argue for normal expectations are the ones that advocate the white cane, Braille and even sighted “help” like readers and drivers. I’ve always found this to be a strange co-occurrence, but somehow, there seems to be some logic to it: just because one uses alternative techniques doesn’t mean one is less worthy. Still, I feel troubled by the rigid ideas some people hold as to what adaptations we do and do not need - like people consistently opposing audible traffic signals - but does one have to hold the exact same views as Marc Maurer, Kenneth Jernigan or whoever in order to be well-adjusted to one’s blindness? I’m still not sure.
