dichroic | ableist language: none so blind (Reply)

I’ve been reading a bunch of posts lately on resolutions to avoid ableist language (e.g deaf, dumb, retarded, lame, schizo when used as insults.) I sympathize with the idea, but am still torn on the use of “blind” (and “deaf”, to a lesser extent). We use so very much visual language – do you see what I mean? is that a black and white choice? we’re going through dark times now. It seems to me the use of “blind” to describe someone who cannot “see” in the metaphorical sense is too logical an extension of that to be easily cast aside, yet that’s not enough of a defense if it really is insulting.

I think “Whaddya, blind? What’s wrong with you? He was out by a mile!” is pretty clearly disparaging, and I will try not to use the word in that way. But “none so blind as those who will not see”, for example, strikes me as more problematic. As a metaphor, it makes a lot of sense and doesn’t seem to me to imply that someone who is visually impaired is lesser in any other sense. On the other hand, if I had lost my vision, I bet I’d be thinking “Bullshit – I got yer blindness right here and don’t TELL me that someone who chooses to ignore one factor can see any less.” Maybe it’s worth avoiding that phrase purely for the annoyance value. The one that gives me most trouble is the simple declarative, as in “Darcy was blind to Elizabeth’s beauty, until he came to know her, ” or “He was deaf to her requests.” (In those cases, the second one is a little more easy to see as problematic, since it implies will not rather than cannot.)

I dunno. Maybe I’ll start with avoiding “lame”, “crazy”, and clearly disparaging uses of “blind”, and see if things become clearer to me. (And there’s that visual language again.)

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.