Exceptionality and Blindness

Exceptionality and Blindness


Christian Harrison

Spalding University

Professor Rita Bowman

ECS 550

June 9, 2011

1



In the movie “Blindness” an ailment that causes the host to become blind

devastates society to the brink of collapse. The writers center the film on the age

old idea of ‘what if’. In this movie the ‘what if’ is carried out, and the writers’ idea

of what role the human condition plays on society is brought fourth. This has

brought about controversy of course with the depiction of blind people behaving

in almost a savage-like manor. This is not an end-of-the-world romp or natural

disaster film, but a depiction of how a well-known disability of a minority can

influence and alter the state of being if suddenly attained by everyone. The

subjective nature of how those with visual impairments are depicted in the movie

and the particular language that is exerted by the characters, allow for a

meaningful range of perceptions worthy of colloquy.

In this movie, society is moving along on a seemingly routine day. At a

stop light a man is stricken with blindness. Panic thus ensues from the blind man,

minimal in comparison to the level of panic from society as this ailment becomes

rampant throughout the city. Government officials quarantine the citizens to a

rundown facility equipped with cots and showers but under the most deplorable

of conditions and standards. There is however once person who is able to see

who only pretends to be blind. She assists the others in the facility with basic

tasks such as showering, finding beds, and preparing food. There is a homeless

man who does not suffer this disease as the movie portrayals because he was

blind before the outbreak. The author from here allows for human nature to move

2


the story, allowing for the monstrosities and savagery that plagues humanity with

the juxtaposition of hope and benevolence.

There are several perceptions of the way this movie depicts people with

blindness. One is the idea that blind people are savages. This view is from the

National Federation of the Blind. This film portrays people who are blind as

“incompetent, filthy, vicious, and depraved. They are unable to do even the

simplest things like dressing, bathing, and finding the bathroom” (Danielsen,

2008). The characters in the movie are regular individuals whose lives have

become altered due to this disability. It would be hard to imagine are person

going from relying heavily on sight to suddenly becoming sight-impaired. It will be

very difficult to adjust to seemingly regular things, like walking without crashing

into objects, finding the bathroom. The movie is not illustrating people with

blindness as savages but rather painting a picture that as society crumbles we

enter what Thomas Hobbes would describe as a state of nature or “a condition of

war of every man against every man” (Hobbes, 2004). So it is not the disability

that is targeted but rather humanity’s struggle to deal with the collapse of society

and engulfment by this state of nature.

The disability is the cause of the plunge but the movie is careful not to

demonize the disorder. The movie only uses the disorder as a way of stripping

society from the amenities it so relies on, to expose a much darker trait within

humanity. That is not to say people who visually impaired are only capable of

such horrid acts, but humans themselves are. In a way, the movie amalgamates

us all regardless of abilities, to actually processing the ability to fall to corruption.

3


Another view is that of the blind relaying on a person who is visual to

survive. This person also is the beacon of light, the good, in this new world

amidst the deprivation and degradation. The movie does not have a clear

example of someone who is blind having an equal amount of this quality.

However, the movie does not characterize all people with blindness as amoral.

The movie is clearly multi-tiered. The portrayal of her in one aspect is that of the

shepherd leading the lambs due to her ability to see, but more important due to

her ability, she is the accommodator. The movie does not depict the blind as

helpless, but rather as having the ability to adjust. Just like in modern society, the

inability does not equate to ineptness. In the world a person with vision

impairment has accommodations, but not before adjusting to a sense base

culture, a prevailing sense is that of sight. The movie accurately depicts the

struggle for adjustment a person may go through if vision impaired. We take for

granted walking to the bathroom, whereas a person adjusting may learn to count

steps and turns. It is not impossible to adjust without accommodations; however

these services are rendered and accepted widely by the community of persons

with disabilities. This is her humanitarian side manifesting itself through her

actions. In several circumstances, people with disabilities may adjust to the point

where they no longer need accommodations, but it is a timely adjustment to

reach that point.

“Blind people are a cross-section of society, and as such we represent

the broad range of human capacities and characteristics. We are not helpless

children or immoral, degenerate monsters; we are teachers, lawyers, mechanics,

4


plumbers, computer programmers, and social workers” (Danielsen, 2008). The

movie only supports this statement rather than refuting it. In fact, the man who

was already blind before the outbreak does not request accommodations for he

is already acclimated to his condition. The movie is careful not to suggest that his

disability lead to his being a vagrant, only that he is accustomed to his inability.

This character is in stark contrast to the other novices. It is clear to see that after

adjustment familiarity with surroundings can occur, but one needs that

adjustment period to gain this acclimation.

The language of the movie is not what one would consider people-first.

Several times, especially when a person first experiences the condition, the

characters will say “I’m blind”, “you’re blind”, or any other similar way to say it. It

is understood the meaning and impact of using person-first language. It allows

for the focus to be on the person rather than the disability. However, in the

context of the movie, the lack of person- first language is appropriate. This

particular type of language is one that results from a stable society able to focus

on ethics and equality. A structured and productive society is able to focus on

such much needed issues. Within the context of this movie, this is not possible

for this society. One overlooks the social context of the movie if perception is

clouded by the improper language pattern used for the film. When one analyzes

the stages and tasks for the family as it applies to special needs and disabilities,

it sheds more light on the framework of the story. The first stage is that of

disbelief, denial and grief. It is the second stage that education of the disability

occurs. Conversely, it t is not until the fifth stage that appreciation and

5


empowerment takes place (Heward, 2009). As society crumbles and only

uncertainty looms, how is one able to reach the fifth stage? The lack of person-

first language within the context of the story is supported by the five level

progressions. The characters remain at stage one, completely in shock and

disbelief. Living contained by this incredulous state only intensifies the lack of

social norms and customs that only deteriorates as the story advances.

At the resolution of the movie, the aforementioned initial character that

received this circumstance first, suddenly without any explanation was able to

see. His response was that he “can see”, which adds another level to the social

context of the story and language as it pertains to disabilities. The shift to person-

first language seems to have an understanding at this point in the story. We as a

society focus on what a person can do, the ability is a product of the person, an

extension of the person, not the person itself. He can walk, she can talk, and they

can hear are all simple examples of this extraordinary issue. Even within the

movie, the disability is the person as far as language goes which seems to only

be a representation of common speech. We do not say He is walk or she is talk,

but only when the lack of ability transpires does language show that inability as

the person. Nevertheless within the context of the story, this subjective view may

not correlate with any intent of the author, but does however, shed a light on our

perceptions as a society that reflects through our language.

In my opinion this movie does a great job in depicting the struggles one

would go through if faced with this newfound disability. I already had a

preconceived notion of blindness, I believe we all have tried to navigate our

6


domiciles with our eyes closed, and failed horrendously, yet we see the same set

of environmental features often. I would have to admit that one of my biggest

fears is to lose my vision, but this movie paints a beautiful picture under the muck

and deterioration of a life where losing my vision is not something worth fearing.

How this can impact me in the classroom is listening to those living with the

disability that have become accustomed to the disability and hear their story,

embrace their vision of the world. There are things I can learn from someone who

is unable to see, appreciate new things that maybe I disregarded due to my

reliance on sight.

In conclusion “Blindness” presents its viewers with a mirror, a reflection of

who we are, what we are capable of, and how we cope with uncertainty.

Ironically through this mirror the film title is “Blindness”. While being controversial

with the depiction and the particular language only adds to the intensity of

imagery in the mirror. A person who is blind is not evil or treacherous due to the

condition of blindness, but that humans possess this inherent quality regardless

of condition. This quality is not the disability, similarly as the disability is not the

person. Through the need for accommodations and adjustment or the already

familiar, the movie portrays a person with this particular disability accurately. The

understanding of the language used seems to mirror the stage process that

occurs in society and in classrooms across the country, but in the same context,

the language used exemplifies our desire to admire what can be done and

neglect that that cannot. In a harsh way we view society through this film, and

7


while there are some who lack the ability to see, without an understanding of who

we are, we “are” blind.

8


BibliographyDanielsen, C. (2008, September 30). National Federation of the Blind. Retrieved June 9, 2011, from NFB web site: http://www.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=368

Heward, W. L. (2009). Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hobbes, T. (2004). Leviathan. In L. P. Pojman, The moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature (pp. 41-51). New York: Oxford University Press.

Meirelles, F. (Director). (2008). Blindness [Motion Picture].

9

Exceptionality and Blindness

Documents

Transcript of Exceptionality and Blindness