Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!bunker!wtm
From: mgflax@bathe.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: why blink?
Message-ID: <15545@handicap.news>
Date: 13 May 91 14:11:05 GMT
References: <19154@bunker.isc-br.com>
Sender: wtm@bunker.isc-br.com
Reply-To: mgflax@bathe.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 69
Approved: wtm@hnews.fidonet.org
Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 15545

[Standard Disclaimer: Not only am I not blind, but I'm not even disabled.]

Language is powerful.  It can hurt people or help people.  But before I
talk about the word 'blink', let me restate a question proposed by the
anthropologist Gregory Bateson:

	Suppose a parent habitually rewards a child with ice-cream after
	the child finishes his/her spinach.  Under what conditions will
	the child come to:
		(a) love or hate spinach;
		(b) love or hate ice-cream;
		(c) love or hate the parent?

Bateson's answer is that one must look at the context of actions (and
words) to discover their meaning.  Looking at the contexts in which
words like 'blink', 'bitch', and 'nigger' developed should give us
insight into how they are very different, and also very much the same.

'Blink' is different from 'bitch' and 'nigger' in that the hate imparted
by the latter two words is readily apparent, while the hate imparted by
'blink' is concealed and sureptitious.  'Bitch' is different from
'blink' and 'nigger' in that it is used to attack women for trying to
escape the cages we construct for them, while 'blink' and 'nigger'
mock the blind and black people who remain in subordinate positions.
'Nigger' is different from 'blink' and 'bitch' in that it asserts that
the object has no possibilility of becoming human, while 'blink' and
'bitch' assert that the victim is merely a deformed, abnormal human.

Still, it is a worthy effort to try to destroy the simultaneously
malicious and paternalistic connotations of these words.  Reappriation
of hate speech is possible.  The gay rights movement has made 'queer' a
badge of pride.  But that reappropriation was only possible because its
gay, lesbian, and bi users consciously reveled in the violation of
societal mores.  Reappropriation is only possible when the word one
wishes to appropriate has already been completely taken over by society.

Perhaps I can make my argument clearer.  Reappropriation of hate speech
relies upon clarity, and the word 'blink' lies within at least two
muddles.  The first muddle is the empirical fact that most 'sighties'
don't know the word, and those that do don't know whether it is a word
with a history to be rebelled against or a word without any past
misuses.  The second, and far more important, muddle is that this
attempt to be 'cute' when describing blind people is not at all new.
Cuteness has been an integral part of the relentless custodialism and
paternalism that has stifled blind people for centuries.  It has been a
smokescreen for that oppression, and a tool thereof.  People use
cuteness to disguise and hide their discomfort when working with the
blind, discomfort that has its origins in predujice and irrational fear.
Gays and lesbians wear pink triangles with pride to take-back the
patches that the Nazi's forced them to wear in concentration camps.  But
they also wear them to avoid forgetting that the Nazi's forced them to
wear them in concentration camps.  I do not see how words can be
reappropriated in a vacuum; if cuteness and infantilization were used as
tools to hurt the blind, then I do not see how the words can be
reappropriated without keeping in mind their context.

In summary, remaking a word requires clarity: a clear sense of the 'old'
and 'new' senses of the word, and a clear change from the oppressors'
initiation of use of the word to the oppressed' initiation of the new
sense of the word.  My first point is that the public at large lacks the
first, and the blind movement lacks the second.

marshall
/****************************************************************************/
/* Marshall Gene Flax '89       (609)258-6739  mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU */
/* c/o Jack Gelfand|Psychology Dept|Princeton University|Princeton NJ 08544 */
/****************************************************************************/