A closer look at opportunities for blind adults: Impacts of stigmatization and ocularcentrism

Abstract

Blind Canadians experience higher rates of unemployment, social isolation, and poverty than sighted Canadians. Examining what influences opportunities can help to identify the factors that disable blind people. During initial analysis, stigma and ocularcentrism emerged as important factors. Thus, this article examines how stigma operates culturally, socially, politically, and economically to shape opportunities among blind adults. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with six legally blind participants (visual acuity of 20/200 or below), aged 19–65 years. Thematic analysis was employed to understand the common and diverging narratives of participants. Within participant narratives, ocularcentrism is found to contribute to stigmatization at societal, interpersonal, and internalized levels. Opportunities are experienced within this context, and the stigmatization experienced both shaped and was shaped by participation in activities. It is imperative that a closer look is given to how stigma shapes the opportunities for blind people, so that individuals, teachers, practitioners, and policy makers can develop relevant and effective interventions and can challenge stigmatization.

Keywords

Blindness ocularcentrism participation stigmatization vision loss visual impairment working-aged adults

Introduction

Far from being a sheer individual and thus personal experience, blindness is a social one.

Michalko (2010).

No experience of blindness exists in isolation. Disability exists due to cultural and social norms in which individuals are situated. Society may be disabling for blind people, limiting their opportunities in meaningful engagement (CNIB Foundation, 2018; Michalko, 2010; Simson et al., 2005). Blind people face markedly lower participation in meaningful activities and higher rates of social isolation and are marginalized from aspects of social, economic, cultural, and political aspects of community life (Bambara et al., 2009; Berger et al., 2013; Crudden et al., 2005; Joseph, 2010; MacKay & Roy, 2002; Morris & Wates, 2006; Mullen, 1990; Simson et al., 2005). For example, only 25% of working-aged blind Canadians are employed, contrasted with 82% of the general population (Arim, 2015). Just 57% of working-age blind adults leave their homes on a daily basis (Simson et al., 2005). Given the apparent limitations on opportunities for participation, it is not surprising that blind people report having reduced quality of life (Harada et al., 2008; Rudman & Durdle, 2009). Little literature explores the breadth of factors impacting blind peoples’ opportunities for meaningful participation, and this article focuses on findings regarding social factors. This study explores factors impacting blind peoples’ opportunities. Stigmatization and ocularcentrism emerged during initial analysis and were therefore used as sensitizing concepts for the latter stages of analysis.

Methods

Theoretical perspectives

This study is informed by critical theory, which aims to transform society as a whole to fulfill the needs of individuals and to liberate them from perpetuating oppressive social and political forces. Critical theory encourages researchers to examine the social and structural factors that may be taken for granted, to identify processes that reinforce injustice (McGrath & Rudman, 2013). This theoretical perspective led the authors to consider social forces that influence blind peoples’ experiences and those which reinforce injustices they experience. This perspective influenced the researchers throughout the analysis process. In initial analysis, the authors noticed ocularcentrism and stigmatization as factors influencing participants’ experiences.

Through ocularcentrism – a social position in which vision dominates – “seeing” is promoted to a position of knowing, while “blindness” is imbued with negative connotations and therefore those who are labeled as “blind” are also affixed with associated negative stereotypes (Bolt, 2005, 2013; Verhaeghe et al., 2016). For example, Bolt (2014, p. 31) describes how advertisements that include blind people, while progressive in terms of inclusion of blind people, perpetuate stigmatization and stereotypes because they “evoke wonder that is grounded in ocularcentrism and worsened by blatant inaccessibility” and use excessively visual language when describing positive experiences. In his exploration of aesthetic blindness, Bolt (2013) describes an ocularcentric social aesthetic wherein blind people experience human disqualification, and ocularcentric epistemology that equates blindness with lack of knowledge and emphasizes seeing as the greatest source of knowing. Ocularcentrism shapes Western beliefs and attitudes about blindness, forming what Bolt (2014, p. 31) describes as the “ableist social aesthetic by which those of us who have visual impairments are stereotyped and stigmatized.” It is under these conditions, of labeling and negative stereotyping, that stigmatization and discrimination occur.

Stigma arises from the correlation between an attribute, characteristic, or label, and a stereotype (Goffman, 1986). Benoit et al. (2013) find that legally blind people frequently report stigmatization that impedes their participation. Their participants also note that legally blind people who have “good training, who take advantage of job services, who have experience, and confidence, and who know and use technology effectively, continue to face economic marginalization, and a wall of misconceptions and prejudice from the sighted community” (Benoit et al., 2013, p. 980). As stated by Atkinson (2016, p. 11), “even the passage of laws meant to protect disabled individuals may not be enough – we, as a society, must also strive to change the fundamental manner in which we view disability.” Jansenberger (2007) describes how blind peoples’ experiences of enacted, perceived, and felt stigma, as well as microaggressions, impede their quality of participation in the context of work. She also highlights that individuals resist stigma and discrimination by educating colleagues, passing as sighted, or demonstrating their skills.

Stigma is socially produced, and exists when “elements of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination co-occur in a power situation that allows the components of stigma to unfold” (Link & Phalen, 2001, p. 367). Thus, in an ocularcentric world wherein the sighted are affixed with power over the blind, stigmatization is socially produced through processes of labeling, stereotyping, segregation, discrimination, and status loss. There is an interplay between ocularcentrism (privileging sight) and stigmatization (labeling, stereotyping, segregating, and discriminating against people), where ocularcentrism feeds into stigmatization and vice versa. Stigmatization can be understood as a process whereby individuals’ opportunities are limited by ocularcentrism. Therefore, in this study, we elucidate the ways in which ocularcentrism unfolds through stigmatization in the lives of our participants.

Participants

Participants were recruited through the researchers’ networks, using snowball sampling, and via emails sent through blindness organizations. Potential participants were provided with a project description and consent forms. Six legally blind adults (aged 19–63 years), living in Canada, fluent in English participated (see Table 1). They were diverse in their cultural backgrounds, chosen terms for blindness, in their experiences of being blind, and the activities that shaped their daily lives.

Table 1.

Participants.

Pseudonym	Gender	Age (years)	Chosen blindness term	Blindness details
Amanda	Woman	38	Visually impaired	Partial, congenital/progressive
Sandra	Woman	19	Blind or visually impaired	Profound, since birth
Juan	Man	48	Visually impaired	Partial, progressive
Bence	Man	60	Blind	Profound, in adulthood
Nora	Woman	63	Vision impaired or legally blind	Partial, since birth
Leela	Woman	38	Vision loss or vision impaired	Profound, since adolescence

Data collection

Following ethical approval, researchers conducted semi-structured 90-min, in-person interviews. Questions included Does (preferred term for blindness) impact how you socialize, if so, how? And In what ways, if at all, do people’s perceptions of (preferred term) influence the activities you do? The interview guide (included in Appendix A) was used as a guide; however, the interviewers focused on listening to the participants and allowing their narratives to steer the conversation. This format permitted the researchers to focus the interview on specific aspects of the participant’s experience for subsequent analysis, while allowing the individual to communicate their story in their own terms (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and identifying terms replaced with pseudonyms.

Data analysis

The researchers conducted narrative thematic analysis, assisted by NVivo 11 software, to understand the ways that individuals create meaning and experiences in their lives through the telling of their own stories (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Analysis took a similar approach to that of Floersch et al. (2010), who combine approaches from narrative, thematic, and grounded theory analysis. Analysis involved an initial reading of each transcript, and team meetings to discuss emerging ideas and a coding plan. All transcripts were coded line-by-line. Through the coding, and iterative reading/re-reading, ideas about stigma shaping participation emerged. Codes were moved into categories and finally the research team met to discuss grouping categories into significant themes, eventually leading to one overarching theme of stigma influencing participation. Throughout the process, researchers recorded their observations, questions, and impressions to acknowledge and address their biases that influenced the research process, interpretation of data, and research findings, and to track decisions made.

Findings

Our analysis indicates that within participant narratives, ocularcentrism contributes to stigmatization at societal, interpersonal, and internalized levels. Opportunities are experienced within these contexts, and the stigmatization experienced both shaped and was shaped by participation in activities.

Societal stigmatization: living in an ocularcentric society

Participants described societal ocularcentrism in various environments: cultural, physical, educational, institutional, and digital.

Culture designed for the sighted

They discussed how culture’s structures and assumptions are designed for people who are sighted, in ways that contribute to lowered expectations for blind people. Amanda said,

[Blind people] have a little lower expectation . . . get a lot more praise for when they have done something which a sighted person would do and it wouldn’t be remarkable, but a blind person would do, and it would be remarkable.

Negative stereotypes hinder Sandra’s opportunities: “I do want to babysit, and [my blindness] is definitely for people a safety hazard.” Juan noted,

We live in a very visual world, so to say [vision impairment] doesn’t impact [my participation] would not be true . . . There’s so many times when someone says “oh look at that” or “did you see that” or “look at that ad on TV” . . . those are just not things that I am going to be able to do, unless someone describes them to me . . . of course it does [impact my participation in society]. But, let it stop me? No. You know, if I am with somebody and they’re talking about something visual I’ll ask them, “ok, can you describe it to me?” And that’s a real exercise for them because oftentimes they don’t know how.

The way the world is designed to privilege sight poses a challenge to Juan’s participation. Juan asks sighted people to transform visual information into something he can access; however, this strategy is not always successful and therefore his opportunities remain limited.

Bence discussed the notion of living in a visual world, the cultural importance of images, and how spaces are established for the sighted, concluding that “everything is geared to let you think [in a visual] way.” Juan and Bence drew attention to how sight is dominant in society and embedded in language.

Educational institutions designed for the sighted

Societal stigmatization appears in educational institutions. Amanda shares about early educational experiences, before being diagnosed:

I would move up and read the board from the floor, and the teachers allowed it, but it wasn’t a written accommodation . . . in middle school I didn’t want people to wonder why I was sitting on the floor so I stopped . . . I just sort of disconnected from school . . . my grades suffered.

Being blind in an ocularcentric system hampered Amanda’s engagement at school. Here, societal stigmatization may be unfolding through discrimination embedded in a system that assumes sight because the system is designed in such a way that students need to see the board to learn. Subsequently, adults in her life assumed that Amanda’s falling grades were related to adolescence:

There was a lot of discrimination . . . my parents didn’t get to spend a lot of time to figure why I wasn’t performing, they just thought “oh she is a teenager” and so I struggled . . . I know now it is because I couldn’t see.

Sandra shared her experience of an institutional space preventing participation:

[Grade five] is when they said “you know, we can’t support you anymore . . . you need to go to a better place where they have the technology for you and everything to support you.”

Sandra explained that she moved to a boarding school for blind students. Although she enjoyed boarding school and had unique opportunities to build connections within the blind community, the ocularcentrism embedded within public educational institutions denied her the option to remain home. Ocularcentric social policies assume blind students cannot be educated in their communities, or that “mainstreaming” is better than “widestreaming” to allow for more diversity.

Technology designed for the sighted

Ocularcentrism was also noted in technologies. Nora and Leela described how Captcha, a security measure on websites, prevented them from doing activities online because assistive technology cannot navigate Captcha. Leela says “this Captcha thing . . . it needs to be abolished . . . it just makes things so difficult and frustrating.” Leela and Juan explained that workplace technologies could be disabling when not compatible with accessibility-enabling software:

Using JAWS [Job Access With Speech] and Braille everything changes because a lot of applications are not compatible, you know they don’t read properly or you can’t get around inside the application . . . with my work . . . I find ways to get around it, but it’s slow. I am not able to keep up with everybody else, and do the job exactly the same.

Technology that is ocularcentric – that is, privileges sight by being inaccessible without special software, and is not always compatible with that software – enacts stigma by limiting opportunities.

Media designed for the sighted

Societal stigma is also enacted in pop culture, through inadequate representation of blind people (denoting segregation) and perpetuation of stereotypes. Juan said negative social attitudes might shift “if the world in general is exposed to more blind people doing everyday things, and I’m not talking about Stevie Wonder or other musicians, it’s a stereotype again.” When the media does portray blind people, it is often imbued with stereotypes (Farnall & Smith, 1999; Kattari, 2015). When asked if she thinks there are stereotypes/stigma about being blind, Sandra said “a lot . . . blind people love music . . . [and] blind people aren’t that smart, and they aren’t able to do anything.” Juan emphasized that positive media representations should not

say “wow, look at them they’re blind, they can do this” . . . the right attitude is “wow, look, they’re young people that are doing this. Oh, they happen to be blind” . . . it’s an attitude shift . . . slight difference, but it’s important.

According to participants, including blind characters in television and film combats societal stigma. Leela advised, to remove the “myths and stereotypes [about blindness] . . . showcase different people . . . who are living life without vision but still living very full lives.” Juan stated that featuring characters who were “normal,” successful, and blind would help people understand that they “can do the same jobs if not equally or, of course better, as anyone else. Until that happens . . . it’s going to be hard to change other people’s perceptions.”

Interpersonal stigmatization: in a room full of 200 people . . . completely alone

Participants detailed how their opportunities were impacted by interpersonal interactions marked by stigmatization enacted through differential treatment and denied chances.

Hampered independence

Nora stated people “assume . . . you don’t have a brain. You can’t talk for yourself . . . They’ll talk to my companion rather than to me.” Leela “went to a pharmacy . . . and the pharmacist was asking my friend ‘has she taken this medication.” By not addressing Leela directly, the pharmacist enacts a potential barrier to Leela independently managing health. Bence “was at the bank signing, and they take my finger and move my finger around! Like come on! I am not stupid.” Bence interpreted the bank teller’s actions as an assumption that he is stupid, which left him feeling frustrated. In these examples, blindness was conflated with lack of intelligence and independence, impacting their opportunities. Sandra shared, “sometimes [people are] just over-amazed, I don’t really like it when they’re over-amazed,” while sometimes “they overprotect you.” Amanda summed up the perceived attitudes she encountered: “either [blindness] is amazing or it is really sad.” Whether commendation for engaging in everyday activities, excessive protection, or social oversight, patronizing actions are barriers to opportunities.

Juan and Nora experienced blindness-related rejection by potential employers following disclosure. Juan said, “a lot of times they won’t give you a second chance once they find out. And they’re not supposed to do that (discriminate) . . . but it happens.” Interpersonal stigma prevents opportunities for financial independence.

Hampered social opportunities

Interpersonal stigma also impacts social opportunities. For example, interpersonal stigma hindered Sandra’s socialization with sighted people,

[Making friends] was a bit difficult, I mean it was a small town and nobody really knew about [blindness]. I was just kind of the alien . . . I think because there is something nobody has ever seen before and so they are going to ask you questions. [Sighted people are] gonna be curious about what [blindness] is . . . they avoid you . . . whisper behind your back . . . don’t know enough about it to interact with a blind person . . . There’s always this thing around you . . . there’s gonna be sighted people, you have to watch what you’re saying. You have to watch how you act . . . be prepared to answer questions . . . when you go to a school for the blind it’s like this weight lifted . . . I don’t have to be confused about what to say anymore. (Sandra)

Leela struggled with social exclusion at gatherings because people would not approach her: “you can be in a room full of 200 people, and you’re completely alone.” Bence shared that when becoming blind:

You lose friendships . . . many people cannot handle disability comfortably . . . they are horrified . . . maybe the possibility is horrifying . . . you wake up tomorrow morning without eyesight. It could be you . . . one of my thoughts of why people are horrified.

The above examples demonstrate how interpersonal interactions with both strangers and friends are colored by negative attitudes, horror at the prospect of disability, and infantilizing stereotypes that diminish the person’s ability to speak for themselves.

Familial interactions

Participants recounted a variety of familial attitudes about blindness. Nora stated, “because I don’t carry a stick and I can get around . . . even family forget I have visual impairment.” Leela’s family sheltered her:

I felt that I was being held back by my parents. I don’t think they realized it . . . they were not encouraging me the way that I think they should have been and I think it’s a lack of education they want to protect . . . I felt like I lived in a bubble . . . that was not doing me any good . . . a month after (losing my vision), I decided that I was going to perform in this annual festival . . . when I told my family, for example, they were like “No, no. Leave it. Don’t even do that.”

Leela encountered interpersonal stigmatization in the form of overprotectiveness and an expectation that she would do less than when she was sighted, which discouraged her engagement. Juan received neither support nor discouragement:

[My parents] didn’t have a whole lot of knowledge as to how to deal with [blindness] so, a lot of it was left for me to figure out . . . with minimal accommodations . . . my parents really did very little . . . which I think is actually a good thing . . . If you’re too sheltered, if things are done for you, you aren’t going to build that motivation . . . I wish I had more emotional support . . . I had to figure out how to deal with bullies, I had to deal with how am I going to learn the best way and succeed. Cause I was still expected to do very well academically. even with my impairment . . . having a peer support group of people that are successful . . . not necessarily pushing them like I was pushed, but maybe encouraging them and seeing other people around them succeeding I think that’s a very valuable thing. Cause that way you have the emotional support as well. So, that’s what was missing for me.

While Juan does not describe experiencing lowered expectations from his family, he was perhaps expected to succeed “with minimal accommodations” and to behave in normalized (sighted) ways. Sandra’s family provided no pressure to do things in sighted ways, but rather to do things in blind ways, saying “you’re blind, but you can wash a dish and vacuum the house. You can do everything a sighted person can, just without eyes.” As she describes later in the interview, this encouraged Sandra and built confidence for future engagement within the sighted world. Being blind was not discussed in Amanda’s family, even though her father was also blind. With significant emotion, she asked,

Why wasn’t it okay to just talk about [blindness] when I was little? And why couldn’t I just share it with everybody? . . . If it was accepted and not different then it would be easier because I wouldn’t have to worry if it would be different or unusual . . . my mom was always like brush your hair and tuck your shirt in and be okay to be accepted . . . you don’t want to be different or strange. So for sure that’s why it’s not okay to be different . . . she meant . . . don’t look crazy. But I do look crazy. One of my eyes goes one way and the other goes the other way . . . They didn’t realize how it impacted me day to day.

We identify this as a process of stigmatization because status loss (blindness is something to hide, and therefore a stain on one’s status) unfolded due to the actions of people in a position of power (her parents). The silence around blindness challenged Amanda’s engagement in activities that might have contributed to her becoming who she wanted to be and belonging in various spheres of life. For example, she described something she felt unable to do:

it’s really important to . . . be okay to share . . . If you’re in line with me and you are behind me and you see me struggling to read the menu, I might want to turn around and say “hey can you read number three to me because I am having a little trouble” . . . I want you to be okay with that and say “oh yeah, it’s a chicken sandwich” and then just move on with your day.

Throughout Amanda’s interview, it was clear that she was not “okay” to ask for help, perhaps related to the silence she faced around blindness while growing up.

Stigma as a positive catalyst

Interpersonal stigma shaped opportunities for participants, from managing health to socializing. Although interpersonal stigma has negative impacts, in some instances it may serve as a catalyst:

I went to college . . . [my parents’ friends] said “why are you wasting money on her to go to college? She’ll never finish college” . . . hearing people say that, I was like “oh no, I’m gonna do this just because you said I’m not gonna do this” . . . it really drove me when someone said “she can’t do that.” Like “yea I can.” It really pushed me to be more motivated.

Amanda seized the negative statements made toward her and used them to fuel her drive. Similarly, responding to her family’s admonishment against the festival performance because she was blind, Leela said,

There’s just something in me that fired ‘I’m going to do it’ . . . I did perform 3 months after my surgery . . . it almost gave a message to myself like yeah you can do anything if you put your mind to it . . . because of my tenacity . . . determination or stubbornness . . . I just did that no matter what anyone else said and that’s . . . a big part of coping that led me towards slowly being okay with where I’m at.

There were, however, only few examples of negative statements being transformed into positive fuel.

Interactions, often marred by stigmatization, influenced participants’ thoughts and beliefs regarding their own blindness and other blind people, sometimes contributing to internalized stigma.

Internalized stigma

All participants demonstrated the impacts of internalized stigma, speaking to ways society’s perceived attitudes toward blindness influenced their opportunities, willingness to expose their blindness, and their perceptions of blind people.

Revealing or hiding blindness

All participants discussed visible markers of blindness and the process of sometimes hiding their blindness. White canes and guide dogs are tools for navigating the world and are visible identifiers of blindness. Participants described being easily identified by their cane or dog – something they used strategically. Nora used her cane on the day of her interview for the researcher’s benefit, and promptly put it away. She used it “when I go out in the evening for more visibility crossing the street . . . or if I feel I’m going to be needing a bit more help I might take it as a vision aid.” When participants limited use of a cane, thereby avoiding blindness-related stereotyping, they may also have restricted their own opportunities to familiar places where they had established landmarks to safely navigate, as indicated by Juan: “the first time you go to an unfamiliar space you pretty much have to learn it with a cane.”

Leela noted resistance to using a cane when she first became legally blind: “I don’t want other people to see me use a cane because that was gonna damage . . . I have an image to protect . . . I didn’t want people to stereotype me.” Leela’s opportunities may have been limited by internalized stigma that made her feel that being perceived as blind would damage her image. It was only after a close call that Juan decided to get a guide dog:

I was just trying to cope with it on my own . . . one day . . . I was running for the train at [station] and what I thought was the door to get in to the train . . . was the space between two cars. So, I stepped down in to the space between two cars . . . I tripped the alarm . . . I could have been killed . . . That’s when I decided I need the dog . . . she will make sure that I don’t fall into a hole.

Using a cane or dog permitted participants to pursue opportunities, while also making their blindness visible. These signifiers of difference left participants feeling vulnerable to stereotyping. Notably, all participants spoke of using accessible cell phone apps without concern of stereotyping – likely because smartphones are mainstream, and their use did not call attention to blindness and make participants vulnerable to stigmatization.

Referring to blindness

Each participant had a preferred term for their blindness. Some used different terms when speaking about other blind people and located the cause for others’ disablement in the individuals themselves. Nora used the term visual impairment but identified as “visually independent.” Amanda, Leela, and Juan preferred visual impairment. Juan stated, “some labels have negative connotations . . . vision loss, blindness, it emphasizes what you’re not able to do . . . I just like the term impairment because it is something that can be overcome, it’s the challenge more than an obstacle.” Leela said,

I don’t care with either [term]. There’s a whole political correctness around visual impairment and vision impaired . . . in the beginning when I lost my vision I did not take to that being blind . . . this negative connotation attached to blindness like it’s a negative thing. So, there’s vision loss or sight impairment, it just seems a bit softer.

Bence and Sandra used the term blind. Sandra said, “I know it’s hard for some people . . . I say I’m blind . . . but maybe that’s just because I’m a little bit more out there about it.” Sandra implied that she perhaps has less internalized stigma about being blind, as she is not timid about saying she is blind. By contrast, Amanda experienced shame associated with blindness arising from disparaging statements made by her parents’ friends (discussed previously), which created internalized stigma. For Amanda, the impacts of these statements were twofold: although she felt a need to fight harder to be successful and prove people wrong, even in adulthood she chooses to hide her blindness.

When describing other blind people, some participants’ terminology changed. Juan spoke of “blind people,” placing the cause of limited engagement within the individual and discussing the dangers of providing financial supports:

Sometimes they don’t have the motivation to go further . . . [some blind people] are just happy receiving the government assistance and being ok with that when they could be making better use of their skills and their intelligence . . . I grew up being very driven and motivated to succeed . . . I was very motivated and then I found work . . . blind people that I know aren’t doing as much as they could, so I guess it all depends on how you were raised and how you, how much of a drive you have.

Leela noted experiences with people who “play the victim role.” It frustrated her since she continued to be positive and independent.

Stigma toward blindness; tendencies to locate the cause of disability in individuals rather than the social, institutional, and physical environments; and a dominant blind/sighted binary are pervasive in some participants’ statements. Stigma toward blind people was perpetuated through the internalization of stigma. This is, however, a nuanced experience. All participants exhibited some internalized stigma, and no participant displayed an identity entirely permeated by it.

Discussion

Analysis of participants’ stories extends knowledge about stigma theory by revealing how stigma about blindness operates at three distinct, interconnected levels to limit opportunities. Our results add to the literature describing how Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma plays out in everyday lives. We add a description of how stigma plays out in the lives of blind people through ocularcentrism and specifically how it limits their opportunities for participation in meaningful activities.

Sometimes power relationships between the stigmatized and those who enact stigma are obvious, but more often they go unnoticed because the “power differences are so taken for granted as to seem unproblematic” (Link & Phalen, 2001, p. 375). Stigmatization is dependent on access to power (Link & Phalen, 2001). Thus, those holding power are able to perpetuate stigma. Verifying Bolt (2013), our findings indicate that an ocularcentric world, that is, one designed for sightedness, disadvantages blind people, and creates a power imbalance between those who are enabled by a world designed around the visual and those who are disabled by it. This power relationship is enacted from the intricacies of language (see Bolt, 2005, 2013) to the pragmatic issue of access to social capital, such as employment (Arim, 2015; Benoit et al., 2013; Bulk et al., 2020; Jansenberger, 2007), and in media representations. Blindness is often represented in media as somehow incompatible with success and living a full life (e.g., are not able to do anything), or blind people are portrayed as particularly inspirational when they are living a full life (e.g., Stevie Wonder) – indicative of pervasive stereotyping (Augusto & McGraw, 1990; Shakespeare, 2013). Therefore, the stigma that hampers opportunities both enacts and reinforces power imbalances. If individuals are unable to obtain social capital, they will be less able to access power, and the cycle continues. Individuals who face stigma experience impaired opportunities, as described by participants. Nora, for instance, described difficulty obtaining employment due to stigma. It is, therefore, important to expose the power imbalances and resultant disadvantage bestowed upon blind people. This study adds to the literature accounts of how stigmatization of blind people and ocularcentrism play a role in the cycle of power imbalance. It therefore adds empirical examples to theories about stigma and ocularcentrism and to the overarching evidence for critical theory.

Microaggressions are “everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership” (Sue, 2010, p. 3). Corroborating previous literature, our participants experienced enacted stigma, often in the form of microaggressions, that limited their opportunities, for example, in the areas of finding employment, engaging in leisure activities, and using technology (Berger et al., 2013; Hewett et al., 2017; Jessup et al., 2017; Mccarthy et al., 2017; Molden, 2014). Findings about interpersonal stigma lend empirical evidence for Goffman’s (1963) work, which addressed how social interaction can disrepute individuals who deviate from norms, in this case blind people who deviate from sighted norms. As a result of encountering discreditable difference (e.g., blindness), the human mind automatically devalues someone who was once normal, degrading them to a discounted one (Goffman, 1963). In our findings, blind people became discounted ones through processes of stigmatization in microaggressions and in more overt actions. As a result, these discounted ones’ opportunities are restricted. Moreover, participants’ expressions of a desire to normalize, to make blindness normal, or to legitimize that they are still capable perhaps more-so than other blind people reflect their negative experiences of being discredited due to their deviation from the norm.

The beliefs and behaviors of participants indicate that experiences of stigma at societal and interpersonal levels interact in such a way that they may create internalized stigma. Some participants demonstrated resistance to the use of assistive devices that signify blindness to avoid being stigmatized in certain contexts, as was also evident in work by Jansenberger (2007). Trying to appear normal by avoiding signifiers of deviance “can be taken to dangerous lengths” (Southwell, 2012, p. 108), as was the case for Juan. While a cane is sometimes required for safely navigating physical environments and pursuing opportunities, its use may carry shame (Fourie, 2007). Internalized stigma becomes evident, for example, when an individual hesitates to use outward markers of blindness (e.g., white cane) due to fear of stigma. Consistently encountering stigma from others causes individuals to avoid drawing attention to themselves so they may “avoid another’s stigmatising gaze” (Molden, 2014, p. 145). Participants’ stories demonstrate that although using a visible marker of blindness may enable opportunities, this comes at a cost sometimes deemed too high: stigmatization. Thus, this study adds evidence to support Goffman’s theory around internalized stigma in action, specifically in the lives of blind people.

In addition to experiencing stigmatization, participants also stigmatized other blind people. For example, one participant who prefers the term visual impairment uses the “blind” to refer to people in a negative way – as if to say although I might fit this category technically, I am not as bad as those people (similar to Fourie, 2007). The need to legitimize one’s status can hamper engagement in meaningful activities (Easterbrook et al., 2015). The application of stigma to members of one’s own minority group is particularly problematic because it plays into a hegemonic system that reifies the inferiority of some (blind) and bolsters the power of others (sighted; Bulk et al., 2017; Easterbrook et al., 2015; Roberts, 2012).

Limitations and future directions

Although the sample size was limited, in-depth interviews and thorough collaborative data analysis that included one blind researcher facilitated good understanding of narratives. Although collaboration does not erase the impact of bias on the analysis of findings, by making their biases and assumptions explicit to one another throughout the process researchers attempted mitigate hidden impacts of biases. Future studies would benefit from greater sample sizes and inclusion of the expertise of more blind people throughout the research process. It would also be beneficial for future research to examine the perspectives of sighted individuals and policy makers, to gain a deeper understanding of the ways stigma is enacted and what contributes to stigmatization of blind people. Finally, it would be beneficial for future research to explore how blind people and allies are acting against stigma.

Conclusion

Rather than focusing only on individual experiences – rendering invisible the complex, disabling factors present in sociocultural, physical, and structural environments – this study examines ways in which stigma shapes opportunities for blind adults, with particular attention to common ways in which their individual narratives describe stigma that exists at individual, interpersonal, and societal levels. Professionals, scholars, and policy makers must consider how ocularcentrism exists in aspects of their practice. It is imperative to resist dominant narratives of disability as situated within the individual and to challenge societal factors that create and perpetuate inequities experienced by blind people.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Laura Yvonne Bulk

References

Arim

(2015). A profile of persons with disabilities among Canadians aged 15 years or older, 2012. Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2015001-eng.htm

Atkinson

T. P.

(2016). Effects of social issues on employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Clemson University. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b2d1/fa8b8889349c63646449ba3f7bd0365a44d0.pdf

Augusto

C. R.

McGraw

J. M.

(1990). Humanizing blindness through public education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 397–400.

Bambara

J. K.

Wadley

Owsley

Martin

R. C.

Porter

Dreer

L. E.

(2009). Family functioning and low vision: A systematic review. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(3), 137–149.

Benoit

Mikael

Jansenberger

Phillips

(2013). Disability stigmatization as a barrier to employment equity for legally-blind Canadians. Disability & Society, 28(7), 980–983. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.741518

Berger

McAteer

Schreier

Kaldenberg

(2013). Occupational therapy interventions to improve leisure and social participation for older adults with low vision: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(3), 303–311.

Bolt

(2005). From blindness to visual impairment: Terminological typology and the Social Model of Disability. Disability & Society, 20(5), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590500156246

Bolt

(2013). Community, controversy, and compromise: The terminology of visual impairment. In Crutchfield

Susan

Epstein

Marcey

(Eds). Corporealities: Discourses of disability: Metanarrative of blindness: A re-reading of twentieth-century anglophone writing (pp. 16–34). University of Michigan Press.

Bolt

(2014). An advertising aesthetic: Real beauty and visual impairment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 32(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619613512619

10.

Bulk

L. Y.

Easterbrook

Roberts

Groening

Murphy

Lee

. . . Jarus

(2017). “We are not anything alike”: Marginalization of health professionals with disabilities. Disability & Society, 32(5), 615–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1308247

11.

Bulk

L. Y.

Tikhonova

Gagnon

J. M.

Battalova

Mayer

Krupa

. . . Jarus

(2020). Disabled healthcare professionals’ diverse, embodied, and socially embedded experiences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 25, 111–129.

12.

CNIB Foundation. (2018). Survey shows blind people significantly underemployed around the world. News. https://cnib.ca/en/news/survey-shows-blind-people-significantly-underemployed-around-world?region=bc

13.

Clandinin

D. J.

Connelly

F. M.

(2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.

14.

Crudden

Sansing

Butler

(2005). Overcoming barriers to employment: Strategies of rehabilitation providers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99(6), 325–335.

15.

DiCicco-Bloom

Crabtree

B. F.

(2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

16.

Easterbrook

Bulk

L. Y.

Ghanouni

Lee

Opini

Roberts

. . . Jarus

(2015). The legitimization process of students with disabilities in Health and Human Service educational programs in Canada. Disability and Society, 30(10), 1505–1520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2015.1108183

17.

Farnall

Smith

K. A.

(1999). Reactions to people with disabilities: Personal contact versus viewing of specific media portrayals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909907600404

18.

Floersch

Longhofer

J. L.

Kranke

Townsend

(2010). Integrating thematic, grounded theory and narrative analysis: A case study of adolescent psychotropic treatment. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 9(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010362330

19.

Fourie

R. J.

(2007). A qualitative self-study of Retinitis Pigmentosa. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 25(3), 217–232.

20.

Goffman

(1963). Behavior in public place. The Free Press.

21.

Goffman

(1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster.

22.

Harada

Nishiwaki

Michikawa

Kikuchi

Iwasawa

Nakano

. . . Takebayashi

(2008). Gender difference in the relationships between vision and hearing impairments and negative well-being. Preventive Medicine, 47(4), 433–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.06.011

23.

Hewett

Douglas

McLinden

Keil

(2017). Developing an inclusive learning environment for students with visual impairment in higher education: Progressive mutual accommodation and learner experiences in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254971

24.

Jansenberger

(2007). Legally blind people’s experiences of stigma in the context of the labour market: Stories of adaptation and resistance. University of Victoria.

25.

Jessup

Bundy

A. C.

Broom

Hancock

(2017). The social experiences of high school students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 111(1), 5–19.

26.

Joseph

M.-A. M.

(2010). A phenomenological study exploring the educational, vocational and social experiences of college educated individuals who are visually impaired. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/746482801?pq-origsite=summon

27.

Kattari

S. K.

(2015). Examining ableism in higher education through social dominance theory and social learning theory. Innovations in Higher Education, 40, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9320-0

28.

Link

B. G.

Phalen

J. C.

(2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.

29.

MacKay

Roy

A. N.

(2002). Self-perception and locus of control in visually impaired college students with different types of vision loss. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(4), 254.

30.

Mccarthy

Shevlin

Mccarthy

Shevlin

(2017). Opportunities and challenges in secondary education for blind/vision-impaired people in the Republic of Ireland. Disability & Society, 32, 1007–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1337564

31.

McGrath

C. E.

Rudman

D. L.

(2013). Factors that influence the occupational engagement of older adults with low vision: A scoping review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(5), 234–241. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802213X13679275042762

32.

Michalko

(2010). What’s cool about blindness? Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(3/4). http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1296/1332

33.

Molden

(2014). A phenomenological investigation into the impact of parenthood: Giving a voice to mothers with visual impairment in the United Kingdom. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 32(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619613511616

34.

Morris

Wates

(2006). Supporting disabled parents and parents with additional support needs. Social Care Institute for Excellence.

35.

Mullen

E. A.

(1990). Decreased Braille literacy: A symptom of a system in need of reassessment. RE:View, 22(3), 164–169.

36.

Roberts

(2012). One oppression or many? Philosophy in the Contemporary World, 4(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.5840/pcw199741/26

37.

Rudman

D. L.

Durdle

(2009). Living with fear: The lived experience of community mobility among older adults with low vision. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 17(1), 106–122. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299842

38.

Shakespeare

(2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.

39.

Simson

Gold

Zuvela

(2005). Unequal playing field: Report on the needs of people who are blind or visually impaired living in Canada. https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/202913

40.

Southwell

(2012). The psycho-social challenge of adapting to visual impairment. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 30(2), 108–114.

41.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. Wiley. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=S3ItDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP7&dq=sue+microagressions,+marginality,+and+oppression+2010&ots=4dQuhZXewy&sig=cZsmSTvGHwbA32-GVs50NFr8vHc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=suemicroagressions%2Cmarginality%2Candoppression2010&f=false

42.

Verhaeghe

P.-P.

Van der Bracht

Van de Putte

(2016). Discrimination of tenants with a visual impairment on the housing market: Empirical evidence from correspondence tests. Disability and Health Journal, 9(2), 234–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.10.002