Think back for a moment and consider if you’ve heard either of these phrases for a moment:
“When the Blind lead the Blind, both fall into a ditch.”
“In the land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king”.
Likely that exercise wasn’t too difficult, if you’re anything like me, you’ve heard these phrases an innumerbale number of times in your life. And because you’ve heard them so many times, you’ve come to accept them as fact, likely without ever really considering the situations they describe.
Think for a moment about “the blind leading the blind.” The chance of two blind people actually falling into a ditch while walking together is very slim. The sight of the ditch is not the only cue of its location, and if these individuals have grown up blind, they likely have a variety of other compensatory mechanisms which would allow them to locate the ditch and not fall into it.
Now imagine a sighted person leading a blind indivdual around a ditch. Now the chance of the blind person falling in is actually significantly raised. While the two blind individuals were able to offer meaningful cues to each other to avoid the ditch, the sighted person is less aware of the exact needs of the blind individual, and would not be as effectively capable at guiding them away from the ditch.
Think now about “The Land of the Blind”. Would a one-eyed man really be king there? Almost definitely not, and for several reasons. For one, the “Land of the Blind” is likely suited to be used by blind individuals. It is not as if there are signs that only the one-eyed man will be able to read, because if everyone in this land was always blind, no one would have created the sign. Additionally, if this was the first sighted person born in a land of blind people, the sight would likely offer no assistance, because he would not be taught to make use of the skill. If no one else could ever see before, how could he naturally be able to use his sight to his advantage? He’ll also be far easier to distract; while his classmates can focus on their lessons, his eyes will be darting around watching birds fly by the window and the sun play tricks on the ground, all distractions his classmates are not privy to. He’ll likely be an underperformer, rather than a powerful king.
The explanation is that both are metaphors, and can’t be examined literally. But what is the metaphor suggesting? It is putting forth the notion that in all situations, it is better to have someone who is non-disabled or less-disabled in charge, as they will naturally be more capable of handling the situation than those with the disability. It refutes the notion that there are times when a disability could ever be an advantage, and teaches us, from a young age, to reject the disabled and find attempts to make them more like the non-disabled, which will in-turn empower and strengthen them. And that is a dangerous road to travel down, particularly when the evidence points away from it.




