Blind vs. Masked

[sasha_feather]

I first started using "Masked" instead of "Blind" when I worked on a scientific study where some blind people were participants. Blind is both a medical term and an identity category, and therefore it means a lot of things already; "masked" is more respectful and we used it in place of "double blind study" for example. This was before I got into disability politics, maybe around 2005.

Then I met jesse_the_k who convinced me to stop using "blind" as a metaphor entirely.

Here is some background reading:
Kestrell: What Good writers Still Get Wrong about Blind People
Kate Nepveu, panel writeup: I'm not your metaphor: Explaining Oppression with Analogies
Jesse the K: I'm not Colorblind, I'm Totally Blind!

Jesse says: "Blindness doesn't endow one with greater spiritual insight nor better hearing than sighted people..."

This is key. The whole idea of a "blind" study is that it makes a scientist less biased. But it's the built in ignorance of the drug or intervention being used that makes the scientist less biased. It's a way to build safety into a study. It has nothing do with sight in particular: it has to do with knowledge, and sequestering knowledge. In the case of reviewing, it's the ignorance of who the author is, etc.

The stereotype of blindness, of blind people, being perpetuated here is that they are purer, less biased, more forgiving of flaws, better judges of data and of character. They can't be, you know, just people. Once again, disabled people aren't given the benefit of being full human beings, of having full moral character.

"Masked" is preferable because it is a separate term that evokes temporarily putting on and taking off of a mask, for the purpose of doing a study or review. A mask could cover up your identity, make you seem like someone else, or no one at all: it gives the idea of being anonymous. For reviewing in particular, this metaphor works very well: what if the manuscript was submitted by Anonymous? A person in a mask. It's not that the reviewer is "blind"--a stereotype of someone pure and unbiased, it's that the submitter is wearing a mask.

Your thoughts here are welcome.

This post brought to you by recent SF/F calls for "blind reviews" (blech).

Comments

[trinity_clare]

I had not at all made a connection between "blind study" (and "blind audition," which I deal with more often) and the connotation of, as you say, "...purer, less biased, more forgiving of flaws, better judges of data and of character." I'm gonna have to think about that one some more.

[sasha_feather]

It's certainly a great idea to put a person behind a screen for an audition, or to remove identifiers, etc. But I'm arguing that a better metaphor here is that the auditioner (it that the right word?) is masked, or the process is a masked process, and not that the judge is "blinded."

Thanks for reading and thinking about it!

[trinity_clare]

Yes yes yes, sorry, should have added an "I agree" to the top of my comment. I think "masked" is a perfectly acceptable and preferable word to substitute, and when I have cause to use it I will certainly do so.

(Don't even get me started on the "blind audition" gimmick on The Voice -- the judges' chairs are faced away from the singer, and then if they like the performance they turn around so they can be ~shocked~ that this amazing voice is coming from a tiny 16yo girl or a fat guy or a not-100%-Hollywood-beautiful lady or whatever. Ugh.)

[dorothean]

Thank you very much for this post, I am adding it to my memories for when I will undoubtedly want to refer to it in the future...

[sasha_feather]

Thanks for commenting!

[shehasathree]

Awesome post, thanks!!

[sasha_feather]

Thank you for reading!

[lilacsigil]

Awesome post, thank you! I had been thinking of "double blind" in the sense of the researchers not seeing what's going on, but of course that doesn't involve any actual blindness at all. Thank you for providing such a thoughtful and thorough exploration of the topic.

[sasha_feather]

Thank you for reading and commenting!

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith]

From a linguistic perspective,
I am reminded of Newspeak
redefining words to exclude
former meanings. This does not
thrill me. Taking away options
generally does not thrill me,
but I am particularly unfond of
it when it narrows things down
so that all that's left is a
disability. I don't find that
to be an improvement.

I'm more concerned about
discouraging language that is
deliberately aimed to attack.

Re: Hmm...

[raanve]

Proposing an alternative is in no way "taking away" linguistic options. Particularly when the proposed use is one that arguably offers deeper interpretive meaning. (See, "A mask could cover up your identity, make you seem like someone else, or no one at all..") To me, using "blind" in this way is a bit lazy - in these usages all it tells me is "can't see," not why or to what purpose, which obfuscates things when what we're discussing are, for example, scientific studies and/or editorial submission processes.

I'm more concerned about discouraging language that is deliberately aimed to attack.

Are these things mutually exclusive? I believe we can both find more inventive language and discourage use of pejoratives, etc.

Re: Hmm...

[sasha_feather]

I'm not sure what "Newspeak" is.

I am going to quote s.e. smith here, in What we talk about when we talk about language".

"People often accuse people like me of being “language police.” I’ve been informed that addressing exclusionary language is limiting, too restrictive, etc. That’s not actually the case. Being aware of my own language use has, in fact, enriched my use of the English language, because it has forced me to actually think about what I am saying and how I say it."

Furthermore, "blind" is sometimes used as a deliberate attack, as in "how can you be so blind?!"

And that insult has the same roots as the above usage: it assumes willful ignorance = blindness. Which of course makes no sense.

Re: Hmm...

[sasha_feather]

So I figured out that "Newspeak" is from 1984, which gave me better insight into your quite legitimate concerns. If I understand correctly, in 1984 the government is trying to control people in part through language.

The reason I don't think that activist critiques such as this are Newspeak:

*Activists are the government, and at least for me, I'm encouraging people to think for themselves and decide which words to use based upon my argument, rather than any proscriptivist usage. I want people to use the words that most accurately and respectfully convey the situation at hand.
*I think that language already shapes reality via shaping our thoughts. I'm encouraging people to simply become more aware of this process. I'm for transparency, not secrecy.

[soc_puppet]

This post brought to you by recent SF/F calls for "blind reviews" (blech)

Damn shame they went that direction, because The Masked Reviewer would be an awesome pseudo-superhero. Also a great advertising strategy.

[sasha_feather]

Yes indeed! Maybe some graphic art is called for here!

[metanewsmods]

Hi, would it be okay to link this at metanews?

[sasha_feather]

Absolutely!

[fred_mouse]

Argh, challenging! With my reviewer/reader/judge hat on, 'masked' doesn't cause me any issues at all. But with my researcher hat, I find the possibility of changing terminology to be *very* challenging. Not just as an idea of changing the way that science is talked about (and I'm fighting an uphill battle in my little corner with women is not less than people/human), but because to me, the term 'blinding' has more to do with blindfolds, and preventing people from implementing their biases, rather than an assumption that the biases aren't there.

I'm not going to write any more about it at the moment - I recognise that I'm having a reflex type reaction that You Can't DO That. But I might come back and continue later, if I can get myself past that reaction, and write about my thoughts on how those kinds of changes in terminology might be made.

[fred_mouse]

Back from a day of wrangling results into research-speak, and the back of my brain has been happily chugging away on this topic, and offering me tidbits as it goes.

Where I started: this is the terminology, and journals will require it, why try and fail?

Which I recognise as wrong thinking easily in other people, and poorly in myself. And I have to remember that it is better to do something and be shoved back than to have not made the attempt.

And then I tried to work out how to used 'masked' in referring to participants and researchers, and failed. Which brought me to the question of does it make sense to say that the experimental conditions were masked from the participants and researchers [in the way that is then described] ?

I have no idea how long it is going to be until it is relevant (at present, only one of the studies that I am involved in really has much masking. And I'm not sure whether it will be mentioned in the paper). Nor whether I will remember when I get there. But I will make an attempt. Thank you for discussing it .

[sasha_feather]

Thank you for reading and thinking about this! Changing one's language is challenging and I recommend doing it a little at a time.

Journals will accept this terminology: they already do. Searching PubMed for "masked study" in quotes brings up 520 results.

Searching for "masked review" in Google scholar brings up 345 results. This is already accepted terminology that I did not come up with myself! :)

[sasha_feather]

Here is an example that serves as a good style guide, and is a free article at JAMA:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187758
"Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?"
Justice, et al. 1998.

(Note the year!)