Beyond the senses: perception, the environment, and vision impairment

The ‘sensory turn’ in anthropology has generated a significant literature on sensory perception and experience. Whilst much of this is critical the compartmentalization particular ‘senses’, there been limited exploration how anthropologists might examine beyond ‘the senses’. Based ethnographic fieldwork with people who have impaired vision walking South Downs landscape England, article develops such an approach. It suggests that experiences seeing blindness challenge conceptualization ‘vision’ (and ‘non-vision’). In place (as sense), explores ‘activities seeing’ – approach contextualizes visual to biographically constituted idiosyncratic nature within environment. Through ethnography anatomical eyes ‘seeing mind's eye’, it articulates avoids associating anatomy, or compartmentalizing experience into ‘senses’. Au-delà des sens : perception, environnement et déficience visuelle Résumé Le « virage sensoriel » de l'anthropologie est à l'origine d'une littérature considérable sur la l'expérience sensorielles. Si cette critique souvent le cloisonnement différents », manière dont les anthropologues pourraient examiner sensorielle au-delà reste peu explorée. Sur base étude ethnographique terrain auprès personnes atteintes parcourant pied paysage Downs, en Angleterre, cet développe une telle approche. Il suggère que expériences visuelles aveugles remettent cause conceptualisation (et non-vision »). À (en tant sens), l'article explore activités du voir approche qui contextualise visuel afin d'examiner biographiquement constituée idiosyncrasique au sein d'un environnement. travers ethnographie voir, qu'il s'agisse ce perçoivent yeux ou représentations l'esprit l'autrice propose évite d'associer l'anatomie compartimenter ». When I volunteered 2012 as sighted guide walk landscapes East Sussex, vision, was surprised vividly my companions described what they could ‘see’. Rachel11 All participants assigned pseudonyms. her ‘looked like’, narrating smoky-coloured patches gradations field like she reading map. Although identifying ‘partially sighted’ explaining see eye22 term ‘anatomical eye’ (singular) used Rachel one eye, whilst other eye physically present but artificial. Throughout article, refer eyes’ plural all than two eyes. also herself ‘blind’. Being ‘sighted’ ‘blind’ liminal interpersonally relational, altering throughout life course, changing nuanced textures light which immersed. qualities Rachel's perceptions were not consistent: world alive colour some moments, only ‘black’ immense absence others. By contrast, Karl himself ‘totally blind’, no explained he ‘see time’. This ‘phantom vision’ from sight had earlier his life, embodied way be intentionally imagined ‘triggered’ by environment around him: sensation nettle's sting, sounds woodland canopy swaying breeze overhead. proposes alternative current anthropological imaginings shifting conceptualizing approaching sense, examining activities seeing. necessary account for multiple ways ‘see’ without capture ambiguities paradoxes blindness. line reasoning points implications ‘sense’-based underpinned conceptualizations sensorial addressing means understandings and, through this, concept ‘senses’ more broadly. As Pink explained, become key theme contemporary (2010: 331). ‘sensorium’ continuum prior its segmentation primarily concerned distinctions sensorium (see Howes 1991; & Classen 2019 [1991]). Notions central historical framing body integral approached sensorium. developments senses anthropology, emphasis developing accounts ‘relationship between senses’ (Howes 2010: 334), their ‘interconnectedness’ (Pink 331) ‘interplay’ (Grasseni 2007a: 1). Anthropologists various terms discuss configurations relationships, including ‘multisensoriality’ 2009) ‘intersensoriality’ (Connor 2004; 2005). These potential avoid methodological privileging yet studying ‘sense’-orientated. Framing investigation notion categories study analysis can risk categorizing often ambiguous perceptual (Petty 2015). Irving suggested, ‘[A]nthropology glosses over individual differences generate orderly theories about disordered messy bodies’ (2009: 311-12). Further, describing characterizations hearing Western tradition, Ingold proposed ‘there are puzzles inconsistencies suggest these may reflect upon preconceptions analysts actual peoples among whom worked’ (2000: 252). Using analytic notions method (or missing) nuances obscure phenomena immediately associated experienced sensorially, inner dialogue, imagination (described ‘interiorities’ Hogan 2010; 2011; Rapport 2008). say redundant. Culturally orientated studies emic configurations, meanings, certainly development interest What problematizes assumption given capacities consistently useful presented require rethinking discussed here cannot clear way. broader sensory, located. assumed normative apparatus’ (i.e. ‘impaired’), enculturated. walkers shown resolutely idiosyncratic: temporally transcendent, potentially schemas; haemorrhaging ‘interior’ differentiated ‘exterior’ body, inconsistently distinct will therefore inclusively sensorially emplaced ‘sense’ particularly appropriate demonstrate necessity new Vision conceptualized distinguished problematic formation 1991). characterized dominating sense objectification (Ong 1982; Stoller 1989) distancing (Fabian 1983; Merleau-Ponty 1964; Willerslev 2007), leading counter-ocularcentric movement ‘non-visual’ 1991).33 reflective ongoing philosophical concern domination ‘think’ ‘know’ world, referred ‘ocularcentrism’ Jay 1993; reference landscape, Macpherson 2005; studies, Mitchell 2002: 172-6). Blindness antithesis ‘vision’. Elkins it, ‘[S]ight white black off: opposites, when working, present’ (1997: 202). proxy, touch (for discussion, [1991]), impairment focused latter (e.g. Golledge 1997; Kitchin, Blades Paterson 2006; 2007). Following critiques move reimagine discipline. Grasseni (2007a) ‘rehabilitation’ discipline, responding visualism problematized subject study. project ‘skilled visions’ demonstrated pluralities rather universality ‘vision’, proposing should reconsidered embodied, skilled, trained sense. Grasseni's edited volume Skilled visions: apprenticeship standards (2007b) demonstrates methodologies apprenticeship. introduction volume, argued ‘isolated’ ‘multisensory’ (2007a: 1-5), processes enskillment humans develop both situated practices improvisations 3-6). against ‘reduction 287). Historicizing distinction relation ‘to extent at all’ 268) introduced Drawing Hull's exceptional loss, lack 271-4). Yet premise stable, category problematic. Admittedly, discussion. An issue permeates engagements particular, clarity we think ‘it’. Distinctions ‘non-vision’ ‘blindness’ eclipsed presented. Most identify ‘vision-impaired’ fact see. Even capacity whose non-congenitally ‘impaired’ describe vision’. ‘Blindness’ ‘seeing’ mutually exclusive. ‘Blindness’, shown, seen. ‘Vision’ paradoxically ‘non-visual’. thus distinguish characterizable our almost exclusively 20/20 subsequent contributions ‘rehabilitate’ relied reified constitutes visual, visible: principally, apparent medium ‘normative’ subject. requires us consider ‘visionism’ produced scholarly accounts. ‘Visionism’, based inherent assumptions ‘sense’, usually rests normalized vision. Davis pointed lodged majority culture (2019: 63), too, reflected ophthalmology ‘through obsession properly’ 68, original emphasis). Case ‘vision impairment’ reconsider ‘visual’, spectrums visibility. case problematizing built pertinent widely. Drever, example, makes recognizing aural diversity ‘tacit preselected audiometric norm even pair golden ears’ underlying sound composition 85). cultural practice country English countryside long association thought (Hirsch 1995: 2; Porteous 1990: 4). Hirsch attributed ocularcentric legacy language, pointing word language technical painters late sixteenth century, origins Dutch ‘landschap’, suggesting ‘what came seen recognized because reminded viewer painted landscape’ (1995: 2). relationship seeing, painting initiated crystallized perspectival techniques viewing further commentary, Wylie 2007: 144; cf. Bunkše 2007; Cosgrove Daniels 1988; nineteenth-century Romanticist visitor sits views vantage points, exercising believed superior unimpeded haptic kinaesthetic sensations (Ingold 2004: 323). exploring night-time art installations Scottish subjects, Nina Morris suggested ‘in dark surrounding so fully restructured longer label embedded scene visible’ (2011: 316). reveals made visible. need rethink interpret draws amongst experience: specifically, revaluation organization sensoriality. presents Rachel, Karl, Elen, Thomas, enjoyed walks now less opportunity required guide. Walking one-to-one, pair, visited accessible via bus, settling regular visits park favoured rambling woodlands open downland. Together walked weathers seasons timespan six years; took 2014. A person-orientated methodology, aimed illuminate hidden geography single human being’ (Bunkše 219), attempt ‘people generalized manner kind grouping. examples vision.44 ‘Impaired general, ‘catch-all’ includes anyone identifies having (cf. Bolt standard education, services, advocacy use (Bolt 2005), participants’ preferred relational experiences. Thomas ‘impaired’, specifying ‘partial sight’. Elen identified distinguishing themselves ‘impaired ‘blindness’. choices terminologies political, practical former discussion focus ‘partial’ ‘congenitally impaired’ birth); focuses loss. grew up ‘congenital partial sight’, ‘fully lost overnight twenties due illness. biographical changes loss understanding described. phenomenological embodiment (following Csordas 1990; Desjarlais Throop 2000; Jackson 1996; 1997). Examining active attentive engagement, vision), perception. theoretical broadly applicable multiplicities experience, order illustrate application, contributing reimagining anthropology. outlined following paragraphs then sections. coin avoids: (a) inductive anatomy specific capacities; (b) methodologically analytically. out sensuous descriptions fundamental keeping ambiguities, paradoxes, richness research process methodologically, analytically, theoretically. prioritizes part avoiding abstraction, categorization, generalization disciplinary conventions demarcated issues characterization senses. captures ambiguity example difficulties ‘listening’ ‘feeling’ echolocators Petty 2015) eyes, article. enabled moves away customary habituations characteristic Bourdieu 1977; Mauss 1973) immediacy participant's intentional engagement emerges. forefronts moment, environment, well perceiver's habituations. context ethnography, consideration extended tools monocular. developed noting engaged spontaneity, investigation, improvisation, adaptation situation embodying established skills practised immediate task hand.55 Notably, very little recent non-urban environments. Urban environments designed ‘legible’ cane guide-dog users environmental design features drop kerbs concrete surfaces varied weathers. Established urban redundant green settings, where pathways ground indistinguishable features. Intentions ‘see’, incorporate many activities, shown. quality each attention context. Attention course during rehabituation Attending subtleties performing daily tasks ‘attending’, conscious involves actively ignoring ‘backgrounding’ ‘focus’. Sensorial emplacement any activity afforded by, to, conditions Gibson 1979) perceiver. Activities emplaced: pertaining time. ideas 2000), relevant with, of, capacities66 important clarify ‘capacities’ ‘full’ premise. critique, though scope attend sufficiently. ‘Capacities’ ‘abilities’, insinuate learned infer constant possession. Instead, works alongside able adapting persons, vary according contexts differing persons. person alter transform diverse ‘seeing’, capacities/experiences, consistently. Capacities idiosyncratic, mutable, constituted. rehabituation, before examined using Merleau-Ponty's (2005 [1962]) habitual actual) body. acknowledges platform something merely ‘out there’ perceived, David co-synthesis act ‘co-naissance’ (1999: 280). ‘What you see?’ question asked regularly everyday lives. reason try work blind are’. registered ‘blind’, self-identified sighted’, called ‘vision-impaired community’, Their hybrid status liminal, those them (including myself, sighted’), capacities, medicalized ‘conditions’, nystagmus’ nystagmus cataracts, artificial left eye’. They involuntary eye(s), sight.77 For general outline qualities, RNIB (2019a). offered see, inconsistent changed variations light, attention, proximity. Light ‘medium’ (Edensor 2013; 1979; ‘we do light’ (2005: 97). ‘sensitivity’ subject, medium, Nor ‘spark’ 2015: 97), cast narrated detail walked, diffusion, colour, ‘glare’, tones, consistency. along pathways, downland relatively consistent compared woodlands, harboured complex shade, different angles, diffuse ‘greeny’ tones. elemental alchemy: wind luminous flashes shady gloom stirred leaves hundreds constantly shadows onto pale chalky path. rapid dance intensely ‘distracting’ all-consuming. strike darkness, eclipsing another. Sudden, extreme amount caused ‘inability see’ standing, waiting adjust. common entering leaving woodland, density canopy. shadow shaping seen, ‘sight defined “an light”’ 2011: 319). independent altogether. There visibility, inside outside this. ‘Seeing’ contextual: ‘seen’ object discernible objects. inherently objectifying incurs visibility ‘objects’ varying degrees characteristics arise distinguished. did provide comprehension saw, colours shapes ‘light’ ‘dark’ coloured. To meaning, ‘look’ attending investigative purposeful 1997: 21-2). whole body: moving head, reaching hands, probing fingers, prodding toes Downey 227; 2000: 261; Lund 2005: 30). ‘My head always down, am glancing around. So, sight, feeling, step really dramatic, am! Hands touching’. looked at, attributes shape, emplaced. involved deciphering deducing looking interpreting ‘lightness’ ‘darkness’ considering ‘view’ expanse ‘blurred’ ‘indistinguishable’. monocular (Rachel) zooming camera (Thomas), ‘join up’ ‘chunks’ view landmarks, colours, thereby deduce at. illustrate, top hill, ‘a … probably woodland. But it's purely know is’. ther