Recently while catching up on posts, I came across a thread stating that it was a fact that listening to an audiobook counts as reading.

Jonathan Mosen

Recently while catching up on posts, I came across a thread stating that it was a fact that listening to an audiobook counts as reading. The post was couched in a highly dogmatic way which suggested there wasn’t much room for debate, so I chose not to contribute.
However, having taken a day to think about it, I’m concerned about leaving this view unchallenged because I genuinely believe that it is potentially harmful to the education, and therefore the economic prospects, of young blind people.
The first point I want to make is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying a great audiobook. A good narrator can make a book come to life. I don’t believe an audiobook is inferior. Although I don’t listen to many audiobooks anymore just as a matter of choice, I do opt for an audiobook when someone is reading their own autobiography. That’s because rather than read the book, I would rather listen to someone reading their own book to me.
But when I choose to listen to an audiobook, I am no more reading the book than my grandchild is reading it when I read a book to her. She is being entertained, in some cases she is gaining valuable knowledge, but she is not reading it, she is being read to. There is benefit in this. It could be enhancing her aural language skills.
You may be thinking that this is all pointless semantics. But the reason I’m raising it is that the “audiobooks are reading” argument has been used to deprive blind kids of true literacy. To me, true literacy is the ability to write something down and read it back. Braille is the only viable means of true literacy a blind person has. For all the good that technology has done, when talking computers came on the scene and audiobooks became more abundant, some teachers and more than a few public policy practitioner decided that these developments meant that we didn’t need to teach blind kids to read anymore. It was a means of short-changing blind kids, of not allocating the necessary funding and resources to give them a good start in life. It was disgraceful. No parent of a sighted child would tolerate being told that their kid didn’t need to read because they could just listen to audio instead.
The result was that many people who had so much to offer the world were deprived of the right to read. It is often these professionals and policy makers who want blind people to believe that listening is the same as reading.
These kids who missed out on the opportunity to read became adults with fewer employment prospects. We know that the unemployment rate of Braille readers is far closer to the unemployment rate of the population as a whole, compared with those blind people who haven’t had the opportunity to read Braille. And in a sad irony, these kids, some of whom grew up to be parents, were not given the tools to read bedtime stories to their kids when they eventually became parents. Putting on an audiobook for a child is nothing like the personal bonding that comes from a parent reading a story to a child.
Some of those kids who missed out on literacy took the brave step of learning Braille as an adult, but they know they will find it difficult to achieve the same speed they would have if they had learned Braille as a child. It is a tragedy.
While there has been a recovery, this sort of story is not yet completely in the past. It is still happening to some kids today.
Enjoy those audiobooks. I certainly do. But let’s also ensure that every blind child has the right to read by not playing into the narrative that listening to a book read by someone else is the same as reading one yourself.

James Scholes

@JonathanMosen Thank you for sharing your perspective. As the author of the post I assume is being referenced, I'd like to provide some context:

Recently, I've encountered several elitist viewpoints on this subject, using phrases like quote "the proper way" unquote to consume literature. I strongly disagree with any implication that there are right and wrong ways to educate and entertain oneself through books.

However, I acknowledge that my post could have made its scope clearer, and you're not the only one to mention how this view is weaponized in educational settings. Regardless of the reasons, making counterproductive and lazy decisions on behalf of disabled students is unacceptable.

I hold certain educators and educational systems responsible for the fact that blind and low-vision students too often leave school with subpar literacy levels. While they may justify their approaches with certain rhetoric, it's their actions and agendas that are at fault—whether rooted in ignorance, misguided attempts to compensate for lack of funding, or other reasons. However, the rhetoric itself shouldn't be automatically blamed for how people choose to interpret and misuse it.

As for the differences in brain activity between different consumption methods, some studies suggest that in adults, listening and reading by sight or touch aren't as different as commonly thought. I notice you've received responses stating the opposite, but I don't have the expertise to state one position over another.

Semantics aside, I think we can agree that consuming material that educates and uplifts is more important than ever, regardless of how people choose to do so.

Jonathan Mosen

@jscholes Thanks James. I’m not particularly interested in which part of the brain certain activities trigger, it’s irrelevant to the point I was making which was all about how we as blind people are set up to maximise our participation in society. True literacy increases our chances of having a good life, and I appreciate you acknowledging the harm these professionals are doing by depriving blind kids of the skills that are a fundamental human right.

Robert Kingett backup

As a person that went fully blind in my late twenties, I can read raised print and I know many Braille users that can't read raise print, at all. I had a situation where I had to read for other blind people that did not know raised print. In a situation where I had to aid others in reading signs on a wall because they did not know raised print, in your definition anyway, I was truly literate. The fact I can read raised print faster than I can read Braille makes me literate, but to your post, because I don't know contracted Braille, or even uncontracted Braille well enough for speed reading or fluent reading out loud, for that matter, I am still illiterate even though I can, in some cases but not all, spell better than a few Braille readers I know. It is not internalized ableism if I choose to learn my preferred way, which is via audio means. I can still spell, check grammar, correct other Braille user's grammar, edit books, write, and improve spelling. In fact, I read books in raised print format on one day, uncontracted Braille on another day, and audio for the rest of the days. Two things can be true at the same time. Blind people need to learn Braille, and there are other ways to read other than Braille. Sighted people should never take Braille away from us. At the same time, blind people should also never contribute to ableism by insinuating there is a right and wrong way to do things. I think James is getting closer to the crux of the issue than you are at the moment. Also, there are different kinds of readers. Dyslexic people don't contribute to this wave of ableism capriciousness. The bigger issue is Braille access and blindness autonomy and you can advocate for Braille without buying into ableist thoughts yourself. @JonathanMosen @jscholes