[Nfbf-l] A great Article about NFB Philosophy from the Braille Monitor

[Marion Gwizdala]

Dear Fellow Florida Federationists and Friends,

 

We hear a lot of talk around NFB circles about our philosophy. I thought
this article would be something for everyone on our Florida lists to read as
we head into the home stretch of our Florida convention, since NFB
philosophy drives everything we do during convention. Posting this article
to the list, though, is not a substitute for reading the entire Braille
Monitor which is available in many forms and on many platforms. My platform
of choice is NFBR-Newsline!

 

Fraternally yours,

Marion Gwizdala

 

NFB Philosophy: What It Is and What It Is Not by Gary Wunder, Mark
Riccobono, and Marc Maurer From the Editor: In response to the article "Tax
Deductions for the Blind: Are They Something We Deserve, and Should We Fight
for Them? published in the January 2018 issue, I received a most interesting
question. Boiled down it is what is NFB Philosophy and are there things one
must and must not do to follow it. What prompted the question was the letter
that talked about a tax deduction for being blind and whether asking for
this wasn't as contradictory as asking to preboard an airplane. The writer
who inquired wanted to know if it is an article of faith in the NFB
philosophy that we will not preboard and wonders exactly what the NFB
philosophy is. My initial email to her said that I consider the NFB
philosophy less a set of commandments and more like the application of the
Golden Rule. My understanding of what we believe is that there is no list of
thou shall and thou shalt not's but instead a mindset that asks, "Is this
something I need based on blindness? If it is, I will take it and advocate
for it. If it is not, I will not borrow against the goodwill and public
support that people feel about blind people. Instead, I will try to educate
and will hope that I can bank some of those good intentions for things I
really need. Not content with my own understanding and thinking that the
thoughts of others might make an article worth publishing here, I wrote to
four people asking if they wished to try defining the NFB philosophy. Two of
them responded. It is no surprise that one of them was President Riccobono.
As one might expect, the other was Immediate Past President Maurer. Here is
what they said in response to my letter asking if they had thoughts to
share. Neither believes that he has written the definitive word on our
philosophy, and the door remains open for other thought-provoking articles
on the subject: From President Riccobono: Dear Gary, As you know from our
telephone conversation, I wrote an extensive reply to you which I lost to a
Microsoft gremlin. I have been eager to get back to this, so I took a few
minutes at the question yesterday. There is definitely more that can be said
on this topic, and I think there is at least one idea that did not come to
mind in my rewrite today. Exploring the question of what is the NFB
philosophy and what elements of it are articles of faith is a good idea. I
know that my friend Marc Maurer, who has taught me the nature and art of
philosophy over the years, will have ideas about this topic. Let me give you
the thinking of where my mind went since it strikes me that philosophy is
the art of thinking about thinking. The word philosophy comes from Latin and
from the Greek word philosophia "love of wisdom. Today it is often defined
as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and
existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. Philosophy
is about creating understanding (wisdom) and then turning that understanding
over to determine if it holds together. Sometimes it does not hold together
because it is inconsistent (logic), and sometimes it does not hold together
when tested in the real world. This summer I described philosophy as a
"pattern of thought," as that is how I have come to think about it,
especially in the art of attempting to contribute to it in the form of
banquet speeches. In contrast, an article of faith is a "firmly held belief.
One can take something as an article of faith without having any philosophy
of any type. In fact, I am certain we all know people who have firmly held
beliefs based on some experience and not truly because they have reasoned
through it systematically. I think I take certain things as articles of
faith because of my experience with NFB philosophy. One is the idea that we,
as blind people, are best suited to determine what is best for the blind.
This comes from NFB philosophy, but I think I consider it an article of
faith because I have observed it tested out in the world, and I know how it
works better than the alternatives-both in my own life and for us as a
movement. I think Dr. tenBroek held this belief, and he did so before we had
a shared philosophy. Maybe he held this belief because he thought critically
about blindness-which we now think of as NFB philosophy-or maybe he did
because Dr. Perry instilled it in him. This leads me to wonder where the
individual comes into NFB philosophy. The Federation provides a pattern of
thought, but it is up to us to think about it and apply it. I know that we
have an extensive body of literature about blindness. On our website we
define some of it as "philosophy. That page can be found at
https://nfb.org/literature-philosophy . This section incorporates by
reference all of the banquet speeches. Does that body of literature
constitute NFB philosophy? Most certainly there are pieces that are not
mentioned. My friend Bill Meeker wrote an article that appeared in the
Braille Monitor in December 1994 entitled "The Blind Table. This article
makes certain observations about where the blind get seated in restaurants.
I consider it part of understanding our NFB philosophy in as much as it is
an expression of how our pattern of thought teaches us to evaluate the world
around us. I doubt many people remember or even notice the ideas Bill shares
in that article, but I think it could be considered part of our pattern of
thought. This raises the idea for me that our NFB philosophy gains strength
as more people are learning about it and testing it. Many times people
simplify the critical thinking that the NFB philosophy challenges us to do
by boiling it down into bite-sized rules. "Federationists never take
preferential treatment because it is against our philosophy," is one
example. Another is "Real Federationists use rigid canes because they are
proud to be blind. The rules always cause trouble because they demonstrate
more black and white than the NFB philosophy offers. When I was a student at
the Colorado Center for the Blind, I found use of the rigid cane helped me
focus on the skills I needed to learn, while enforcing the pattern of
thought that I could direct my own movements and manage my own affairs. When
I choose to use a telescoping cane today-I have both types in the corner of
my office-I know it comes with the disadvantage that it might collapse. If I
am running out of the office to meet a business associate who is picking me
up to go to lunch, I will likely grab my telescoping cane as I am not sure
what type of car they might have or what the arrangements will be at the
restaurant. I have no trouble dealing with a straight cane, but I can make a
choice. NFB philosophy tells me I should make the choice that makes sense
for my independence and blending in. Other Federation members might make a
different choice for a different reason, and it will be completely
consistent with our philosophy. In other words, I think the pattern of
thought often gets confused with the actions we take. In any philosophy,
humans always struggle with the gaps between the idea and the action we
take. Our philosophy urges us to continue examining ourselves just as many
religious philosophies invite people to regularly ground themselves in being
God-like-an extremely high standard by any measure. Your email asks whether
avoiding preboarding is an article of faith in the NFB philosophy. This is
an interesting question. For me, NFB philosophy guides me to consider
whether there are any artificial barriers in the boarding process that
require me to be treated differently-I say no. NFB philosophy asks me to
consider whether it is necessary for me to stand out as needing special
treatment by preboarding-I again find myself saying no. NFB philosophy does
not tell me what to do but leads me to a place that informs my decision.
Recently I had the A1 boarding position on a Southwest flight. The only
people that got on the plane before me were preboarders. Since I was at the
front of the A line and very visible to the boarding attendant, he wanted me
to preboard. Functionally there should have been no difference to him
whether I preboarded or not as I was effectively boarding ahead of everyone
else. He insisted that I preboard even after I told him "no thank you. I
wondered if having the back and forth with him was helpful. Once I
successfully convinced him to drop it, a nearby passenger remarked to me
that the gentlemen really did not trust that I knew my own capacity. I
choose to board with the rest of the group because NFB philosophy generally
leads my mind to a place where I think it is the best for me and for other
blind people. It was not until I had the experience of being the first
regular boarder on the plane that I truly realized how powerful that
perception line is to others. If the idea of boarding with everyone else was
not a firmly held belief before, it is now. Having said that, I think the
NFB philosophy challenges me to consider preboarding and if there truly is a
reason that I need it. I sometimes take this option when I have to walk out
onto a noisy tarmac. The only times I do not are when I am with someone or
when I have gotten to know someone in the boarding area that I feel
comfortable asking to walk near me. I find it more consistent with NFB
philosophy to ask to preboard or walk with someone than to boldly walk out
into the noise and hope that someone grabs me and steers me in the right
direction or yells loudly enough that I can hear them. I do not ask the
person next to me unless we have already been engaged in conversation,
because I think it might reinforce whatever misconceptions they already
carry. That level of complexity in thinking has come with years of living
the NFB philosophy every day. When I was a college student on my way to my
first national convention, I would not have had that level of sophistication
in my thinking. On my way back from my first national convention, I probably
knew that many Federation members did not choose to preboard, but I did not
understand why. When the airline put me in a room with twelve-year-old
children, I began to understand it better. The pattern of thought is
important, but the actual practice of it helps to make it real. The two
build on each other. This developmental process is much of what Dr. Jernigan
discusses in "The Nature of Independence. This is also why our training
centers are powerful and effective. They do not simply teach the skills, but
they reinforce the pattern of thought, and they teach blind people how to
evaluate the thought process. The NFB philosophy also gets a bad reputation
when individuals project it onto others. I think the NFB philosophy
encourages me to share it with others, and I very badly want other blind
people to know the freedom I know I get from this pattern of thought.
Leaders of the Federation-this is definitely reflected in "The Nature of
Independence"-challenge us to raise our expectations but also to be careful
about how we challenge others to raise theirs. We all know of blind people
who have pushed potential members of the Federation away because we
presented NFB philosophy as a "thou shalt or you are not fit" sort of
environment. I do not think that is inherent in NFB philosophy, but rather a
problem with humans making a pattern of thought actionable. I think this is
also the conflict that comes up related to our philosophy and use of a guide
dog. We all know people who talk about the dog as the thinking entity. Yet
our philosophy tells us that no matter the tool, the blind person should
maintain the locus of control. Thus, the best handlers of guide dogs, in my
opinion, are those who understand that the dog follows the person's
directions even if the dog is doing the physical leading. We know that this
becomes controversial since some blind people understand this to be that NFB
philosophy devalues dogs. In my mind, the NFB philosophy establishes a
pattern of thought that gives you guidance on how to use the tools
effectively. The NFB philosophy is a pattern of thought that encourages us
to explore the boundaries of what is possible. The NFB philosophy is the
belief that we are the ones best suited to decide what works for us. The NFB
philosophy is a living way of thinking and acting upon the world as blind
people, and it evolves as more of us come to practice the patterns. If there
are any articles of faith, they probably consist of blind people know what
is best for blind people, blindness is not the characteristic that
exclusively defines us, and we should strive every day to raise expectations
for ourselves. Then again, we once took it as somewhat an article of faith
that blind people could do anything except for drive and fly an airplane.
Then we shattered the idea that driving was on the list. This might suggest
that the only article of faith is the faith that we have in one another to
continue testing the limits of our own future. I am eager to hear what
others have to share on this topic. There you have President Riccobono's
thoughts on the subject. Here is what Dr. Maurer said in response to a
similar request of him and the suggestion by President Riccobono that he
might want to chime in: Dear Gary: Thanks for your email asking, "What is
NFB philosophy? I gather that this is the important piece of what you have
written. I know that you are capable of answering the question, "Does NFB
philosophy prohibit preboarding an airline? The answer is that of course it
does not. I have preboarded them myself, and I have boarded with everybody
else. The important part of NFB philosophy is that I should decide when to
do which. Some of my friends have attempted to synthesize NFB philosophy in
a list of principles. I remember reading one of these once and being asked
by its author if any items had been omitted. I was busy at the time.
Consequently, I only thought about the question very briefly. However, one
item which had been omitted was that blind people working together can and
should run an organization that synthesizes thought about blindness and
assists in creating the kind of culture that welcomes blind people. I added
this thought to the list, but I felt unsatisfied. The philosophy of the NFB
says that blind people have value and that we should act in such a way that
we enhance that value and bring sighted people to recognize it. It also says
that blind people can lead independent, joyous lives. It recommends that we
behave in such a way that we increase the possibility that this is the
experience of the blind. NFB philosophy says that in every meaningful way
blind people are equal to sighted people. The implications of these
statements suggest that blind people should be trained to pursue their own
lives in ways that they find beneficial. It also urges that blind people
take advantage of the training. It does not require blind people to take any
certain training as an article of faith. Hazel tenBroek was the wife of our
founding President, Dr. Jacobus tenBroek. She told me one time that the
method for blind people to follow in ordering a steak in a restaurant in the
1940s and the 1950s was that those ordering the meat would routinely request
that it be cut into bite-sized pieces in the kitchen before being served. At
one point in my Federation experience I encountered a heated debate among
Federation members about whether it was proper to have somebody else cut
your meat for you. My own opinion is that if a blind person wants it done
and can get it accomplished with a minimum of inconvenience, it is quite
proper. I was recently on a dinner cruise boat. Part of the festivity
involved being served a lobster. I asked the waiter to manage getting the
flesh from the claws and the tail for me. I was not alone. My sighted
buddies were doing exactly the same thing. Neither they nor I felt
diminished by the request. It was also evident that the waiter was quite
familiar with the process. He must have done it hundreds if not thousands of
times for diners on the boat. How I live my life is my business. I reject
being ordered to perform certain actions or be certain places because of my
blindness. I also reject such orders for other nonimportant reasons. This is
part of my NFB philosophy. If I am told to keep my hands out of a place
because the electricity in it could shock or kill me, this seems sensible.
If I am told to keep my hands out of a place because it is not suitable for
blind people, this seems idiotic to me. How these principles are applied in
life is a matter of judgment. I insist on my right to use my own judgment.
This also is part of my NFB philosophy. When I suggest that blind people
learn Braille, I do so because I think it's beneficial. When I suggest that
blind people use long white canes, I do so because it's beneficial. I have
tried using a dog, but I've never given it enough time to evaluate it
properly. I don't have a strong opinion about the benefits of using dogs.
However, I have a very strong opinion about the right of those who want to
use them to be protected in this choice. Many of my colleagues have told me
that using a dog is liberating for them. I want them to have the liberation,
and I trust their judgment. Trusting the judgment and experience of other
blind people who know enough to give me effective information is also a part
of my NFB philosophy. On the subject of the exemption in the tax code for
the blind, it can be argued either way. As the world is built for the
sighted (at least a lot of it), there are costs involved in managing as a
blind person. It is possible that the tax code should recognize these and
compensate. However, it is also possible to argue that although there are
some costs for the blind that the sighted do not have to meet, the
difference is not so great that it should be printed in every tax form in
the land. I do not remember this argument being pursued on the convention
floor. It has been discussed extensively off the convention floor from time
to time, and the arguments are fierce. If the debate comes to the
convention, I shall be interested in how it develops. The NFB philosophy is
quite clearly not a fixed set of principles that can never be modified. In
one sense the National Federation of the Blind is the same today as it was
in 1940 when it came into being. The idea at the time was that programs and
policies about blindness must incorporate the view of blind people and that
the Federation was the appropriate organization to represent the blind. Such
remains as valid now as it was then. However, how we interpret and carry
into effect the philosophy that is ours has changed. There was a time in the
Federation during which a fierce argument occurred about whether
modifications to programs, buildings, and activities of living should not be
made on behalf of the blind. This principle remains largely one in which we
believe. However, with the digitization of virtually all methods of
communication, access to information for the blind becomes as practical as
it is for the sighted. We now believe that it is our right to have access to
all information put into digital form. Although this is not a change in our
fundamental beliefs, it does represent a change in emphasis. At one time we
thought and we said that print was not inherently available to us. The way
to get at it was recorded matter, Braille, or a reader. Today we believe
that we should have methods of getting such information that are not
separate and distinct from the way sighted people get it. We have spent the
last twenty years working to incorporate this thought into the minds of the
developers of technology. We have not yet been universally successful, but
our equality of access to information is greater today than it once was.
Undoubtedly there will be other changes in the emphasis that we give to the
implementation of NFB philosophy. The fundamental element of our philosophy
that will not change is that we in convention assembled will decide what we
want our policies to be. .