by Charles H. Crawford
Recently, I have been thinking quite a bit about the many discussions we all become involved in concerning whether there are serious differences between the ACB and the NFB. Often, the discussions end with a question: Why can't we just work together for the common good? While space does not allow for a comprehensive answer to these questions, I thought I might write down a few thoughts for folks to consider.
First we need to appreciate the reality that ACB and NFB are both consumer organizations that evolved from the original National Federation of the Blind. This is important because it means that we share a common set of roots. There are many similarities between the two organizations which should be acknowledged and honored because both of our groups exist to advance the best interests of our national blindness community through what we have come to call the organized blind movement. In this respect we are united as brothers and sisters in our common experience of blindness and our dedication to uphold the well-being of blind people through supporting important values such as our rights to economic opportunity, specialized services that address our unique needs, braille literacy, equal voting rights, non-discrimination protections and many other goals where both organizations believe our common purposes must be realized.
Just as Democrats and Republicans -- albeit both loyal Americans -- differ in many respects, both the ACB and the NFB have parted company in ways that are ideologically important to each organization. The fact that ACB has adopted a number of serious philosophical and operational differences from the Federation does not necessarily mean that we don't appreciate the sincerity or rights of loyal Federationists to hold fast to their belief system. Indeed, ACB by its own philosophical tenets is compelled to afford all blind people the absolute right to know about and choose whatever path they deem appropriate for themselves. Be this as it may, there are substantive and serious differences between ACB and NFB which define real choices for blind people interested in our movement.
We often hear that the ACB has not really articulated a philosophy of blindness in the same way that the Federation has. This is true to the extent that ACB philosophy is much more fluid and dynamic because it is under constant change. This fluidity results from the diversity of our membership , and our collective power to transform our previous thinking or make adjustments in strategic course.
Some of ACB's philosophical views are pretty basic, such as it is OK to be blind, and we as blind people have a right to access information through alternate formats. Other positions of ACB, such as our beliefs about detectable warnings, descriptive video, and accessible pedestrian signalization, are products of a clearer difference in the two organizational philosophies where ACB takes the approach that the built environment is as much obliged to facilitate its use by blind folks as it is for those who are sighted. Even beyond these considerations, ACB is constantly engaged in internal dialogue about many issues, and we view this as a strength of democracy rather than a sign of indecision. Let's take a closer look.
First and foremost there is the notion that the individual blind person best represents his or her understanding of his or her own blindness and is a valuable resource to the rest of us in gaining a common and more enlightened view. So rather than having an over-arching philosophical set of guidelines from which we distill positions, we construct our philosophy from what we hear from our members as individuals and ultimately as groups shaped by special interest or common ideas. This style of making policy does not often lend itself to quick or efficient organization-wide decision- making, but it does add real substance to the positions we take as credible extensions of what our membership wants and needs. Even after the smoke clears away from the discussions we often hold, there is always an opportunity for folks to introduce new points of view into a discussion or reinforce those decisions they may have already made in the past.
Flowing from the above is the positive pragmatism of ACB philosophy. A position taken in 1969, for example, may not survive scrutiny in the world of 2002. As the larger social system changes, there may well be a need for ACB to take different positions than we might have in the past. Likewise, technology or other dynamics of the modern world may make something possible that was never before thought to be practical. So the day-to-day experience of blindness in the contemporary world is a critical piece of ACB's philosophical orientation and a powerful element of why our positions are on balance, consistently relevant to the world in which we live.
Another dynamic of ACB philosophy is our distrust of authority. While we have made adjustments to allow for a national office to represent our interests and provide staff support to organizational goals, we have never allowed any individual or group of individuals to have so much control over organizational activities that they pose a threat to the supremacy of our membership. This is evidenced in our term limits for officers and board members, our transfer and separation of control over published information to an elected board of publications, our confederation of affiliates who are members by their choice while remaining in many ways independent of the national organization, and our constitutional limits on the possession of power by any person or group.
Our separation of powers is much like the notion of the primacy of the individual member. It is a safeguard against autocracy and monolithic thinking and, most important, a mechanism for diverse points of view to contribute to a final position that creates a mighty river of progress from the many streams which support it.
Yet another philosophical difference is in our view that consumerism is just that. We believe that providing an array of blindness-related services -- for a fee or through governmental grants -- creates a temptation to serve the organizational interests rather than those of consumers. Such a temptation is hard to resist or control. Even when done right, today's good service can still become tomorrow's nightmare when the provider cannot help but have to consider its own organizational interests or philosophically exclusionary rules, notwithstanding the fact that the provider may have started out as a consumer movement. Take, for example, the NFB rehabilitation centers. As correct as their point of view may be when applied to various situations, there is little or no room for other points of view that may well serve a broader range of consumers in a more productive fashion. Here questions concerning, for example, the viability of making folks wear sleep shades, discouraging guide dog users from using their dogs, and employing mobility instructors who may or may not be qualified in the view of the beholder, are just a few examples of where restrictive or unilateral philosophical business practices and consumerism may well clash. Moreover, if centers are to be funded by public money, then how can a consumer organization remain exclusively true to its beliefs when it must rely on those funds for the survival of its business enterprise?
What could such a business do when conflict arises? Here we confront the three-sided coin. It could ignore competing consumer points of view under a premise of holding onto its own philosophy, or dilute its own philosophical purity by offering services or approaches inconsistent with its own stated positions, or refer students to another facility where a different approach exists. The last option seems to be the most logical, but, in reality, it is the least likely to occur.
Moreover, an inherent conflict can arise from this very duality of purposes. For example, an ethical question surfaces when a consumer organization uses its advantageous position as an entity which claims to represent the views of consumers while simultaneously claiming to be the best option for providing rehabilitation services, to influence decisions so as to handicap other rehabilitation agencies who may be well qualified to provide effective rehabilitation services. Ethical questions are hard to ignore when one is confronted by a rehabilitation center that preaches the gospel of the consumer organization while simultaneously enhancing its own financial interests and perhaps recruiting new members to the organization.
The ACB solution to the above dilemma of on the one hand being a consumer organization wanting to advance its positions and on the other of being a provider supported by public dollars with a broader responsibility than it may care to operationalize, is to remain either a consumer organization or declare itself to be a provider and recuse itself from any advantage it would otherwise have as an organization of consumers. A bitter pill to swallow? Of course. In the end, consumers must have a full range of opportunities and knowledge about what kind of rehabilitation center they are considering without undue influence of any organized consumer group on them or the government relative to their ultimate choice.
Last in this series of considerations, there is another defining difference between ACB and NFB. It has to do with the organizations' expectations about the depth of each blind member's acceptance of organizational philosophy. ACB finds the assertion by the Federation that one must accept their philosophy not only intellectually, but emotionally as well, to be hazardous to the ultimate best interest of the individual consumer. This is because there is an intrinsic and potentially dangerous link between the emotional acceptance of a philosophy and the group from whence it came. Not only does potential disagreement with the philosophy create internal conflict for the individual which he or she may not be prepared to process, but such conflict can also remove the person from the source of the philosophy and his or her emotional dependence on the organization. In effect, there is an inherent control mechanism which, whether intentional or not, creates an unholy reliance upon the organization that can work to the detriment of individual growth outside the framework of organizational membership. This idea of emotional acceptance of a philosophy is a double-edged sword. While much is to be gained from such acceptance, as in the case of subscribing to the golden rule, there is the chronic danger in a situation where an organization evangelizes even a positive philosophy, making the organization itself more important than the philosophical ends it originally sought. This is a primary reason for ACB's distrust of authority and our constant search for perfecting the democratic experience.
Still there is the open question of why can't the two organizations work together? As a matter of necessity and historical record, we actually have done so in various situations. There are also many times when we have not. Drawing again on the analogy to Republicans and Democrats, neither organization is bound to endorse the platform of the other, yet both must accept the burden of acting responsibly when there is a clear need to address a commonly held position. Still there remains the problem of perception that the organizations are sometimes less helpful to the common good than we should be.
Intrinsic to this issue is the logical question of what defines the common good? The answer by inference gives rise to an expectation that there follows a mutual responsibility on the part of the two organizations to cooperate. It is therefore imperative that both organizations maintain a level of communication that allows for reaching mutual agreement on what is in the larger interest of the blindness community and how we both might work on those issues. Certainly there will be differences in how we desire to approach the issues which will also impact upon the extent to which we can work together. Let me give one example of this.
Both organizations agree that blind people need the freedom to move about the environment as much as any other person in our society. Yet the Federation takes the approach that sufficient training in mobility addresses the majority of circumstances involving safe personal travel, while ACB believes there are environmental reasons why this training in itself is insufficient to maintain safe travel for the broad range of blind people who wish to do so. So ACB has worked to get a better designed pedestrian environment, including detectable warnings, automated stop announcement systems, and accessible traffic signals, while the Federation has objected in many cases to this approach in favor of more and better mobility training. On balance, both approaches have their merits. ACB would agree that a solid foundation in travel skills is a good thing and can only help a person to move about. Yet exclusive reliance upon this strategy exposes blind folks to risks that are both numerous and deadly. Hence, even though we agree on the basic need, there is a difference in approach that does not allow for the simple notion of joint action to occur.
Even as the above is true, improved communications between the two organizations to avoid public disagreements when possible, to articulate our positions in a positive frame, and to actually engage in joint effort when that can be done is a goal well worth accomplishing. At least in this framework, the success of both approaches can be realized in the context of what ultimately makes the most sense, rather than the results of a sometimes political battle. ACB stands ready to engage in dialogue at any time toward these ends.
In conclusion to this all-too-short thought piece on ACB and NFB, we must at least acknowledge between the two organizations that we have much in common, we have many disagreements, and in the great majority of cases, one does not have to be wrong for the other to be right. It truly is a matter of choice for consumers to exercise. Our disagreements will often be heated but when the energy that fuels that heat is from a sincere and a good faith commitment to the advancement of blind people, then we have much more to celebrate than to worry about.
The American Council of the Blind will take the necessary actions to deal with issues such as are represented elsewhere in this issue of "The Braille Forum," but let there be no mistake that our actions are as protective of the Federation as they are of ourselves. Only through a mutual commitment to consumerism can each of us, the Federation and the Council, prosper separately and together.