From: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Carla Campbell)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: More Thoughts on Organizations of the Blind
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:11:08 GMT
Reply-To: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89.0 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23421

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

JM> The NFB is criticized for being "dogmatic" and its members are
JM> criticized for toeing the "party line."  Or, using the same
JM> examples that produce those two descriptions, on could call the
JM> NFB "organized" and its members "disciplined."  I prefer the JM> latter.

Ah, but which *is* it?  And why is being "disciplined" (as opposed to
self-disciplined) so much better than "toeing the party line?"  It is
not the semantics to which I object, but the concept which lies behind
both of those words.

 JM> their disagreements very public and have tried to bring
 JM> pressure from outside the organization to change policy.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that this sort of thing is not only
undemocratic, but unethical and inappropriate-- but I question that it
is *possible*.  Who could bring pressure on an organization which
answers only to its members?  What sort of pressure could be brought
upon those members to make them change their minds on an issue, other
than persuasion?  If they can be persuaded, by words alone,  to change
their minds, why is this bad?

I am uncertain that I, as an individual, would be able or willing to
keep silent about issues on which my opinions and the organization's
policies differed.  While I would certainly not try to bring outside
pressure to bear on the organization to change official policy, I would
equally resent their bringing pressure to bear on me to prevent me from
actively pursuing, (as an individual,) the matter which concerned me,
outside the auspices of the organization.  Much as if I were to join a
political party with which I had one or two exceptional disagreements, I
would not be able or willing to accept their dictating how I act on
those issues.  If they were issues on which I did not care deeply, it
might be otherwise.

For the sake of analogy, let us take abortion-- ought I to join a party
who actively promotes  a view on that matter which I do not hold?  If I
do join, because, otherwise, I enthusiastically support their platform?
What if I wanted to protest on that issue-- as an individual, without
drawing on the resources or the name of my party?  Would it be
inappropriate for me to do so if my views differed from my party's,
presuming I was a party member, not a candidate...?

 JM> topic imaginable.  But the debate stops at the meeting house
 JM> door.  If an organization is to have any clout, especially an
 JM> organization that represents such a numerical minority in
 JM> society, it must be able to speak with one voice.

I agree, again, wholeheartedly in the need for presenting a united front
and a smiling public face.  What I question is where the debate stops:
the meeting house door or the meeting house manager's office door?
Where is this "private" debate carried on and how are the members at
large included in it?
JM> You can tell a lot about a man by the friends--and
 JM> the enemies--he makes.

This is very true.
 JM> I hope you and others with open minds will consider what I've
 JM> said here. The organized blind movement would be stronger with
 JM> your input and your participation.  You won't always get your
 JM> way, but you'll be able to take pride in the positive things
 JM> that get accomplished.

As you say, I remain with an open mind.  I am not in the least averse to
joining an organization whose general philosophy and more than half of
whose specific policies are ones which I feel that I can support.
Joining an organization with which I often disagree (as in at least half
the time) would not seem a terribly productive use of my time (or of the
time of those who would have to listen to me and so obviously disagree
with me on some very basic level.)  Joining such an organization with a
view to changing it would also be distasteful to me, since its
membership obviously *likes it the way it is* and does not wish for
change.  So I am left spending my energy as an individual.  It is not,
perhaps, the most productive use of that energy, but it is the most
productive use I have yet found.  But I haven't stopped looking.

thanks, again, for your thoughtful response to my expressions of
curiosity.
                                                  --Carla

... Read what I mean, not what I write!

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!Carla.Campbell
Internet: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org