From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: call for discussion -- h*lp!
Hi, Christine!
How far should one carry the nonjudgmental, accepting approach?  Frankly,
I don't know.  I can't speak for any of them, of course, but I think Barry
Neal Kaufman and the others at the Option Institute would suggest that we
try going all the way with it.  (Other folks might, too.) I'd like to
believe them, particularly since people who take this approach sometimes
seem to get in greater quantity and quality the results that most of us
think we often can get only by implementing our outrage in some way.  I'm
sure no role model, though, and many times I gruble that probably our
evolution hasn't yet made it possible for us to carry the approach to its
logical conclusion.
One thing that might diffuse somewhat your anger and frustration is the
notion that people do the best they can to take care of themselves
according to their beliefs.  A variant of it is that these parents of
blind children generally believe that doing their best to take care of
themselves includes doing their best to take care of their children.
There membership in POPC supports this idea, I think, though it doesn't
prove it.  I know I have an easier time dealing with NFB members who seem
to be living and promoting the very opposite of our collective philosophy
when I regard them as, like me, trying to do the right thing, rather than
primarily as enemies whose eradication from the planet would create some
welcome breathing space.  This certainly does not mean that I won't try to
persuade them to think and behave differently when I think the time is
right.  It may mean at least that I'll be respectful of them in the
effort, that I'll regard them as people I can learn from, not primarily as
folks in need of my--or our--enlightenment.  I have a much easier time
dealing with what I take to be wrong blindness attitudes of misguided
sighted helpers--or even discriminators--than of blind people I think do
or should know better.  Maybe some day that won't matter to me.
I infer from your basic question and the other excellent questions that
follow it that you're afraid too much acceptance will make one passive in
the presence of real, pressing problems.  The Option folks say repeatedly
that, in their experience, this is not what happens.  They assert, in
fact, that people who become happier (including becoming nonjudgmental and
accepting) actually become more effective in making the changes they want
in their corners of the world.  (I think I have accurately paraphrased
them.) My own minimal experience in this sort of thing tends to bear this
out, though I have no real idea how far I can go with it.  When I at least
reduce my annoyance at the unwanted helper who grabs me on the street, I'm
much better than at other times at letting him or her know why I don't
want that kind of intrusion without getting the person mad, defensive, or
alienated.  In my discussions with people who have very different views
from mine about free rides on trains and buses or tactile warning strips
along subway platform edges, I find that these are most productive when
I'm genuinely respectful of and attentive to the other person or persons
in the conversation, and less productive when I feel like I have to prove
the fool wrong.  I've believed some of this about keeping the judgments to
a minimum for a long time, but the Option folks have brought it much more
into focus.  However little or much of their perspective I adopt, I'm
grateful for this.
Maybe it would be worth talking with parents one on one.  You could try to
make it safe--and, indeed, desirable--for them to discuss honestly their
basic beliefs about blindness and parenting with you.  Maybe it would be
worth putting your own beliefs and experiences a little in the background
for at least some part of the discussion, not because there's anything
wrong with them, but to make it easier to consider with respect the things
they tell you.  Maybe, over time (if you have it), they could hear more
and more of what you believe:  if they no longer see you as a threat, they
may decide they need not themselves be threatening.  Maybe it wouldn't
happen that way at all, but I know I'm more willing to listen to somebody
if I don't think I'm being pressured.  (I'm not saying that you're
deliberately pressuring people, but that even the normal ways of
presenting "the right way" to think or behave often feel like
disrespectful pressure, rightly or not.) Maybe the long-term result of
such interchanges would be the discovery that the Federation philosophy is
wrong in part or in whole.  I doubt that, but if it really is true, we
should try to find it out as soon as possible.
I do understand your anger and frustration.  I also understand your doubts
about being a leader, though I suspect you're a good one.  I've had
similar frustration, anger, and doubts, and I have more doubts about than
tentative belief in my own ability to lead.  I want to become happier, and
I want to do better at promoting the welfare of blind people in its truest
sense, which to me means fully equality of rights and responsibilities in
our society and the world.  (I suppose it could mean something else some
day.) The Option Institute (WWW.OPTION.ORG) has lately been an important
part of this effort for my wife and me, but time will tell whether it
remains so.  I hope that some of my thoughts may be useful to you.
Well, thanks for your attention to this long commentary.  Take care!
Al
P.S.  I note again that I make no claim to being a role model of the
approach I've proposed.  I'm still searching for a more Option-style way
to express--say--strong disagreement with a resolution or policy, or
strong opinions about how to make our outfit more democratic.  I guess I
just have to keep working at it.
---
---------------