A Letter to the Editor
by Cricket Bidleman
From the Editor: It is almost always a delight to see something in my inbox that resulted from a recent issue of the Braille Monitor. Although we never want to stir up needless controversy, the hope is always that readers will understand that we welcome their observations to what has been presented here. Whether you agree or disagree, your views are most welcome. I never thought that the seven little rules we published in the last issue would draw comment, but it has, and I am thankful for the reflection and then the effort to write that has gone into this article.
Cricket is a member of our communications staff and is in charge of the work we do on social media. Here is what she has to say about one of those seven rules, followed by some of what I wrote back to her:
Dear Gary,
In reading the Monitor this month, I found your article on the seven rules of life. It is quite interesting, and I am wondering how these “rules” apply to the disability advocacy movement? In particular, Rule 4 seems to not be as all-encompassing as the author may intend.
No one is in charge of your happiness, except you. This rule places the responsibility for one's happiness squarely on their own shoulders, advocating for a proactive approach to seeking joy and fulfillment instead of expecting it to come from external sources.
As blind people who are often subjected to a paternalistic society, our happiness does sometimes depend on others. If others do not believe in blind people and our potential to live fulfilling lives, we are not encouraged to pursue our dreams. In particular, I remember a doctor who tried to convince me that I should always live with my parents, attend community college and probably drop out, and forego even the thought of having children so as to avoid passing on the curse of blindness. (My blindness is not genetic to my knowledge, which the doctor was aware of.)
As you know, I went to a four-year university, and I no longer live with my parents due to our fundamental disagreements on the nature of independence and many other things. One thing that my parents did do—which I will always cherish—was to instill in me high expectations. While some of their expectations were highly unrealistic (I was supposed to be on the Supreme Court by now), they said that I should not settle for low expectations. They also introduced me to the National Federation of the Blind.
The Federation is full of mentors who encourage blind people of all ages to pursue our dreams and to define happiness for ourselves. As you know, we also recognize people like the doctor who I described above, who try to define our potential without understanding the lived experience of successful blind professionals. These beliefs are harmful, and yet their toxicity pervades so many blind people’s lives. As a result, so many of us do not reach our full potential, and we are not treated with dignity. You could argue that if one does not understand options beyond what others prescribe for them, then they have no choice but to be happy with that prescription. But even with that argument, those who do the prescribing are not presenting an accurate picture of what blind people can achieve and are thus responsible for the blind individual’s concept of happiness.
Additionally, while you could place the responsibility of pursuing happiness squarely on the individual, it may be unrealistic and perhaps even harmful to do so. So many of us are sheltered, discouraged from seeking out communities like the Federation. Someone new to blindness may not know that the Federation exists, or that they can still achieve their dreams. Oftentimes, it takes a Federationist reaching out to someone, having those conversations, and raising their expectations, to help someone start building that self-confidence. While it may not be our responsibility to do so, many Federationists proactively take on this role, and we further the cause of the blind people’s movement by helping one more person turn their dreams into reality.
In conclusion, after much rambling, I propose a qualifier to rule four. Others are responsible for helping someone understand their full potential, and thus what happiness can mean. After that, it is that person’s responsibility to pursue happiness.
Since writing this, I have been told that I am reading far too much into these rules. However, I believe that if this is to be a philosophy-of-life conversation, then reading deeply is warranted—especially when considering these rules in the context of blindness advocacy.
Respectfully,
Cricket Bidleman
From: Gary Wunder
Hello, Cricket. Your correspondence is a welcomed item in my inbox. I don’t want the Monitor to constantly stir up controversy, but sometimes I am so glad for any kind of reaction, be it supportive or push back.
I believe that your letter to the editor should be published. Obviously a lot of thought has gone into it, and you have articulated your thoughts very well. The fact that rule four makes a statement with which you take some exception should appear just as rule four has been allowed to appear.
Why would this be an article in a blindness publication? It’s a good point, and I find myself often thinking about this when it comes to whether controversial things really are worth running for the risk that they will divide rather than unite us. On the flipside, we are, first and foremost, people, people who happen to be blind. So the maxims proposed for telling us how to behave, what to think, and how to feel are probably as applicable or inapplicable for blind people as they are for anyone else.
I think that rule four, “No one is in charge of your happiness, except you.” has value, but like every other rule, it has limits, and there are circumstances that make it less valuable. Is blindness a nuisance or a tragedy? We have a strong view that it is a nuisance, but for some people it is a tragedy. What your doctor told you is just plain hogwash, but even his misguided message had an advantage for you. You learned a good bit about discernment, about realizing where a person’s expertise lies and where it does not. You don’t see doctors as Gods anymore, if you ever did. The doctor unintentionally gave you an insight into the world that you are using to help yourself and others—not just the anecdote, but a way of thinking that acknowledges that you are the most important person in the world when it comes to forming your own opinions. Sometimes the Federation makes the difference, and sometimes we fail. If you are looking at the extreme, which is that everybody is discriminating against me and therefore I am deprived of happiness, then your life truly is in the control of someone else, and that in itself is a tragedy. I have had my own life difficulties by taking too literally what Abraham Lincoln said, “Most people are as happy as they make up their minds to be.” Still, I would rather work with the mindset that I have control than with the mindset that I can only be as happy as others give me the opportunity to be. If I lived in a third-world country and/or one plagued by violence, I don’t think it would make sense to talk about a way to be happy.
I suggest that any of these seven rules is as vulnerable to criticism and noting where they may not apply as are other rules that many of us accept in the world. Many people would say that the Ten Commandments are sacred. Whether or not you believe that, many of them make sense. I believe in the prohibition “Thou shalt not kill.” Certainly, if I saw someone trying to do violence that might end your life, I would have little reservation about taking their life. If I caught you stealing from my refrigerator and realize that your family was starving, your family would mean more than the commandment. Although I believe in a day of rest for everyone, I expect an emergency room to be well-staffed when I suffer an injury on a weekend, and I am convinced that the surgeon who saves a life on a weekend has in fact won favor rather than condemnation with God.
Unless something stands in complete opposition to what I know and believe, I tend to read and listen with the idea that I will take what I like and leave the rest. In adopting this attitude, I have to close off the escape hatch and not start with the idea that I don’t like what someone is saying. To be fair, I have to hear them out, actively work at understanding what they are saying, and then make a decision about what I will incorporate as truth and what I will incorporate as their truth. Probably some dialogue will be involved in this if I’m really in a position to talk with the proponent.
I understand how someone can believe that you are putting too much energy into the analysis of this rule and taking it literally. To me, you are proving the value of choosing one’s life course by thinking rather than ideology. Living by an ideology or a philosophy is fine until you adhere to it so much that you are not willing to look at other points of view, not willing to acknowledge the experiences of others as real and valid, and absolutely certain that any good you enjoy is because of the good choices you have made, and any adversity they encounter is because of the bad choices they have made. As you noted in your objection to rule four, the world is not as simple as good choices and bad choices, and as much as we might wish it to be different, we don’t all have the same choices.
I love your focus on the fact that the choices blind people will have may well depend on what we in the Federation offer them. Dr. Jernigan pointed out that this is no game we play. Our action or inaction is as serious as what opportunities we and other blind people will have. What we are willing to contribute as blind people should and must be our choice, but there is no getting around the reality that how much we give, how hard we work, and the spirit we bring to what we do will shape the life opportunities we have both for ourselves and others.