Subscribe with Feedburner
Subscribe in a reader- Subscribe to Inside DeafHub
by Email -
Recently Written
- Deaf = disability? The cultural conundrum
- Deaf Identity & Deaf Community - Robert Adam
- Move over strobe alarms … its the smell-alarm!
- Why the big divide? Why many in the Deaf community react strongly against the CI
- Hearing aids “more often than not insufficient”
- Up to 85% of Indigenous kids in NT experience hearing loss
- The Beauty and Beast that is the Internet
-
Categories
-
Archives
-
Blogroll
Deaf Identity & Deaf Community - Robert Adam
I had the privilege of attending a workshop last night run by Robert Adam (former president of Australian Association of the Deaf (AAD), now known as Deaf Australia).
Robert is now in London reading for his PhD in Linguistics, but is back in Australia for a few weeks, and decided to hold a workshop discussing the topic “Deaf Identity - where have Deaf Australians come from, and where are we going?”, described as “A discussion of our past, our present and our future, and our relationship with other groups in the community.”
He was expecting maybe 15 people, and instead around 200 Deaf, CODA, Auslan learners, student and qualified interpreters, and Support workers for the Deaf turned out! So the workshop turned more into a lecture with occasional comments from the audience.
Robert raised a number of interesting points, and has obviously been heavily influenced by Paddy Ladd’s book Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood
He spoke about the decline of the Deaf Club, and how younger Deaf are tending to meet in pubs, and how that impacts the transference of language, culture, values and historical knowledge.
He mentioned the rise in the occurrence of Sign Language Interpreters who have not been raised in the Deaf community but, as a result of growing awareness and acceptance of sign languages, and consequential increase of tertiary study opportunities, see sign language interpreting as a professional vocation to be pursued but perhaps are less aware of how their hearing cultural background may impact the Deaf community. He highlighted in particular the case of mainstreamed Deaf students who require interpreters (and often only get teacher aids who may have no professional accreditation as an interpreter), whose only language model is that interpreter, and how the sign language they learn from the interpreter may differ from the Deaf community at large. And he wondered if perhaps these interpreter were now more “their” interpreters (i.e. interpreters of the hearing community, coming out of the hearing community) more than “our” interpreters (interpreters of the Deaf community, coming out of the Deaf community).
He also introduced the concept of colonisation of language, a phenomenon that occurs when non-native sign language users (such as the above mentioned interpreters/teacher aids), who are not raised in the Deaf community and may miss subtleties of inference in signs, are the primary language models for an entire generation of Deaf children educated in isolation in mainstream schools.
On a more positive note, he mentioned how at the recent Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association (ASLIA) Conference, 35 of the interpreters in attendance were Deaf interpreters (sometimes called relay interpreters) - Deaf people who can interpret from spoken language or high level sign language (such as medical or legal terminology) into sign language that is more accessible to Deaf people who are unfamiliar with such language. And Robert wondered if there might one day be a Deaf interpreter as president of ASLIA :).
Of course the age-old comments of the impact of technology such as the internet, networking sites like Facebook and communication tools such as MSN Messenger, Oovoo, Skype and email, and although they help us keep in contact with each other through the week, have probably contributed to the decline of physical meet-ups of Deaf people. But then also raising the question, have they in fact strengthened Deaf community in that we are able to be in contact with each other constantly?
It was a fascinating night, and was really intended to be a kick-start to intentional discussion in the community about the way the environment is changing, and how the Deaf community can positively use, respond and influence the changes to maintain community and continue the transfer of heritage down the generations.
I hope that we hear more about it - that Deaf people become actively involved in Intentional Community Building planning and doing; that the Deaf community remains true to the essential values of storytelling, visual communication, drama, and other aspects of the Signing Cultures, in the same way as Oral Cultures such as Indigenous Australians are now doing.
Popularity: 32% [?]
Subscribe to my RSS feed and get the latest before I do ... well .. nearly :)
Up to 85% of Indigenous kids in NT experience hearing loss
This story about “Nearly all Indigenous kids in NT have hearing problems” at the ABC caught my eye today…
In Australia, the rate of permanent hearing loss is around 20%, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. But in Aboriginal communities particularly, and for all Aboriginal peoples in Australia generally the rate is much higher. “The prevalence of ear/hearing problems, including total/partial hearing loss and otitis media (middle ear infection), was three times higher among Indigenous than non-Indigenous children.” (ABS “Health of Children in Australia: A Snapshot, 2004-05″)
Many factors contribute to poor health outcomes. In biological terms, the greatest risk factor for the early onset and persistence of otitis media is infection in the upper part of the throat behind the nose by multiple bacterial species and subtypes.
In Aboriginal communities with overcrowded households, infants are frequently exposed to siblings whose carry almost 100% of the major otitis media-causing bacteria.
In non-Aboriginal children, the body usually deals with pathogens of a low-dose infection, which, in turn, controls inflammation and limits tissue damage.
In contrast, early exposure of very young Aboriginal infants to large or frequent exposures to so many different bacteria provides constant stimulation of the immune system to inflamme the passageways, which damages the tissue but doesn’t destroy the bacteria. This begins a vicious cycle that may persist throughout childhood: early exposure, persistent bacterial infection, and chronic ear nose and throat disease. And in turn, such infants themselves become chronic carriers of the bacteria and go on to infect other, younger infants. This cycle is made worse by overcrowded and poor living conditions, lack of appropriate washing facilities, and limited access to appropriate healthcare services.
It is also made worse by the misunderstanding of western ways. It was a common occurrence in 2000 at least, for the Aboriginal children to swim in the sewage pond when the creek dried up. Had the government not intervened in the community there would not have a sewage pond… however, neither would there have been houses.
The problem is that hearing loss has very widespread impact. The “Bringing them Home” report into the Stolen Generations of Aboriginals stated,
Hearing loss is endemic in Indigenous children and linked to poverty. The incidence varies between areas, but an estimated minimum of 20% of Indigenous pupils in urban areas are affected by marked hearing loss resulting from otitis media. `Problems with hearing are one of the major causes of low performance in language skills among Aboriginal children and can also be related to behavioural issues’ (Groome and Hamilton 1995 page 25). Numerous reports, including those of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, have drawn attention to the connections between hearing loss, behavioural problems and intervention by juvenile justice or welfare agencies (National Report 1991 Volume 2 pages 364-8, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs 1994 pages 325-31).
What is even worse is, as the Aboriginal Law Bulletin states,
Those affected by hearing loss are themselves often not aware of their disability, usually ascribing their communicative difficulties to not speaking English properly, cultural differences or others’ antagonism to them personally or Aborigines generally.
How horrendous is that?
And yet, it would seem that hearing loss may have been endemic in the Aboriginal peoples for some time. In an examination of the languages of Indigenous Australians, “it appears that Aboriginal languages are rich in sounds whose differentiation exploits precisely that area of hearing ability which is most likely to remain intact in sufferers of chronic middle ear infection…[that is] that the phonetics and phonology of a language have been shaped by the hearing status of the speakers” (Andrew Butcher, Flinders University: pdf document)
To rephrase - Indigenous Australian languages mostly use sounds in the hearing range that people who have otitis media can still hear - much, much moreso than any other group of languages in the world.
So we have a group of people who are particularly susceptible to ear, nose and throat infections, living in environments that make cross contamination almost inevitable, with little or no access to surgical intervention, amplification, speech therapy, or special education, being educated in Western style schools where “education is heavily dependent upon verbal language” (Massie, et al., 2004).
Before colonisation and Western interference, traditional indigenous learning happened outside (where is there is no sound echo), in one to one conversations (face-to-face, side by side), in the student’s first language (often accompanied by indigenous sign languages).
‘These communication difficulties have been a major contributor to the development of serious social and psychological problems.’ (Howard, 1993)
You think?
Popularity: 61% [?]
