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 = disability? The cultural conundrum
I read an interesting article just now addressing this most difficult of issues, whether a Deaf person is disabled or not, and why, or why not.
It is an interesting issue because to the hearing world there is no doubt that a Deaf person is disabled - and in general they are happy to help from that paradigm. However, begin talking about culture and “rights” and “social barriers”, and often the defenses go up, and previously helpful people now want to argue the point.
Dianne, over on her blog Musings about Communication discusses how different Deaf people have discussed the issue, and identifies two groups in the discussion: internalizers [sic] and externalizers [sic].
Internalizers compare themselves to others and see themselves as lesser than others. They see what they can’t do, i.e. hear and talk and exert control by hearing and speaking. They see hearing people as people with the ability to decide how the world will work, including matters that affect Deaf people. When they have to do without, it is with the sense that the hearing society is at an advantage and they are only powerless, second-class citizens.
(In Social Psychology we called this an “external locus of control” - i.e. the world controls me.)
Externalizers see themselves as equal to others and limited only by others, not limited in themselves. They see themselves as responsible for whatever happens, and to find a way around obstacles. If a hearing person says “no”, they find another hearing person that will say “yes” and help them to achieve their goal. However, they will first try to achieve that goal on their own, because the direct route is quicker, but in a hearing-oriented world one often has to find an accommodation if available. When they have to do without, it is with a sense of personal failure.
(Or “internal locus of control” - i.e. I can influence my world, make choices and take the responsibility for self-determination.)
Interestingly she notes “both groups may see it useful to admit to a disability in order to obtain reasonable accommodations.” But I think that her quote from Rebecca Atkinson, British journalist and writer probably sums up the attitude of most Deaf.
“Granted, if everyone had the same impairment as me then I would not be disabled, because the world would be constructed exactly to my essential requirements. However, because I am in a minority, it’s not. And that is what renders me disabled.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/features/deafness_disability.shtml
Popularity: 11% [?]
Subscribe to my RSS feed and get the latest before I do ... well .. nearly :)
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% [?]
Why the big divide? Why many in the Deaf community react strongly against the CI
I vowed and declared I was not going to blog on the cochlear implant … at least not for the foreseeable future. But a dialogue that is occurring among Deaf bloggers, particularly those on DeafRead.com has resulted in an interesting comment that warrants further exploration.
Tony, over on All the Young Dudes wrote,
“You see, the fear and resistance to the cochlear implant, is because of what it represents, and not just because of misconceptions or the technology per se. I wish people would understand this point. There is a lot more substance to these fears that the Deaf community harbours, than deafies and hearies care to admit.“
This incredibly insightful comment illustrates an issue that has gone largely ignored by many on both sides of the debate. The resistance comes from fear, but it is not, as often thought (or at least, not only), fear of the unknown, or fear of having something surgically implanted under the skin, fear of deafness being cured, fear of the Deaf community disppearing, fear of the loss of sign language and culture, or any one of the myriad of comments heard.
It is a fear of something far greater. And yet it is based on a history of which few Deaf people, especially younger Deaf people are aware.
Most Deaf people can speak about the Milan conference where Deaf teachers were excluded from participating in the resolution that resulted in the abolition of sign language in educational settings. But it is not often that this situation is fully considered.
To fully understand the oppression that occurred in this act, let’s consider what emotions it evokes if we try to translate it to other situations.
What if, at a conference of teachers of Indigenous children, all Native American (or Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) teachers were excluded - locked out of the room - from a debate about the best methodology for educating Indigenous children? Can you imagine the media and community condemnation? And imagine the result was abolition of all teaching in indigenous languages and the teaching of all Indigenous culture because the Western teachers thought that was the best way for them to fit in with white society… even for children who lived exclusively within Indigenous communities and spoke no English.
It is hard to imagine that we would accept the banning of education in indigenous languages and culture, even if you are a person who does not see their value. It is impossible for me to imagine that Indigenous teachers would be shut OUT of the conference room while this issue was debated and voted upon. The Australian government just said “sorry” for actions like these!
Let’s make it something different… Imagine you are a teacher with a Buddist faith in a Buddist school. Imagine being shut out of a conference room while Christian teachers debated whether you should be allowed to teach the students in your school about Buddist beliefs!
Or a blind teacher who favours the use of braille for teaching literacy being shut out of a conference discussing the methodologies of teaching literacy to blind children and children with low vision when current educational philosophies are favouring enlarged printed English, and auditory and phonetical methods.
Is it even comprehendable?
Imagine the humiliation. Imagine the message that is implicitly communicated. “Yes, you have the same education as us, but because your eyes don’t work you are not able to discuss this issue objectively - you are biased.” Or worse… “your reasoning faculties are impaired”!
This is just one well known example that to me demonstrates where the suspicion might come from - there are many, many more, as a quick flip (if such a thing is possible!) through Paddy Ladd’s book on Deafhood demonstrates.
You may well say, “well, but, that would never happen now!” But it does. Daily. “I asked about sign language, but the doctor told me he would never learn to speak if I used sign language” - said a parent of a 4 year old just last year.
“He was threatening the police officer, so we had to put him in a strait jacket,” said the arresting officer (2006). “I was telling her I wanted to hang myself,” said the Deaf person. (Would we accept tape over a person’s mouth to stop them yelling?)
“He didn’t stop when we called at him to stop cycling without a helmet, so we restrained him,” (by two officers pulling their vehicle in front of the cyclist, and then tackling him to the ground).
“How can she drive??! She cannot live independently, she is too disabled!” said the psychologist of a Deaf woman of normal intelligence with cerebral palsy in her legs, and consequent limp.
All the above examples are true. All have happened within the last few years.
You see, when you live with constant oppression, constant incredulousness of your profession of ability, a certain amount of defensiveness is inevitable - as is a desire to live your life free of having others repeatedly saying “How can you say your life is as full and fulfilling as mine? How can you not see your deficiency” … a desire to remove yourself from those who would call your very identity “insufficient” and thrust in your face all the time the “opportunity” to (maybe .. if you are one of the lucky ones) become “sufficient”.
The cochlear implant is not a “cure” for all deafness, and it is still completely unpredictable. No doctor will risk telling you it is sure to work - even if it is implanted early (”gotta do it before it’s too late”). There is so much about language and speech learning that we simply don’t yet know.
It always has amazed me. Educators of hearing people constantly are drilled about presenting all material in visual mode as 55% of adults are primarily visual learners, and kinesthetic modes for those who need to “do”, and not rely solely on our traditional Western auditory mode of education. And yet I have never heard a proponent of “Auditory -Verbal education to the exclusion of all else” ever consider what might happen for those children who are not strong in auditory learning genes. And I have searched for quite some time, but have not found any research into this at all.
On a rational level, I am neither for nor against the cochlear implant - many of my friends use it, some implanted as children, others as adults. None of them speak as a hearing person, and those whose speech is relatively clear had clear speech before the implant. NONE of them hear without visual cues - again, those who can “hear” when lipreading could do that already before the implant. Those who could not communicate without sign language before the implant cannot communicate without it now. All of them love it and use it constantly. Most of them identify as Deaf, and use sign language as a preferred method of communication, particularly in groups.
On an emotional level I find myself filled with apprehension when thinking about the implantation of babies and children. I know it can sometimes result in an individual being perfectly at home in groups of hearing people, not missing information or relationships. I think it is the uncertainty of it all - and the hours and hours that must be invested in getting a child to practice speaking and hearing, when I feel that as a result they miss out on just simply learning, and being a child.
To return to Tony’s comment, I think the biggest fear I have with the implantation of children and babies is how it places the burden of being able to access the most normal things in life onto the Deaf individual. The unfairness of that expectation causes my hackles to rise. As Elizabeth Hastings, the former Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commisioner said, disability is a part of ordinary human community. Why, then, can’t we accept that it is ordinary? Why must we continually ask others to be that which we are not… “perfect”?
Popularity: 79% [?]
