Had an interesting email conversation a few days ago with and thought I’d put the gist of it here…
jcortese: I can get behind the idea that you can’t treat all deaf kids/adults the same way, because there isn’t the same level of hearing in all of them. Like you said, HAs work great for you, even being 90dB down. Some people are 70dB or so and HAs don’t work for them. CIs work for some people, cued English works for some people, etc. etc. etc. I mean, I’ve said it before, too — you use any means you can to get the information into the kid’s head. If they need to see the fundamental theorem of calculus written, fine. If they need to see it signed, fine. You do whatever works.
But I’m starting to back off from the consequences of that, because I think it’s become too easy to use that to justify the current mad patchwork of communication for deaf kids. And the only reason that this patchwork exists is because people for some reason are terrified of their kids learning ASL. It’s over and above just them not wanting to invest the effort for whatever reason, whether they don’t have the time, can’t learn languages easily, or don’t feel like it. It’s like once your kids signs, you are forced to confront the reality that they are DEAFDEAFDEAF and you will never have a hearing child. These kids are DIFFERENT. They will look different, people will see them on the street and instantly know that they are DEAFDEAFDEAF. It’s a fear thing, I think.
This is where I think Harlan Lane’s book “Mask of Benevolence” comes into play. Part of his theory is that the whole process is still a colonization or control of the deaf . So in the same fashion as, say, American Indian children were punished for using their native language at school, deaf children are punished for using their native (uncontrolled, etc) language, and forced to use a signed equivalent to English (because you still can’t get around the fact that the children still can’t hear English).
jcortese: And while “do what works” is good advice in general, I think if it’s applied incorrectly, it can be used to justify dancing around “teach the kid ASL.” I mean, think about it. Why have such a patchwork? ASL is the ONLY communication strategy that we know is 100% successful. Every single person can learn it. HEARING people can learn and use it. Deafblind people can learn and use it. Deaf people can learn and use it. If your hands work, you can sign. Alone among all the zillions of “techniques” and “codes,” it is totally 100% lead-pipe guaranteed to work, no matter the level of hearing your kid has — or you have.
So we HAVE a strategy that is totally guaranteed to work in every single case. Why is it not used?
Because it means your kid is DEAF. No, he won’t wake up one day hearing. No, he won’t be equivalent to a hearing kid, he’ll never be unaware of the fact that he’s deaf, other kids will know that he’s deaf, there will always be a difference. This is damned scary. It’s fear. It’s just pure fear. This whole ridiculous patchwork of techniques is ALL there to avoid ASL, every single bit of it. And I’ve been guilty of seeing it that way as well, saying “do whatever works,” as if it’s just like randomly throwing techniques for language acquisition at these kids until one goes through by chance. Why rely on chance — there is already one technique that is a complete shoe-in. ASL.
beg65: I think you’ve touched on another current, especially one for the parents as opposed to a more nebulous “society” or “educators” set. And this fear is what lets society/educators control how deaf children are taught. And of course if we’re busy making kids over into little hearing look alikes, you have to give them things that are modelled on English, not on some foreign language. The crazy thing is that there are so many of them (I think that makes it obvious that they just don’t work, but instead of admitting the problem, they just come up with something else to distract from the failure of the last one).
Banjo touched on this issue of so many different codes in his most recent vlog, ASL & English: A Hybrid Lifestyle. The problem with all these codes is that kids will probably come across all of them while going through school. Imagine having to stop and learn some new means of communication every now and then, cause you’re at a new school or have a new teacher or started a new grade. No wonder deaf kids tend to graduate with lower grade levels…they’ve had to dance backwards and in high heels.
jcortese: Yes, I’ve been trying to say this (far less efficiently) on an entry on Mishka Zena’s blog. Up to a point, making room for a dozen communication strategies inherently does damage. To some extent, all that matters is just picking one and sticking with it — and ASL is the natural choice since it’s the only real language among all of them.
And the only reason they’re all being used and pushed and promoted is because people view ASL as the misery tool of last resort; when you’ve come back up from the bottom of the bottle of tequila and have admitted to yourself that there is NO HOPE ZOMG, when everything else has failed and you’re at the bottom of the pool of dejection … you’re stuck with the ugly stepsister because everyone else has already gotten dates to the ball … you resign yourself to the scrap heap and use ASL.
And ASL has this reputation despite the fact that ASL is the only method that’s 100% successful. o_O
BEG65: One other thing to keep in consideration (and this is a general issue with any kind of school subject taught in a foreign language) is the availability of teachers with ASL skills. This is where I start going quietly berserk over the fact that there are so few deaf teaching deaf. I would have LOVED to have had a deaf teacher! Growing up, I knew no adult deaf, at all, ever. I thought I would grow out of being deaf, like braces or something. I think that’s practically criminal. We need to get more deaf people in teaching these kids, full stop.
jcortese: Cueing, SimCom, SEE, PSE … these are all tools that are useful for teaching English. Nothing else, really. But because people seize on them out of fear of ASL, they become the only thing the kid knows and we end up with the current crazy-quilt of languages and methods. “Do what works” should be “do what works to teach the kid English.” And you know what? This is no different for hearing kids; some learn math one way, some learn it better another way. ”Do what works” should not mean “grasp at straws madly and throw everything you’ve got at the kid to avoid having them learn ASL because that would mean they’re DEAFDEAFDEAF and we can’t admit that.”
beg65: I think the notion is more that “they’re no longer under our control if they’re using ASL. “ There seems to be this fear that “they will go off and be by themselves” and “not function in the real world.” Well guess what, we ALWAYS have to function in the real world every damned day. We can only hope to carve out some space that isn’t a constant adaption to a world that doesn’t let us in, for all that it won’t let us get away. Even I feel like this and I’m someone who can fool hearing people for a while. And I’m sick of not being able to follow conversations, and of the 99 thousand strategies I have for making sure I haven’t missed something or whatever. I hate it. I don’t think people get what a grind it is to chase after the meaning of every single word, forever. Anyway, I wonder at this reluctance to have kids learn ASL. “But English is so important!” Um, yes. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY. Honestly. We do. Anyway…
jcortese: Cueing, SEE, or PSE might work to get ENGLISH into the kid’s head, but if you’re using them to get the fundamental theorem of calculus into the kid’s head or find out what they want on their burger during the backyard barbecue, they’re being misused.
But then you almost need the power of a despot to say, “We’re standardizing on one thing, and THIS THING OVER HERE is it.” Otherwise, you end up opening it all up to so damned much bickering. I admire smaller more unified countries sometimes, where they don’t have this tradition of every bickering nincompoop having a say, where they can say “We’re going to do this,” and people just go, “Okay.” Of course that has its disadvantages, too …
beg65: Heh. I will reiterate, though, this is where I think the best thing to do is to get more deaf people into education. A deaf child should expect to see at least half his or her teachers be deaf, and preferably from all kinds of backgrounds (different hearing levels, with or without CI, with or without HA and so on). We need deaf people in administrative positions at schools as well, not just the Gallaudet presidency, but for deaf schools across the nation.
The crazy thing is that there are so many of them (I think that makes it obvious that they just don’t work, but instead of admitting the problem, they just come up with something else to distract from the failure of the last one).
Well, I’ve said a few times that if you are a crackpot with a theory that has a few die-hards behind it but no evidence, you can either write books about UFOs or go into deaf education …
We need deaf people in administrative positions at schools as well, not just the Gallaudet presidency, but for deaf schools across the nation.
It’s boggling to me that before Milan, this was the normal state of affairs. *sigh* The 20th century really was a big step backwards for this, while being such a huge step forward for lots of other populations.
… And of course if we’re busy making kids over into little hearing look alikes …
The creepy thing is that these kids won’t be hearing lookalikes. They’re be failed hearing lookalikes. Requiring that these kids be hearing lookalikes is setting them up to fail, because they can’t be that. They can function in a hearing society, I have no doubt; I function as well as I can in a heterosexist, male-dominated society as a queer woman, but it’s still no effing picnic. (Besides, until they build that rocket ship to the Dyke Planet, what choice do I have?)
But they can’t BE hearing, from inside their skin. And if being hearing is all that’s set before them as a role they can play, they can’t help but fall short, which will damage their view of themselves and the view their parents and teachers have of them. And then we move into the next topic, what Mishka pointed out recently in a comment reply to me — the pathologically low expectations that teachers have of deaf kids.
Which goes right back to me saying deaf should be teaching deaf. ‘Cause I’d look at that kid and say yeah, you can do your homework, don’t you be trying to fool me any.
There seems to be this fear that “they will go off and be by themselves” and “not function in the real world.”
AAGH, I can’t believe I haven’t ranted about this one before. I remember going to a local pride festival once. It’s soCal, so the thumpers aren’t out in force, and the cops are not only on the side of the partygoers, but often walk a beat around the park with mardi gras beads hanging off of them. I’ve seen some female cops shoppnig for rainbow bracelets, so it’s a pretty peaceable atmosphere.
But I remember just walking up thinking, “Oh, we’ll go here for a while, then drive back and maybe stop for dinner, and I have to deposit my paycheck before I go to bed tonight–” and I got stopped by some idiot asking me if I wanted to “rejoin society.”
>_O
Um, I’m sorry — when did I leave? I pay taxes, I work, I shop for groceries, I park my butt on the freeway twice a day, what part of that isn’t characteristic of being a member of society? These people think they get to define society, that the boundary line is drawn by them.
As long as signing deaf people bleed green on April 15th, I’ve got news for some people: they’re members of society.
Another thought to consider regarding why (hearing) parents might be steered away from ASL… It might not be fear in the way you’ve described so much as fear of being inadequate or insufficient.
Many hearing parents worry that there’s no way they can learn this brand-new language that’s so *completely* different from English fast enough. It takes time to master a language, and they’re afraid of their child falling too far behind during the time the parents are learning. So they’re more easily swayed to things like SEE or Cued English, which promise a faster time for parents to master, since they’re only codes for a language they’re already fluent in.
This is something that needs to be addressed, particularly with early-intervention programs.
~Interested Third Party
*nods* This is a major, major, factor. How can it be addressed?
Belle
That’s very true — I know I keep harping on a national-level ASL language board …
And you know, I’ve also been thinking about the whole cultural definition of deafness and how that alone can scare a parent of a deaf kid without them having any malice or condescension in their hearts toward deaf people at all. People have kids and anticipate being close to them — maybe not forever, but for a while at least.
And suddenly, confronted by a cultural definition of deafness, I imagine a parent could feel like suddenly they have a bunch of total strangers clustered around them going “Your child is one of us, hand them over.” I’m not saying the kids will be ripped from the breast, but I can imagine it would feel like that.
You have this kid and you anticipate being the one who it will tell its secrets to, the one who will hear it say mama for the first time (however it may do that), and whatever. But here, and total strangers who (regardless of their deafness) may not share your value system or your own culture are telling you that you’ve given birth to a changeling and the fairies want to take it back. It can be scary to know that, if your kid learns ASL, strangers will always be able to converse with them more fluently than you will.
This is one of the rare situations where bluntness works where plain speaking doesn’t do it. Every parent needs to get over their fear of exposure, embarrassment, the unknown, and of losing their child by accepting their kid as he is: DEAF and all. And learn a new appreciation (even pride) for the whole child and other people just like their child. Only then can the parents embrace ASL in its proper perspective (as a vital, beautiful and wide open way to reach their child) and make effective use of it.
I agree. One thing that annoyed me, yes as a child growing up, was all the different “names” for me.
“Deaf” was fine! I used it and you wouldn’t believe how the adults around me would cringe. Stupid.
I know that until you sed it, I never really grasped that “deaf” was accurate for people who can’t hear well but still spoke. Sometimes realizing the extent of the spectrum is surprising — and some of it is definitely just denial or some misplaced desire to be politically correct. I guess I didn’t realize that there was a difference between “deaf” and “Deaf” and that it wasn’t necessarily tied to how deaf one’s ears were.
Hm, I’ve also been wondering lately at how much of this was due to when I was born. Now that I think about it, I was awfuly blithe about the fact that there was always two or three deaf kids around in every neighborgood, or it seemed like that anyhow. It seemed like no matter where you were or what school you went to, there were deaf kids one grade up, or someone had a deaf big brother or big sister. I think you sort of just regard it the way you do the occasional four-leafed clover or double-yolked egg.
Deaf people just sort of … occur, and of course you use “deaf” to describe them.
Yeah, you nimrod, if you were born in 1966.
I should also specify that the deaf kids in my neighborhood and my friends’ families (probably as a consequence of the area’s educational methods) did not speak. They vocalized a bit, but didn’t talk. So that was the picture I grew up with of “deaf.” In hindsight, that probably influenced how I thought the word was used.
The ironical thing is you seem to have known of more deaf kids growing up than I did :-/
I only knew of two, but it was more that our mothers got together than we did, I don’t know why, really.
My neighborhood was pretty dense population-wise, too. Row houses upon row houses upon row houses. Probably just a people-per-square-mile thing. Hell, that might have influenced how quickly the GM ran through the area.
Another way to think of it: I can barely see without my glasses and would never in a million years get behind the wheel of a car, but I wouldn’t call myself “blind.” I think that was the logic of not realizing what the word “deaf” meant; that you had “lousy (but correctable) hearing” the same way I had “lousy (but correctable) eyesight.”