• 01
  • May, 07

blogging against disablism day

The Carnival can be found here.

I’ve certainly come a long way since the last Blogging Against Disability day (”Sound out of Stone” and “Perceptions.” Note that the latter holds some assumptions about the “Deaf community” that I no longer hold, although it’s interesting to see me argue for what is Bi-Bi from a position of pretty much utter ignorance of Deaf Culture and ASL.). Having a specific day for blogging against disablism seems odd, inasmuch as this entire blog is in part about blogging against disablism.

Disablism directed against the deaf takes on very specific characteristics, so much so that we have our own name for it: Audism. I’m not thrilled with the construction of this neologism but it’s a very useful word.

Discrimination against the deaf is very widespread, pervasive, and has additional dimensions, because it also attacks deaf language and deaf culture. Deaf people aren’t “just” discriminated against (although we certainly get plenty of that: we’re “lazy” and “stupid” and “illiterate.” We “can’t drive” and “we’re helpless” in society. We’re “insular” and “insolent” and the list just goes on and on).

We’re also remade, rebuilt, forced to be hearing. Don’t believe me? Language acquisition is a vital part of cognitive development and function and most experts agree that exposure to language must occur by the age of three or so. So what of the deaf child? This is where sign language should come in. The child will pick this up as quickly, naturally and effortlessly as the hearing child does spoken language. With that as a solid base, then the child can go on to learn other languages (reading and writing at least, if possible speech and so on).

But instead, children are deprived of sign language, forced to take speech therapy and delay language acquisition until much later. Surgery (cochlear implants) take place earlier and earlier, and most CI programs require a subsequent Audio Visual Therapy program, which specifically forbids any signing. CI is not a miracle technology. It does NOT restore hearing. It is pretty much a high-end (and destructive to the ear) hearing aid that can reach a bit further than hearing aids. It is particularly suited for adults who have lost their hearing, but is increasingly given to younger and younger children.

Oh, but doesn’t this help the children? Doesn’t it let them “function” in the hearing world?

Look, first of all the notion that “deaf people don’t function in the hearing world” needs to be dispelled once and for all. Most of us are in the “hearing world” most of the time. We hold jobs, many if not all our relatives are hearing. We have hearing parents, hearing children, hearing friends. We are certainly not isolated from it, most of us are in it every single day.

But what of the oral deaf person? He doesn’t know signing, and relies on lipreading and hearing aids (or, increasingly, CI) to understand what is going on around him. Now imagine being forced to go through school where you can’t quite follow the teachers, you can’t quite catch the discussions. Half the time you’re yanked out of class for speech therapy so you’re fall further behind while not in class.

Let me tell you from personal experience, as a strictly oral deaf: it doesn’t work. It never does. You are isolated because you can never quite make out everything that’s going on. Read my last post that I linked to above. No matter how good you are, as a deaf person, you will never be hearing enough. Its impossible. You are not in the culture, you are forever relegated to the margins, trying to follow things, trying to fit in. Do you know that I’ve never really enjoyed a good conversation except from time to time with a single other individual? Add one more person in, and instantly my focus changes away from the content of the conversation to the mechanics of the conversation. I was stubborn though. I really tried. And now that I’m over 40 I’m finally learning sign language. And for the first time, the possibilities of enjoying conversation is expanding. It’s a strange, heady feeling, I don’t know if it’s at all possible to convey to you hearies.

So what are hearing people doing to children by denying them sign language, denying them access to other deaf children and adults (as friends and role models)?

Don’t get me wrong…the oral abilities are useful. But they are not a replacement for communication and socialization with one’s peers, friends, and family. To a deaf person, the ability to understand a hearing person, whether through lipreading and speech or through writing, or through an interpreter, is just a tool, a mechanism for getting through the day.

But access to sign language expands the possibilities of every deaf person. It does not restrict them, it does not take away from anything oral. It does contribute to satisfaction, confidence, social skills.

One thing that I think is vital to improving this state of affairs is to get more deaf teachers and more deaf school administraters into the picture. If hearing people can work with deaf children for 20 years without ever learning sign language beyond perhaps the basics, then we really can’t count on relief from this direction.

7 Responses

  1. That “you have to be a part of the hearing world” torques me off due to its similarity to something I mentioned elsewhere (I think it was Der Sankt’s blog). It reminds me of the time that I went to a local Pride festival, and I had a woman come up to me, hand me a church pamphlet, and say, “Would you like to rejoin society?” I was like, “What? I never left, you idiot!”

    But as a straight woman, she was arrogant enough to imagine that she WAS society, and moreover that she got to define who WASN’T. SHE drew the boundaries because she, unlike me, was entirely straight.

    That’s what I think is the kernel of offense of that whole “but deaf people have to be part of society” thing. Who the hell said they weren’t, might I ask? Who was it first put that fence down between hearing and Deaf? Not Deaf people! And why, as hearing people do we get to define, Oh, and BTW, society is what WE say it is because we’re normal, and we get to define you as outside of it and then demand that you amputate yourselves before we’ll let you in.” Bite me.

    That’s what bothers me about that. That’s so basic and unspoken to that whole offensive attitude — that as “normal” people, the majority gets to define “society” as perfectly aligned with them — of COURSE! — and moreover gets to define who’s outside the fence.

  2. And I won’t EVEN get into the whole “you’re lazy and shiftless but aren’t we wonderful for helping you out” thing. The similarities between that and sexist chivalry are astounding.

    It’s like someone who breaks your legs, then demands that you kiss their butt because they are generous and kind enough to push your wheelchair. Piss off, I wouldn’t need your damned help if you hadn’t broken my legs to start with!

  3. Hello there!

    Quite poignant entry you have here. :) Since my essay on ASL is a language, I have been doing quite a bit of reading in the past few days trying to clarify a lot of things. Amazing. Amazing truly.

    Chomsky covered something on “models of compentency” and I had an eureka moment. EIther that or Derrida, I’m not sure.

    This is what I figured out: the problem lies not in the methods but in the results. The methods themselves are neutral. Its only purpose is to produce results. Now, this is rather important…

    Results can fall into many categories–based on interpretations; however, the methods do not belong to any. The results can be both, undesirable and desirable. From this point and on, it’s a matter of choice, really.

    I could go on and on, on this about methods and stuff. It’s going to be part of my “dismantling education’s arguments against ASL” essay lol. Soon ma chere soon!

    But, back to my point…It seems to be a pattern among the Deaf community, an ideology perhaps, to attack the method itself rather than dismantling the results and see what works and what doesn’t then implement better success rate on what works with other models’ aspects that work.

    Sorry if it’s too much “work.”

    lol. bisous,
    der sankt

  4. What I find sadly ironic is how many hearing parents are embracing using sign language for very young (hearing) babies to enhance their communication skills early on. Use of sign leads to faster acquisition of spoken language, greater vocabulary, and so forth.

    And so, it seems perfectly logical to me that sign language should NOT be denied to deaf babies. As you mention, the use of sign expands possibilities rather than taking away.

    So in the medical community there is an odd double standard that sign can assist hearing babies but somehow hinders deaf babies? Makes no sense!

    (My son is on the autistic spectrum, so I think a lot about different ways of processing information, be it auditory, visual, tactile, etc. and the ways in which definitions of “normal” processing are set.)

  5. Kari: Amy addressed this very point of hearing babies who get “baby ASL” and deaf babies who are utterly denied sign language here (it’s subtitled and has a transcript, so it’s completely accessible) called “The Greatest Irony.”

  6. der sankt: sounds like you’re brewing up some interesting stuff there! I’m looking forward to seeing what you’ll post along these lines later…

  7. It’s not unique to deaf people. It happens to autistics ( http://www.autistics.org/library/behavioral.html ), physically disabled people ( http://www.normemma.com/arstairs.htm ), blind people ( http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Blind-Stephen-Kuusisto/dp/0385333277 ), LD/ADHD people (pretty much every LD/ADHD person has had people try to teach them not to have it) and many others.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Video Comment

Help