Deaf Awareness

That is more interesting- Harlan Lane to be interpreted "unliterally"-one to way evade what he has said.

Why?

As for "talking" as being "keying" and "listening" being "reading". Novel inversion of words.

What next?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
That is more interesting- Harlan Lane to be interpreted "unliterally"-one to way evade what he has said.

Why?

As for "talking" as being "keying" and "listening" being "reading". Novel inversion of words.

What next?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Welcome to the internet, where words have been repurposed since the 1990s. Note - when you "surf the web" you're not actually riding waves on the thing a spider uses to catch prey.
 
That is more interesting- Harlan Lane to be interpreted "unliterally"-one to way evade what he has said.

Why?

As for "talking" as being "keying" and "listening" being "reading". Novel inversion of words.

What next?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Obviously, the level of his writing exceeds the level of your comprehension.:cool2: I can refer you to some entry level texts on Deaf Culture. Perhaps they would fit your needs better.

Evidently much of the writing style here on AD is exceeding your comprehension level, as well. If you need us to break it down for you, just ask.
 
Harlan Lane's thoughts were published as a book- A Journey into the DEAF_world by DawnSignPress.1996 That is not internet.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
Harlan Lane's thoughts were published as a book- A Journey into the DEAF_world by DawnSignPress.1996 That is not internet.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Harlan Lane's thoughts have been published in many books. But you missed the point entirely. You are having difficulty with concrete interpretation of that which you read on the internet, not to mention Lane.
 
I am aware that Harlan Lane has published many books.
Really for concrete thoughts=here? Probably more accurate to suggest some differences re: "cultural" vs real deafness.

Note: the above does NOT assume that Harlan Lane is suggesting that ENT doctors are literally trying to "eradicate the deaf" with the use of Cochlear Implants. The unanswered question-what are the persons who get an Implant saying about NOT "remaining deaf"? Assuming, of course, the Implant works for them.


Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
Last edited:
I am aware that Harlan Lane has published many books.
Really for concrete thoughts=here? Probably more accurate to suggest some differences re: "cultural" vs real deafness.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Nope. In this case, it has to do with a lack of abstract thought process. Or, in other words, your overly concrete thinking.
 
Are you sure you have ever been a hearing person?

Are you aware there are more women in the United States than there are men?

Are you aware women are a minority?

People, like everything else in the world, are classified and reclassified according to the purpose of those doing the classifying. Those with the most power, such as government and police, tend to be able to enforce their classification system most effectively. Those with the least power often classify themselves very differently than those in authority.

For every concept that exists there are always a minimum of three definitions. That which is the most exclusive, that which is the most inclusive, and every possible degree in between.

Audiologists have a definition of deafness based on hearing loss.

The law, which may differ from place to place, will define deafness as a specific degree of deafness -- At which point the law will treat the deaf person differently according to the society in which you live.

When you get a bunch of people together, Deaf or otherwise, they will decide, largely through the use of language, who is "one of us" and who is "NOK" or "Not Our Kind."

The best thing for any person to do is to decide if they fit into some group and whether they want to or not. If they do fit, and they want to fit, fine. If they find they don't fit, or don't want to fit, then move along.

It is all really very simple.
 
Just change the word "deaf" to" blind"- does the above make "sense"? Is "everything" just a matter of labels?
Interesting to study Sociology-sometimes!

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
Just change the word "deaf" to" blind"- does the above make "sense"? Is "everything" just a matter of labels?
Interesting to study Sociology-sometimes!

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Its not about physical considerations that was referred to. It is about making the decision to follow the norms/values/etc of that culture and connecting with these people in that culture.

Not necessarily only connected to if you are the label of that culture.
 
The "problem in sociology" is setting "boundaries about the " NON physical condition of "deafness". Just a "bald assertion" with no reference to reality?
Correct-in Sociology- done all the time-just read the section on "culture"!

Interesting intermural exercise.

Off to important exercise: deaf swimming. ( Highly recommended!)

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
Just change the word "deaf" to" blind"- does the above make "sense"? Is "everything" just a matter of labels?
Interesting to study Sociology-sometimes!

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Then study sociology, PLEASE. You will find the answer to your own question in Labeling Theory.:roll:
 
The "problem in sociology" is setting "boundaries about the " NON physical condition of "deafness". Just a "bald assertion" with no reference to reality?
Correct-in Sociology- done all the time-just read the section on "culture"!

Interesting intermural exercise.

Off to important exercise: deaf swimming. ( Highly recommended!)

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

The only problem here is you. Sociology is doing just fine.:laugh2:
 
I don't perceive Sociology to be a "person" just various theories which include "culture".

Labeling as such used to classify "deviant behaviour" in Sociology. The text book I used some time ago.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07
 
I don't perceive Sociology to be a "person" just various theories which include "culture".

Labeling as such used to classify "deviant behaviour" in Sociology. The text book I used some time ago.

That's science. It's mostly just ideas, like the "idea" that things with mass attract other things with mass proportional to (something something, I forget the math) of their mass, or the "idea" that water is made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

The "theory" that cultures are something that actually exists is about as controversial and roughly as likely to change as the two "ideas" mentioned above. However, concepts do change, the more we learn. Science wouldn't be very useful if it could adapt to new information, now would it?
 
Its not about physical considerations that was referred to. It is about making the decision to follow the norms/values/etc of that culture and connecting with these people in that culture.

Not necessarily only connected to if you are the label of that culture.

Exactly. The blind do not have a separate culture. Theirs is a subculture. They are a part of hearing culture, or the majority culture, because they do not use a separate language.
 
I don't perceive Sociology to be a "person" just various theories which include "culture".

Labeling as such used to classify "deviant behaviour" in Sociology. The text book I used some time ago.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Sociology is the study of people, duh. As a collective group, as in culture. Social, society, sociology...see the connection?
 
That's science. It's mostly just ideas, like the "idea" that things with mass attract other things with mass proportional to (something something, I forget the math) of their mass, or the "idea" that water is made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

The "theory" that cultures are something that actually exists is about as controversial and roughly as likely to change as the two "ideas" mentioned above. However, concepts do change, the more we learn. Science wouldn't be very useful if it could adapt to new information, now would it?

That cultures exist is not theoretical. It is substantiated fact. The theories come into play regarding how cultures function.
 
I remember exploring these things in my various Sociology classes at college. And also I've been in several ant-racism/white privilege workshops and similar discussion groups where related topics come up.
 
That cultures exist is not theoretical. It is substantiated fact. The theories come into play regarding how cultures function.

Theory in this case is used in the manner of "scientific theory". Not the "Oh, it's just some idea."
 
Back
Top