Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World

[Cloggy]

I've recently read the last article by Harlan Lane "Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World" published in the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education (10:3 Summer 2005) page 291-310.

This article is concerned with ethical aspects of the relations between language minorities using signed languages (called the Deaf-World) and the larger societies that engulf them. The article aims to show that such minorities have the properties of ethnic groups, and that an unsuitable construction of the Deaf-World as a disability group has led to programs of the majority that discourage Deaf children from acquiring the language and culture of the Deaf-World and that aim to reduce the number of Deaf births-programs that are unethical from an ethnic group perspective. Four reasons not to construe the Deaf-World as a disability group are advanced: Deaf people themselves do not believe they have a disability; the disability construction brings with it needless medical and surgical risks for the Deaf child; it also endangers the future of the Deaf-World; finally, the disability construction brings bad solutions to real problems because it is predicated on a misunderstanding.

He makes a good case for the Deaf world being a ethnic group, as he has done over the years. Also a strong case for not seeing deafness as a disability and the problems related to that assumption. His passion for the Deaf world is admirable but it stands in strong contrast regarding his misconception regarding CI.

Did anyone else read this article?

For example, according to Lane, deaf children are born Deaf but I disagree with that. One could argue that this is true for deaf children born in the Deaf world but 97% is born from hearing parents. I feel that when they grow up hearing - with HA or CI - they will NOT grow up Deaf.
Deaf ethnicity is not related to ancestry, nor to being deaf. Hearing children growing up in Deaf culture will also be part of the Deaf world, they will be in both.
A friend of mine has deaf parents and he has strong connections with the Deaf world.

 

[Cloggy]

Another example:
In the article he discusses that CI is chosen as an option BUT he starts off by saying that the article is related to the deaf people being part of the Deaf world. I have come to understand that inside this culture CI is rarely seen as an option.
Morever, he describes a CI operation and makes crucial mistakes there on the procedure, making it look worse than it is. This is in strong contrast to the excellent case he makes for Deaf culture as an ethnic minority and not part of the disabled society.

 

[Interpretrator]

I didn't read the article but it sounds interesting. I've been thinking about subscribing to that journal but I already get so many that sit around unread.

For example, according to Lane, deaf children are born Deaf but I disagree with that. One could argue that this is true for deaf children born in the Deaf world but 97% is born from hearing parents. I feel that when they grow up hearing - with HA or CI - they will NOT grow up Deaf.

I agree with you on this, from what I know. I don't think children are born into any culture -- I mean, if a kid was born to an Irish family but grew up among the Bushmen of the Kalahari, he isn't going to be celebrating St. Patrick's Day.

I think a world of difference could take place if doctors were more educated about Deaf culture. Like I've said before, I really have no concern if a deaf person chooses to be part of Deaf culture or chooses to get a CI and only communicate using her voice. But I think parents of children born deaf or who become deaf at a young age should be aware of the alternatives. To me CHOICE is the issue. Frankly I don't blame hearing parents for being scared and upset when their child is born deaf, and turning to doctors to help "fix" their child. Perhaps if they learned that there were several options for their child's life, they might not be so apt to view deafness as something to be eradicated...and then that child could decide for herself when she gets older.

I just seriously doubt that mainstream hearing society is going to stop pathologizing deafness anytime soon. All the scholarly research in the world won't stop most hearing parents from feeling their child is broken, not merely in need of a different kind of acculturation.

I have come to understand that inside this culture CI is rarely seen as an option.

I'm curious, does he make a clear delineation between those who have CIs and those who are part of Deaf culture? Because I'm aware of some people who have gotten CIs for practical reasons but still use ASL and continue their lives in their Deaf cultural community. I don't know enough to know if they are seen as some sort of "cultural traitor" or if this is really rare, but I do know more than one person who fits this category.

 

[deafdyke]

On the other hand Cloggy, why is disabilty a bad thing? It's EXACTLY like the way, back in the '70's when they pathologized homosexuality and called it a mental illness! Disabilty simply IS, a difference......just like sexuality or eye or hair color! Yes, there are conditions where a person is unable or truely disabled (like PVS, quadupligia etc) but the MAJORITY of disabilty is simply a DIFFERENCE that can be adapted to and lived with!

 

[ismi]

Deaf people themselves do not believe they have a disability; the disability construction brings with it needless medical and surgical risks for the Deaf child; it also endangers the future of the Deaf-World; finally, the disability construction brings bad solutions to real problems because it is predicated on a misunderstanding.

I will admit that I have not read the article. But I think Lane has a big problem with his definitions. His use of the term "ethnic" is somewhat problematic. What I believe he really means is that the Deaf world should be classified as a cultural subgroup rather than a medical one - while ethnic groups are cultural subgroups (viz., African-American, etc), so are LGBT/queer groups, religious groups, and so on. Each of these is a distinct sociolinguistic group, with its own linguistic and cultural features.

The other problem is that he is implicitly denying that disability culture exists. I've cited it before, but the social versus medical model distinction is extremely important. Like deafness, disability has a medical aspect. However, disability also has a strong cultural aspect to it. While we do not have a shared language, we do have our shared terminology and slang; our shared experiences; our shared customs and values.

The d/Deaf community has struggled for years to gain acceptance and understanding. Eugenics; perceived inferiority (internal and external) and pity; pathologizing attitudes; condescension; discrimination; all of these are issues that the community has faced. But each of those issues has also been faced by the disabled community. In some ways, the deaf community has made more strides, both internally and externally; in other ways, the disabled community has. But the two groups have a lot of shared goals, and have benefitted from each other's efforts (one example being legislation along the lines of the US' ADA and the UK's DDA). So I think it is not only rude of the deaf community to reject the disabled community so strongly, but it is representative of a prejudice very much like the one the deaf community has worked so hard to overcome. Even beyond its inherent rightness or wrongness however, is the fact that it perpetuates stereotypes about and stigma towards disability, and it hinders future cooperation between the two groups.

 

[ismi]

Yes, there are conditions where a person is unable or truely disabled (like PVS, quadupligia etc) but the MAJORITY of disabilty is simply a DIFFERENCE that can be adapted to and lived with!

PVS I won't discuss. But quadripelegia is not as crippling (no pun intended) as you seem to imply. Have you seen Murderball? Those guys are all quads, yet they are world-class athletes.

For a more extreme case, I have a friend with very severe CP. He cannot walk; cannot speak without a speech synthesizer, which he can only type on very slowly (due to lack of control of his hands, he uses a stick mounted on a hat to control it; even this is difficult). Yet he is in college, studying to be an urban planner. He expects to be employed soon after he graduates, regardless of his "very severe" disability.

You've heard the slogans "Deaf Power" and "Deaf President Now!", I am sure. In the disabled community, we have our own pride, our own slogans, our own heroes and villains. We are no more helpless than deaf people are.

 

[Cloggy]

On the other hand Cloggy, why is disabilty a bad thing? It's EXACTLY like the way, back in the '70's when they pathologized homosexuality and called it a mental illness! Disabilty simply IS, a difference......just like sexuality or eye or hair color! Yes, there are conditions where a person is unable or truely disabled (like PVS, quadupligia etc) but the MAJORITY of disabilty is simply a DIFFERENCE that can be adapted to and lived with!

Can't wait to see the reaction on this noard on you calling deafness a disability..... (Haven't read the rest yet.)
Because Lane makes a strong point about "Deaf culture as an ethnic minority and not part of the disabled society."

But from my point of view, I agree. When one of your senses is not working properly, you are disabled. That doesn't mean you can't function like any other person, it just means that there are things you cannot do. (And there are things that you can, but others cannot.) ..... just covering my tracks...

 

[Cloggy]

I will admit that I have not read the article. But I think Lane has a big problem with his definitions. His use of the term "ethnic" is somewhat problematic. What I believe he really means is that the Deaf world should be classified as a cultural subgroup rather than a medical one - while ethnic groups are cultural subgroups (viz., African-American, etc), so are LGBT/queer groups, religious groups, and so on. Each of these is a distinct sociolinguistic group, with its own linguistic and cultural features......

About Deaf Ethnicity, HL's mentions in his article that there are several "Properties" which he lists as shown below

Table 1 on page 292 (without mentionning where he gets that from)

Table 1 "Properties of ethnic groups: Distinct"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Collective name Feeling of community
Norms of behaviour Values
Knowledge Kinship
Customs Social Structure
Language Art forms
History
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So with this he places Deaf culture as an ethnic group.. And when this is generally accepted, he will continue arguing that CI will be Ethnic Genocide!!

 

[ismi]

About Deaf Ethnicity, HL's mentions in his article that there are several "Properties" which he lists as shown below
So with this he places Deaf culture as an ethnic group.. And when this is generally accepted, he will continue arguing that CI will be Ethnic Genocide!!

Collective name Feeling of community
Norms of behaviour Values
Knowledge Kinship
Customs Social Structure
Language Art forms
History

Each of these is an aspect of a subculture. Yes, they are also properties of ethnic groups; but this is because an ethnic group is one type of subculture (note: sub- here is not pejorative. I'm using it in the sociological sense of a culture within a culture).

As for his reasons for not calling the deaf world a disability group ("Deaf people themselves do not believe they have a disability; the disability construction brings with it needless medical and surgical risks for the Deaf child; it also endangers the future of the Deaf-World; finally, the disability construction brings bad solutions to real problems because it is predicated on a misunderstanding."), the first is one of opinion, the second doesn't preclude labeling as a disability group (as I discussed above), and the third and fourth are also opinions.

Me, I would consider the deaf world a type of disability group (to use his term), just as the disabled world is a type of subculture.

 

[Cloggy]

Me, I would consider the deaf world a type of disability group (to use his term), just as the disabled world is a type of subculture.

I agree with you.

Part of his goal is probably to start a campaign agains CI based on the fact that it is a serious threat to Deaf Culture. With Deaf Culture being a disability group, he would have no case. If he can show that it is an Ethnic Minority, then he will be able to show that CI will "kill" this ethnic minority, and with that he would be able to go to the UN telling them that this "ethnic cleansing" has to be stopped.

It's far-fetched, but will get a lot of support from the Deaf World... But they will have to give up medicare

 

[deafdyke]

Woohoo!!!! we got another dis rights person. yeah, i know about murderball.....what i meant by my quad comment is most folks see quadupligia more as christopher reeves saw it, rather then in a murderball way.....

 

[ismi]

Deafdyke: of course I'm a dis rights person. I'm HOH too, but here it's the disability that stands out. The thing about Reeves is, he was publicly seen as being focused on a cure. Some would say he was too focused (given that he gave a lot of people the mistaken impression that it's all medical); but even he had a life outside of his disability. Yet all people look at is his political efforts to advance healthcare. Beyond that, though, he did a lot of social advocacy work - the same kind of work deaf advocates have done to lobby for independence and autonomy.

Did you know that Stephen Hawking became disabled before he completed his bachelor's degree? Or that both of his marriages occurred after the onset of his ALS? Both these men, and the vast majority of *disabled* people out there, live full and normal lives - just like deaf people. Yet I seem to recall that there was a time when it was considered impossible for deaf people to live independently, or be employed, or have relationships ...

Cloggy: I have to disagree. The thing is, most disabled people don't want a cure - just as many/most deaf people don't want a cure. Again, you have to separate the medical from the social aspects of one's identity.

 

[Cloggy]

....
Cloggy: I have to disagree. The thing is, most disabled people don't want a cure - just as many/most deaf people don't want a cure. Again, you have to separate the medical from the social aspects of one's identity.

I never said they want to be cured. I meant that when you're an ethnic minority, you're not a disability-group. It's one or the other.

 

[highlands]

....When one of your senses is not working properly, you are disabled. That doesn't mean you can't function like any other person, it just means that there are things you cannot do. (And there are things that you can, but others cannot.) ..... just covering my tracks...

In physical meaning of disability, I have to agree with Cloggy.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

just like sexuality or eye or hair color!

well I have to point out sexuality or eye color does NOT interfere with everyday functioning, like verbal communication for example.
No matter if you are gay or have brown or blue eyes, you can just pick up a phone and call somebody and I don't meant TTY - just a regular phone.
So, disability is a difference but not just like "sexuality or eye color".

It's much more than that.


Fuzzy

 

[sr171soars]

well I have to point out sexuality or eye color does NOT interfere with everyday functioning, like verbal communication for example.
No matter if you are gay or have brown or blue eyes, you can just pick up a phone and call somebody and I don't meant TTY - just a regular phone.
So, disability is a difference but not just like "sexuality or eye color".

It's much more than that.

Fuzzy

Totally agree with that. I have argued that before...seems people still get that mixed up.