Should we support Paddy Ladd ?

[Passivist]

For those unaware he wrote a book called "Understanding Deaf Culture", a book at present in the middle of debate on it's bias and validity as a reference book. While the historical references are valid enough you can chck them on google, the rest is his own viewpoint masquerading as fact. A number of ASL users have taken this book up as the next 'Deaf Bible' and started courses on Mr Ladd's suggestions, that we are all on a 'journey' to deaf nirvana, which is never actually identified, except towards an 'Deaf' ID, again never identified with any clarity..

Should we not accept what he says, until research has defined the accuracy of the content ? We have read d/D, now we get h,H and a myriad of other sub-terms he has invented, is he going for the fulll alphabet ? is he just adjusting his research to home in on the insecurity of the deaf world ? Or its saviour ? He hardly has quoted any validated data other than what 'Deaf' usually think amongst themselves, with no other reference or challenge from any other sector, in short he doesn't define ID in any form, just suggests what he thinks it should be...

The problems in the deaf world is there are no devil's advocates to raise questions, thus allowing anyone to state anything..

 

[jillio]

For those unaware he wrote a book called "Understanding Deaf Culture", a book at present in the middle of debate on it's bias and validity as a reference book. While the historical references are valid enough you can chck them on google, the rest is his own viewpoint masquerading as fact. A number of ASL users have taken this book up as the next 'Deaf Bible' and started courses on Mr Ladd's suggestions, that we are all on a 'journey' to deaf nirvana, which is never actually identified, except towards an 'Deaf' ID, again never identified with any clarity..

Should we not accept what he says, until research has defined the accuracy of the content ? We have read d/D, now we get h,H and a myriad of other sub-terms he has invented, is he going for the fulll alphabet ? is he just adjusting his research to home in on the insecurity of the deaf world ? Or its saviour ? He hardly has quoted any validated data other than what 'Deaf' usually think amongst themselves, with no other reference or challenge from any other sector, in short he doesn't define ID in any form, just suggests what he thinks it should be...

The problems in the deaf world is there are no devil's advocates to raise questions, thus allowing anyone to state anything..

Paddy Ladd's interpretation of the Deaf experience is indeed valid, as he connects historical event to current attitude. He does an excellent job of illustrating sociological influence on attitudes and behaviors, and his work is grounded in accepted and often used sociological theory.

I have no idea where you get the idea that there is no one palying Devil's advocate regarding the deaf community. The hearing oralists have been doing just that for centuries.

How exaqctly do you propose to design research that empirically tests the subjective experience and reactions of one who has lived the experience? The fact of the matter is, there are deaf individuals world wide who can and do relate to Paddy Ladd's assessments and reflections of the deaf experience, and many hearing individuals who are able to see the sociological connections he makes.

 

[Passivist]

Paddy Ladd's interpretation of the Deaf experience is indeed valid, as he connects historical event to current attitude. He does an excellent job of illustrating sociological influence on attitudes and behaviors, and his work is grounded in accepted and often used sociological theory.

I have no idea where you get the idea that there is no one palying Devil's advocate regarding the deaf community. The hearing oralists have been doing just that for centuries.

How exaqctly do you propose to design research that empirically tests the subjective experience and reactions of one who has lived the experience? The fact of the matter is, there are deaf individuals world wide who can and do relate to Paddy Ladd's assessments and reflections of the deaf experience, and many hearing individuals who are able to see the sociological connections he makes.

That's the point he is trying to relate yesterday with today. Milan is irrelevant to today, there is nothing like the discrimination' of the Milan declaration today. Mr Ladd has never produced statistical fact to prove it this century. As deaf culture is always a 'new' event each generation you can't relate it culturally either, because there is no hereditary link. Mr Ladds book is a collection of ancient history, and his own viewpoint, on those grounds it must be taken as just that,a nd not 'documentary' evidence and proof of a culture, Mr Ladd stated in his own book (Written mainly for British viewing), BSL is less than 35 years old, culture (IN the recorded sense, less than 120).

Mr Ladd draws heavily;y from the British experience and American ones, of the stat image of culture, which is deaf schools, clubs, meetings, again in the UK this i has drastically changed in recent times, indeed, since his declaration of BSL as an entity 30 odd years ago, we cannot base anything on that NOW. Also the online community seems to be drawing more academic scope, but it is via a truer mix of many types of deaf people, so will not reflect Mr Lad's ideal. The CI User, The BAHA wearer, the lip-reader, the ASL/BSL user, the HI etc, which Mr Ladd suggests are not part of deaf culture.

They are NOT there to do down the concept of culture, but to put it in perspective to reflect the real deaf communities, and not to paint us all into a corner, we won't go. We also resent the fact we are then labeled anti-'Deaf' or culture, Mr Ladd has set us against each other again. WHY, cannot we dissect Mr Ladd's research ? because he made it up ? It's a 'Def' truism ? I ask only for proof, and none seems forthcoming... The book itself is ironic, and in fact in a language anti-ASL and anti-BSL, so we get the elite again the most able and erudite deaf telling everyone how it is, and making themselves bigger fish by shrinking the deaf pond again.

We started discussing deaf issues, there was a groundswell of people fed up of the hierarchy in clubs for the deaf, who stayed there till they dropped dead refusing to allow others a say, a hard-core of deaf who ruled the roost, who contributed let's face it, to many deaf leaving the clubs,mostly our young people. Dissecting Mr Ladd's opus is an urgent need, because (A) It provides the deaf with the means to really understand the conundrums, and (B) Validates Mr Ladd with viable proof, I'm sorry just because he is deaf won't cut it, and deaf are too adept these days to accept anything.

He is marginalizing deaf again,no matter how they paint the cover.
I put it, the book is not written for the deaf at all, but in the form only hearing will really be able to follow, it would be extremely confusing for a deaf person to read at all, hence why it is needed to break it down to what exactly he IS saying, and then why is he saying it, as a deaf person, this is NOT a hearing gripe ! If I read any involved book along these lines, I don't just take it on face value. Nobody should. Just because he is a researcher doesn't make his research valid, we've all read research about 'deaf issues' and debunked them, Why can't I suggest it isn't as clear as he makes it ? because he has omitted most of them ?

British deaf (And Mr Ladd is British), have this in perspective,but it seems America doesn't... So far response elsewhere have offered links, TO THEIR OWN BLOG VIEW on it this is validated proof. Again just opinion. Like this !

 

[jillio]

That's the point he is trying to relate yesterday with today. Milan is irrelevant to today, there is nothing like the discrimination' of the Milan declaration today. Mr Ladd has never produced statistical fact to prove it this century. As deaf culture is always a 'new' event each generation you can't relate it culturally either, because there is no hereditary link. Mr Ladds book is a collection of ancient history, and his own viewpoint, on those grounds it must be taken as just that,a nd not 'documentary' evidence and proof of a culture, Mr Ladd stated in his own book (Written mainly for British viewing), BSL is less than 35 years old, culture (IN the recorded sense, less than 120).

Mr Ladd draws heavily;y from the British experience and American ones, of the stat image of culture, which is deaf schools, clubs, meetings, again in the UK this i has drastically changed in recent times, indeed, since his declaration of BSL as an entity 30 odd years ago, we cannot base anything on that NOW. Also the online community seems to be drawing more academic scope, but it is via a truer mix of many types of deaf people, so will not reflect Mr Lad's ideal. The CI User, The BAHA wearer, the lip-reader, the ASL/BSL user, the HI etc, which Mr Ladd suggests are not part of deaf culture.

They are NOT there to do down the concept of culture, but to put it in perspective to reflect the real deaf communities, and not to paint us all into a corner, we won't go. We also resent the fact we are then labeled anti-'Deaf' or culture, Mr Ladd has set us against each other again. WHY, cannot we dissect Mr Ladd's research ? because he made it up ? It's a 'Def' truism ? I ask only for proof, and none seems forthcoming... The book itself is ironic, and in fact in a language anti-ASL and anti-BSL, so we get the elite again the most able and erudite deaf telling everyone how it is, and making themselves bigger fish by shrinking the deaf pond again.

We started discussing deaf issues, there was a groundswell of people fed up of the hierarchy in clubs for the deaf, who stayed there till they dropped dead refusing to allow others a say, a hard-core of deaf who ruled the roost, who contributed let's face it, to many deaf leaving the clubs,mostly our young people. Dissecting Mr Ladd's opus is an urgent need, because (A) It provides the deaf with the means to really understand the conundrums, and (B) Validates Mr Ladd with viable proof, I'm sorry just because he is deaf won't cut it, and deaf are too adept these days to accept anything.

He is marginalizing deaf again,no matter how they paint the cover.
I put it, the book is not written for the deaf at all, but in the form only hearing will really be able to follow, it would be extremely confusing for a deaf person to read at all, hence why it is needed to break it down to what exactly he IS saying, and then why is he saying it, as a deaf person, this is NOT a hearing gripe ! If I read any involved book along these lines, I don't just take it on face value. Nobody should. Just because he is a researcher doesn't make his research valid, we've all read research about 'deaf issues' and debunked them, Why can't I suggest it isn't as clear as he makes it ? because he has omitted most of them ?

British deaf (And Mr Ladd is British), have this in perspective,but it seems America doesn't... So far response elsewhere have offered links, TO THEIR OWN BLOG VIEW on it this is validated proof. Again just opinion. Like this !

Mr. Ladd's assumptions, as I have said, are well grounded in accepted sociological theory. And the fact that he draws heavily from the deaf experience, as you state, makes his research more valid when applied to the deaf community.

If you think the discrimination that began in Milan does not exist today, you are living in a fantasy world. Milan is the foundation for historical acceptance of the discrimination and paternalistic attitudes heaped upon the deaf for centuries. One only has to look at the state of deaf education today, and the renewed efforts towards oral only environments and mainstream placement to see shadows of Milan.

Mr. Ladd's book, indeed, contains history, but not ancient as you so claim. It is a very recent history, and one that we are doomed to repeat if it is not given the proper consideration.

Paddy Ladd is not marginalizing the deaf int he least. He is empowering the deaf. The process of marginalization is accomplished by the majority. Mr. Ladd is a member of the linguistic and cultural minority being marginalized by the majority.

What makes you think that a deaf person would not be able to read and understand this book? That is one of the most innaccurate and insulting things you could have stated. I know numerous hearing individuals who are unable to understand some of the concepts presented in this book. Comprehension of the historical and sociological foundations of Mr. Ladd's book is not dependent upon hearing status. With a statement such as the one you made reagarding the deaf's ability to understand the concepts presented by Paddy Ladd, I can see that further discussion of the topic is useless.

 

[Passivist]

I stand by the fact, there are many ASL and BSL users who would NOT be able to follow Mr Ladd's book, it is over 500 pages long, we'd all struggle, it is an academic offering for the perusal of hearing,it's not FOR the deaf, it's about them from his perspective. America is trying to run seminars and 'essons' on his book BECAUSE they accept the reality. Mr Ladd does I feel marginalize because he differentiates between different deaf and HI sectors, but without providing facts, as most of us here hate labels and tags with a vengeance, is it OK so long as he uses them ? His first 10 pages divide us all into camps that's at the START of the book. We lost deaf clubs at the rate of 2 per week, deaf schools once in hundreds are now at 31 with 7 under threat of closure too, where will we relate to the old ways, there are none hardly left. Ask not what hearing can do for you, but what you can do for yourself... do you think the deaf are the only sector to get discrimination ? and only those who use sign language ? this is what Mr Ladd suggests. I didn't say discrimination didn't exist I said it could never be repeated as per Milan, where it was a official declaration. I am saddened you have taken the stance I'm right and you are obviously wrong. Deaf unity is indeed a lot flimsier than I htought !

 

[jillio]

I stand by the fact, there are many ASL and BSL users who would NOT be able to follow Mr Ladd's book, it is over 500 pages long, we'd all struggle, it is an academic offering for the perusal of hearing,it's not FOR the deaf, it's about them from his perspective. America is trying to run seminars and 'essons' on his book BECAUSE they accept the reality. Mr Ladd does I feel marginalize because he differentiates between different deaf and HI sectors, but without providing facts, as most of us here hate labels and tags with a vengeance, is it OK so long as he uses them ? His first 10 pages divide us all into camps that's at the START of the book. We lost deaf clubs at the rate of 2 per week, deaf schools once in hundreds are now at 31 with 7 under threat of closure too, where will we relate to the old ways, there are none hardly left. Ask not what hearing can do for you, but what you can do for yourself... do you think the deaf are the only sector to get discrimination ? and only those who use sign language ? this is what Mr Ladd suggests. I didn't say discrimination didn't exist I said it could never be repeated as per Milan, where it was a official declaration. I am saddened you have taken the stance I'm right and you are obviously wrong. Deaf unity is indeed a lot flimsier than I htought !

I haven't taken the stance of right or wrong, but simply pointed out the holes in your logic. Re: many deaf people being unable to understand the nature of Paddy's book: The same can be said of many hearing who would attempt to read it. Waht would you suggest he do? Patronize and write it as if he were Dr. Suess? And, the very concept of marginalization is based on a majority culture opressing a minority culture.

You quoted me in another post: "nothing for us without us." That is exactly the concept that Paddy Ladd attempts to portray. Not another book about the deaf by the hearing, but a book about the deaf by the deaf.

No where does Paddy suggest that the deaf, or the signing deaf, are the only ones subject to discrimination. He does suggest that they are subject to a unique form of discrimination based on linguistic differences. Historically, this is supported through accounts of such.

It is true that deaf schools are reducing in numbers, and that deaf clubs are on the decline. You can blame the oralist, hearing camp for the mainstream movement in education. And there are numerous sociological reasons that deaf clubs have reduced in number, most of which are related to improved communication technologies and ease of travel.

 

[Passivist]

I haven't taken the stance of right or wrong, but simply pointed out the holes in your logic. Re: many deaf people being unable to understand the nature of Paddy's book: The same can be said of many hearing who would attempt to read it. Waht would you suggest he do? Patronize and write it as if he were Dr. Suess? And, the very concept of marginalization is based on a majority culture opressing a minority culture.

You quoted me in another post: "nothing for us without us." That is exactly the concept that Paddy Ladd attempts to portray. Not another book about the deaf by the hearing, but a book about the deaf by the deaf.

No where does Paddy suggest that the deaf, or the signing deaf, are the only ones subject to discrimination. He does suggest that they are subject to a unique form of discrimination based on linguistic differences. Historically, this is supported through accounts of such.

It is true that deaf schools are reducing in numbers, and that deaf clubs are on the decline. You can blame the oralist, hearing camp for the mainstream movement in education. And there are numerous sociological reasons that deaf clubs have reduced in number, most of which are related to improved communication technologies and ease of travel.

The discrimination is NOT against linguistic sign users, at all, it is simply a perception that people who can't hear are stupid, it's a e deaf thing (db), basically, it doesn't differentiate specifically TO the sign user, but is applied pretty generally, a fact Mr Ladd doesn't say ! He makes martyrs of the sign users, and ignores the millions with hearing loss who suffered too, and still do. There is no 'Deaf' community, there ARE, deaf people, they may or may not belonged to any linguistic minority, but still may use sign languages, may not evcen be deaf as we understand it, the more you dig the deeper the hole Mr Ladd is in....

He does a good spin job for ASL/BSL users, but it is let down by the arrogance and dis-information about the rest of us, and what input WE have Provided to the cultural concept, and indeed to the access and anti-discrimination laws to protect the deaf (Which we are too !), despite being ridiculed for it by purists. If I may draw an example, in the UK years ago an DDA (Disability Discrimination Act), was launched in Manchester (england), the deaf pulled OUT, you are reading the SOLE deaf person who was there at the actual launch, and who was NOT a member of the deaf community, the ensuing law once then enacted, was then a 'Deaf' victory' (?)

Who then proceeded to accept a watered down version that didn't recognize BSL ! despite advice from us, and disability groups it would set the deaf community back, (we wanted them to hold OUT until full recognition was accepted), they wouldn't, they took the 'glory' for then, and afterwards spent 10 years again campaigning for the BSL they didn't get. I am on record as the sole deaf person in the United Kingdom to represent the deaf view at the DDA launch of 1995, I know what I'm talking about ! Because I had a public apology from the British Deaf Association for letting the side down. They STILL do to my mind.

If culture felt so strongly, why didn't they back ME ? because I wasn't 'cultural' ? you see where it goes ! Claims a deaf community exists outside the old club system is one I lauded, offering online groups (The UK deaf claim they are all on FACEBOOK), and aggregates as an example, it was shot down, by deaf who said an online 'community' doesn't exist, where I said it is the NEW community, or soon will be, and that community is NOT expressly comprised of ASL or BSL users, but CI Users, BAHA users, Hearing Aid wearers, oralists, and lip readers too, perhaps the only true democracy in the making ? Where does Mr Ladd's back to the future view fit in there ? He has no audience outside the inner sanctum of ASL/BSL users, not because hearing discriminate, but because the rest of us are out there plugging away, and NOT being negative and alloting blame at everyone......

 

[jillio]

There are numnerous scholars in the field of sociology and anthropology that disagree with your assessments. Perhaps you are dealing with some personal issues regarding deafness that is clouding your thinking. Or perhaps you are just learning sociological theory and are just incorrectly applying the concepts.

 

[Passivist]

There are numnerous scholars in the field of sociology and anthropology that disagree with your assessments. Perhaps you are dealing with some personal issues regarding deafness that is clouding your thinking. Or perhaps you are just learning sociological theory and are just incorrectly applying the concepts.

I was rather expectig this sort of response frankly :roll:, now it's down to 'non-acceptance' of being deaf. I was expecting that, (Not quite so early in the discussion but...), and the 'reading things wrong' suggestion as well, is there no way to get a decent response anymore ? We're right and until you accept that it's your problem ? sure curtails debates don't it ! (Must make a note to use that approach more myself...) OK apathy wins...

 

[jillio]

I was rather expectig this sort of response frankly :roll:, now it's down to 'non-acceptance' of being deaf. I was expecting that, (Not quite so early in the discussion but...), and the 'reading things wrong' suggestion as well, is there no way to get a decent response anymore ? We're right and until you accept that it's your problem ? sure curtails debates don't it ! (Must make a note to use that approach more myself...) OK apathy wins...

Self fulfilling prophecy? And in this case, the lack of understanding of sociological theory definately comes from your end. Who said anything about "non-acceptance of being deaf"? Those are your words. I find it intersting indeed that you took a completely different phrase and interpreted it as such. Perhaps you are more on the mark than you suspect.

If you wish to debate the sociological and anthropological aspects of Paddy Ladd's theories, then perhaps you need to come up with some academic material to refute it, rather than simply stating the incorrectness based on opinion.

 

[VamPyroX]

Paddy Ladd's interpretation of the Deaf experience is indeed valid, as he connects historical event to current attitude. He does an excellent job of illustrating sociological influence on attitudes and behaviors, and his work is grounded in accepted and often used sociological theory.

I have no idea where you get the idea that there is no one palying Devil's advocate regarding the deaf community. The hearing oralists have been doing just that for centuries.

How exaqctly do you propose to design research that empirically tests the subjective experience and reactions of one who has lived the experience? The fact of the matter is, there are deaf individuals world wide who can and do relate to Paddy Ladd's assessments and reflections of the deaf experience, and many hearing individuals who are able to see the sociological connections he makes.

That's right.

Even today, deafness is an ongoing debate that will probably never be completely analyzed. They still haven't analyzed races and genders.

First, they say that there are men and women. Later, they have gays and lesbians. Next, there's gays who act like women and gays who act like men... and so on.

There were blacks. Now, it's blacks or African Americans. I've heard some say that "African Americans" are for people who are from Africa and and "blacks" are for people who don't have any recent history of being from Africa. However, I've met some who were from Africa but labeled themselves as "blacks" while those who are not recently from Africa, but call themselves "African Americans". Many say, "African American" should be for those who are from Africa and are now growing up in America." What if I was born in Africa and moved to America to become an American. I'm white. Does that mean I have a right to be called an African American?

So... back to this topic of understanding deafness. I'm deaf. Some simply agree with me. Others will disagree and call me "hard-of-hearing". There are others who would also call me "oral". So, who am I? Why are they labeling me? Who defines the rules of labeling? Are there laws on how we should be labeled?

 

[Passivist]

Are there laws on how we should be labeled?

If there was, 'Understanding Deafhood' would never have been printed. As a deaf person I am perfectly entitled to query Mr Ladd on deaf issues, he talks about us doesn't he ? he makes claims about us doesn't he ? He never actually defines deaf people because he can't identify them all, so he starts with 'Deaf' (Average mention 30 times plus each page, culminating in over 60 at one point), then tells us all to aspire to it, or we all have that commonality, it's basically untrue, of the whole or was much in the past.... It's just a view, he doesn't provide statistics, just supposition and the 'Deaf' view, but is that view OURS ?

I put it no, it is HIS. He also has invented h/H terminology too, he's obsessed with labels, and capitalization of words too ! labels divide people, basically I don't think any of us want any more labels at all. If you say black, then that suggests others aren't, or white doesn't it ? (It's an example don't get uppity !), and immediately ignores those in between (The majority), Historical references are fair enough we can google them for validity, but there's not a clear target to aim at, you just go around in circles, to play his game is to give it credence straight away, I refuse to do that. How many from grass roots CAN argue with him on an academic level ? if they can't , their views don't count do they ? Let's face few deaf WILL ever read it....

 

[jillio]

Are there laws on how we should be labeled?

If there was, 'Understanding Deafhood' would never have been printed. As a deaf person I am perfectly entitled to query Mr Ladd on deaf issues, he talks about us doesn't he ? he makes claims about us doesn't he ? He never actually defines deaf people because he can't identify them all, so he starts with 'Deaf' (Average mention 30 times plus each page, culminating in over 60 at one point), then tells us all to aspire to it, or we all have that commonality, it's basically untrue, of the whole or was much in the past.... It's just a view, he doesn't provide statistics, just supposition and the 'Deaf' view, but is that view OURS ?

I put it no, it is HIS. He also has invented h/H terminology too, he's obsessed with labels, and capitalization of words too ! labels divide people, basically I don't think any of us want any more labels at all. If you say black, then that suggests others aren't, or white doesn't it ? (It's an example don't get uppity !), and immediately ignores those in between (The majority), Historical references are fair enough we can google them for validity, but there's not a clear target to aim at, you just go around in circles, to play his game is to give it credence straight away, I refuse to do that. How many from grass roots CAN argue with him on an academic level ? if they can't , their views don't count do they ? Let's face few deaf WILL ever read it....

If yu disagree, then simply don't read his works. There are many many others who do agree, and see his points as valid. I suggest you do a bit of studying regarding labeling theory. And perhaps symbolic interaction, as well. Just because you don't agree with the outcome, does not mean that the situation doesn't exist.

 

[Passivist]

If you are on the losing side fess up ! Don't go making a side of issue of don't read it, if only deaf are gong tor ead and agree with it, then the book has no purpose,since it is entitled 'Understanding Deafhood' ! If we don't read it we won't understand it will we ? Sadlythere are deaf who HAVE read it, and still think it is off course. Americans are suggesting running 'academic' courses via this book, so it really does need some clarifications first. I think you are in a real minority re labelling, they're for jars not people !

 

[jillio]

If you are on the losing side fess up ! Don't go making a side of issue of don't read it, if only deaf are gong tor ead and agree with it, then the book has no purpose,since it is entitled 'Understanding Deafhood' ! If we don't read it we won't understand it will we ? Sadlythere are deaf who HAVE read it, and still think it is off course. Americans are suggesting running 'academic' courses via this book, so it really does need some clarifications first. I think you are in a real minority re labelling, they're for jars not people !

Again, I refer you to the theory of symbolic interaction. of which labeling theory is but a part. When you have an understanding of the theory, you will be better prepared to attempt an application of such.

 

[Passivist]

This must be a first, an echo.....

 

[jillio]

This must be a first, an echo.....

Ah, there's an intelligent reply.