About this Deaf Culture thing...

[jillio]

Read the book from Lane, and you will find that Lane disagree with you. The link you posted to the database with deaf ancestry, does not support your idea that Lane limits ethnicity to the people in that database. Notice the name of the database:"Deaf Ethnicity and Ancestry".

You are just showing everyone here how you make up facts that fit your views, and then repeats them, even if they are false. The question is, why you do this. The OP perhaps have some answers.

More from Lane: "The Deaf-World does pass its norms, knowledge, language, and values from one generation to the next: first through socialization of the child by Deaf adults (parent or other) and second through peer socialization. Here, however, there is a significant difference from other ethnic groups: For many Deaf children, socialization into Deaf culture starts late, usually when the Deaf child meets other Deaf children in school (Johnson & Erting, 1989). Members of the Deaf-World have a great handicap and a great advantage when it comes to intergenerational continuity. The handicap is that their hearing parents usually have a different ethnocultural identity that, lacking a shared language, they cannot pass on to their children."

I have found that those that are in the beginning of learning about Lane's concepts tend to misquote and take out of context. His concepts are very deep, and he cannot be taken out of context. That is when people begin to think he is saying something different than what he is saying. I know, in my readings, I have sometimes had to go back and re-read a passage just to be certain that I am understanding what he is saying. Some knowlege of sociological theory is very helpful in understanding his position. Personally, I would never have used Lane as a source to support my position until I had a strong understanding of the basics of culture and society because it is necessary to comprehend his laid out concepts. It would be like a Psych 101 student trying to interpret Freud's extensive theories. They can make an attempt, but their interpretation is full of errors.

 

[flip]

I have found that those that are in the beginning of learning about Lane's concepts tend to misquote and take out of context. His concepts are very deep, and he cannot be taken out of context. That is when people begin to think he is saying something different than what he is saying. I know, in my readings, I have sometimes had to go back and re-read a passage just to be certain that I am understanding what he is saying. Some knowlege of sociological theory is very helpful in understanding his position. Personally, I would never have used Lane as a source to support my position until I had a strong understanding of the basics of culture and society because it is necessary to comprehend his laid out concepts. It would be like a Psych 101 student trying to interpret Freud's extensive theories. They can make an attempt, but their interpretation is full of errors.

I can imagine it can be hard for a hearing person to truly comprehend what Lane is talking about. For me, what Lane says is old news. Lane is just describing me and millions of other deaf people. I also have some scholary knowledge about sociology, that sure helps understand why he writes the way he do.

GrendelQ is not only taking things out of context and misinterpreting Lane, but claims she knows-it-all and refuse to acknowledge corrections from fellow posters on this board. She will probably do now, after a couple of fierce posts. It's that attitude I question. Ok, don't really expect any answers, and if no one have anything new to add, we perhaps should move on.

 

[GrendelQ]

I don't know about that one. My son is genetically Jewish/AfricanAmerican/Irish. He doesn't carry genetic markers for deafness. But because I firmly assert that ethnicity is nothing more than genetics unless culture is included in the definition, I would say he is most definately ethnically Deaf. That is the culture that guides his life and the one within which he lives. The culture's values are his values. Deaf cultural beliefs determine for him what is important in his life. I don't see how one can consider their ethnicity (blood) to be a determining factor in the way they live (in an ethnically determined way) if one does not live within, and practice, the values, beliefs, and traditions of the culture connected to that genetic disposition.

Would you consider your child to be ethnically Chinese, since that is her bloodline, but not her culture?

Jillio, I love that you are engaging on this -- I think you are likely one of those more well-versed in Lane's writings, I've only read a handful of his major works, and a few more of his papers, so I'm very much interested in your analysis.

I'm reading Lane and Pillard's latest book right now (don't tell me how it ends, he's leaving his conclusion as a mystery thus far, with arguments for and against ) and whereas I may not have previously considered a deaf ethnicity to be plausible for any deaf -- it's always seemed clearly Cultural to me -- his tracking of Deaf family pedigrees and the ever growing clans of American Deaf families -- he estimates upwards of 500M -- is fascinating and compelling. I'm increasingly convinced that these families could make up a distinct Deaf ethnicity based on heritage, origin, intermarriage, intermingling, and shared culture (language, customs, values). I know several families that are part of this kinship, and its an amazing heritage they share, it imbues them with a clear sense of pride and removes the perception of Deaf as disability. Lane argues that it's elements such as this that the Deaf community could take from those he calls members of Deaf-World (Ethnically Deaf). I'm taking away a lot from his work, skeptical as I am of some of his assumptions.

In response to your question, I think my daughter is ethnically Chinese based on her heritage, her geographic origin, and I think her identification with this ethnicity carries over into some of the culture and customs she chooses to embrace today. We haven't actively pushed it, but we have exposed her to elements of Chinese culture. She's eagerly learning the language, has a clear preference for Asian foods, wears her Chinese outfits as often as laundry allows, identifies proudly as Chinese (her favorite characters are from an anime series called Avatar, I believe she thinks she's an airbender) and with other Chinese, loves Kung Fu and rhythmic gymnastics (her fellow students in both these pursuits are Asian, either by luck of the draw or some cultural commonality).

She is American and she is Deaf, and I see those both as Cultural distinctions, based on the way she lives, the traditions she follows at home and at her school, her primary languages, values -- all things that weren't handed down to her within her DNA, but which have become a part of her whether by her choice or ours (or her teachers and friends ).

I loved China, would love to become fluent, move to China, could see adapting our lifestyles to fit into Chinese culture as much as we'd be accepted and become a culturally Chinese family. But because this isn't a lifestyle I was born into -- let's say my parents or grandparents migrated long ago and I grew up in Chinese culture -- or isn't part of my ancestry, I don't think any amount of cultural assimilation would enable me or anyone else to consider me ethnically Chinese.

 

[GrendelQ]

Read the book from Lane, and you will find that Lane disagree with you. The link you posted to the database with deaf ancestry, does not support your idea that Lane limits ethnicity to the people in that database. Notice the name of the database:"Deaf Ethnicity and Ancestry".

You are just showing everyone here how you make up facts that fit your views, and then repeats them, even if they are false. The question is, why you do this. The OP perhaps have some answers.
"

What's really wrong, Flip? I'm really not seeing how you are coming to these conclusions about what I believe, why you are accusing me of audism and making up facts (?) and why you are quoting from a book you obviously haven't read. I noticed more than the name of Lane's database, i actually read the context. Suggest you do the same.

I'm not saying you will reach the same conclusions as me. We'll each bring our own filters to bear, and may come away with starkly different views, but why are you being so aggressively offensive because I ... actually, I don't know how to finish this sentence: I can't even figure out what is raising your hackles. Is it because I'm raising my daughter a certain way that you don't like? If so, what is it you are so offended by in my parenting? Is it because I'm somebody's mother, and you have an issue with your own mother and are taking it out on me? Is it because I'm in a different place and may be taking a different direction in my journey? I have nothing to do with you and your choices and I've never told you how you should be identifying yourself or made any effort to tell you what to do. I've several times publicly and privately applauded your stand on issues, including one in which you very actively took a stand on CIs that differs from my own,and yet I thought you did so creatively, with good impact, and had a very valid point. What's up with you and why have I become some burr under your saddle?

 

[jillio]

Jillio, I love that you are engaging on this -- I think you are likely one of those more well-versed in Lane's writings, I've only read a handful of his major works, and a few more of his papers, so I'm very much interested in your analysis.

I'm reading Lane and Pillard's latest book right now (don't tell me how it ends, he's leaving his conclusion as a mystery thus far, with arguments for and against ) and whereas I may not have previously considered a deaf ethnicity to be plausible for any deaf -- it's always seemed clearly Cultural to me -- his tracking of Deaf family pedigrees and the ever growing clans of American Deaf families -- he estimates upwards of 500M -- is fascinating and compelling. I'm increasingly convinced that these families could make up a distinct Deaf ethnicity based on heritage, origin, intermarriage, intermingling, and shared culture (language, customs, values). I know several families that are part of this kinship, and its an amazing heritage they share, it imbues them with a clear sense of pride and removes the perception of Deaf as disability. Lane argues that it's elements such as this that the Deaf community could take from those he calls members of Deaf-World (Ethnically Deaf). I'm taking away a lot from his work, skeptical as I am of some of his assumptions.

In response to your question, I think my daughter is ethnically Chinese based on her heritage, her geographic origin, and I think her identification with this ethnicity carries over into some of the culture and customs she chooses to embrace today. We haven't actively pushed it, but we have exposed her to elements of Chinese culture. She's eagerly learning the language, has a clear preference for Asian foods, wears her Chinese outfits as often as laundry allows, identifies proudly as Chinese (her favorite characters are from an anime series called Avatar, I believe she thinks she's an airbender) and with other Chinese, loves Kung Fu and rhythmic gymnastics (her fellow students in both these pursuits are Asian, either by luck of the draw or some cultural commonality).

She is American and she is Deaf, and I see those both as Cultural distinctions, based on the way she lives, the traditions she follows at home and at her school, her primary languages, values -- all things that weren't handed down to her within her DNA, but which have become a part of her whether by her choice or ours (or her teachers and friends ).

I loved China, would love to become fluent, move to China, could see adapting our lifestyles to fit into Chinese culture as much as we'd be accepted and become a culturally Chinese family. But because this isn't a lifestyle I was born into -- let's say my parents or grandparents migrated long ago and I grew up in Chinese culture -- or isn't part of my ancestry, I don't think any amount of cultural assimilation would enable me or anyone else to consider me ethnically Chinese.

Thanks for that vote of confidence. I love when we get discussions like this rolling: it is a mind opening and learning experience for all of us. I can tell that you have the basics regarding the sociological and anthropological basics regarding the topic...it is just a matter of building on the knowlege that you do have. But, then, isn't that what learning and growing is all about? I am glad that you are trying to develop an understanding of some of the deeper theories of Deaf Culture for your daughter's sake, and I honestly wish that I could find more parents like you to mentor other parents.

You have made me aware of something I didn't consider prior. Your daughter is still very young. At the same age, I would say that my son probably had not developed affiliation with a dominant culture, either. Like you, I sought to expose him to all that was pertinent to him. It was a developmental issue...as he grew and learned and reached the point of going through the motions of developing an indentity for himself, he drifted toward the Deaf Culture as his primary cultural affiliation. He still embraces facets of Black, Jewish, and even Irish tradition, but Deaf is his primary affilliation. Just like a child will begin using both hands equally, but eventually begin to decide of a dominant hand based on what they are comfortable with and exposed to.

I think it is also wonderful that you seek to expose her to her Asian culture by birth. This is something that I often see neglected in cross cultural adoptions, but I believe it is very important for that child to able to safely explore all facets of their identity. Especially when there are obvious physical characteristic associated with their ethnicity that make them a bit different from adopted family members. Kids will pick up on that and will have questions. It is very normal for them to do so. And I agree. I think there is a lot to be desired in the more collective cultures, and would love to see us begin to incorporate some of their values in this far too individualistic society we live in.

My hope is that we will be able to keep this going as an educational effort for all of us. I may have some advanced knowlege by virtue of education and experience, but I certainly don't know it all. I learn from these discussions, as well. Even if we still disagree on some points at the end, we can disagree peacefully and with respect for the other's stance.

 

[flip]

What's really wrong, Flip? I'm really not seeing how you are coming to these conclusions about what I believe, why you are accusing me of audism and making up facts (?) and why you are quoting from a book you obviously haven't read. I noticed more than the name of Lane's database, i actually read the context. Suggest you do the same.

I'm not saying you will reach the same conclusions as me. We'll each bring our own filters to bear, and may come away with starkly different views, but why are you being so aggressively offensive because I ... actually, I don't know how to finish this sentence: I can't even figure out what is raising your hackles. Is it because I'm raising my daughter a certain way that you don't like? If so, what is it you are so offended by in my parenting? Is it because I'm somebody's mother, and you have an issue with your own mother and are taking it out on me? Is it because I'm in a different place and may be taking a different direction in my journey? I have nothing to do with you and your choices and I've never told you how you should be identifying yourself or made any effort to tell you what to do. I've several times publicly and privately applauded your stand on issues, including one in which you very actively took a stand on CIs that differs from my own,and yet I thought you did so creatively, with good impact, and had a very valid point. What's up with you and why have I become some burr under your saddle?

Let's talk again in 30 years. Good luck on your journey, and enjoy it.

 

[drphil]

Flip will you be "speaking again in 30 years"? I read your previous thread- thoughts on becoming "bilaterally silent".I know - your choice,

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[StSapphire]

A quick question after reading a number of comments on here - a number of people seem to disagree on what the definition of an "ethnicity" even is, with some people saying it requires some form of genetic/ancestral component and others essentially equating it with being roughly the same as a cultural group.

Is there something unspoken in the implied definition of "Ethnicity" on both sides that imbues something more than the fully spoken definition that makes a group being known as an "ethnicity" a more desirable title for a sociological group in some way than being known a "cultural group"?

(Note - I don't have any personal opinion on the subject because I've not read any of the information on the subject yet and thus am well aware of my ignorance on the topic. I'm just curious what it is about the "ethnicity" label that is an improvement over "culture"?)

 

[naisho]

A quick question after reading a number of comments on here - a number of people seem to disagree on what the definition of an "ethnicity" even is, with some people saying it requires some form of genetic/ancestral component and others essentially equating it with being roughly the same as a cultural group.

Is there something unspoken in the implied definition of "Ethnicity" on both sides that imbues something more than the fully spoken definition that makes a group being known as an "ethnicity" a more desirable title for a sociological group in some way than being known a "cultural group"?

(Note - I don't have any personal opinion on the subject because I've not read any of the information on the subject yet and thus am well aware of my ignorance on the topic. I'm just curious what it is about the "ethnicity" label that is an improvement over "culture"?)

Many professional forms ask you to tick in your ethnicity/race as one of the pre-defined listings that usually adhere to a nation/geography/heritage specific option. This area predominates with a genetic aspect towards the definition.
Examples of these are on medical (and pertaining legal) forms, certain college and universities applications and scholarships, so on, you may have seen a few come across in your lifetime.

When you are taught the definition of an ethnicity defined in social psychology and related criteria (sociology, philosophy, psychology), the general idea is that it consists of a transmitted concept of cultural values between a common group that labels themselves differently from a major group of that area, and often it has culture, heritage that becomes passed down from generations. In most cases, when you observe the consistency of these 'self-defined' ethnic groups, they are seen as geographically congregated and living within a proximity. That is how the genes are passed down and this is where genetics comes in to 'prove' this, and a legal approach of the matter. Race was the previous labeling method that latter evolved into ethnicity today, because for example, not all spanish people in America saw themselves as White, rather "Hispanic", then no sooner later the "Hispanic-American" label was born to more closely identify them. Most of the ethnic logic seems to be constructed in the USA, since we seem to be the country with the most diversity and issues going on between races.

When I say the definition, I don't mean to what the dictionaries are defining. The dictionary usually doesn't expand anything about the concept, it is just predefined to a few sentences and lacks all this summation behind what is taught in an educational setting which kind of brings the arguments. Once you see the whole concept behind the labeling, they do it for different reasons. Some groups desire to be unique, some don't desire to be classified as the same.

 

[flip]

A quick question after reading a number of comments on here - a number of people seem to disagree on what the definition of an "ethnicity" even is, with some people saying it requires some form of genetic/ancestral component and others essentially equating it with being roughly the same as a cultural group.

Is there something unspoken in the implied definition of "Ethnicity" on both sides that imbues something more than the fully spoken definition that makes a group being known as an "ethnicity" a more desirable title for a sociological group in some way than being known a "cultural group"?

(Note - I don't have any personal opinion on the subject because I've not read any of the information on the subject yet and thus am well aware of my ignorance on the topic. I'm just curious what it is about the "ethnicity" label that is an improvement over "culture"?)

Culture is for example, beach culture, but sunbathers aren't an ethnic group. Ethnic is a more rigid term, too rigid for some people in the deaf community, but not for others. Hope that answer made some sense.

 

[jillio]

Flip will you be "speaking again in 30 years"? I read your previous thread- thoughts on becoming "bilaterally silent".I know - your choice,

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

If you can't actually participate in the discussion, please refrain from posting.

 

[jillio]

A quick question after reading a number of comments on here - a number of people seem to disagree on what the definition of an "ethnicity" even is, with some people saying it requires some form of genetic/ancestral component and others essentially equating it with being roughly the same as a cultural group.

Is there something unspoken in the implied definition of "Ethnicity" on both sides that imbues something more than the fully spoken definition that makes a group being known as an "ethnicity" a more desirable title for a sociological group in some way than being known a "cultural group"?

(Note - I don't have any personal opinion on the subject because I've not read any of the information on the subject yet and thus am well aware of my ignorance on the topic. I'm just curious what it is about the "ethnicity" label that is an improvement over "culture"?)

That would depend on whether you take a more anthropological perspective of ethnicity, or a more sociological and broad definition.

 

[JewelB]

Very Well Written and Good Point

Two thumbs up to your post. I am new to this group, for the simple reason that I would like to learn more about the Deaf community and culture, a desire I have had for many years. I am hearing, yet was fascinated with sign language from a young age (four years old) and began to learn ASL about 16 years ago. I took a college course in ASL when I was 14, and a couple of years later I worked in Delhi, India, to help promote awareness there of the many deaf in that country. I was in India for 12 years and have recently returned to California; I would like to be a part of the community here and this is my first step. I have begun signing songs as well, which is a particular passion of mine. I am curious to know, is this appreciated among the Deaf? It is something I have loved to do for many years and just recently posted my first signed song on youtube. I got positive feedback from deaf friends of mine in India (even though they use ISL, not ASL) and from hearing folks. I would like share it with those here if interested. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhAivYItV68]YouTube - I See Love ASL[/ame]
I am happy to join this group and am looking forward to learning a lot.

 

[StSapphire]

That would depend on whether you take a more anthropological perspective of ethnicity, or a more sociological and broad definition.

I think you misunderstood my question. I understand that there are two primarily used definitions for "ethnicity" being used here. The implications I've gathered are that an "ethnicity" is somehow a superior group identifier than "culture".

To compare this to a different subject, it would be akin to people arguing over the definition of "sentience", specifically whether any non-human creatures (dolphins, other primates, or artificial intelligence software) could have it. The "hidden definition" in these arguments generally seems to be "sentient life is superior to non-sentient life" or "sentience is either fully there or not, and if it is, then all things with sentience are deserving of equal respect" or something similar to that. However, that is implied from the label being used, without being defined as an actual part of the definition.

My question, regarding ethnicity, is what is the "hidden definition" being implied with the label "ethnicity" that isn't being included in the definition? I honestly don't know why one label would be preferred over the other, so I don't understand the debate from either side.

 

[jillio]

I think you misunderstood my question. I understand that there are two primarily used definitions for "ethnicity" being used here. The implications I've gathered are that an "ethnicity" is somehow a superior group identifier than "culture".

To compare this to a different subject, it would be akin to people arguing over the definition of "sentience", specifically whether any non-human creatures (dolphins, other primates, or artificial intelligence software) could have it. The "hidden definition" in these arguments generally seems to be "sentient life is superior to non-sentient life" or "sentience is either fully there or not, and if it is, then all things with sentience are deserving of equal respect" or something similar to that. However, that is implied from the label being used, without being defined as an actual part of the definition.

My question, regarding ethnicity, is what is the "hidden definition" being implied with the label "ethnicity" that isn't being included in the definition? I honestly don't know why one label would be preferred over the other, so I don't understand the debate from either side.



The popcorn probably was in poor taste, even if it's an honest representation of my reaction. Sorry.

Idon't know that there is a "hidden definition" at play. The only preference I see would be that which would come from the individual who applies the defintion, and that case, it would simply be their world view based on the discipline...anthropology or sociology. I tend to approach it from a broader perspective. That doesn't mean that I don't give credence to the more limited definition...just that it doesn't fit in with my world view.

Popcorn was fine. Message was directed more at those that attempted to derail with their immature posts attempting to incite.

 

[naisho]

I am not sure how people still can't come to the see the concept behind understanding. There are no alternative meanings to the word, you see the disciplines, legalities that incorporate them into the concept. I mean, this is basic college level discussion like what they invoke in 101 classes. Answers that supplement are in the 200-300 regions and you start realizing not everything is so clear cut.

To understand the controversy requires seeing what the ethnicity consists of, if one doesn't understand the concept, you get confused on what's the purpose of debating the 'definition'.

 

[Daredevel7]

I am not sure how people still can't come to the see the concept behind understanding. There are no alternative meanings to the word, you see the disciplines, legalities that incorporate them into the concept. I mean, this is basic college level discussion like what they invoke in 101 classes. Answers that supplement are in the 200-300 regions and you start realizing not everything is so clear cut.

To understand the controversy requires seeing what the ethnicity consists of, if one doesn't understand the concept, you get confused on what's the purpose of debating the 'definition'.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I understand what you are saying.

 

[Frisky Feline]

I am not sure how people still can't come to the see the concept behind understanding. There are no alternative meanings to the word, you see the disciplines, legalities that incorporate them into the concept. I mean, this is basic college level discussion like what they invoke in 101 classes. Answers that supplement are in the 200-300 regions and you start realizing not everything is so clear cut.

To understand the controversy requires seeing what the ethnicity consists of, if one doesn't understand the concept, you get confused on what's the purpose of debating the 'definition'.

did you see daredevil's hilarious post? sure, some of us do understand and some of us may be in denial. I still laugh at her post and it does make sense.

 

[posts from hell]

Naisho - I plan to PM you on some of the stuff you said last week - I am not in total appreciation either.

 

[Frisky Feline]

Naisho - I plan to PM you on some of the stuff you said last week - I am not in total appreciation either.

Just post it here with nice and explanation why. thank you.