Difference between Audism & Racism

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



why can't you accept that not every person with a hearing loss has to be Deaf? Just because they don't choose that identity does NOT make them ignorant or audist or brainwashed, they just want to be who they want to be. Who are you (especially as a hearing person) to judge their choices and beliefs?

Where have you ever seen me say that every person with a hearing loss has to be Deaf?

You are terribly confused about the nature of audism and the ways in which people are indoctrinated and rely on this indoctrination in every day behaviors and attitudes. It has nothing to do with brainwashing. Audism is a sociological phenomena, just as any other cultural attitude.

I'm not judging anyone's choices. There wasn't an ounce of judgement in anything I said. It was simple fact. Why are you so defensive when the truth is presented? Is it because you see audism as something "bad" instead of simply sociological phenomena that it is? Looks like maybe you have some judgement going on there.

I think maybe this topic is something you need to avoid, given the emotional content of your response. We are discussing sociological concepts from an intellectual and neutral position. This would appear to be over your level of comprehension.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted

i believe that most hearing parents are simply trying to provide their children with the option of hearing. The child is obviously still deaf and can choose to live as a fully non-hearing person, but if the child is not given early amplification, that can not be undone. The child (as an adult) can not go back and learn to hear.

That has virtually nothing to do with the concepts wwe are discussing. There is no need to defend hearing parents. No one is accusing them of any wrong doing.

You are incorrect regarding early amplification. Perhaps you should purchase a good text on biological or neurological psychology and spend some time studying the brain and it's responses. The brain remains plastic throughout the lifespan. It is not only possible to train the brain to hear, it is possible to train the brain to circumvent damaged areas and allot other areas to process the stimulus the damaged area would normally handle. And it can be done well into adulthood.

Again, if you are going to discuss topics such as these, you need to leave your emotion somewhere else. You are welcome to discuss these topics with us from a neutral, informed, and intellectual perspective. If you can't maintain that, it is really discourteous of you to disrupt our discussions with your emotional, defensive outbursts.

 

[Berry]

Wirelessly posted
why can't you accept that not every person with a hearing loss has to be Deaf? Just because they don't choose that identity does NOT make them ignorant or audist or brainwashed, they just want to be who they want to be. Who are you (especially as a hearing person) to judge their choices and beliefs?

If the bolded part is true, fantastic!

But being Deaf is not so much "choosing an identity" as it is embracing a part of oneself that is often disowned or trivialized.

Embracing aspects of oneself is a powerful thing and gives power to the person who does it. As the man in a wheelchair AJWSmith discusses. He embraced his destiny and gained power by doing so.

Many, or most, people find it extremely difficult to embrace aspects of themselves that others disparage, disapprove of, or trivialize.

In fact may parents of deaf children refuse to embrace the fact and do everything possible to disown this part of their lives. Hide it, or minimize it as best they can. This causes a mild psychosis in the parents and an even larger one in the child.

 

[jillio]

If the bolded part is true, fantastic!

But being Deaf is not so much "choosing an identity" as it is embracing a part of oneself that is often disowned or trivialized.

Embracing aspects of oneself is a powerful thing and gives power to the person who does it. As the man in a wheelchair AJWSmith discusses. He embraced his destiny and gained power by doing so.

Many, or most, people find it extremely difficult to embrace aspects of themselves that others disparage, disapprove of, or trivialize.

In fact may parents of deaf children refuse to embrace the fact and do everything possible to disown this part of their lives. Hide it, or minimize it as best they can. This causes a mild psychosis in the parents and an even larger one in the child.

Well said. It is all about empowerment in the end. We should start empowering our deaf children at a young age, instead of stripping them of their personal power, and then making them work so hard to find it again.

 

[jillio]

Even when I read it the first time I recognized both its weakness and its rigidity - Which was only exacerbated by his followers who turned his ideas into a religion that allowed no growth or deviation.

My experience in self defense schooling where those students who were more advanced were "Big Brother" to those who were less advanced, even though it might be a girl half your age gave me insight into the flaws.



But Eric Berne's theory has a lot of value to offer. Once read you can spot "games" people are running on each other quickly, easily, and gives you some handy tools for putting a stop to them.

The Audist Game could easily be lumped in with the "I'm better than you because I have an advantage over you" game. The "Advantage" could as easily be wealth, strength, knowledge, height, speed, race, color, creed, or friendships ("I'm a friend of the Mayor," he told the policeman.)

In essence once you spot a game simply refuse to play, or react in an unexpected manner.

I also learned something Eric Berne did not teach -- From what Eric Berne implied in what would now might be called a dysconscious manner.

You internalize the people you come into contact with in ways that defy physical limitation:

Thus I can look around internally and find an Aunt Jillio, and a cousin AJWSmith, and a cousin Grummer.

As my mother taught me: "Those who only read what is on the page are only half reading -- At best."

Oh, I agree entirely: theory of transactional communication styles has valid points, indeed. His attempt was to apply this theory to family therapy situations, and it simply proved to be too rigid and failed to account for many things that have to be considered in dealing with a family. I think we have done a pretty good job of taking the valid points, but restructuring them into something useful and applicable to family therapy.

You are correct. That internalization is not limited to the biological or adoptive family structure. That is one of the things that Berne failed to account for: the tremendous societal influence on the individual members of the family, and the ways in which those influences, in turn, affect the family structure.

As I have said before, your mother was a wise woman.

 

[deafbajagal]

not really, how can culture and medicine occupy the same space?
also the world have many variation of cultures, some are more forgiving to Deafness/Deaf cutlure ,others ban it throughoutly, orhter even consider Deaf is incapable of languages!...

what gives?

Are you drinking too much of your good whiskey? Think.

 

[dogmom]

in order to be who someone wants to be, they need to learn about their choices

including and most especially finding in oneself, that which was there but hidden

so it's more about inner Being

then outer Doing

true choice has no conditions

 

[dogmom]

ok, AJW, I understand and for that link-

 

[Grummer]

Are you drinking too much of your good whiskey? Think.

Oh.... when i re-read your post, and Jillios input saying its culture practice, norm and their values which influence medicine. I have been mistaken to think medicine is 'same as hearing culture' i mean like the depth of English, the depth of medical practices itself is a 'hearing skills' somewhat... sorry it was stupid to think that too...it was all too easy to fall in this trap because Deaf doctors are extremely Rare or non-existent im not talking about Hohs im talking about Deaf...as from grassroots...and no i leave my best whiskys in the cabinent for those special times...

 

[AJWSmith]

Reading the discussion here on this thread is helping me enormously to clarify my own thoughts. I now know that I need to further clarify what I wrote earlier (see final paragraph in bold):

I understand the points being made here, and they are very good points indeed. But the area I'm wanting to explore is the area around (not) valuing the functionality of hearing (depending on whether you're Hearing or Deaf). I see this as something different from asserting superiority (i.e. audism). What I'm trying to tease out is the difference between a person valuing their hearing from a person acting superior because of their hearing.

For example, one of my most inspirational memories is when I spent a day with an amazing man in a wheelchair who told me that he doesn't value his legs at all and if he was to be offered a cure he would refuse it as he found his "disability" liberated him as a person. Yet for me personally, I really do value the function of being able to walk. Walking gives me enormous pleasure & I sometimes walk 25 miles in a single day. But when I look at a paralyzed person, I don't think I'm a superior human being to him/her and I don't think that they have a substandard life because they can't walk. I can value my legs without believing I'm superior.

Therefore I believe that it is possible for a person to value their hearing without believing that they are superior to someone who is deaf (i.e. not be an audist). Obviously they would have to totally respect a Deaf person who states that they personally don't value the function of hearing (like I did with the inspirational man in the wheelchair). And they need to see that sign language is as good as spoken language, etc. But reversing the point, a Deaf person needs to respect people who find personal enjoyment and pleasure in the function of hearing as this isn't the same as audism.

However if a person, Deaf or Hearing, imposes their values on another (especially if the other is different) then this is evidence that that person is acting from a position of superiority, even if they verbally deny it and loudly claim that they treat others as equals. An example would be if I said that I totally respect the man in a wheelchair and think of him as an equal, but then to say (or think) that actually he would enjoy life far more if he could walk because it has given me so much enjoyment. What I have done, most likely unconsciously, is transferred what I value personally and imposed that value on another person. There's nothing wrong in me valuing my ability to walk (or a person valuing their hearing), but a line has been crossed when I insist that another should value it.​

 

[deafbajagal]

An example would be the many times my hearing mother would quip about how much of a better mother I could be to my own children if I were hearing and didn't subject them to resort to using sign language. She often would point out ways that my hearing loss impedes my abilities to supervise, to communicate through spoken English, etc. Also, she feels I'm missing the joys of motherhood because I cannot hear their laughter, etc.

 

[AJWSmith]

Where have you ever seen me say that every person with a hearing loss has to be Deaf?

You are terribly confused about the nature of audism and the ways in which people are indoctrinated and rely on this indoctrination in every day behaviors and attitudes. It has nothing to do with brainwashing. Audism is a sociological phenomena, just as any other cultural attitude.

I'm not judging anyone's choices. There wasn't an ounce of judgement in anything I said. It was simple fact. Why are you so defensive when the truth is presented? Is it because you see audism as something "bad" instead of simply sociological phenomena that it is? Looks like maybe you have some judgement going on there.

I think maybe this topic is something you need to avoid, given the emotional content of your response. We are discussing sociological concepts from an intellectual and neutral position. This would appear to be over your level of comprehension.

Jillio, I have to confess that I'm still a bit confused about how the word "audism" is used. To me, it does appear to be "something bad" as it is about asserting a false superiority over another (in the same way racism is bad). I've see people use the word "audist" as a kind of judgmental swear word. I started this thread because I want to work out what lines need to be crossed from neutral/personal preference (e.g. valuing my ability to walk) to "bad" (e.g. act superior & imposing a value). I've always understood audism to be the latter. But to me, you seem to be using the word "audism" as a synonym for "not-Deaf" which is a wider use of the word incorporating neutral/non-judgmental cultural aspects.

A parallel in this thread was when you and Berry pointed out the difference between tribal thinking and "us vs. them" thinking. The former reflects a "neutral/good" cultural preference while the latter is a "bad" as it's adversarial.

On a personal note, this thread is part of me trying to work out my identity. I used to see myself as HOH, but now see myself as deaf (but not Deaf). When I first came to AD I realized that I had internalized audist beliefs and it was very liberating to stop thinking of myself as a defective hearing person and embrace the reality of my deafness and know that I was just as much as a human being as a hearing person. And I come to really admire (and I mean it) Deaf people and how they live full lives and their amazing complex and beautiful language, and I've started to learn it. In embracing my new identity as a deaf person, I'm not aware of embracing audism, unlike my previous identity as a defective hearing person. But when I read your comment above I interpreted it to mean that I'm still audist if I choose to be a deaf (not Deaf) person, while I would say is that choosing to be deaf is recognizing I'm not part of Deaf culture, not a judgment on it.

 

[Grummer]

Jillio, I have to confess that I'm still a bit confused about how the word "audism" is used. To me, it does appear to be "something bad" as it is about asserting a false superiority over another (in the same way racism is bad). I've see people use the word "audist" as a kind of judgmental swear word. I started this thread because I want to work out what lines need to be crossed from neutral/personal preference (e.g. valuing my ability to walk) to "bad" (e.g. act superior & imposing a value). I've always understood audism to be the latter. But to me, you seem to be using the word "audism" as a synonym for "not-Deaf" which is a wider use of the word incorporating neutral/non-judgmental cultural aspects.

A parallel in this thread was when you and Berry pointed out the difference between tribal thinking and "us vs. them" thinking. The former reflects a "neutral/good" cultural preference while the latter is a "bad" as it's adversarial.

On a personal note, this thread is part of me trying to work out my identity. I used to see myself as HOH, but now see myself as deaf (but not Deaf). When I first came to AD I realized that I had internalized audist beliefs and it was very liberating to stop thinking of myself as a defective hearing person and embrace the reality of my deafness and know that I was just as much as a human being as a hearing person. And I come to really admire (and I mean it) Deaf people and how they live full lives and their amazing complex and beautiful language, and I've started to learn it. In embracing my new identity as a deaf person, I'm not aware of embracing audism, unlike my previous identity as a defective hearing person. But when I read your comment above I interpreted it to mean that I'm still audist if I choose to be a deaf (not Deaf) person, while I would say is that choosing to be deaf is recognizing I'm not part of Deaf culture, not a judgment on it.

i was in a similar boat not that long ago, and also been around Deaf for a while, i have got fed up with trying (and gave up) with the tolerant hearies.
myself i tend to look at audism as an equaivalent to institutional racism- that is my concern for my own personal academic interest.

 

[Berry]

in order to be who someone wants to be, they need to learn about their choices

including and most especially finding in oneself, that which was there but hidden

so it's more about inner Being

then outer Doing

true choice has no conditions

I love this.

Thank you.

Edited: By the way, that was written very poetically.

 

[Berry]

Reading the discussion here on this thread is helping me enormously to clarify my own thoughts. I now know that I need to further clarify what I wrote earlier (see final paragraph in bold):

However if a person, Deaf or Hearing, imposes their values on another (especially if the other is different) then this is evidence that that person is acting from a position of superiority, even if they verbally deny it and loudly claim that they treat others as equals. An example would be if I said that I totally respect the man in a wheelchair and think of him as an equal, but then to say (or think) that actually he would enjoy life far more if he could walk because it has given me so much enjoyment. What I have done, most likely unconsciously, is transferred what I value personally and imposed that value on another person. There's nothing wrong in me valuing my ability to walk (or a person valuing their hearing), but a line has been crossed when I insist that another should value it.​

Many things are easy to assume.

I have a friend who loves music. He will talk endlessly about it in interesting ways and when I do not understand a concept he will spend time thinking of ways to express it to me so I do understand.

But he assumes that my life would be enriched were I to buy a guitar and spend time practicing with it. I believe my life would be more enriched if I spent that time improving my sign language skills.

He is happy to find people interested in music. I am happy to find people interested in ASL.

It is very easy to go from protector to persecutor and it is just as easy to go from passionate to proselytizing.

 

[deafskeptic]

An example would be the many times my hearing mother would quip about how much of a better mother I could be to my own children if I were hearing and didn't subject them to resort to using sign language. She often would point out ways that my hearing loss impedes my abilities to supervise, to communicate through spoken English, etc. Also, she feels I'm missing the joys of motherhood because I cannot hear their laughter, etc.

oh boy. :roll:

 

[jillio]

Reading the discussion here on this thread is helping me enormously to clarify my own thoughts. I now know that I need to further clarify what I wrote earlier (see final paragraph in bold):

However if a person, Deaf or Hearing, imposes their values on another (especially if the other is different) then this is evidence that that person is acting from a position of superiority, even if they verbally deny it and loudly claim that they treat others as equals. An example would be if I said that I totally respect the man in a wheelchair and think of him as an equal, but then to say (or think) that actually he would enjoy life far more if he could walk because it has given me so much enjoyment. What I have done, most likely unconsciously, is transferred what I value personally and imposed that value on another person. There's nothing wrong in me valuing my ability to walk (or a person valuing their hearing), but a line has been crossed when I insist that another should value it.​

It is amazing how much insight occurs when we can keep these discussions from turing into defensive tug of wars. Intellectual discussion is productive.

 

[dogmom]

as there is institutional racism, so also is institutional audism - in the form of medical establishment, Boards of various d/Deaf-related agencies where there is actually no Deaf on the Boards and so on.
So there is a group effort to transfer the hearing values as AJW mentioned, to Deaf people... part of Power-structure-over....of a different significance than one or a two individuals with audism

"our values as a body" are more valid and the way it's set up as an agency reflects that

 

[dogmom]

very much Berry!

 

[Grummer]

Reading the discussion here on this thread is helping me enormously to clarify my own thoughts. I now know that I need to further clarify what I wrote earlier (see final paragraph in bold):

However if a person, Deaf or Hearing, imposes their values on another (especially if the other is different) then this is evidence that that person is acting from a position of superiority, even if they verbally deny it and loudly claim that they treat others as equals. An example would be if I said that I totally respect the man in a wheelchair and think of him as an equal, but then to say (or think) that actually he would enjoy life far more if he could walk because it has given me so much enjoyment. What I have done, most likely unconsciously, is transferred what I value personally and imposed that value on another person. There's nothing wrong in me valuing my ability to walk (or a person valuing their hearing), but a line has been crossed when I insist that another should value it.​

that there, what you just wrote is an excellent example, and it is a common one inside the politics of disability, this is basicaly what it is.according to those with a fully functional body tend to consider a lack of bodily function seem to equte to lesser enjoyment or less quality of life.
You basically nailed it without even realising it. AND this is the basis of Audism! read it again...that same words You wrote, just perceive it in a different way, then you'd get that spark.
I think maybe you are digging in too deep to a hole needlessly, just relax, we cant learn Everything in a big hurry, sometimes we have to accept learn takes on its own pace, experieces is like a picture with a 1,000 words, we all see it, but not all of us see the same thing, and we can talk for years and years about the very same thing (that picture), but there's a limit we all know we have to leave that picture on the wall and do arrears, live life, then come back to it again, and yet same time, its not a cross in the church, its just a picture - but a meaningful one., (just same as that cross is a meaningful one to some).

hope this helps.