Do we have a challenge ahead of us to avoid becoming Hearing?

[Berry]

I'm busy nowdays, but managed to come up with this. In case it have some relevance in this thread:

How much integrity do deaf people have?

At places like Gallaudet, deaf people have a lot of integrity(at least, it looks like so), while other places, it's next to none. Becoming stupid as hearing people, is another word for loosing integrity as a Deaf person, as I see it.

So how do we keep that integrity? Some suggestions:

1. Look at what's said, then who the messenger is, not who the messenger is, then what's said.

2. Value your thinking and experience. This is why I cheerish deaf ethnocentrism, because I feel it's too litle of it. Once it becomes too much or dominating, it's something else.

3. Get educated. Any education helps, because knowledge is real power, that money can't buy you.

4. Deal with the fact that many hearing people will get upset if deaf people are equal or over them. Don't try to avoid it at any cost. That fear from hearing people have many consquences, too many to mention here. One also have to remember the reaction is human, and deaf people aren't any better, because we are also human beeings. The difference is that we aren't in their position.

Also, I have a paper here written by a christian that argue with secular people about abortion. He complains about having to translate his religious thinking to a way of thinking that secular people can accept, while secular people don't have to translate their thinking to a religious way of thinking.

He had a very good point there, and it reminds me of deaf people having to explain stuff to hearing people in a hearing way, while it's less common to expect hearing people to explain their reasoning to us(deaf) in our way.

this is intriguing, flip...

I was just brainstorming and thought of this in relation to your second paragraph of your most recent post - I'm thinking about idea of "power-over" and how it relates to ideas and thoughts...."majority" group has power-over, they have the so-called significance and therefore their positions are considered to be the "reasonable" and what is understood....so explanation from that pov is allowable, believable....marginalized people/groups have to explain more and their pov is less likely to be considered.

I liked how you mention about knowledge being so powerful - that has been a tool historically used by anyone trying to oppress another - African-based slavery times in the U.S. is one example comes to mind.

I think knowing both oneself and one's community - one's heritage - is part of integrity. To know what people have gone though in the past and what people face now.

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." He meant what he said as he was ready to die rather than give it up.

I would like to paraphrase: "Unexamined knowledge is not worth having."

 

[flip]

Here is an interesting conundrum:

Most Hearing don't accept anyone's internal experience as valid because it cannot be legally defined nor scientifically proven.

And by doing so they force everyone connected with the Deaf and Signing community to develop strong internal structures to deal with the lack of understanding and acceptance Hearing give them.

Sorry for cutting down quote, great long post, and want to make a short comment to the last paragraphs.

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." He meant what he said as he was ready to die rather than give it up.

I would like to paraphrase: "Unexamined knowledge is not worth having."

Again, thanks for great inputs and thoughts.

It hit me that if the deaf culture have developed some internal structures, one have to examine the knowledge that rest in those structures, to make this knowledge worth having, not only adapting them without questions. It's not only the hearing structures one have to examine. Some people fail, because they only examines the hearing values, and some fail because they only examine the deaf values.

Know thyself!

 

[jillio]

Not necessarily cruel since you did mention "hoh."

First of all, I thought you did not use those labels.

Secondly, yes, it s still cruel as the child's exposure is limited to those that he will never be. A D/deaf/hoh child will never grow up to be a hearing adult. They need adults that they can relate to from that perspective. Without it, they become very maladjusted and spend their lives appearing to be a "hearing wannabe."

 

[jillio]

Yes, sure. Put on the CI then their dB loss gets down to 20 dB. Still deaf, though. Secondly, "hoh" also refers to those who communicates orally by speaking and listening whether it's with a hearing aid, cochlear implant, or none. It ain't so hard to figure that one out.

HOH stands for hard of hearing and is a reference to the level of hearing loss the individual has. Oralist is one who communicates orally. And quite often, audist is applicable, as well. It ain's so hard to figure that one out.

 

[jillio]

Certainly, yet the definition has also included those with hearing loss communicate by speaking and listening with or without the help of technology.
http://www.rehab.alabama.gov/maps/Download.aspx?id=7

You have completely misinterpreted what this document is saying. It is referencing functional limitations, not determining that one who communicates orally is hoh.:roll:

 

[jillio]

I completely agree with you. 100%.

I should have framed my question differently. Let's say, in the future, I am addressing problems that people with hearing loss face. Do I have to keep addressing them as "people with varying hearing levels" in order to sidestep the label issues? Or is there a "safe word" in order to avoid offending anyone?

Get what I'm saying?

Yeah. The safe word is (D)deaf. If the HOH member is offended, it is his issue to deal with, not everyone else's.

Anyone else see the parallel of this particular member demanding that the Deaf make the effort to accommodate him and the patronizing way that hearing society also treats the Deaf?

 

[jillio]

How about "people with hearing loss"?

Nope. Puts the focus on weakness instead of strength. The word "loss" is inherently negative as it's very definition means having less than what one had previously.

Deaf works very well. No need to re-invent the wheel.

 

[jillio]

DeafCaroline, Perhaps we should look at where the labels originated? In my own experience, the terms 'hearing impaired' and 'hard of hearing' are terms coined by audists. I was slapped with that label the moment the audiologist found out I could lipread well. She was discussing with my mother about 'special school' (not Deaf school - 'Deaf' was never mentioned). The conversation was geared with mainly terms such as 'degree of hearing loss'. Then when she discovered I could lipread well, the label 'Hard of Hearing' got slapped on me and the suggestion of mainstreaming was immediately implied. There was no further mention of 'special' anything.

(BTW, Kokonut is just loving this - he swears by 'no labels' yet he loves trapping people into debating about labels. You have played right into his hands with this one )

But to be fair on Grummer too, this is one of the challenges we face with the hearing world. With the continuous debate about labels, we can never have a united front for equality in society when there is division in our own. There must be some way we can override this 'labelling' thing.

You are absolutely correct. They are terms straight out of audist society in an attempt to appear to be less discriminating in their identification of the (D)deaf. Just another paternalistic act.

 

[jillio]

Perhaps we should step back into history for a bit. What did those who were born deaf in deaf families introduce themselves as, what did they call themselves to differentuate themselves, even before big D came into the picture? Does anyone know?

Simply as deaf. That was prior to Deaf Culture being identified and meeting the criteria for a cultural and linguistic minority.

 

[jillio]

Here's another attempt to get back to the main point of the thread...

I liked what Grummer wrote near the beginning about not being stupid. When we pretend to be Hearing, we are being stupid in that we're not being true to ourselves, and the result is emotional damage. So my question is "How can we be intelligent - mentally, emotionally & socially?"

Personally, I think developing compassion is an important part of the answer. Compassion to ourselves, and compassion to others - especially if they are "different" from yourself. Showing compassion demonstrates strength. I'm not talking about a weak love than gets trod down, but rather a strong love that protects the weak and challenges the dominant. Plus challenges the powerful in an emotionally intelligent way. If the only thing hearing people see are deaf people moaning, bickering and being negative, then there's no attraction for them to change and accommodate us. I'm thinking of how Martin Luther King courageously challenged a racist society using non-violent methods.

Not just compassion, but a degree of empathy, as well.

 

[jillio]

Depends on how far back in the history you go. Most of the earliest history about deafness as we know it, came into existence with the first deaf schools. The D thing is a western, postmodern concept, where one have to construct ones identity, AFAIK.

In the middle east, you'll find several bedouin tribes with many deaf members due to inbreed. How they differenate, if they have the need for that, is a good question. Is deafness something else in a tribal, collective culture, than in a indivdual culture?

Boy, now I'm confusing myself

An excellent point. I say, "yes, being in an individualistic society most definately impacts the concept of deafness". In a society such as the one in the states, one must find a way to affirm and identify, because there is no automatic support system available. In a collective society, that need is not so great because society is not as stratified in the 'them vs. us' competitive way. No need to oppress as there is in an individualistic culture.

Martha's Vineyard was a great example of a collective cultural pocket in the midst of individualistic society. But then, the concept of individualism did not have the "at my neighbor's expense" clause attached to it at the time that MV was a thriving community.

 

[jillio]

i hope im making sense, had a few beers just now, (the imported hand-made variety, i never drink the cheap stuff now)

Made sense to me. Sometimes a beer or two will get the thoughts rolling.

 

[jillio]

ASL/QLS?BSL et all will be used as long as there are persons who sign. Is it factual there re LESS-- persons using sign communication due to increase use of Cochlear Implants with the consequence of decrease in learning ASL et al?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

No, that is not factual.

 

[jillio]

It is all about perspective, point of view (POV).

One of the biggest difficulties in communication is that 90% of hearing people believe words have meanings and those meanings have a direct relationship to reality. Even otherwise highly educated hearing people believe this fallacy. The entire system of reasoning called logic depends heavily on the mistaken notion that somehow, someway, a direct correspondence between reality and words can be achieved. Our legal system is largely based on the mistaken notion that either something is true or it is not true, either a law was broken or it was not -- All supported by the written and/or spoken word.

Bilingual people, no matter how uneducated or illiterate have to deal with the fact that the words and signs from one language do not fit neatly into the words and signs of another language and that reality changes from one language to the next. Bilingual people do not have the luxury of believing there is a neat fit between words or signs and reality.

Often hearing people fall back on a predefined definition. In the U.S. this is often the legal definition. "He is your father if the law says he is your father." Your "real" father is therefore your legal father. However the law allows science to trump all other forms of definition. If a paternity test is performed then the results will become the legal results.

This is a neat little trick. It allows most Hearing people to go their entire lives without ever having to think about what they believe or what they are saying. They don't have to question, research, or wonder.

As long as they stay in this little word box everything is nice, neat, ordered, safe, and simple.

To most hearing people it is perfectly reasonable to have a legal definition of deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired, and hearing. These legal definitions would be chosen from the agreements audiologists formed among themselves as they are the scientific experts on the subject.

Remember to most of them this is REALITY we are talking about here. THEY do not want to QUESTION or THINK about it. To do so is to face the fact they do not live in the comfortable reality they believe they live in. It means admitting that at least one small part of the world they live in is a fantasy built from a web of words that do not have the connection to reality they think they do.

Yet this is exactly what everyone in the Deaf, deaf, HOH, cultures and signing communities are asking, nay, demanding, that they do.

Naturally they are going to be antagonistic.

Here is an interesting conundrum:

Most Hearing don't accept anyone's internal experience as valid because it cannot be legally defined nor scientifically proven.

And by doing so they force everyone connected with the Deaf and Signing community to develop strong internal structures to deal with the lack of understanding and acceptance Hearing give them.

Hearing and Deaf, in a discussion of this type, have relatively little to do with auditory function, and everything to do with mind set and patterns of thought.

 

[Grummer]

An excellent point. I say, "yes, being in an individualistic society most definately impacts the concept of deafness". In a society such as the one in the states, one must find a way to affirm and identify, because there is no automatic support system available. In a collective society, that need is not so great because society is not as stratified in the 'them vs. us' competitive way. No need to oppress as there is in an individualistic culture.

Martha's Vineyard was a great example of a collective cultural pocket in the midst of individualistic society. But then, the concept of individualism did not have the "at my neighbor's expense" clause attached to it at the time that MV was a thriving community.

i have always known this but not in words, it is really a concern to me, of what the situation, of how the individualism in society impacts, what really gets to me, is that this kind of 'thinking' grants parents/audi/teachers power to 'give guide' to d/Deaf children /and parents of deaf children to make a decision to 'overcome the "social problem of 'deaf culture and/or social restraints which deaf people are subjected to by false suggestions that being hearing or half-hearing( or half-deaf, namely HOH) would give better oppurtunity in 'life' (that is a 'hearing "normal" life). In saying this, the individualistic approach is also 'awared' by all, SO the deaf childern are somewhat duped into thinking 'they made the decision themselves to succeed or to wear hearing aids or to be with hearing children' but all along it wasn't a case of being guided, it was persuaded.

 

[jillio]

i have always known this but not in words, it is really a concern to me, of what the situation, of how the individualism in society impacts, what really gets to me, is that this kind of 'thinking' grants parents/audi/teachers power to 'give guide' to d/Deaf children /and parents of deaf children to make a decision to 'overcome the "social problem of 'deaf culture and/or social restraints which deaf people are subjected to by false suggestions that being hearing or half-hearing( or half-deaf, namely HOH) would give better oppurtunity in 'life' (that is a 'hearing "normal" life). In saying this, the individualistic approach is also 'awared' by all, SO the deaf childern are somewhat duped into thinking 'they made the decision themselves to succeed or to wear hearing aids or to be with hearing children' but all along it wasn't a case of being guided, it was persuaded.

Exactly. An individualistic mind set give free license to paternalism. It is all about what is best for me. How many times have we seen hearing parents say that learning a whole new language was just too hard? Too hard for whom? For the hearing parents, obviously. The deaf child would learn it more readily than the parents' spoken language. Parent and child roles get reversed, and the child is given the burden of meeting the parents' needs.

 

[shel90]

Exactly. An individualistic mind set give free license to paternalism. It is all about what is best for me. How many times have we seen hearing parents say that learning a whole new language was just too hard? Too hard for whom? For the hearing parents, obviously. The deaf child would learn it more readily than the parents' spoken language. Parent and child roles get reversed, and the child is given the burden of meeting the parents' needs.

And it is all for the "best interests" of the child. I still am not getting it.

 

[drphil]

How does square the obvious-parents are responsible for their children-FIRST how to deal with whatever "problem".. They brought the child into this world. Society as such only intervenes in extreme case of abuse. To be more specific_they should decide what to do re if "deafness/hearing loss" whatever happens. A six month child is incapable of making any decision- to the best of my knowledge. Based on my experience of 2 sons.

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07.

 

[Berry]

Perhaps we should step back into history for a bit. What did those who were born deaf in deaf families introduce themselves as, what did they call themselves to differentuate themselves, even before big D came into the picture? Does anyone know?

Simply as deaf. That was prior to Deaf Culture being identified and meeting the criteria for a cultural and linguistic minority.

Deaf people have ears.

Makes them very hard to spot. Most Black people look like black people, Most Mexican people look like Mexican people, and so on and so on. Deaf people look like everybody.

This was an advantage 60 years ago when I was young and Deaf people lived in social pockets called Deaf World. Out of their pocket they were invisible and worked to stay that way. For example they never signed in public. No one thought about equal rights for Deaf people, and the war to give Black people equal rights was just beginning.

Things change. Having ears was an advantage then. It was easy to hide.

Now it is a disadvantage. It makes it easier for Hearies to ignore Deaf people. Pretend like they don't exist. It also makes it difficult to discover children who are raised completely oral unless they have some type of noticeable hearing device. And it makes it easier for Hearie parents to hide the deafness of their child from both hearies and Deaf.

What is needed is an intervention program. A system where when an audiologist discovers a person who meets certain criteria they are required to call in a support group consisting primarily of Deaf people who will explain to them that they have not lost their hearing, they have gained an opportunity to create a rich fulfilling life as a Deaf person.

 

[kokonut]

Deaf people have ears.

Makes them very hard to spot. Most Black people look like black people, Most Mexican people look like Mexican people, and so on and so on. Deaf people look like everybody.

This was an advantage 60 years ago when I was young and Deaf people lived in social pockets called Deaf World. Out of their pocket they were invisible and worked to stay that way. For example they never signed in public. No one thought about equal rights for Deaf people, and the war to give Black people equal rights was just beginning.

Things change. Having ears was an advantage then. It was easy to hide.

Now it is a disadvantage. It makes it easier for Hearies to ignore Deaf people. Pretend like they don't exist. It also makes it difficult to discover children who are raised completely oral unless they have some type of noticeable hearing device. And it makes it easier for Hearie parents to hide the deafness of their child from both hearies and Deaf.

What is needed is an intervention program. A system where when an audiologist discovers a person who meets certain criteria they are required to call in a support group consisting primarily of Deaf people who will explain to them that they have not lost their hearing, they have gained an opportunity to create a rich fulfilling life as a Deaf person.

"Certain criteria"? Exactly what would they be?