The Heretic
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 340
- Reaction score
- 0
The following is somewhat a semi-autobiographical piece that was prompted by my colleage, who himself had a weekly column. Since he thought my writing was hot shit, he insisted that i write something for his paper. After a month of feet-dragging (i did not have much interest in politics, nor did i want to chew the fat about the generic topics of the day) i came up with the piece and after a week of hacking away about 50 percent of it, the editor determined it to be readable. One of my professors claimed that it was a great piece that went over his head. 
Warning: dense vocabulary ahead: I am more than happy to explain myself if something appears confusing or unclear. Probably the fault of studying philosophy for the past 4 years... all that thin air is bound to affect the brain sooner or later!
****************************************
Is the word deaf a label? How does it denote a person? Today, in this post-structural age, labels are everything. We use labels everyday, we speak in labels and we encounter labels everywhere. Sometimes we use labels for convenience, as shorthand for complicated concepts. Other times labels are used in technical vocabulary, to marginalize error. So, we identify ourselves with labels.
Hence, the word deaf is a label that connotes a particular characteristic of a person. The dictionary explicitly signifies a person who is not physically able to hear, and that definition is derived from the norm of a society of peers who can. The identification of a person as deaf is a discursive product, because it is relevant only within a set classification that is established by a particular discourse of deafness.
Disability in this sense does not necessarily result from a handicap, but rather is manifested through a society that devalues and segregates people who deviate from the physical norms.
However, this marginalization as a disability is a negative concept and does not satisfactorily answer the question — what is deafness? Is there an alternative, more positive, definition?
One possible candidate is a social explanation, which is a departure from biological or existential explanations. As a label, deafness functions as a discursive formation that is socially constructed by discourse. The phrase social construct is a celebrated description that the radical freethinkers use to question the ideological beliefs of a modernist Modernists believe that reality is a homogeneous entity — that knowledge is the sole result of a pure, sincere will to truth, and the meaning of anything is disinterestedly given.
Discursive formations are derivatives of discourse, which is the semiotic structuring of all social phenomena as codes and rules. This is practiced by a unity of discourse, or consensual agreement. Discourse defines identity and describes what characteristics are possible for a person. A discursive formation constitutes its object and generates knowledge about these objects. That means our knowledge is discursively determined.
However, nobody writes a discursive formation. There are no authors of discursive formations because they are constituted by archives, or anonymous collections of text. These archives are the sustained recording of the history of the individual, and in doing so, the person has a place, a name, a number, a task, a credit history and so forth — meaning that the person never strays from the steady observation of authorities. This constant observation of behavior leads to a certain discipline: the individuals behave as if they were under sustained surveillance.
In the deaf person’s situation, especially in the United States, his or her life is observed, recorded and probed under a microscope by a collaborative and cooperative effort of specialists such as deaf teachers, guidance officers, speech language pathologists, interpreters or note takers, and audiologists. We must deal with a continuum of psychological profiles, aptitude test placements, audiograms, educational performance, objectives and other documented efforts.
The increasingly complex and technical serialization of the disabled person is an ongoing process of a biographical production. The biographical sketch of the individual, chronicled to a greater detail than ever, results in the real, tangible and physical snapshot of the self.
Individuals actively construct their social world, as opposed to having it imposed upon them. Therefore, it seems that the concept of deafness does not necessarily signify a disability, but is contingent upon what context the individual chooses to define himself.
If labels are constructs, and language is the limit of thought, then I am nothing more than a social construct, that “deaf guy.” However, I do not identify myself as a deaf person because of my existential nature as a free human being. To act otherwise would be bad faith.
Warning: dense vocabulary ahead: I am more than happy to explain myself if something appears confusing or unclear. Probably the fault of studying philosophy for the past 4 years... all that thin air is bound to affect the brain sooner or later!
****************************************
Is the word deaf a label? How does it denote a person? Today, in this post-structural age, labels are everything. We use labels everyday, we speak in labels and we encounter labels everywhere. Sometimes we use labels for convenience, as shorthand for complicated concepts. Other times labels are used in technical vocabulary, to marginalize error. So, we identify ourselves with labels.
Hence, the word deaf is a label that connotes a particular characteristic of a person. The dictionary explicitly signifies a person who is not physically able to hear, and that definition is derived from the norm of a society of peers who can. The identification of a person as deaf is a discursive product, because it is relevant only within a set classification that is established by a particular discourse of deafness.
Disability in this sense does not necessarily result from a handicap, but rather is manifested through a society that devalues and segregates people who deviate from the physical norms.
However, this marginalization as a disability is a negative concept and does not satisfactorily answer the question — what is deafness? Is there an alternative, more positive, definition?
One possible candidate is a social explanation, which is a departure from biological or existential explanations. As a label, deafness functions as a discursive formation that is socially constructed by discourse. The phrase social construct is a celebrated description that the radical freethinkers use to question the ideological beliefs of a modernist Modernists believe that reality is a homogeneous entity — that knowledge is the sole result of a pure, sincere will to truth, and the meaning of anything is disinterestedly given.
Discursive formations are derivatives of discourse, which is the semiotic structuring of all social phenomena as codes and rules. This is practiced by a unity of discourse, or consensual agreement. Discourse defines identity and describes what characteristics are possible for a person. A discursive formation constitutes its object and generates knowledge about these objects. That means our knowledge is discursively determined.
However, nobody writes a discursive formation. There are no authors of discursive formations because they are constituted by archives, or anonymous collections of text. These archives are the sustained recording of the history of the individual, and in doing so, the person has a place, a name, a number, a task, a credit history and so forth — meaning that the person never strays from the steady observation of authorities. This constant observation of behavior leads to a certain discipline: the individuals behave as if they were under sustained surveillance.
In the deaf person’s situation, especially in the United States, his or her life is observed, recorded and probed under a microscope by a collaborative and cooperative effort of specialists such as deaf teachers, guidance officers, speech language pathologists, interpreters or note takers, and audiologists. We must deal with a continuum of psychological profiles, aptitude test placements, audiograms, educational performance, objectives and other documented efforts.
The increasingly complex and technical serialization of the disabled person is an ongoing process of a biographical production. The biographical sketch of the individual, chronicled to a greater detail than ever, results in the real, tangible and physical snapshot of the self.
Individuals actively construct their social world, as opposed to having it imposed upon them. Therefore, it seems that the concept of deafness does not necessarily signify a disability, but is contingent upon what context the individual chooses to define himself.
If labels are constructs, and language is the limit of thought, then I am nothing more than a social construct, that “deaf guy.” However, I do not identify myself as a deaf person because of my existential nature as a free human being. To act otherwise would be bad faith.
