Audism - The Definition and the Audist View

BecLak

Well-Known Member
It appears a need to have some clarification on this issue that 'pushes buttons' for many of us. Some do not seem to have a clear understanding of this view and it's concept. In starting this thread it is my intention in an attempt to make it as clear-cut as possible. Some people claim they are not audists, but intentionally or unintentionally spout audist views. Perhaps if we state clearly what specifies that viewpoint, it could clear up some misunderstandings.

NB: Please do not directly quote anyone on this forum as personal attacks are not permitted and it is not the intention of this thread. Please also note that comments made on a certain post are NOT personally directed at the poster but at what the post is quoting as a example of view.

May I begin with the Definition of Audism by the person who coined the word:

Audism: The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. --Tom Humphries

Please post below what you understand to be an AUDIST view.
 

deafbajagal

New Member
Another one. The notion that learning English (especially spoken English) is more important than learning formal ASL.

In high school, we have English classes. Not many high schools offer ASL classes (for formal learning). That's an example of a curriculum that is a product of audism.
 

Speedy Hawk

New Member
Audism view put speech over sign language and say speech is more important than sign langauge and keeps putting sign language down. That what I think of Audism view.
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
One aspect of Audism to me is when it is implied that without access to sound (by whichever means - CI or HAs or the like) or the ability to hear, one is incapable of achieving fluency in spoken and written language.
 

Speedy Hawk

New Member
One aspect of Audism to me is when it is implied that without access to sound (by whichever means - CI or HAs or the like) or the ability to hear, one is incapable of achieving fluency in spoken and written language.

Yep, agree with that. Another view of Audism view.
 

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
One aspect of Audism to me is when it is implied that without access to sound (by whichever means - CI or HAs or the like) or the ability to hear, one is incapable of achieving fluency in spoken and written language.

We are not without the ability to read between the lines of some posts, and we notice that audist views are consistent with a few certain hearing members. They wonder why we are constantly jumping down their throats. :roll:
 

jillio

New Member
I agree with the basic definition that Mr. Humphries uses. The problem is, most hearing do not realize the way that definition becomes manifest in their daily actions and words. Audism is demonstrated in any number of ways, and the person holding the audist belief generally does not even understand that they are portraying the fundamental concept of audism. It is similar to "white priviledge" where those who take advantage of it on a daily basis do so without even realizing they are taking advantage of and deny it's existence.
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
We are not without the ability to read between the lines of some posts, and we notice that audist views are consistent with a few certain hearing members. They wonder why we are constantly jumping down their throats. :roll:

True, Beowulf. Unfortunately, some intentionally and some unintentionally hence the purpose of this thread, it pays not to be ignorant. Like I always say to people: Ignorance is no longer Bliss. Be Educated. It is important that people realise that Audism does exist even today, and there are some hearing people who don't realise they are, in fact, expressing Audist views. IMO, it should not be tolerated because it is in violation of basic human rights.
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
I agree with the basic definition that Mr. Humphries uses. The problem is, most hearing do not realize the way that definition becomes manifest in their daily actions and words. Audism is demonstrated in any number of ways, and the person holding the audist belief generally does not even understand that they are portraying the fundamental concept of audism. It is similar to "white priviledge" where those who take advantage of it on a daily basis do so without even realizing they are taking advantage of and deny it's existence.

Exactly my point :ty:
 

dogmom

Well-Known Member
I think this is a good idea, BecLak:wave:

my thoughts in addition:

-when hearing babies have access to ASL or "baby sign" but deaf babies don't

-language only means speech


Jillio, :ty:your thoughts seem familiar to me - I mentioned about that too!
 

jillio

New Member
If people, and hearing parents in particular, were simply willing to examine, in depth, their own perspective and correct that which is audist, we would have a huge advantage in overcoming it. The problem is, the majority of hearing parents defensively deny their audsim at the same time they are demonstrating, without a doubt, that it exists within their very basic ideas of deafness. Their choices reflect it. Even when they appear to be making headway, it seems that sooner or later, they revert right back to their audist perspective because they simply refuse to examine their own perspective. Yet they claim to be fighting against that which they propogate, and fail to see that keeping it alive is a detriment for their own child and that child will suffer as a result.
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted

however, it is not audist to choose not to use ASL. Just as it is not audist to use english instead of greek.

Choosing not to use Sign Language is not being audist, but implication that Sign Language is not efficient for communication equal to spoken language is audism.
 

jillio

New Member
Quite welcome, Beclak and dogmom. And I as well, think this thread is an excellent idea. A discussion of the numerous ways audism hides itself in actions and words. I do hope that people will use this information as an opportunity to examine themselves and their beliefs on more than a superficial and defensive level.
 

faire_jour

New Member
Wirelessly posted

AlleyCat said:
English and Greek are both spoken (and written) languages.

ASL is not a spoken language.

but they are all full languages. One is not superior to another, therefore one can not be the "right" choice and another "wrong". They are equal.
 

BecLak

Well-Known Member
I think this is a good idea, BecLak:wave:

my thoughts in addition:

-when hearing babies have access to ASL or "baby sign" but deaf babies don't

-language only means speech


Jillio, :ty:your thoughts seem familiar to me - I mentioned about that too!

Good points. :ty: dogmom!

A deaf person or child being denied access to Sign Language as their primary language by hearing and medical professionals at the expense of un-beknowing parents or adults, to put their 'experiments' into practice and/or to put more money into their own pocket/or to keep their job alive - is Audism.
 

jillio

New Member
Wirelessly posted



but they are all full languages. One is not superior to another, therefore one can not be the "right" choice and another "wrong". They are equal.

Way off target. You cannot compare two spoken language choices with the choice of a manual language evolved specifically to fit the unique processing needs of a particular population. To even attempt to do so is, frankly, an example of audism.

Greek is superior when attempting to communicate with the hearing Greek population, English is superior when attempting to communicate with hearing English speakers. ASL is superior in communicating with the deaf.
 
Top