Pros and cons of Oralism??

loml said:
Passivist

Wouldn't that be awesome Passivist!

"All baggage must be left here, prior to commenting." :deal:
Click to expand...

We're a lost cause ! The hope was we WOULDN'T influence the deaf child as role models with the baggage, we all carry. It's why I was wary, to even suggest anything to the parent who asked in this topic for advice. Whatver poor experieinces I had, or you wouldn't be the same anyway, it would just confuse, and regardless of evreyone ehere puttingin 10 cents worth, we are pretty polarised in viewpoint anywa, the D.d thing has made sure that unity now cannot really happen with an ADULT, I feel staying well out of education (And other people's lives !), will help the child.

Parents get confused anyway especially those who never saw a deaf person really before, and then faced with a deaf child. They are anxious and worried 'which' is the best way to help my child hear, or communicate, then, all that is gone, as the advice deteriorates into factional suggestion Oral ? NO !!!! Sign ? YES !!!! (Or vice versa), deaf school ? hearing school ? then the advice is tainted. I have views on all, but would never suggest my view is paramount or would suit someone elses' child.

The biggest crime is where one 'side' or another in the comms dept suggests if you don't conform to this or that mode, then socially you are dead in the water, that to me, makes my blood boil a bit. No social intercourse, it is a living death sentence for deaf people of all levels of loss. How CAN the extremist/purist make these stipulations ? and who would WANT to be part of their set up ? Many choose it, more out of fear of isolation, than a real want for it. It's the tie that binds the signing people together, fear.
 
Passivist
The biggest crime is where one 'side' or another in the comms dept suggests if you don't conform to this or that mode, then socially you are dead in the water, that to me, makes my blood boil a bit. No social intercourse, it is a living death sentence for deaf people of all levels of loss. How CAN the extremist/purist make these stipulations ? and who would WANT to be part of their set up ? Many choose it, more out of fear of isolation, than a real want for it. It's the tie that binds the signing people together, fear.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more Passivist!
 
Passcifist, you missed something.....I push ALL communication options. Yes, a lot of that is due to desire that dhh kids of today won't experiance the downsides of each option. Every dhh kid will find different things wrong with whatever approach.....Some kids don't undy ASL, some kids who are exposed to both ASL and speech, end up choosing speech only! But parents NEED to know that experimenting is the only real way to find the perfect match. I am most definitly not a "purist".......I believe that dhh kids have the right to be exposed to all different types of communication options. Not just the extremes of ASL-only or totally pure auditory-verbal.
And yes, I've got baggage, but at least I don't have an agenda the way some extremists do.....at least my baggage can help hearing parents understand the downsides of going speech only! Yes, I have biases, but they were born from living the theories of "experts" who thought they knew what was best for me!
Besides, what's YOUR suggestion? Everyone's got biases and nobody is really completly impartial.
It's a lot better then having experts trumpet their theories and biases.
Besdies, with experimentation, parents may be able to discover that althought wittle Smashlie is good at talking, Sign might be able to give her an edge or that CS helps her literacy or whatever. We have suffered too long under a "the default is perfect for everyone!" mentality.....We dhh folks have been damaged under a system that can push damaging myths etc.
 
deafdyke said:
Passcifist, you missed something.....I push ALL communication options. Yes, a lot of that is due to desire that dhh kids of today won't experiance the downsides of each option. Every dhh kid will find different things wrong with whatever approach.....Some kids don't undy ASL, some kids who are exposed to both ASL and speech, end up choosing speech only! But parents NEED to know that experimenting is the only real way to find the perfect match. I am most definitly not a "purist".......I believe that dhh kids have the right to be exposed to all different types of communication options. Not just the extremes of ASL-only or totally pure auditory-verbal.
And yes, I've got baggage, but at least I don't have an agenda the way some extremists do.....at least my baggage can help hearing parents understand the downsides of going speech only! Yes, I have biases, but they were born from living the theories of "experts" who thought they knew what was best for me!
Besides, what's YOUR suggestion? Everyone's got biases and nobody is really completly impartial.
It's a lot better then having experts trumpet their theories and biases.
Besdies, with experimentation, parents may be able to discover that althought wittle Smashlie is good at talking, Sign might be able to give her an edge or that CS helps her literacy or whatever. We have suffered too long under a "the default is perfect for everyone!" mentality.....We dhh folks have been damaged under a system that can push damaging myths etc.
Click to expand...

Of course I am not unbiased or impartial either, but that is for adult debate, it's a kind of 'blood-letting' for want of a better word, amongst fellow adults who may understand the issues, but not children, we've no way of knowing how the individual reacts to the system, some take readily to it, some hate it.

If, after deaf people advise a parent, the child grows up upset at his or her education, who ya gonna sue ? The deaf community who gave the advice ? or the parent who took it ? I've never approached the deaf child area or the parent and gave my own view, because I don't think it's my place to. The facts are that pro and anti sign/oral camps really exist and there is not much common ground between them, if they got together and agreed what works gets used we would all bump along fine.

The 'battle' is against these pro and anti groups widening the split, if we can advance the deaf child in any way, we can level the playing field for them by taking the pro-anti sectors on, that's our contribution I think, well, It's mine in my own way I suppose. We are older, wiser, and have thicker skins presumably !
 
If, after deaf people advise a parent, the child grows up upset at his or her education, who ya gonna sue ? The deaf community who gave the advice ? or the parent who took it ? I've never approached the deaf child area or the parent and gave my own view, because I don't think it's my place to. The facts are that pro and anti sign/oral camps really exist and there is not much common ground between them, if they got together and agreed what works gets used we would all bump along fine.
Click to expand...
Well, Passcifift that is why Deaf education should work on a full toolbox way of working. I know there are a lot of extremists......but the way to equipt a dhh kid for life is to make sure they get ALL tools possible.....and don't really listen to the extremists.
 
deafdyke said:
Well, Passcifift that is why Deaf education should work on a full toolbox way of working. I know there are a lot of extremists......but the way to equipt a dhh kid for life is to make sure they get ALL tools possible.....and don't really listen to the extremists.
Click to expand...

Extremists are the people changing mainstream (and deaf), perceptions of access and education, you cannot ignore them or they will install what they want to see by default, it may well not be the 'full toolbox' we would like to see. The problem is the moderates of the respective worlds, take the stance of ignoring extremists believing nobody listens to them. Bad move !

What the moderate is up against, is a determined group of people who want to segregate deaf people, and limit options. A group VERY adept at manipulating 'rights' and access to get their way too. It's a conundrum, in that these people, are the most ABLE among the deaf we have, yet here they are stating ways and means of keeping the lesser able OUT of the access areas, and using wider options, so THEY can call all the shots.

They use sign language, culture, and oralism to hammer home divisive messages, they polarize opinion, they invent words and terms that enhance that division (Like audism, D, d, deafies etc), it is a very subtle message, based on the 'rights' message and cultural one, a little bit of truth, and a lot of vagaries and lies, but it does work, the silent majority are just that, SILENT, so, ignored. WE may not listen to these 'messages' but others do.
 
Passivist, that is a very one-sided post there. What about oral extremists? That kind often makes deaf children want to sign more. A lot of these extremists you are talking about have been physically tortured for signing and are now proud that they do.

I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just pointing out the other side.
 
gnulinuxman said:
Passivist, that is a very one-sided post there. What about oral extremists? That kind often makes deaf children want to sign more. A lot of these extremists you are talking about have been physically tortured for signing and are now proud that they do.

I'm not saying you're wrong--I'm just pointing out the other side.
Click to expand...

Of course there are two sides, and both have their extremists. Like many here I support the total approach. Sorry if it came over anti-sign, I was perhaps reflecting the state of Gallaudet, and similar views we have in the UK, where sign users are generally higher profile than oralists, so their extremists are seen more perhaps. I think the blur is where education uses an oral/sign approach and the backlash from sign users is very much against using oral means. As we've said there are pros and cons with BOTH means, whatever works. It's not always easy to identify oral extremists, they too use 'rights' and 'choice' as a blunt instrument to force a view over too.

In advocating either/or methods, I am suggesting free choice, not saying A is better than B, ability should dictate not dogma. The mode is lesser the issue than what follows after you take either of them up, which is REALLY The issue, what happens AFTERWARDS (Social interaction etc), the more power you have to the elbow the better is the prime view, this need not be an issue with a deaf community, sign/culture, or using your voice and hearing aid if you have one.
 
ThreeLittleBear said:
After I first found out that my daughter was deaf, I started looking around into different services and programs in our area. A few times I ran into groups or people that were for oral only. Back then I had wondered about the pros and cons of it, but never really got into it. But after looking around this board I've been wondering about it again.

Can anyone tell me some of the pros and cons of it?
Click to expand...
As you can see, this is a very complicated issue. I think that any logical person will have to agree with at least what I have bolded - here is something I said in an earlier post:

Spoken languages and signed languages each have their benefits. I think the problem many deaf people have with spoken language is NOT that a deaf child can speak, that is an AMAZING tool for a deaf person to have. The problem is not in a ACQUIRING the ability to speak, but rather an overall lack of language COMPREHENSION that comes with it.
When parents focus only on a child's ability to speak, they often sacrifice so much in comprehension.
I have deaf friends who don't speak, deaf friends who do, and hoh friends that grew up oral and are now learned/have learned sign. The ones that seem to have the most trouble in life are my hoh friends who speak well! Yes, they can communicate with the hearing world, and yes, that is nice, BUT their common knowledge is WAY below average.
When a deaf/hoh child has to focus SO much on learning to speak, and on being able to physically understand the words that are being said, understanding their meaning becomes secondary. Often times, oral deaf/hoh people learn to fake it very well, but if you get into a real conversation with them, signed or spoken, you will see how much they have missed.
 
Passivist said:
I meant it was very obvious NO-ONE here is unbiased. The lady was asking for advice or suggestion, I think we are far too biased to offer balance, ... If anything the best way forward would be to ignore people here, start fresh, and with an open attitude.
Click to expand...
Okay, when a person posts on a forum, I think it is safe to assume that person is looking for various opinions. Obviously everyone has a bias, but isn't it good for the person asking to hear the experiences of various deaf adults? I think it's SO important for hearing parents to meet and communicate with all types of successful and unsucessful deaf adults. It is true that a child is not the same as an adult, but a child will grow up to BE an adult, and will have a story, like everyone here. And, all that said, it is OKAY to have an opinion on what's better, from personal experience or otherwise. You hopefully can still be open to change, but holding beliefs and expressing them to other people is OKAY. It encourages critical thinking, among other things.
 
gnulinuxman said:
Passivist, that is a very one-sided post there. What about oral extremists?
Click to expand...
One BIG thing that several people here seem to forget, 90% of doctors and the hearing world will, often times out of ignorance alone, ASSUME that oralism is better than signing. Almost all doctors and hearing professionals that work with the "hearing impaired" have a pathological view of deafness that says it is something that needs to be fixed, something wrong, and the deaf person should do everything possible to fit in the hearing world as much as possible...These people often have no idea about any deaf community, and far worse for the child, NO idea what risks they are taking in going the oral only route.
When we talk about oral extremism, we also need to include most hearing people that are ignorant about deafness and do STRONGLY bias parents. Hearing people overall pity deaf people, and want to help and fix them -professionals and friends/family/neighbors, etc. often hearing parents of deaf children themselves-- that INPUT to hearing parents is nearly always going to automaticallly bias them, a huge reason I think hearing parents need to talk to deaf adults, and see what it is really like...not what hearing people who have an aunt's, cousins, sister's, friend that is deaf and who know SO little about the abilities and needs of deaf people.
 
signer16 said:
One BIG thing that several people here seem to forget, 90% of doctors and the hearing world will, often times out of ignorance alone, ASSUME that oralism is better than signing. Almost all doctors and hearing professionals that work with the "hearing impaired" have a pathological view of deafness that says it is something that needs to be fixed, something wrong, and the deaf person should do everything possible to fit in the hearing world as much as possible...These people often have no idea about any deaf community, and far worse for the child, NO idea what risks they are taking in going the oral only route.
When we talk about oral extremism, we also need to include most hearing people that are ignorant about deafness and do STRONGLY bias parents. Hearing people overall pity deaf people, and want to help and fix them -professionals and friends/family/neighbors, etc. often hearing parents of deaf children themselves-- that INPUT to hearing parents is nearly always going to automaticallly bias them, a huge reason I think hearing parents need to talk to deaf adults, and see what it is really like...not what hearing people who have an aunt's, cousins, sister's, friend that is deaf and who know SO little about the abilities and needs of deaf people.
Click to expand...

Hearing people go deaf too. many acquire deafness and know these things having seen both sides of the question and living both sides too, not really an option to those born deaf, or without any useful hearing from day one. Let's look at it from a medical viewpoint (I know we don't like to !), they mostly respond to parents wishes and desires, parents come into a consultants room and ask "How much hearing can my child acquire ?", or "How much is a CI operation ?".

If a Dr responds with the choices medically available he or she is accused of disrepecting the deaf community and enforcing modes that are bad for them, Drs do get pressure from parents too, and in America the dollar decides as we know ! American Drs will do ANY operation for cash so long as the patient waives the responsibility. Are they not, just responding to demand ? If a parent is desperate for their child to hear and will pay for a CI, a Dr will oblige, what else ? if they don't someone else will. The day when a consultant is going to invite deaf community members to a private surgery to offer their side is pretty remote isn't it ? Patient confidentiality also applies.
 
Thank you Signer16!!!
BUT their common knowledge is WAY below average.
Click to expand...
Exactly....like their verbal IQ is low and their incidental learning store is such that they seem very sheltered or naive.
 
signer16 said:
... The problem is not in a ACQUIRING the ability to speak, but rather an overall lack of language COMPREHENSION that comes with it.
When parents focus only on a child's ability to speak, they often sacrifice so much in comprehension.
I have deaf friends who don't speak, deaf friends who do, and hoh friends that grew up oral and are now learned/have learned sign. The ones that seem to have the most trouble in life are my hoh friends who speak well! Yes, they can communicate with the hearing world, and yes, that is nice, BUT their common knowledge is WAY below average.
When a deaf/hoh child has to focus SO much on learning to speak, and on being able to physically understand the words that are being said, understanding their meaning becomes secondary. Often times, oral deaf/hoh people learn to fake it very well, but if you get into a real conversation with them, signed or spoken, you will see how much they have missed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is a very valid point and something I used to struggle with in my early years. It wasn't so much a problem when I was one on one or in small groups but the larger world it was so problematical. I didn't catch the "drift" floating out there very often and I would be mostly clueless. I had the book knowledge as I am an excellent reader and read everything under the sun and was way ahead of the other kids hearing or otherwise. Once I got the "hang" of the cultural mileu somewhere in my late teens/early twenties, it became easy for me to exist in the hearing world. Took me a long time to understand that is not easy for most HOH (and some never "get" it) who never been hearing before.

I'm not sure why that is so easily and often overlooked by the "professionals" including parents who should be able to see this. I mean it is kind of obvious (at least to me) when talking to HOH who seem to be "missing" stuff or seemingly lacking in understanding one's direction in conversation.
 
A Lack of hearing is obviously not a lack of understanding, but a lack of appropriate communication to follow. The suggestion mainstream always used in the past was that being deaf meant you had no ability to understand anything said, we weren't able to HEAR, which is quite different, that evolved into deaf people are stupid, and many in mainstream STILL attibute the fact deaf cannot follow the spoken word very well, to not listening !
 
Passivist said:
A Lack of hearing is obviously not a lack of understanding, but a lack of appropriate communication to follow. The suggestion mainstream always used in the past was that being deaf meant you had no ability to understand anything said, we weren't able to HEAR, which is quite different, that evolved into deaf people are stupid, and many in mainstream STILL attibute the fact deaf cannot follow the spoken word very well, to not listening !
Click to expand...

If you don't hear what is being said, you lack the context of which I meant by the word understanding. I wasn't implying ignorance as such. I can't tell you how many times especially early on in life that when I lost the drift of a conversation that I didn't understand the direction of conversation anymore nor of what we were talking about. Perhaps we are saying the same thing differently...
 
OK the original question was pros and cons of "oralism"

Pros: If family is hearing eveyone can communicate and the child is fully functional in the world at large.

The child can be mainstreamed so you have a much larger choice of schools

Cons: It doesn't always work like they say it will

It isn't usually covered by the public schools system so be prepared to pay

The particular school I spoke to refused to take my son if he was also learning sign- WTF?

It can be a lot more difficult and stressful for the student

They can get lost in mainstream school if you aren't constantly on your toes


I will add that I have heard as many opinions on this subject as deaf/hoh people I have talked to about it.
 
zookeeper4321 said:
OK the original question was pros and cons of "oralism"

Pros: If family is hearing eveyone can communicate and the child is fully functional in the world at large.

The child can be mainstreamed so you have a much larger choice of schools

Cons: It doesn't always work like they say it will

It isn't usually covered by the public schools system so be prepared to pay

The particular school I spoke to refused to take my son if he was also learning sign- WTF?

It can be a lot more difficult and stressful for the student

They can get lost in mainstream school if you aren't constantly on your toes


I will add that I have heard as many opinions on this subject as deaf/hoh people I have talked to about it.
Click to expand...

It can be argued deaf WILL face discrimination when they leave education, so what's the point cocooning them in a deaf-only environment ? you're just delaying the inevitable, and worse not equipping them to face up to it, hence why they head for each other and a deaf-only system when schools are over, it negates access, integration is just a long word. Mainstream does get bad press and is mostly justified, but the deaf will learn about coping strategies there, they won't in a deaf school, and leave and get traumatized, when they find all that helpful support and empathy has gone.

Discrimination is a FACT of life, we cannot really lull these deaf children into a false sense of security, they need to be made aware of how to deal with it. How to be a deaf person in a hearing world, not a Deaf person in a deaf one. The issue is they aren't taught these things, and attend a school where a dependency on others is a fact of life, where hearing are just 'support', and their socializing not with hearing anyway, why change the habit of a lifetime when you leave that environment ? Should we be cruel to be kind, to save them angst after ? What price integration ?
 
Passivist said:
It can be argued deaf WILL face discrimination when they leave education, so what's the point cocooning them in a deaf-only environment ? you're just delaying the inevitable, and worse not equipping them to face up to it, hence why they head for each other and a deaf-only system when schools are over, it negates access, integration is just a long word. Mainstream does get bad press and is mostly justified, but the deaf will learn about coping strategies there, they won't in a deaf school, and leave and get traumatized, when they find all that helpful support and empathy has gone.

Discrimination is a FACT of life, we cannot really lull these deaf children into a false sense of security, they need to be made aware of how to deal with it. How to be a deaf person in a hearing world, not a Deaf person in a deaf one. The issue is they aren't taught these things, and attend a school where a dependency on others is a fact of life, where hearing are just 'support', and their socializing not with hearing anyway, why change the habit of a lifetime when you leave that environment ? Should we be cruel to be kind, to save them angst after ? What price integration ?
Click to expand...

If you are referring to my comment about children getting lost in mainstream it is not intended to say that you shouldn't send them. What I mean is stay on the schools arse constantly. This is based on my experience with my oldest child who recently graduated. He is learning disabled and they tried to let him fall through the cracks at every turn from K-12. As his mother it was my job to make them follow the laws and give him the help he needed. If my deaf son attends public school it will be no different. I will have to be his advocate constantly. This is not to say public is right or wrong that is every parent's personal choice.
 
zookeeper4321 said:
If you are referring to my comment about children getting lost in mainstream it is not intended to say that you shouldn't send them. What I mean is stay on the schools arse constantly. This is based on my experience with my oldest child who recently graduated. He is learning disabled and they tried to let him fall through the cracks at every turn from K-12. As his mother it was my job to make them follow the laws and give him the help he needed. If my deaf son attends public school it will be no different. I will have to be his advocate constantly. This is not to say public is right or wrong that is every parent's personal choice.
Click to expand...

We agree mainstream has a long way to go, but so have the deaf, no-one thinks it wil be easy, you've many hundreds of years of being told deaf are stupid, Rome wasn't built in a day, we have to keep plugging away until we win. If deaf consitently retreat into a deaf world because it's less hassle, will they ever get a chance to leave it ? or widen their options ? Life is a bitch, THEN it gets worse. Access won't come to deaf, they have to utilise it for it to work, or it's a waste of time. Access means compromise, access means wider prospects for everyone, access means pain.
 
Back
Top