In his book Paddy provides interesting discussions and does an admirable job of bringing in a variety of contemporary theory. However, I do struggle with it. It’s quite dense (and almost 500 pages!), and the
overall argument often gets lost in particulars. Here are a few quotes & comments that might help.

Early on, Paddy repeats the traditional use of Deaf versus deaf. He writes of deaf people: “The vast majority are people whose hearing has become impaired later in life….From the Deaf cultural perspective, these are ‘hearing people who have lost some of their hearing’….When referring to such people, the book will use the term ‘deaf,’ that is, with a small ‘d’”
(33).

He goes on: “Their reality is totally different from those who grow up with severe deafness as their everyday childhood reality….Their closest friends are other Deaf children, with whom they communicate in sign language….All these interactions over the past 200-plus years, all these worldviews, values, norms and beliefs, are situated in and mediated through, sign languages.
These communities have come to adopt Woodward’s (1972) formulation of ‘Deaf’ with a capital ‘D’ to refer to themselves (in English) as culturally
‘Deaf’” (33).

So he begins with the familiar division between culturally Deaf and non-culturally deaf. Furthermore, he stresses the importance of enforcing this boundary: “inability to construct and defend its borders and
boundaries means that the community cannot begin to establish policies and services centered within its own collective values” (41).

This sets up his introduction of the concept of Deafhood, which he explains is Deaf consciousness:

“In order to create a space within which Deaf people’s own self-conceptions can be situated and examined, another term is needed, and this I have designated as Deafhood. It is important to understand that this is not a monolithic concept. Indeed, the rest of the book explores different readings of Deafhood by varying sectors within Deaf communities. But, just
as Deaf history is framed and penetrated from without by discourses on deafness, so the internal frame of Deafhood, looking outwards, can render visible those unwritten Deaf discourses, and thus both encompass and for the first time, go beyond those framings. In doing so, one is essentially in search of a Deaf epistemology, that is, Deaf ways of being in the world, of conceiving that world and their own place within it (both in actuality and a potentiality)….it examines and presents the nature and significance
of Deaf people’s relationships to each other” (81).

I like how this explanation emphasizes that Deafhood is Deaf people’s way of thinking, and that it has room for disagreement and contention; it’s a process that is continually being worked out — it’s not static or dogmatic.

If we just read the explanation of Deafhood by itself, it would seem that Deafhood has space for all deaf people, whether they sign or not. But, coming as it does after Paddy’s introduction of ‘Deaf’ versus ‘deaf,’ he clearly uses Deafhood *only for signing Deaf people*. In this sense, Deafhood seems an extension of the traditional “Deaf,” something he
addresses near the end of the book:

“Contestations of what Deafhood might mean within and to different sectors of the community is a valid cultural process in itself — indeed it is these contestations which can help reveal deeper levels of Deaf cultural meaning than we at present understand….it is inevitable that some will
wish to understand where Deafhood stands in relation to Deaf culture….What Deafhood offers is the chance for a community to find out what it might become once the weight of oppression is lifted” (408-409).

Paddy seems to be aligning Deafhood with the psychology of other postcolonial and minority groups. That is, Deafhood is not just Deaf culture as it currently stands, but an epistemological place where
internalized hegemonic biases, Deaf-on-Deaf discrimination, and so on can gradually be eliminated in a move towards a better Deaf self, or something
like that. (To be fair, there are still large portions of the book I have yet to read — I’ve skimmed to try to understand the overall argument).

He gives the example of racism in the Deaf community, which has long been an unfortunate aspect of Deaf culture. Through Deafhood, he argues, one can get a sense of a “global Deaf self” and reject racial discrimination in favor of a deeper, more appealing sense of Deaf identity (409).

What’s really interesting to me is that I see more Deaf people using Deafhood to mean unity and tolerance, the opposite of “deafism.” Paddy does not deal with this explicitly in his book, but his open letter during the protest saying that Deafhood was not about “Deafer than thou” appears to have spurred this view. This is still being worked out, and that fits
in with Paddy’s idea that Deafhood is a process: its meaning is dynamic and dialogic. The discussions here, are a part of the community deliberating and refining its Deafhood in new ways as it evolves during a time when many deaf children grow up in mainstream environments, have cochlear implants, learn sign at various ages, and so on. The traditional cultural identity that Paddy spends a lot of time describing in the book — the one based on residential schools and
Deaf clubs — is largely a thing of the past.

So the challenge, it seems to me, is how to continue Deaf pride and cultural integrity while avoiding factionalism and infighting that can splinter the community. What do we want Deafhood to mean, and where do we draw boundaries?

“DE Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Hello…oftimes discussions surrounding Deaf people veer towards METHODOLOGY. Granted, it’s very easy to argue over methodology and back up suppositions with research (or pseduoscience). Can we put methodology on the back burner for now, and get back to the spirit of Carrie’s letter?
I’m pasting what Paddy emailed me when I asked him what he’d like to say to the NAD convention attendees. In the middle of my presentation, I got this off my sidekick and signed (um… in which method? ) to the audience. I think there are good issues found in his e-mail where we can discuss here.
****************************************
PADDY LADD’S EMAIL TO NAD CONV ATTENDEES
****************************************
I woudl like to say to say congratulations to all NAD memebrs who came
along with an open mind and heart.
Wish I was with you.I still remember clearly beign at the 1990 conf in
Indianapolis
Understandign the compelxity of Deafhood takes a while to do, but it is
all the mor rewwarding for the efffort that is put into it. The concept of colonialism is central to understanding Deafhood, to understanding what has been done to us. And both also helps us point us towards some models of what to do and what to avoid.
Thus, bringing the USA Deaf community forwards to become more activist-focused, while at the same time including as many people as possible, Deaf or hearing, WITHOUT compromising the agenda itself is a great goal. It needs both courage and compassion.
We are faced with new colonialist forces which aim to wipe Deaf people from the face of the Earth. Even though this cannot be achieved of course, the damage they will wreak in the process needs to be confronted by us. But let us also present the positive reasons why Sign Language Peoples are here on Earth - for what we can teach hearing people about the full beauty of life.
Finally if anyone wants to study more about Deafhood they shoudl work with the Bay area folks, and even come and study here at Bristol on our Deafhood Studies course
Paddy Ladd “
ridorlive

After reading the article, I ended up skimming your whole blog and they’re quite addictive to read! I look forward to more of your future postings and await for your first vblog :)

Pardon me for being out of the loop, but where can
I read your analysis that Allison was referring to?
Or is it just the quotation of yours Allison quoted?

Yeah. You’re right. Same for black people - should have stopped after civil war! Never have fought the Civil Rights battles. They should have stuck with the back of the bus…

It’s not really about Deaf Pride… so much as trying to locate yourself in the world. If you can be honest with yourself about who you are etc., you can become much more successful.

Just two cents.

As the desired self-actualization of all Deaf individuals in Deafhood cannot be achieved without removing roadblocks set by the society, the same way, a flawed presidential search process that promoted a failed and mediocre (as best) administrator to the presidential seat, cannot be fixed without demanding equal access to quality higher education for all Deaf students. In order to succeed, both of these require a new, perhaps common, movement raising high the flag of social justice for all Deaf people.