I was intrigued by a number of comments made recently on DeafDC.com regarding whether or not an “oral deaf person” (note the lower-case “d”) can become a member of “Deaf Culture” (note the upper-case “D”). I do not wish to further pursue that particular discussion here–rather I have an entirely different set of questions. But first some background. . .
Here are a number of web definitions that I have found on the word “culture:”
• Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving.
• Culture is the systems of knowledge shared by a relatively large group of people.
• Culture is communication, communication is culture.
• Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior; that is the totality of a person’s learned, accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social learning.
• A culture is a way of life of a group of people–the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.
• Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group’s skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society through its institutions.
• Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other hand, as conditioning influences upon further action.
• Culture is the sum of total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are generally considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from generation to generation.
• Culture is a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.
Now, when people speak of “Deaf culture,” what they usually mean (or at least allude to) is signing Deaf culture (in America, ASL-signing Deaf culture, to be precise). They aren’t usually talking about the “Deaf community,” which includes a broad range of D/deaf people who use a broad range of different types of sign communication, and they aren’t usually talking about “deaf” people (note again the lower-case “d,” which denotes biological and not cultural deafness).
All of that might seem a complicated enough mess to make sense out of. But here’s a new question that might potentially complicate things even more:
Is it possible for an oral deaf person to be a member of “Oral Deaf culture?”
I confess to extensive ignorance regarding the following questions, and I’d be fascinated upon learning the answers: Are there residential oral schools for the deaf? If so can they pass on systems of knowledge, a way of life, and other things that fit the criteria listed above? Can they offer a unique sense of identity that is separate and distinct from what is known as “hearing society” (although “hearing society” is so diffuse it is difficult to argue that it is capable of generating a universal set of values, norms, or mores related solely to “hearing”)?
If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, then what we may end up with is evidence for the argument that a non-signing, oral deaf person can indeed be culturally deaf… but he or she would belong to a “deaf culture” (or would it be “Oral Deaf culture?” I have no idea) that has nothing to do with American Sign Language.
Now again, I don’t know the answers to these questions. I’m no sociologist. And truthfully this isn’t an area I’ve really explored. So I leave these questions to the readers, and we’ll see where the discussion goes. However, I’d like to propose a modest guideline for anyone who might wish to comment. It’s not my intention to start up another debate on who can rightfully claim a place in ASL-using Deaf culture. That’s not the point of this post. To repeat, the primary questions here are whether or not an oral deaf culture is even possible, and if so (or not), why or why not? And how would such a culture be distinct from hearing society—in other words, how would we know that we’re talking about “oral deaf culture” and not “hearing people in general?” Remember also that we’d be talking about people who were raised under oralism, and by virtue of being so raised, this particular group would by definition exclude deaf people who are “merely” biologically deaf (such as late-deafened people who were born hearing, went to mainstream schools their whole lives, never once had to sit through a speech therapy session or a lip reading class, etc.). So a lower-case “d” would no longer do the job of adequately distinguishing these two groups.
What are your thoughts? To start the discussion off, think on these things: Do the vast majority of hearing people take speech training classes or lip reading classes? No. Thus the oral deaf are distinct from the hearing not only because of their deafness, but also because of a set of skills that they can certainly pass down to later generations if they so choose. Do the oral deaf in America have their own language? Well, perhaps not their own, (whatever that means. . . who living amongst us currently invented ASL?) but they do have one: English, and so far as that goes, their language is just as symbollic as anyone else’s…
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Chris asked, “Is it possible for an oral deaf person to be a member of “Oral Deaf culture?”
Yes. We live in a democratic country. The minimum requirement for membership is holding an interest in Oral Deaf culture. It’s that easy! Oral types tend to think they’re more civilized than Manual types so why will they be hypocritical in that regard by excluding people interested in what their said culture have to offer?
Often Manual Deaf culture excludes any that doesn’t represent their ideals and excluded from Manual Deaf culture are those Oral/oral Deaf/deaf Adults/adults.
Two wrongs doesn’t make one right. Therefore, Oral Deaf culture can’t exclude people if they’re interested. Therefore, what good does your question serve now? You’re making it appear as if oral deaf types should expect to experience some kind of trembling sensations climbing up the stairs to the Oral Deaf clubhouse.
If Oral Deaf culture rejects any people then they’re engaging in double standards. I think Oral Deaf culture are too intelligent looking to do wrong. Too much old money involved. Just for starters, look at AGBAD, Clarke, Central. Extremely slick.
Why did I mention Adults? Disregard. I meant this apply to people regardless of age.
First, allow me to say I think the argument about D/deaf culture is ridiculous. It’s not about “membership” or “going on witch hunts to determine who’s culturally deaf or not” … it’s about whether in scientific terms is there such a thing as Deaf culture and persons who fit the criteria to be a culturally Deaf person. Don’t like it? Go argue with the anthropologists, linguists and sociologists. THEY are the ones who determined that it does exist!
Now, onto the possibility of whether there’s an oral deaf culture. From what I’ve learned in sociology and anthropology, I would say it’s possibly a sub-culture. Not a culture of its own. Oral deaf do not have their own unique language, and that’s a requirement to be a culture of its own.
I also want to point out that the entire point of oralism is to assimilate the deaf person into hearing society. There is no hearing culture per se, but there is a hearing society. Do all oral deaf share the same values, folklore, humor, and beliefs that is required for a sub-culture to exist? (I excluded language, because that promotes the sub-culture to culture.)
That’s a very good question, and I don’t know the answer to that for two reasons: I’m not an oral deaf, and I don’t have a Ph.D. in anthropology or sociology.
Hi DP, yeah, same boat (not a sociologist). I was thinking about the “no unique language of their own” thing, but then lookat the USA, Britian, and Australia. English. But different cultures? Yes. Does anyone know how you move up from being a subset culture (as possibly the original American colonies were?) to being a full-fledged culture?
And also on assimilation… that interested me too while I was writing the post, and I thought to myself, wow, a lot of the Oral Deaf people I’ve met (I’m using caps to denote formal training in oral methods and not deaf senior citizens who still happen to talk…) say they have many other Oral Deaf friends. So what if, in a sense, assimilation never fully happened? In fact based on many of the comments I’ve seen in here (”Hearing people have rejected me TOO!”) I’m almost certain it didn’t. So if a lot of Oral Deaf socialize amongst their own kind, and a corresponding “Oral Deaf community” of sorts sprang up to accomodate those who never fully or perfectly “took” to oral methods yet never learned to sign, either… well.
I’m just saying that if we looked at it that way, we’d be in a somewhat different situation than there just being a Deaf Culture, Deaf Community, and approximately 29.5 thousand people with “hearing loss” aligned against it (or so it would seem)…
You asked, “Does anyone know how you move up from being a subset culture (as possibly the original American colonies were?) to being a full-fledged culture?”
Answer: You start a revolution?
Cheers.
Or, I guess, you paint a picture (so you have art unique to the culture), or you make your use of language more distinct (aren’t they calling Cued Speech Cued Language nowadays?), or you write a book (so you have literature), or you make up some myth (so you have folklore)…
So it would seem that it’d just become a question of when you have enough stuff to be an actual culture in your own right…
One of the biggest distinction that makes a culture a culture is the food. Any “Deaf” food out there?
bad cafeteria food. ;)
Oh, god, yes, especially in the residential schools. The dining highlight of the week was the spaghetti because it was nearly impossible for the cafeteria ladies to screw that one up.
For breakfast: a bowlful of oats that tasted like paste.
For lunch: a plateful of grits.
For dinner: a plateful of boiled
potato and cabbage!
McConnell: in all seriousness, of course Deaf culture does not include its own cuisine, and does not have its own religion, and does not have its own mode of dress.
Mike,
Kidding aside from my note above, Michele Ketcham is right that Deaf Culture does not include cuisine or religion. It is a member of linguistic minorities which do not icnlude cuisine or religion. Deaf Culture was declared in 2006 as an ethnicity per Sociologist Richard Eckert of University of Wisconsin at Madison. The title of Eckert’s dissertation is “Deafnicity.”
Here’s the dissertation title and abstract:
Deafnicity: A study of strategic and adaptive responses to audism by members of the Deaf American community of culture
by Eckert, Richard Clark, Ph.D., University of Michigan, 2005, 201 pages; AAT 3163790
Abstract (Summary)
This project focuses on the social organization and the perceptions of real and imagined differences between Hearing people and members of the Deaf American community of culture who prefer to use American Sign Language in their daily activities.
At the core of those differences, organizations and institutions compete for cultural hegemonic gain; especially in the areas of education, methods of communication, and technology. The competing goals of the institutions and organizations are evidenced in debates between medical circumstantialists with assimilatory goals and cultural constructionists with goals of plurality. Comparatively, the concept of Deafnicity illuminates inequalities and cultural anxieties experienced by members of the Deaf American community of culture; especially the stratifying features of Hearing society and members of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing communities.
Three questions serve as the centerpiece of this study. First, do members of the Deaf American community of culture exhibit enough of the characteristics of ethnicity to warrant the analogy of being like ethnics? Second, to what extent, if any, are the processes of constructing, maintaining, and renewing ethnic identity boundaries similar to that of other ethnic populations? Finally, I asked, to what extent, if any, does the concept of ethnicity improve our understanding of prejudice and discrimination that Deaf Americans experience in their daily lives.
This research is organized by theories of nation-state, social organization of cultural differences, and ethnic renewal. This study utilizes historical, qualitative and quantitative evidence to establish that Deaf Americans exhibit the characteristics of ethnicity and maintain ethnic boundaries in ways similar to other ethnic populations, but renew the boundaries primarily outside the family unit.
This study concludes that discrimination and prejudice perceived by Deaf Americans are products of a cultural divide, whereby hearing people and Deaf Americans compete to define the structure of social interactions between each other. I introduce the concept of Deafnicity as a Deaf American adaptive and strategic response toward individual, institutional, and metaphysical forms of audism or the stratifying presumption of superiority based on differences in physicality; hearing loss specifically.
That Richard Eckert?? The guy’s so anti-CI?
The “Deaf food”? Of course, it was a joke.
I wonder what Richard B. has to say?
Ha, bitter irony here… if oral deaf people who are currently dissatisfied with their “sub-culture” status (assuming that’s actually where they’re at) ever started a revolution in order once and for all establish themselves as a separate and real culture, guess what they’d be called?
Haha! “Deaf Militants!”
Chris, I would think that the values, beliefs, humor and folklore are different between America, Britain and Australia. Therefore, they all have their own individual cultures.
Good point. So. I don’t know and I’m asking… are there values, beliefs, humor, and folklore unique to Oral Deaf people (remember now too this would probably have to be distinct from overall Hearing Society).
I mean how hard is it to see something like that springing up over time? We’ve seen Deaf/ASL jokes… any jokes about lipreading, speech therapy, shared amongst lip readers or people in speech therapy? Or unique values? I mean, it can’t ALL be about being as “hearing” as possible. Even many oral deaf people have expressed misgivings about Hearing Society…
Then again who knows? It’d be interesting to see…
Would you consider annual gatherings of oral deaf alumni as a part of the oral deaf culture? My oral deaf friends make a big point of going to the SJI alumni reunion to see their old deaf friends. I was supposed to go to the last reunion, but didn’t because of work.
Hm. I don’t see why it couldn’t be…
Are you being subtle?
What do you exactly mean by that?
Just uncertain and simultaneously open-minded. Don’t know enough about this to really say one way or another…
I’m not sure if what I say can relate here, but to answer the question about “oral deaf” jokes…would phonetic signs constitute as such humor that labels oral deafs? An example of a joke I’ve seen are: “Pasteurized Milk” which the sign milk is passed moved from one side of the face to the other in reference to eyes…hence “Pass your eyes milk”. :D I get a big kick out of this, but I’ve learned that CODAs tend to hate the living daylight outta this. Another one is “walking ahead” which signs as using two fingers to walk across your head. hee hee
Chris, you can actually see this sort of “self segregation” at the cafeteria (e.g Gally) where you see those who were brought up Orally sit in one particular area versus those who were brought up using ASL would sit in another area. It was pretty fascinating to see this happen once you become fully aware of it happening.
Hi Mike,
I wonder what you’d see though if it were the other way around. I don’t know if there are predominantly oral residential schools/institutions but if there are, and a kid was bought up using ASL but was then switched for some reason, would he be sitting at a table alone or with the few other signers? I’d almost have to think yes, for the same reasons…
Don’t know about that (the school thing). It might turn out to be an interesting observation if it were the case.
As someone with a minor interest in anthropology — undergraduate studies, though — I think that big C culture doesn’t really exist anyway.
Anthropologists wouldn’t argue that it does — there’s a shying away from absolutes and from “scientific definitions.” Sociologists might disagree. But I doubt it. Culture is very malleable thing. And is defined by gatekeepers to some extent, but also by the individual.
There are cultures. And yes, there are oral deaf cultureS. Although you might want to drop that with a deaf/hh culture. But it’s going to be different in different places. It’s different in DC than it would be in Maryland. Although the regional characteristics would be more similar to say groups from California.
External and internal factors are at play here as well — from the importance of groups like HearingLoss Association and their local presence, to the existence of schools and “mainstreaming” policies.
What I might suggest is that there is no monolithic capital D deaf culture. There are deaf cultures. And perhaps that includes some people that are oral. It seems beneficial if it does. Especially from a political/visability standpoint.
I see this debate as very similar to how LGBT people have expanded their definitions overtime. And in some places that “T” took a long time to come around. (In SF, when I was working with youth we also added two “Qs” — queer and questioning). The ever expanding circle has been a very helpful technique and a sign that we are accepting while others might try to reject us. Of course though, there are still bears and twinks and dykes and fems and jocks and urban gays and rural gays and whatever else that individually great smaller nodes within the community (and cultures) at large.
DC1974,
Oh, I’m HIGHLY convinced there is an ASL-using Deaf culture. In fact I have no doubt whatsoever about that–it has satisfied all of the criteria listed in my post and then some.
But I do think that if at the other end of the spectrum, beyond the ASL-using “deaf community” (small-d) and the oral-deaf community (small-d) there are people who, by virtue of having gone to oral institutions (not mainstream programs) a lot closer to meeting the criteria for an Oral Deaf Culture than are people who are merely in the overall oral deaf “community.”
If they aren’t a full-fledged culture in and of themselves, that particular fire can start burning more brightly at any time…
JMHO.
I would say sub-culture is the best fit. I am considered by hearing people and doctors as severe-profoundly deaf but by some culturally Deaf people they consider me hearing due to not being a fluent signer or being in Deaf schools when I was growing up. Just know this…..being the only one in your school or classroom or just being singled out due to your differences or lack of ability to communcation efficiently. My speech problems were considered just that a speech problem, I was not diagnosed with a hearing problem until later and so many also labeled me as being slow.
Ahhhh, a nice philosophical question Chris! (No complaints about the parsing and explication of the question from me - I rather like this kind of thing.)
I wonder if the concept of “oral deaf culture” might be a subset of the concept of “disability culture”? When I go to disability-themed conferences/events, people talk about “disability culture”, but this always confuses me because I can never put my finger on just what this means; there seem to be several variations of disability culture because people’s experiences are so varied. The only thing that holds a broad concept like “disability culture” together seems to be the experience of being discriminated against or excluded, and perhaps using a shared vocabulary to represent certain kinds of experiences (ADA, ADAAG, Department of Justice claims, protection and Advocacy) which doesn’t seem to be sufficient for a culture, since many people who fall under the “disability culture” grouping seem to have just as many similarities as differences. And if in-group variation is similar to variation across groups, it becomes really hard to justify our classification schemes, doesn’t it?
I have to say that I’m wondering about this whole issue of “culture” versus a shared set of experiences. I’m just not clear on the difference…when does a shared set of experiences become culture? I’ve been to conferences dealing with cultures ranging from “hip-hip culture” to “crip culture” and I’m still confused by what exactly culture is/means. I’m looking for more than an argument by authority - a philosophically coherent and cogent definition of culture that doesn’t beg the question would satisfy me. Any sociologists or anthropologists out there?
I’m also perplexed by Deaf Spook’s post - it seems to imply that if one has an interest in xyz, then xyz culture exists. Surely this cannot be right. Did I miss something?
As I read it, Chris, you are asking whether it is possible for oral deaf culture to exist, and if so, what it might look like. I’m curious about the answers too, but I’m also wondering if the DeafDC site is the best place to ask this question - how many oral deaf folks read this and where do oral deaf people blog?
Again, great question.
Could it be oral by those who do it aurally as well?
Again, we need to make it clear on using “Deaf community” vs “deaf community” which the former is exclusive (ASL signing community) while the latter is all inclusive for those with hearing loss regardless on preferred mode of communication used.
Well, I… wow, I don’t know. From a layman’s perspective, if what I’m talking about above is possible then to me it looks something like this:
A-B——M-N——-Y–Z
A = Deaf Culture
B-M = Deaf Community (signing… hence the “D”)
N-Y = oral deaf community
Z = Oral Deaf Culture
A-Z = deaf community
and that would be a very rough division with nothing to designate overlaps. But it DOES show us that Deaf Oral Culture is probably as exclusive as ASL-using Deaf Culture, with its corresponding “community” being much more inclusive…
And while I don’t know how to illustrate this, I’d like it to show that “Oral Deaf Culture” and “oral deaf community,” by virtue of being trained under oral methods, are still very small slices of the overall pie when compared to the much bigger group of people who just went deaf in old age. Hence it would make no real sense to say “There are 30 million people in this country with hearing loss and most were not taught using ASL,” because they weren’t taught using oral methods, either. Not formally, anyway.
My comment will surprise no one here (especially anyone who reads my past comments!).
There’s no such thing as oral deaf culture.
There’s no such thing as disability culture.
To put it bluntly, oral deaf people spend their lives trying to BE hearing. Think about it: members of other cultures don’t TRY to be others.
As for disability groups…they didn’t talk about culture until AFTER ASL-Deaf started talking about having their own culture. Then the disability groups got on our bandwagon, and I for one find it very irritating because it diminishes the legitimate efforts of ASL-Deaf people to get their culture recognized.
Yeah, Michele, but what if something more is going on here? Let’s leave ASL-using Deaf Culture mostly out of it for the sake of the argument. Suppose I have five “deaf” (non-signing) friends and we were all trained in lip reading, CUE, whatever. Then in adulthood, one of us has learned to sign, one has entirely moved over to Hearing Society (not one deaf friend left–oral or otherwise–works with no oral deaf people, etc). In that person’s case, fine. Assimilation.
But suppose the others socialize only amongst themselves, or mostly stay friends with other oral deaf people and have comparatively fewer (if any) hearing friends, spouses, etc. Furthermore a lot of them, too might work in oral-support programs for oral-deaf children, etc. In other words they stay in their community. Then assimilation didn’t happen.
But I’m not sure…
My comments still stand because hearing people generally socialize amongst themselves, and we don’t say they have a “culture” based on being hearing.
The only way they have a “culture” is via their race, ethnicity or religion (Jewish).
The ASL-Deaf culture isn’t defined by who they socialize with, although it is true that they overwhelmingly marry other Deaf people, hang out together, etc.
It takes much more than that to define a culture.
At the risk of boring people, I’m going to refer to my old lecture notes from my Deaf culture course.
Deaf culture includes the following:
-language (ASL)
-literature (Deaf Heritage by Jack Gannon, Deaf poetry on videotape, etc)
-art (Betty Miller, Chuck Baird, etc…also there’s a genre called Deaf View Image Art, known as DeVIA for short)
-folklore/history
-social customs/mores/values
Now, to go into social customs/mores/values (I’m only including SOME examples!)…Deaf culture members believe:
-Deaf culture members aren’t ambivalent at all, think it’s a good thing to be Deaf;
-Deaf people refer to themselves as ‘Deaf’ in organizational names and in conversations..they never refer to themselves as ‘people with hearing impairments’ (if they do, it is always in front of hearing people who use it…e.g., at work for example)
-Deaf parents hope to have Deaf children
-Deaf cultural goals: acceptance of ASL/Deaf culture
-Integration isn’t so great (seek voluntary separation, not forced integration)
Now, look at oral deaf:
-Generally, they ARE ambivalent, and they don’t necessarily think their deafness is a good thing.
-they often refer to themselves as ‘hearing impaired’
-they don’t “hope” to have deaf children..they want HEARING children.
-their goals: to fit in hearing society and to be successful in hearing society
-they think integration is great (being part of hearing society and all that)
Again, look at the ultimate organization for deaf oralists: AG Bell Association FOR the Deaf…(note that Deaf culture-friendly organizations use “OF the Deaf” instead of “FOR the Deaf”)…what did AG Bell organization do? They HIRED a hearing man as their executive director!! Why not oral deaf?
It’s because oral deaf are too comfortable and too accepting of the idea of having hearing people run their affairs. Therefore, do oral deaf people have their own culture, autonomy, etc? No.
I would disagree with certain aspects that they are “trying to be hearing” when it’s all about using a particular set of communication skills that they are good at. Namely either by lip reading (oral), aurally or both to communicate with other people, deaf or hearing. The accusatory charge sounds almost like the old hidden euphemism of the “she’s not Deaf enough” meme because she chooses to do it orally, or both aurally and orally. It’d be an attempt to grossly label these people as “trying to be hearing.” Not entirely true. For many it’s a choice on how they prefer to communicate with the hearing population. Not about trying to be hearing. Especially not so in small groups or one to one situations. Many do know their limitations. But to say that they are “trying to be hearing” is simply prejudicial, discriminatory and biased attitudes whenever people foist those kinds of accusations.
Why they choose to use the oral/aural approach could be a matter of efficiency. It could be a matter of ego not realizing there are other tools of communication available (ie signing). It could be a host of reasons why they choose to use the oral/aural approach to communicate. Just because a deaf person can talk to a hearing person does not mean that he/she is trying to be like a hearing person. Just that he/she has that skill to communicate well. And that it’s a more efficient approach to do so depending on the circumstances.
So, when one talks about oral deaf, I’m interested in the fact whether they are using their whatever beneficial hearing they have with their speaking skill or not. Or are we really talking about people who cannot derive any beneficial hearing along with their oral approach? That alone may be an important point to discuss upon.
The reason why I speak orally is that it eliminates the need for an ASL interpreter and allows the hearing person to better relate to me than he or she would if I had an interpreter present with me.
You are being facetious here. There is an oral deaf culture. I went to an oral residential school, grew up there, and I have many oral deaf friends. Many of them sign, and many of them don’t. We get together and have fun whenever one of them is in town.
Also, many of them were born deaf or became deaf before four years of age, like I did. I was born hearing but became deaf through an allergic reaction to a vaccine.
We talk smack about hearing people as much as you do. Heh.
Interesting.
Okay, so how about art, folklore, etc? All the stuff above? I know zip about this, so anything you could fill in…
What sort of art is endemic to the Deaf community?
I know that oral deaf people have written stories about what it’s like to grow up deaf in residential schools. There’re a few books out there.
Hm, we need to get Sara Stallard in here… I know more about the literature aspect of Deaf Art…
I also know lots about Deaf art, since I love art. Can’t draw ****, but I love looking at ‘em.
Betty Miller created a specific genre called Deaf View Image Art (known as DeVIA), which depicts the Deaf culture experience.
DeVIA artists usually focus on Deaf-culture themes, as well as use of eyes and hands in their artwork.
Check out art by Betty Miller, Chuck Baird, Tony Landon McGregor, Ann Silver, and Susan Dupor for excellent examples of DeVIA.
Louis Frisno, John Carlin, John Brewster…are Deaf artists, but their works aren’t considered part of DeVIA genre, since their work can be compared with hearing artists. E.g., Louis Frisno specializes in painting dogs and ducks, and John Brewster specialized in portaiture.
If you want to know more about Deaf artists, I recommend an excellent book by Deborah Sonnenstrahl Meranski, “Deaf Artists in America:…”
You also are incorrect about oral deaf people trying to be hearing. My oral deaf friends don’t want to be like hearing people. I’ve had discussions with them about how we wouldn’t want to give up our cochlear implants for a cure because that would mean we would no longer be able to control our hearing.
It’s also patently ridiculous for an oral deaf person to try to be a hearing person because the differences will always be there in terms of speech and hearing. I know that my oral communication doesn’t make me a hearing person, it just makes me an oral deaf person. Also, if you were to try to be like a hearing person, you’d look foolish because the limitations will always be there. You simply can’t overcome them in terms of job discrimination, and how others treat you.
“…I’ve had discussions with them about how we wouldn’t want to give up our cochlear implants for a cure because that would mean we would no longer be able to control our hearing.”
I wonder how Hearing America would react to that… if they would find it just as extreme as Deaf people who firmly believe there’s nothing wrong with them and that deafness is an issue of language and cultural identity.
I mean, imagine it from their perspective. People who would RATHER be implanted than fully, “noramlly,” and “naturally” hearing!
I don’t think they’d be able to handle it. Oh, the IRONY!
Actually, my friends think it is AWESOME that I can turn my hearing “on and off.”
You’d be surprised, really. People say, “gosh, I wish I could turn it off in the Metro, at night, when I’m in a really loud bar, etc, etc.”
I just smile and laugh, because I CAN do all of the above.
I’ve gotten the same comment from my hearing friends as well. They’re quite envious when I can turn off my implant on the Metro when there’s a crying baby right next to me.
They’ve also said they’ve wished they could turn off their hearing on airplanes, or be able to tune out background noise in restaurants, which my implant can do. That is precisely why my friends with CIs and I do not want to give up that control with our hearing. If a cure for deafness came by, I wouldn’t take it if there wasn’t some ability to ‘turn on/off’ that cure.
I would definitely get the next generation of cochlear implants if it gave me better hearing and the ability to appreciate music more.
Good points, all, but I would respectfully argue that Hearing America’s envy of your ability to control your hearing depends largely upon how–as you’ve said elsewhere–the message is marketed. Focus on how the process of getting an implant can destroy one’s natural, latent hearing (through wiring those ______ (whatever) through the cochlea), and I suspect Hearing America’s envy would vanish quickly. Their argument would then change to “Oh my GOD! Why do you sick people want to sacrifice your natural, God-given hearing for some kind of artificial interpretation?
Really. Put genetic engineering into the picture. I go to the doctor 20 years from now and I can get a shot or something and bam my nerve cord starts repairing itself. Compare that to the most advanced model of CI, which could hypothetically provide full hearing by that time AND the ability to shut it on and off. At best, it’d depend on how well America at large takes to that kind of technology. At present, however, if genetic engineering were ahead of where it is, and CIs where they currently are had to compete with that, I think CIs would lose out. Even if they do provide some level of control.
There’s always earplugs.
Actually, there are technological innovations being designed and marketed right now to “control” hearing for hearing people. One famous example is the noise-canceling headphone, which cancels out background noise so the hearing person can focus on the music.
The other is a Bluetooth piece that also screens out background noises and focuses more on the voice for the hearing person.
Thus, the hearing community does desire the ability to control their hearing when it comes to noisome environments, but the technology still has a long way to go for them.
I don’t think their reaction would be like what you’ve stated—I think they would want the ability to control their hearing if it was granted to them through a medical device if the medical device was exactly similar to their hearing.
Right now, I believe that cochlear implants operate on a 24 channel, whereas the average hearing person hears on thousands of frequencies available. Right now, the technology hasn’t brought the implant up to par, but I’m hoping it will someday.
My main point is that hearing people already seek means to control their hearing through headphones and Bluetooth sets. I think they would take the next step available if the technology was there that met their hearing standards that they are accustomed to.
And Chris:
Earplugs don’t screen out all noise. You can still hear background noise–it’s just muted somewhat.
Chris, there is currently a neural implant that mimics almost closely as the real thing. And could be totally implantable allowing you to hear 24/7 and even swim or shower with it.
http://www.sciencentral.com/ar.....=218392969
Yeah I’ve heard about this.
All I’m saying is public opinion is one crazy horse, my friends. And in truth that’s sort of a subtle (I intended it to be subtle anyway) point of this post… Deaf Culture gets bashed for every single public misperception out there. But if there is an Oral Deaf Culture and it started standing just as steadfastly on its beliefs, they could easily become the new punching bag.
I understand what both of you are saying and I concede, yeah, maybe Hearing America would prefer the on/off tech over natural hearing. But now I’d like to see you two concede, too, that it could turn out to be the case that people born with natural hearing would prefer ONLY the type of medical intervention into deafness that involved natural repair (this is from Hearing America’s perspective, remember, not Deaf Culture’s) and not technological intervention. If the former group were bigger than the latter, people who preferred their CI’s could be seen as just as much of an oddity as culturally Deaf people who see nothing wrong with deafness (by some, anyway).
It could swing that way. That’s all I’m getting at.
Biological intervention on the restoration of hearing loss will in fact happen. It is just a matter of time while scientists continue to research and understand how these things work and how it can be repaired.
Technology on artificial hearing will just have to to do for the moment while components get smaller and more efficient to the point where only your body heat will the source of power to run these micro miracle machines. There is even talks on how lasers will be used to help stimulate the hearing nerves to produce sound.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19206/
Deaf culture/community better get used to the fact that these things are on the march while technology continues to improve and biotechnology not far behind.
*snarls at the thrown gauntlet*
So we have to get used to it, huh? In your dreams, hearing servant!
Please tone down your rhetorics. You don’t see me hurling personal names at DeafDC’ers, do you?
I am simply stating that these sorts of technology/biotechnology research continue to move forward. It’s a fact. And not just on hearing, but for eyesight, spinal cord injuries, tissue regeneration, Alzhemier, Parkinson, and so on and so forth.
My apologies, DeafDC and Mike.
(DeafDC, please feel free to remove the above post by me)
Mike, when you make a statement similar, please try to avoid that phrase “Deaf community will HAVE TO accept etc”. That is very flamable because it implies that we will have to accept cure to our ears when there is no such a thing like that except in medical arrogant professionals. That is all I ask.
Again I apologize.
Oscar, respectfully, I don’t think there’s a gauntlet here. People will do as they choose to. And other people will perceive what those people do as they choose to. It’s just that their choices will be influenced to some extent by public opinion and popular understanding of any given issue… which right now (regarding deafness-related issues anyway) is pitifully small and limited, IMO. Right now for example the public at large is being programmed by popular media misperceptions to see any type of Deaf Advocacy at all, on any issue at all, as ASL or Deaf Militancy. If an Oral Deaf Culture were established, and they started standing up for retaining their implants, the general public might think they’re a bunch of nuts, too.
The general public doesn’t have a great track record at really understanding things until its forced to. How long was AIDS, for example, the “gay men’s cancer” until Magic Johnson became HIV positive? The list goes on and on.
I know, thus the reason I apologize. But there is a problem here. The implantees believe that they are just waiting for a cure (with on/off option attached). But we ASL signers and other signers around the world are trying to say and will try to say agan and again that the word “cure” should be REMOVED from the dialogue. You wonder why we are angry with some deaf people when they support the idea of cure? That is why! Deafness should NOT be a justification for cure but rather for a deaf person’s own personal development, not the whole deaf population. That is the prblem when the word cure is used because it can be only a step away from implanting all eventually! Call us militant? Watch DE’s vlog on 5 greatest myths and you will find the answer there. Who is militant here? I respect Noelle and Mike desire to hear and desire to be aurally focused in their life but that will NOT stop us from advocating against medical establishment from using CI as a cure!
A cure/restoration will come in one form or another on addressing the many conditions I’ve outlined earlier (e.g spinal cords, eyesight, etc). The reality is that the majority of the 30 million people with hearing loss will want to see that cure/restoration.
My definition of a cure is biological, not by means of electronic implants. Though there could come a day when an electronic implant would make the reception of hearing indiscernible from that of natural hearing. Then would it be a “cure” or not?
It is conceivable that in 10 years time when the discussion is about “cochlear implant” (it might be called differently such “neural implant” by then, who knows) would undoubtedly spur a whole different kind of discussion simply because probably by that time “cochlear implant” or what have you the technology whould be much more advanced, accurate and precise for those with hearing loss.
Oscar, I just want you to know that I sincerely do understand exactly what you mean, and I share your frustration.
Chris, thank you and I will try my best to stay cool here :).
Mike, fine, but what I am trying to say is that we signers are tired of medical establishment having a superior advantage of reaching out to the public with promotions/advertisements/etc in effect saying that being deaf is not such a cool thing. That is all. Again, I apologize *smile*.
I understand. It is just as well that many see hearing as a cool thing, too. There will always going to be two camps with one embracing deafness while the other embraces hearing. And at the same time many do not see deafness as a “cool thing” anymore than it’s a “cool thing” to not be able to walk anymore.
Oscar, you don’t have to apologize. You were being honest.
I, too, understand exactly what you were talking about when somebody says “Deaf people MUST ACCEPT…”…we hear that crap so often from hearing, oralists, HOH,…and in fact, that line came up a lot during the recent Gallaudet protest as well.
The underlying message that we get when we hear such statement from McConnell et al is: “We oral/HOH are on the side of hearing society and we’re gonna WIN! You guys are gonna DIE!”
And that’s why Oscar reacted as he did. And I would too, if he hadn’t beaten me to it. :-)
Chris, you said: “If an Oral Deaf Culture were established, and they started standing up for retaining their implants, the general public might think they’re a bunch of nuts, too.”
Come on…the reality is the hearing society will APPROVE of any attempt made by doctors to “fix” deafness.
Why do you think SHHH and AG Bell organizations are so well-funded? Hearing dollars, that’s why. The hearing society APPROVES of what SHHH and AG Bell are trying to do.
So when hearing society sees more oralists, trust me, the hearing society will praise these oralists and approve of their efforts to “fit in” hearing society.
Incorrect, Michele. And please stop twisting my words, my thoughts, assuming what I know or don’t know and skew my views at the same time. If you want clarification … then ASK!
I have stated numerous times here and elsewhere that ASL is growing and, of course, it will survive (and thrive) despite what is going on. I even went so far to do my own research on Deaf population and with my 14 page result showing it to be closer to 900,000 and not 500,000 which is indicative of that the Deaf population continues grow and thrive. I applaud people of all stripes when they are success stories regardless of their hearing loss. Have you not seen my interviews or discuss people with the bootstrap mentality?
I never implied nor directly said that Deaf people are going to lose, just the fact that technology and biotechnology will continue to improve in those areas. It’s not something that is easily ignored but acknowledged is what I am saying. If they want to disregard and say that such and such cure will never happen, well, that’s their perogative. But then again if you look around these things are taking place whether you like it or not.
I appreciate Oscar’s apology but I am nobody’s “hearing servant.” I am a master of nobody but my own. Just as you guys are. If you cannot have a decent discourse or discussion without getting into calling names, using puerile remarks, twisting people’s words or pretending to be omniscience about what other people think, then what is your agenda here then? Make sure that only one-sided view is allowed here and not others? You don’t see me slinging or using DeafDC’er names to a purpose in here, do you, Michele?
But it’s ok for you to do that and not me or anybody else, right?
I appreciate Chris’ playing the devil’s advocate. It’s a way to get people to think philosophically about the unimaginable. No hard in that at all. And certainly not a reason to get so upset about it either. This is where we learn from each other perspectives, our experiences, our believes and such that shape us who we are as a community. DeafDC is designed exactly what it is supposed to be doing. Encourage participation and thoughts. But enough of using people’s names in the name of acrimony. Or is that a culture thing, too?