The recent protests at Gallaudet have opened up a Pandora’s box of emotions and attitudes about what it means to be deaf in America. Comments left on this blogsite have generally veered towards disgust and dismay at the protesters, and often commenters did not understand (or agree with) the reasons why the protest was happening. While I’m not here to repeat the whole story, it’s time to look back at what we have learned. We need to see what went right, what went wrong, and, ultimately, what we can learn from it.

As the days turn into weeks, and weeks into months since the Board of Trustees terminated Dr. Fernandes’ contract, I have seen a multitude of explanations from people on all sides. One thing everyone seems to agree on: this has changed what it means to be deaf.

Where we differ in is our views and attitudes. For one, I call myself Deaf. I have a cochlear implant. I teach at a residential school for the deaf. I am a member of the National Association for the Deaf. My wife and daughter are deaf. My daughter uses cued language at school and ASL at home. I am part of the Deaf community. And, no one can tell me differently. If you do, then you are risking creating a schism in the Deaf community.

One thing I’ve learned from the protests is that there are deaf individuals who think the only way if you identify yourself as “D”eaf is to shun all forms of assistive listening devices, and all forms of communication not called “American Sign Language.” Is it fair to call them radicals? Or even fair to label Deaf people who protest Deaf militants? (Check out Joseph Rainmound’s vlog.)

As MJ Bienvenu said fifteen years ago: “…it is time to recognize and respect us as full citizens, not as some non-human entity called ‘deafness.’” I must add that we must accept that there are different kinds of deaf people with different approaches, different perspectives, and different attitudes today.

This opposition to hearing ideologies probably can be traced back to one significant event: the Milan Conference of 1880, a gathering of educators of the deaf, where a single recommendation sent shock-waves through the deaf education community: a recommendation to strongly support speaking and listening at the expense of using signed language in instructing deaf children. Even though up to that point using signed languages as the primary mode of instruction had proved effective in residential schools across the United States, this led to a rise in the use of speech as the mode of communication in deaf education.

During the protests, the word “Deafhood” emerged as the triumphant force in pushing for change in the Deaf community. On page 270 in Paddy Ladd’s book, he defines Deafhood: “Deafhood is not a state, but an ongoing process containing different readings of what it might consist.” In other words, Ladd was explaining that Deafhood does not consist of one entity, but several.

Deaf scholars such as Carol Padden, Top Humphries, Harlan Lane, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan have identified prerequisites for admission into this community – fluency in ASL, “attitudinal deafness” or self-identification.

Ladd goes on in his Deafhood book to explain the need for collectivism. There is no need for deaf individuals to create a single deaf identity to represent all but rather, a collective identification of who we are, both as individuals and in groups.

Ernest Hairston and Linwood Smith, in their book, Black and Deaf in America, stated that deaf people of color identify themselves by race first, then deafness. Has a Deaf and gay identity been developed? A Deaf and Hispanic identity? I know they exist, but they have not been academically proven to my knowledge. A Deaf identity that represents these people as well is needed.

Again and again, what we are seeing here is not wrong. It is not a crime. Nor is it an example of audism. It is an effort by people who have varying degrees of hearing loss to open dialogue on what it means to be deaf in America.

That is why our understanding of identity politics was one of the main influences of the Gallaudet protests. Our changing identity. MJ Bienvenu said “I am not saying we should forget that there are other groups of people with hearing losses. They have organizations such as SHHH, Alexander Graham Bell Association, [that] are clear about which group they serve.” Bienvenu goes on to clarify that the National Association for the Deaf and institutions for the deaf (Gallaudet and NTID, for example) send confusing messages to the public about what being deaf means. “This fosters in-group fighting among D/deaf people that ultimately hurts everyone.”

This is what happened. This is what IS happening. If we remain silent, we risk missing an opportunity to avoid compartmentalization of identities.

Information from this blog was aided by Allison Kaftan’s unpublished manuscript “From Box-Ear to Deafhood and Beyond: Constructing Theory,” December, 2006.

 

—

© 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.