It is almost always heart-wrenching for hearing parents to find out that their child is deaf. We all have our own stories. My husband told me that his entire family was distraught, except for his great-grandmother who said: “Don’t worry, he’ll be fine.”
Erin Himmelman’s recent blog, “Take One Away and What Are You Left With“, left me wondering how differently each of our parents reacted when first discovering our deafness. I don’t need to cite sources to tell you that exceptional and devoted parents truly make all the difference or that socioeconomics very likely play a huge factor in the deaf child’s academic and social development.
Well, what about cultural backgrounds? Do they influence a parents’ reaction to their child’s newfound disability, and subsequently determine the path that their child takes in life?
Yale University conducted a fascinating research project, “National Culture and Risk Survey” that used two separate scales of cultural orientation (hierarchy-egalitarianism and individualism-solidarism) to gauge responses among participants. The researchers were able to conclude that cultural factors may play a factor in one’s attitudinal outlook toward risk. Ultimately, there is “no such thing as a generalized attitude toward risk”. They found that people tend to trust those who share their cultural views.
Just how does this relate to deafness? A child born with a disability leads to a perceived risk for the family. There’s uncertainty and fear of the unknown. It even affects family dynamics; there are higher rates of divorce among parents of a child with a disability. Out of every 1,000 newborns, about two or three are deaf or hard-of-hearing, and ninety-percent of those babies are born to hearing parents. With approximately four million babies born in 2005, that’s ten thousand deaf or hard-of-hearing babies! Obviously, all of these families come from widely diverse backgrounds and cultural upbringings. So there are probably thousands of different reactions toward the news of hearing loss. Is it always perceived as a ‘risk’? This depends on the family’s inherent outlook on people with disabilities.
For example, I married into a large Jewish family. Aside from learning that there are no holiday recipes for Yom Kippur and one does not serve challah during Passover, my family and I have come to appreciate a rather unique outlook on life through the eyes of my husband’s family. I was surprised to learn that Jewish temples generally do not provide interpreters, unlike the Christian-based churches that I attended while growing up. The latter operates on the principle that all must be saved so deaf children should not be excluded while learning the Truth about Christ. On the other hand, the Jewish religion is generally exclusive and does not often focus on expanding their reach. Would a Christian be more likely to seek ‘medical miracles’ for the child compared to his/her Jewish counterpart?
Keep in mind that the above is a very particular example and should not be interpreted as a distorted view of all Jewish and all Christians. My intent is to highlight different perspectives according to cultural background.
Latin Americans like eye contact. One of my personal flaws (or advantages, as a poker player might think) is that I do not maintain eye contact. If a parent of Hispanic origin had a conversation with me, they might sense dishonesty. Accordingly, that person would not absorb my information as well as another person who maintained eye contact. With whom would that Hispanic parent feel comfortable discussing sensitive medical issues involving the deaf child?
Cultural differences influence the way doctors handle their patients. According to this article (hat tip to Silent Cacophony),
Men, Christian doctors and physicians with the strongest religious beliefs were most likely to say it is permissible to withhold information and not help a patient find another source of controversial care.
If we understand that some families will naturally either entrust (or distrust) medical authorities of different cultural backgrounds, then we need to modify our approaches accordingly. We also need to keep in mind that some may prefer to rely solely on word of mouth, rather than visiting the Internet. Sometimes parents will want to “fix” their child’s deafness or leave as is. It is for these reasons that organizations need a universal presentation of materials to encompass cultural differences. How do we present educational materials to diverse parents from different cultural backgrounds who wish to learn more about their child’s deafness?
That’s why I heartily support the recent efforts of DeafDC.com participants to contact two organizations, Hand and Voices (www.handsandvoices.org) and American Society for Deaf Children (www.deafchildren.org). Together, these two organizations can take the lead effort in promoting culturally-sensitive materials that will have an equal impact on all families of deaf and hard of hearing children.
© 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.
48 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think part of the distrust is also down to things other than eye contact and other unconscious cultural cues, though. My own family might have distrusted ANY doctor simply because doctors are upperclass people who often looked down on us (working class Italians), and so there would be an instant suspicion that they aren’t really going to want to help us, that any help they gave would be grudging, and that they’d probably be subtly steering us down paths that would mean less achievement for the kid in question. It’s gotten better than that in time, but at the time I was born, there was still a definite tension.
We’d have been more likely to want to talk to another doctor with a vowel at the end of their name because not only would they be a role model for “one of us who made good,” but we’d trust that they wouldn’t be skimping on our care because they figure we wouldn’t amount to much anyhow.
It’s so complicated, that sort of thing. There’s such a class barrier when doctors — people with degrees in white coats, especially white men with degrees in white coats — talk to working class people. A perfectly coiffed white doctor with the standard American accent would likely have been regarded as just one more ‘Mericano who doesn’t know us and wouldn’t help us anyhow. *sigh*
Your post is very interesting. I wonder if medical schools are aggressively recruiting minorities? Also, do medical schools generally provide sensitivity training? I am glad that you think we have made progress today, but the impact that you felt as a child could be passed onto your next generation and I think it’s important we note that.
I don’t think hospitals/med schools provide sensitivity training to the extent that they should. They certainly don’t provide much information on deafness aside from the usual pathological/medical facts that doctors need to know. It’s why I suggested during the conference that perhaps such a lecture/training session be done at every med school around.
A good, thoughtful post as always!
My family adopted the ‘Oh gawd…’ approach when they found out I was near deaf, up until it was successfully diagnosed, they thought I was stupid and ‘difficult’. But at school I was a flyer aged 11-13, and top of my class in every subject bar one, one year on, I went from first class position to last, I got bullied, parents said I was lazy, teachers said I wasn’t paying attention etc, and I left school early because they said I was wasting their time ! Only on starting work was my hearing tested properly they found I had NIL in one ear, and about 30-40% in the other. My parents never stopped telling people, it’s a curse or something ! they told friends, ‘he’s just a typical lad, won’t listen’ ! I never had appreciation I was deaf from my family and THAT was an issue, I got the distinct impression they were ashamed of the fact. As a result I had to fend for myself basically, with NO support because unless you went day one to a deaf school, there wasn’t anything for acquired deaf, in the UK this is STILL the case 40 years on…. spare some change bro ?
I am sorry you had to go through that.
I think that misdiagnoses is a huge, huge problem that is growing worse by the year. And to make matters worse, they’re being prescribed ill-fitting medication.
Hey MM:
Ouch. That happened to me too. My brilliant (coughs) mainstream fifth grade teacher had this philosophy about my deafness: “It’s not that you can’t hear, it’s that you don’t *listen.*”
Then again this guy’s idea of assisting me in my fledgling lipreading efforts was to pull his overgrown Texan moustache up and away from his lips every time he spoke to me so that they (his lips) wouldn’t be obscurred when he talked…
Ha, with assistance like that, who needs neglect?
While I realize that you did not intend to generalize the Jewish/Christian distinction, I feel compelled to share my experience. A large part of the reason I am where I am today is due to my family’s Jewish values. Jewish people traditionally have viewed education as the key to success in life (indeed, Rabbis are encouraged to question the Torah and get into heated debates with each other/mentors just for the sake of critical thinking). My family is no exception - they know that despite my deafness, as long as I had the appropriate education which fosters critical thinking and not merely articulating words I would get far in life. I have never felt that Jewish people as a whole reject people with disabilities. In fact, my childhood temple provided an interpreter for services, Sunday School classes for all its deaf members, and for Bar/Bat Mitzvah education (actually they hired an ASL-user tutor which was much better!). You are right, Judaism is not about “spreading the message” and inviting the entire world to join. But, this does not mean we exclude our own members.
dp - I’m very glad you shared your experience. I do not know a single Jewish, Deaf person whose religion or parents have served as impeding barriers, and am sorry if I seemed to indicate otherwise. In fact, I actually very much admire Judaism and feel that many of its core values greatly contribute to success in all aspects of life. But, speaking of my own experiences (which are pretty much limited to the DC metro area), I have had a much harder time finding accommodations for their services compared to those hosted by Christian-based organizations. And I wonder whether this has anything to do with the underlying philosophy behind faiths pertaining to Jesus Christ.
For those who wish to better understand the principles derived from the Hebrew bible, and their effect on the Judaism faith, I strongly recommend Rabbi Joseph Telushkin as an author.
dp,
I don’t think Julie said that Jewish people as a whole reject people with disabilities. I don’t feel that way either.
Basically my temple refused to or was reluctant to provide interpreters, an experience that other peers in the area could relate to. Sounds like your parents had a more accommodating synagogue. Fortunately, I was able to hook up with a Jewish deaf group (that was mostly orthodox) to learn more about my Jewish faith.
When I visited a deaf church where everything was done in ASL, I understood what I missed when I was growing up.
By the way, I agree, our religion cultivates critical thinking skills.
Jack Spiro gets my vote as an author. I took many of his honors classes at VCU. His debates with John Shelby Spong were thrilling.
Wow, amazing entry Julie.
I know your intention wasn’t to focus on religion, but this part had the biggest impact on me, as a Jewish deaf person.
I realize now growing up I was very lucky to have an interpreter at my temple for services. I noticed often they would get an interpreter and then I’d end up having to teach the interpreter all the “Jewish/Hebrew signs.” So maybe its the similar situation for deaf muslims and other religious minority groups.
On a slightly different note, when I came out, I got the sense that some family members seemed fine with the news since I was already “different” in being deaf. Which I guess goes back to what parents want and “learn” to expect from their kids.
B,
That’s another part of the problem. Most of the service is in Hebrew. It was only two or so years ago that I was able to watch a interpreted service from start-to-finish. The interpreter understood the Hebrew and translated it into ASL. My jaw dropped.
Shane,
I am so curious. Can you explain why your jaw dropped? Is it the interpreter’s outstanding skills or the service itself?
WAD,
The interpreter listened to the Hebrew and translated it into ASL. It is extremely rare to find interpreters who can do that.
Yes, cultural difference influence the way people handled their things. But I want to add that being exposed to deaf from different sources at an earlier time in life influence the way mom treated me. She performed a community service at deaf school as a part of her high school assignment. Later in her life, she took the city bus to work daily. She saw two deaf people at the opposite side of the intersection waiting for the bus (different route). Immediately, she knew deaf people’s leading a good life. With confidence, she put the situation into action fast and placed me at deaf school when I was almost two.
I’m glad you blogged about this Julie, (and not because you hat tipped my blog. ;) ) but because this is one of the things many of us need to be aware of.
One part of getting our message out is to recognize that our message has to be palatable to different cultures. What’s palatable to us, may not be to others. We have to cross cultural lines and learn how they think, and hopefully, that will happen vice versa.
That’s why all along, I stressed the importance of having hearing people as allies. They understand, hopefully anyway, how to present the message in such a way that the other hearing will at least be receptive to. And we can learn from that, so we can continue our activism and become more and more efficient.
One other topic I want to touch upon is Virginia’s comment in David Evan’s thread. I think it’s relevant to this blog as well so that’s why I want to post it here. I, too, have noticed it’s basically the same people responding to each other, and stay on topic. Some post off topic stuff, but quite honestly, I think the culture of this blog scares some people! *grins*
For instance, take IamMine. She joked about needing to have a suit and $500 glasses to post on here. That comment made me laugh out loud, but I’m sure she’s not alone in feeling intimidated by the bloggers and regular commenters. I mean, we do analyze each other to death sometimes! *chuckles*
Nothing wrong with that - I enjoy the debates and learn a lot from it, but that’s something very new to the deaf culture, frankly. Don’t believe me? Look at McConnell’s blog about Gallaudet students not attending the v/blog conference. One commenter on his blog wrote a blog response. http://dersanktspeaks.wordpress.com/
Ben basically said blogs such as this are too formal. The culture of Gallaudet students is generally to get rapid blurbs of information and that’s it.
I’m not sure how to change that regarding the Gallaudet students. I don’t work there nor am I a student there, but I think we need to continue blogging like this, encourage more comments from different people, and stress the point that diversity of thought is very welcome here and elsewhere.
My two very long cents. :P
~ Deaf Pundit
Many companies provide annual performance and development feedback summary (like a performance review). Often, associates are asked to come with his/her own ideas to address their development needs or improvement priorities. “To improve my critical thinking and writing skills” can be added to the development needs list. Being a commenter/blogger could become one of the developmental activities & experiences to accomplish. This is only an idea for someone who wants to overcome the blog challenges as I am sure there are many other wonderful ideas.
Thank you for your words regarding my comment.
I am sure it is intimidating for some individuals to express their thoughts here.
In attempting to come up with an adequate response, I found myself thinking about a workshop I took some years ago from a teacher, leader, and writer whom I have long respected. I have since used the lessons of this workshop in teaching my own students.
I teach a course on Ethics, in which the lessons are divided into seven major topics - Honesty, Self, Love, Help, Harm, Sex, and Will.
When we study the lesson of Self, I begin with this phrase that I learned from the workshop:
“Anyone else is just as important as I am. I am just as important as anyone else is.”
I think these are important words for all of us to consider and remember as we engage in this discourse; not only here in DeafDC, but all over the Deaf Blog/Vlog-osphere.
I admit that at times, I hate posting because I know that I will look back and wince at either some mistake in my English or logic. And I’m sure that others can relate to what I’m saying. But I love risk - I can’t imagine going through life without some unpredictability and natural thrills. I think that most of us commenters here also feel the same, to some degree.
Virginia- I’d be interested in hearing how you open the rest of these major topics.
I agree with you, DP, that this blog garners a very different group of readers than other blogrings such as Xanga. While I do read Xanga to catch up on news with other people and read mundane stuff, I also like reading DeafDC for its posts on real issues which are discussed in depth. By the way, I use many of the posts from here for my ‘Understanding Deaf Culture’ class to show that there IS diversity of thought within the Deaf Culture. ;)
Deaf Pundit, I wonder if it’s not just a “deaf” or “Gallaudet” thing, but part of a social change in our society as well? After all, today’s media generally treats everything as a sound bite or snippet, and our culture these days seems to thrive on bits and pieces, and not so much on longer articles, televised pieces, blog posts, blog comments, etc., etc. Also, there is a larger trend towards more sensationalistic news than previously (although sensationalism isn’t new; pulp fiction and entertainment rags were certainly popular 50-60 years ago, just as they are now!). A good example is my flight back from DC. I got lucky and was on Song for the flight home. My seatmate had CNN on, but then promptly fell asleep. For the entire flight, I glanced over periodically, and it was Anna Nicole Smith nonstop for the entire flight. To me, that’s indicative of the priorities our society has. Perhaps our own community is just reflective of that.
Hmm. Good question!
I do think that our community is somewhat reflective of society’s evolution, but I also think it has to do with our norms, values and with how much you’re educated.
I mean, when you think about it, we’ve been basically institutionalized to believe that we can only do so much. We can be only educated up to a certain point, and so on. So I think that has a factor in people’s attitudes regarding critical thinking. We as a whole, have not been taught how to use it properly.
Mmm… lowered expectations is most likely a factor as well. I think you’re right about that. So the next logical question is, what do we do about this? How do we encourage higher expectations across the board? I know it’s not a new question, but it’s certainly something we all need to consider.
You know, a possibly interesting take on the issue of culture and literacy, especially amongst deaf people, is this: many of us keep arguing that early exposure to ASL/English is what leads to literacy. But what if that’s not ENTIRELY the case–what if it’s about more than just language? What if literacy is also about early and clear exposure to identity?
As the argument goes for proponents of ASL and Deaf Culture, early exposure to grammatically accurate ASL is what allows deaf children to develop literacy skills, and I agree with this. But I think that this happens in part because researchers (notably John Paul Gee in his New Literacy Studies) have noted that EVERYTHING is a part of literacy… not just text and language (both visual and aural) but also social norms and mores and roles. For example a cattle rancher from Texas and a Wall Stree banker and a gang member in Chicago might all speak English, but are they speaking the SAME English? It’s not just a question of dialect and various types of slang… they structure the language entirely differently in some situations, and they interpret it differently too. That’s why you can see a spraypainted graffitti sign on a brick wall that’s written in English… nonetheless it’s meaningless to you because you don’t have the same social background as the guy who wrote it. Same thing would happen if you exposed a kid to a sign language video but didn’t give him the chance to interact with signing people… he wouldn’t pick up nearly as much ASL and he would probably be far more awkward with it.
Which leads me to this question: what if deaf kids aren’t just failing to pick up English text AND grammatically accurate ASL not just because so many parents expose them to the language too late, but also because we have such an enormous war going on regarding what “deaf identity” actually IS, we don’t really HAVE any well-established set of social norms, mores, values… etc. Thus a deaf kid is sort of dumped into a void no matter WHERE he goes to school… mainstream, oral, residential, etc, and not matter WHAT intervention his parents pick (CIs, hearing aids, signing, etc). Without clearly defined cultural norms and roles, it’s like giving a kid a fully functional CI and then dumping him in a room where no language is being used, or worse, just an overwhelming amount of “chatter.”
I think a kid needs the earliest exposure to language he can get, AND he needs clear social and cultural roles so he has something to stand on while he makes sense out of that language. Take away either–the early exposure or the clear social and cultural parameters–and you take away his ability to comprehend language.
There’s a psycholinguistic theory that pretty much discusses that idea - Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
I think that theory has some credence to it, personally. For more info on what it is: http://tinyurl.com/e246h
It’s my understand, especially among the “old school” and/or “grassroots” (and the 2 groups are not mutually the same thing) that literacy in English is not as prized as literacy in ASL because even if the individual in question can get up to a 10th grading reading level, that would be good enough just as long as they are fluent in ASL - the fluency in ASL will always be prized over fluency in English. At least in certain circles. In other words, ASL takes priority over English because you don’t always need to be super-literate in English in the Deaf world when 75% of communication is not in English. Which is a flawed presumption, because they’re taking into account that social services such as interpreters or VR support will always be there to pick up the slack for them. In 20 years I wouldn’t be surprised to see social services cut across the board for everyone. This is why a country like Australia pushes the CI on deaf infants - it’s a numbers game. Bean counters believe the cost of treatment will be less than the cost of human services. A place like Gallaudet was always designed with the goal of giving Deaf people the skills to integrate into society and become contributing citizens (and tax payers), not for their own exclusive community to develop and “enclave” itself on Kendall Green. The whole King-JKF-Davila situation is a nutshell of this. Many of your benefactors are keeping a close watch on Gallaudet because they are hoping the kicking of JKF to the curb and installment of Davila was not a giant step backwards. Keep in mind - Gallaudet is/was a gift to Deaf people, not a promise written in stone. Nothing is guaranteed in life. Social services are being cut across the board for everyone. Deaf/deaf/hard of hearing people are only what, 1% of the total population? The cost of providing an interpreter for a full time professional would be almost like paying for 2 people. ADA experts I’ve talked to at my job tell me that a white dry erase board and a dry marker - or the UbiDuo - can be considered a reasonable accommodation. Nowhere does the ADA say that “we promise to provide you Interpreters, always”. Just like the Christians had a Reformation, I believe the Deaf community is due for a Reformation. Deaf people who believe all of this is cultural genocide are proceeding from the flawed assumption of “either/or”, which is so rampant among them. Compromises can always be made, nothing has to be either/or. I believe a big part of the Reformation will be “you can be anything you want to be and still be Deaf”. Heather Whitestone was considered Deaf until she dared to speak on TV and got a CI. Now she’s not Deaf anymore? Remember Obama bashing his own black community at the 2004 Democractic convention in Boston when he put down inner city blacks who believed reading books was “acting white”. The sign “think hearing” came to mind when I heard him say that.
Fred, I think that the first response an ASL-only proponent would have to your argument is, “But English is already the dominant language in this world, and why should we have to be submerged in such dominance? This is America, the land of opportunity, not of the oppressed.” And even if the bean counters are correct in their assessment, we Americans still have a strong sense of social giving and I doubt that will be diminished over the next several generations to come.
I’ll also respond to another particular segment of your comment - regarding “reasonable” ADA accommodations. I feel that some members of the deaf community often misunderstand this legal term as well. Whenever I make an appointment with a new doctor or prospective employer, I never make a request for interpreters. Instead, I want to prove that I am willing to “compromise” with them by bringing my own laptop to help faciliate communication. And I strongly believe that this pays off; the employer sees how I don’t push demands onto them, and react more affable. Of course, one risk is that they would assume that I’m okay with a laptop 100% of the time - but that’s something I would clear in the very beginning. But then again, it really depends on how your family raises you and how much you feel at ease among hearing people. Those who feel at home only among their Deaf peers may possibly be more comfortable asking for greater levels of accommodation. And we really shouldn’t deny them that .. as long as they demonstrate an ability to contribute back to society. It’s all about the end result, really.
I also think that being unrealistic with your expectations lower their expectations. For example, I signed up for a class this semester. They were prepared to give me tutors and note-taking services. Huh? Why do I need that? That’s nice of you, but I’ll do just fine on my own. It still bothers me somewhat, thinking of how their initial impression upon seeing that word: “deaf student” led them to believe I would be needing all various kinds of assistance. Asking for $ from the government just because you’re deaf is also akin to telling them that you DO believe you’re disabled.
You shouldn’t take that personally about the college services. Given that they don’t know you, personally, they have to run through the disability playbook check by check. If anything, you should be relieved that they’re watching your back. Why am I at the office on a Saturday anyway.
That, I don’t dispute. But what I take issue with is having to argue that I *dont* need such services. The woman obviously thought I wasn’t capable of finishing the class without such services. This “one fits all” motif has go to go.
Yeah along that line of thinking Fred I remember when an airline (”hey” to Bren Stern… anyone remember his story) brought out a wheelchair to wheel me to the next gate during a stopover because I had told them I was deaf. I refused the wheelchair (obviously because I’m a Culturally Deaf Troublemaker) and I guess I should feel bad about that. I mean, after all, I should feel grateful they had my back, and were faithfully flipping through the disability checklist on a Saturday..)
Don’t you find it interesting though, Fred, how culturally Deaf people (you know, the enclaved ones who do nothing but mooch off of VR and SSI services while they suck from beer kegs on Kendall Green for forty years straight) (PS yes that was sarcasm) somehow end up taking the flak for problems at every turn in the cycle?
In other words now it’s because THEY don’t value English that so many deaf children have fourth grade readling levels. Nothing gets said about when hearings parents expose their child to language–especially immediately accessible language. Nothing gets said about the shoddy ability of so many Deaf Ed teachers to actually sign. But that’s okay, you see, because Culturally Deaf People were being so unreasonable in the first place to ever expect things like skilled signers in their schools or access to interpreters on the job! How dare they, the selfish ragamuffins! They’re due for a Reformation, indeed! At gunpoint if need be! Or at the very least at the rapping end of a long, long ruler!
Sorry to give you such a hard time, Fred, but there’s a certain phenemenon out there in which those who *suffer* from oppression and disregard (actually I should bluntly call that neglect) are in turn blamed for *causing* that oppression and neglect. It’s kind of like saying that there’s no such thing as racism–if black people stopped acting like a bunch of gangsters and actually applied themselves they’d get somewhere!
Can you see the flaws in that line of reasoning?
I think that many of these mistakes were made when we didn’t .. understand how such factors did indeed play a detrimental role in a child’s education. It boils down to how deafness is first deal with - and once we change that, so will many of the problems we face today. Neither side should be fully put to blame - but neither should fully escape accountability as well.
Hey Julie,
Oh, I agree. And I want to be clear to Fred below, I too was mainstreamed for most of my life (with a two-year stint at the Wisconsin School for the Deaf). I too had Deaf people from Deaf families point at me and make that sign for “hearing” on their foreheads (yes, it literally translates as “Thinks He’s Hearing.” I understand the frustration and alienation that can go along with being one the receiving end of that kind of thing. You enter into the Deaf Community thinking you’re going to be embraced and you end up getting rejected again. It sucks–it hurts, it destroys your faith in the future. I empathize. I’m sorry that happened to you.
But ALL, Fred, ALL “Culturally Deaf” people do not act like that. And furthermore by striking out at the things you think only THEY demand for themselves (such as acces to interpreters) you strike out at things that a lot of moderates would demand for themselves, as well.
You know what? If the taxpayers are bitching so much about what they do and don’t contribute to Gallaudet, I have a GREAT solution–let me stop paying taxes. Just us, as deaf people. Why the hell should I support a society that doesn’t caption its movies, won’t hire me because it thinks that I can’t do anything or else hiring an interpreter is hiring two people to do one job… why should I finance a society made up of families that think its okay to stick their deaf kids in the corner and pretend they’re involved?
I think that what we save in our collective taxes might actually be enough to fund our own society that actually friggin’ works, in other words, but nobody’s making any noise about the money *I* lose to fund *hearing people.* I only see flak about the money *hearing people* lose to fund *deaf people.* Talk about hypocrisy.
Sorry for going off on a rant, Julie. As you might have guessed, I’m doing my taxes.
(PS, yes, I’m doing them ALONE, and I’m not on Kendall Green sucking from a beer keg and counting my VR/SSI funds while I do it..)
What you’re saying isn’t new, Chris. That’s the psycholinguistics theory: the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
I tried posting earlier with an url to wikipedia explaining the theory but it didn’t show. :P Anyway, if you wiki it, it’ll explain the theory to you.
Hi Deaf Pundit:
I never said it was new. I said it was interesting. And there’s a lot of research out there saying more or less the same thing, not just the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. John Paul Gee, for one. Gotta look up the name of the article though…
Chris Heuer,
Interesting take. In some way, this correlates to the level of parental involvement. If the family dynamics turn out to be weak, so will your language development. I’ve seen many Deaf people with very weak ASL skills (linguistically), even if they’ve been signing since birth. But if you double-layer that with the deaf person’s ethnic or cultural background, the picture becomes even more complicated; a minority within a minority of minorities.
Chris, what you wrote is basically the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This concept is not new.
I’m going to try again. For some reason DeafDC.com has been refusing my posts. :P
Chris, what you wrote about sociocultural effects on language - that concept is not new. That’s pretty much what the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states. You can wikipedia it for more details on what the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis entails.
I agree that cultural background DO make a difference in attitude towards deafness. When my family found out when I was deaf, they never bothered to check WHY I was deaf but instead to think what to do with me. My uneducated paternal grandmother blatantly suggested just leave me to learn to “sweep the floor”, “wash the dishes” or just dump me at some mental institute while my mother’s relatives asked her to “keep quiet” about my deafness.
I noticed many American families tend to do research on WHY their kid is deaf and find ways to blame the doctor/hospitals while in South Asian culture they accept as their fate or karma.
Rose,
Interesting comment, thanks for sharing new perspective on deafness from another culture.
I find it interesting though, that you say American families will find ways to blame the doctor/hospitals for their child’s deafness.
Oops. In reference to my earlier comment above box, I am from South Asian culture, fyi.
I had a student at Gallaudet many years ago from Sri Lanka. His family were Buddhists and when they took him to the Buddhist priest they were told that his deafness was caused by bad karma, and that he was doomed to “live like and animal.” Fortunately an uncle took him to the Catholic missionaries who educated him appropriately and he eventually became a college graduate.
All this to say that out of fear and superstition, many cultures limit the lives of those people who are “nontraditional.” This is the biggest enemy we all have as a society, because in that way we lose the contributions of the diverse people who make up our true wealth. I of course include deaf people in that mix who add so much to the human story. Deaf teachers taught my hearing kids to read! And most of all, they taught my kids to not be afraid or intimidated by differences.
I wish there were ways that all hearing parents of deaf kids could have input from the first moment of diagnosis on the positive lives their children will have. This would best be accomplished by deaf professionals, it seems to me.
Just an aside, that whenever I get discouraged at Gallaudet I think of students like my Sri Lankan fellow, and I have the courage to teach one more day.
This kind of reminds me of how Stephen Hawkings astounded physicists with his information paradox - if his (original, it’s since then been revised) theory was correct, the many laws as we know them in physics would have been flagrantly invalidated. Although… eventually, all the theories would have to be somehow reconcilied in “unification”. ALong that same line of thinking, I sometimes wonder if we should just allow for some parallelism instead of imposing so much of our western-based philosophy on the next generation. I see many good things that we should be learning from traditional eastern practice… but unfortunately, we seem to greatly devalue its presence in this country. In the eyes of your Sri Lankan’s Buddhist family, bad karma is very much valid even though many of us would view it as a joke. I guess we do that out of fear and superstition.. where’d that come from? Our American egocentrism?
BTW, I would love to see how your deaf teachers taught hearing kids to read, as I had been told that the phonetic approach is truly the “only” way. Do you know of any good sources that I could peruse?
Insightful comment, thanks for sharing.
I DO believe it is caused by our karma from past lives, but it is the attitude that should be changed. That’s the point. People should move on and accept it and see what CAN be done, not “resign” to their “bad karma”.
Also regarding your earlier comment (#78745), maybe it has something to do with how we Americans are never satisfied with what we get - we’re always in search of a better bargain. See how bombarded we are with choices everywhere we go? Perhaps people resign to their bad karma because they’ve grown up learning how to “make do” with their few choices. I don’t know - does this at all make sense?
Hey Julie:
Yeah, it makes sense. True freedom is choice, and the more choices one has, the more truly “free” one is. The paradox, however, is that one is never truly free from the consequences of his or her choices, and the more choices you have, the more potential consequences there are.
Which is why I always find it kind of stupid when people sternly warn others by saying “You have to realize that choices come with consequnces.” It’s so true, it’s meaningless–especially as a threat. ALL choices come with consequences… including the choice not to make a choice. Therefore you’re ALREADY LIVING with the consequences of every previous choice you’ve ever made, and if you could truly tolerate that, you wouldn’t be looking for new options.
You can apply that argument to the abstract concept known as “Deaf Identity.” Why should such an identity consist of just one choice, and not a series of choices? Why should it consist of a choice in only one area (such as the language one will use) and not a series of choices in a number of areas (such as the type of language one will use in a particular setting at a particular time, but not in another setting in a different time)? When “Deaf” people (as if it is possible to establish a set of criteria by which a person can “choose” to be “Deaf” in ALL situations at ALL times) argue that they want people to embrace their culture and language, what do they mean? Does such embracing involve only one choice at on time in one place, or does it encompass several choices in various settings over time?
I SLOWLY, for example, gave up SIMCOM and turned my voice off in the classroom. Am I less “Deaf” because it took me about twenty years instead of one day? If you must know, it was literacy research that finally convinced me to do so, along with the arguments of several people I met over the course of my life.
However in the spirit of full disclosure I also have to add that I feel no real need to switch my voice off when talking to my wife in the privacy of our own home. Does that choice make me not “Deaf?” A question such as that is too narrow to cover the complexities of identity (and the freedom to constantly choose and therefore reinvent one’s identity). A better question might be: if I make that particular choice (to use my voice) in that particular setting (the privacy of my own home) at that particular time (when talking with my hearing wife, for example, as opposed to talking with a Deaf visitor), and the consequence of that choice is to be “not Deaf” in that particular time and setting, does making a different choice (to not use my voice) in a different time and setting (such as in my classroom during class time) render me “Deaf” again?
Complicated, hm? Yet not really.
I’ve always viewed it as it being one piece of the puzzle that mkaes up me. My deafness is a huge part of me, but it’s not everything. I’m also liberal, Italian, female, and so on. My identity is always evolving. To not evolve is to become stagnant…
I think your deaf identity comes from how you view your own deafness. I don’t view my deafness as something that’s pathological - something that has to be fixed, or something to be ashamed of, or something to ‘overcome’.
I view it as an integral part of what makes me, me. I don’t want to take it away, because to take that away, will have a drastic impact on who I am.
Fundamentally, I am who I am, deafness and everything else thrown in. And the world will have to deal with it one way or another.
~ Deaf Pundit
Hi Deaf Pundit:
Very true. I just wish people would understand that our identities aren’t just WHAT we are, but WHEN we are what we are.
Another example: You’re Italian? I’m German. In fact my family is probably one or two generations removed from being about as German as you can get. My grandparents and most of my great uncles and aunts have since passed away but when I was a kid there was as much German flying back and forth at confirmations (a Lutheran thing) and family dinners as there was English.
Now… am I still German? It makes up a part of who and what I am, so that makes that part a “what,” technically… sort of an abstract… “thing” (in the noun sense) within me. But technically there should also be a TIME, or times, when I’m acting or being more German than at others (such as those confirmations or those family dinners of yore).
Think about it… everyone asks us: “Are you Deaf?” The very question limits the answer to “yes” or “no.” But since very few of us are ALWAYS something… isn’t the more honest answer to that question “no?”
But if a person asked: “Are you going to choose to be Deaf right here and right now?”, then many of us could quite honestly answer “Yes!”