Greetings, again, from the NAD conference in Palm Desert, CA and believe it or not, there have been a few small earthquakes that some of us have felt. A 4.1 magnitude tremor even took place a couple of days ago with the epicenter being not too far from here. But I digress.
Deafhood.
Deafhood is a concept that has been widely discussed here at the conference–and I was happy to have the opportunity to learn more by having many spirited discussions with fellow conference-goers.
According to Paddy Ladd,
“Deafhood is a process by which Deaf individuals come to actualize their Deaf identity, positing that those individuals construct that identity to their heightened forms by various factors such as nation, era and class.”
In other words, Deafhood is about the introspection and process a deaf person undergoes to accept themselves as being Deaf.
It is a detailed, documented process that will undoubtedly help deaf people and the parents of deaf children rationalize decisions and have conversations that concern deafness. Related decisions and conversations could include educational choices, communication and perhaps maybe even the cochlear implant procedure.
On a whim, I conducted a few, man-on-the-street interviews. Individuals were asked, “What does Deafhood mean?”
These responses were collected:
“Does it have something to with that deaf neighborhood or that Deafville tourist attraction that they’re trying to create somewhere out in the Midwest somewhere?” (Laurent, South Dakota)
“Deafhood? Deaf hoodlums? Deaf gangsters? Big, bad, deaf boys.”
“Does it have anything to do with ‘Boyz in the Hood’, you know – that popular group of rappers?”
“I think it has something to do with the Kappa Gamma fraternity at Gallaudet. You know, those smart boys who wear those hooded gowns during processionals.”
To avoid confusion and because we need to advance this important concept, do we need to rename “Deafhood”- and ensure that the revised term or phrase, when first seen or heard, is universally and easily understood by everybody, deaf and hearing?
I don’t think so. Maybe I’m overanalyzing. Maybe the “Deafhood” term is already universally understood and has already developed currency. After all, a book on the subject has been published and everyone is already talking about it.
I personally like “Deafhood” but the above responses naturally had me take pause.
Thoughts, anyone?
© 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.
66 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I personally like “Deafhood” too, but I believe I have a problem with how it is defined. Paddy Ladd’s definition of it uses the capitalized letter of D for deaf, which I believe has caused so much discussion lately. Also, the word, “process,” used in the definition is where it got me confused. The suffix word, -hood, simply means an instance of a given quality or state. Now semantically speaking, deafhood should mean something like it is a group of people who have distinctive characteristics (i.e., Deaf, deaf, hard-of hearing, etc). This is just my thought.
The book about Deafhood is like the Bible everyone is talking about it yet no one has read it and its constantly being mis-interpreted and taken out of context and being used to promote even the division that we currently see at Gallaudet.
Deafhood is just another word for deaf jealousy. Seriously, everyone take a giant step backwards (or for the Deaf world, 20 years back) and get over yourselves.
Since Deafhood is a process, can young deaf children who don’t yet have the concept of deaf identity have Deafhood? I kind of feel that “deafhood” is an awkward word, and prefer the term “Deaf identity.” I agree with Lolypup that it is one of those words everyone uses but no one agrees on. In the sense that most people I know are using it, Deafhood only applies to those people who identify as culturally deaf, use ASL, and associate with others who are also culturally deaf and use ASL. The “process” only goes in one direction, towards cultural deafness and ASL. A person who is oral and has only hearing friends would not normally be considered to be/have Deafhood. People who are culturally deaf and use ASL generally regard oral deaf people as not accepting their deafness/Deafhood and being audist. I see both Deafhood and Audism as being prejudicial terms.
Yes, but that deaf person who is oral will face the same obstacles a Deaf (ASL) person does in terms of getting quality education, accessibility to various technological methods, and overcoming prejudices or mistaken beliefs held by the hearing world. Shouldn’t that unite them both under the “umbrella” of deafhood?
I always find myself having to educate my hearing peers about the various subsets within the deaf community, and about the current schism between the Deaf and the deaf, oral and hard-of-hearing.
The thing though is that I am not a cultural activist, but I increasingly am finding that the oral deaf people with CIs are forming their own cultural community of a sorts through shared experiences, understanding, and other issues. With more deaf children being implanted, it’s likely that within ten to twenty years that this cultural community will be the dominant one in the deaf community.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you, Noelle, and with Mike McConnell on the other deafdc.com blogs. We all — Deaf, deaf, hh, oral, etc. — have exactly the same issues, the main one being access. That’s why I’m so skeptical about these new words, Audism and Deafhood. In the way they are being used currently, they are divisive and not unifying. I *understand* that Paddy Ladd intended for Deafhood to be unifying, but that’s definetely not how it’s being applied in real life. When I read all the comments on this deafdc.com blog and others, it tickles me how much we all actually agree with each other, rather than disagree. It would be quite wonderful to see all this energy, now being spent dissing each other, go towards contacting corporations and governments to get our mutually shared needs met.
Exactly. The telecommunications field is changing so much, and it’s not even regulated by the government in regards to disabled access. We’re being left behind as consumers while we’re arguing about what it is to be a part of Deafhood. It’s insane how we get bogged down into these kind of arguments with always one viewpoint having to be the RIGHT one.
The telecommunications field won’t make the changes for us, there won’t be bonus DVD captioning, there won’t be captioning of internet download movies offered by corporations, there won’t be captioning of Ipods that show tv shows such as LOST, there won’t be captioning of live media offered on the internet, UNLESS we get our collective asses to work together on this issue so that future Deaf, oral, CI, and hard-of-hearing children can enjoy the access to technology that we NOW enjoy.
Uh, Noelle, these changes will be done in the technology field to the benefit of deaf and hh people. We have enjoyed so much what technology has given to us over the past 5 years than we had over the last 10, 20, 50 or 100 years! The iPod was a very recent addition. Give it some time. Time is now beginning to be on our side because technology is rapidly changing and moving forward while it becomes cheaper to make and more efficient to use.
As for captioning on the internet, that, too, will change for the quicker because numbers speak volume when we have 31 million people with hearing loss. Will these companies be willing to ignore them, too, when it comes to captioning or other services that would benefit them?
http://captioning.robson.org/handbook/index.html
Technology is moving faster than ever before to the benefit of deaf and hard of hearing people. Next stop, the UbiDuo. ;-)
Also, Noelle. Go here when it comes closed captioning on the internet.
http://rtreporters.com/howwe.html
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issu.....ed/#cotwww
http://www.hearinglossweb.com/.....ternet.htm
Not just Deaf people, but many hard of hearing and deaf people are interested in seeing CC over the internet. In time this will too be addressed in short order.
Internet Captioning - http://www.google.com/search?h.....tioning%22
You may think that the internet companies and Apple will be responsive to the needs of the deaf community, and its rapidly growing members (i.e. aging baby boomers and seniors), but they won’t without government intervention. It had to take the passage of ADA to get companies and people to be cognizant of disabled access. We’ll need another piece of legislation, preferably in the next telecommunications package, to address this issue.
Noelle,
Here is your chance to be part of telecommunication advocacy.
………………………………
QUOTE
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/rob.....mment-8698
Telecommunications
In the Fall of 2004, we are at the edge of truly revolutionary telecommunications services for Americans with disabilities. The decisions that will be made in the coming months will be of great import. Congress is expected to take up a rewrite of the landmark Communications Act of 1934 (and the 1996 Telecommunications Act) in 2005-2006.
You should get involved. That’s because:
It matters a lot that advanced technologies come sooner, rather than later.
It matters a lot that these technologies are affordable.
It matters a lot that these new services are available everywhere in the United States.
The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), American Council of the Blind (ACB), National Association of the Deaf (NAD), Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH), TDI (formerly known as Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.), and World Institute on Diability (WID), along with other major disability organizations, long have advocated for all of this. These advocates believe that:
The promise of universal service is nowhere near being realized for people with disabilities. This long-standing national policy has yet to provide services that people with disabilities can use and can afford.
Pretty amazing new stuff (“PANS”) is essential for many such individuals. Many people who are deaf, for example, are already using PC-based Webcams as their primary “phone”. For these individuals, high-speed always-on broadband connections is not a luxury. Broadband greatly enhances video quality and speed, making “signing on the phone” as easy, convenient and pleasant as is speaking on the phone for hearing persons.
Advanced technologies will become widely available and affordable if the nation’s telecommunications industry is regulated by what is termed, in Washington parlance, “facilities-based competition”. Large investments are required to bring PANS, fast, to Americans in all 50 states. The companies spending that money need to be able to recoup their investments. Only then will services be rolled out and, as typically happens with high technology, quickly become affordable.
This “Primer” is designed for advocates to use in working on these urgent issues. The NAD thanks the Verizon Foundation for its support in developing this Primer.
The Primer contains information that will help you to advocate effectively.
This Primer contains brief papers about: Broadband, Peer to Peer Signing, Telecommunication Relay Services (TRS), Wireless, VoIP, Universal Service, Unbundling, Where Things Stand, and a Glossary. These links are locate to the left on the navigation bar under “Telecommunications.” If you see a word or phrase that is unfamiliar, click on the Glossary to see what it means.
Useful, in addition to the Primer, are two in-depth reports on Broadband and Universal Service also available in the “Broadband” and “Universal Service” tabs in the left nav bar. Those reports probably have much more information than you want to read in one sitting. However, they are “there” so that you can open them and review them when you wish.
As time goes on, you likely will have questions. If so, feel free to email us at comments@nad.org.
UNQUOTE
…………………………….
THE CORRECT LINK FOR TELECOMMUNICATION ADVOCACY IS
http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp.....p;b=273994
Getting involved does not mean sending e-mails to Members of Congress. You’ve got to get these groups together, hold a briefing on Capitol Hill, and target lawmakers who would like to write legislation allowing for universal access. Then you’ve got to lobby each lawmaker, and then make sure that they understand why this is important.
Yes, they do lobbying in addition to mailing letters/emials to their senators. Check with a local organization of your choice for in-person lobbying.
From where I’m sitting (can’t go into further details), these organizations need to rachet up their lobbying and target lawmakers like Sen. Durbin, Rep. Langevin, and a few others. Successful lobbying doesn’t consist of just dropping by the Member of Congress’s office. It involves knowing the Congressperson’s district, how many disabled people there are, and how enabling them to have universal access would be beneficial for the Member of Congress. It’d also be great to link up with a major communications company or a well-known internet company or anything of that nature to publicize this issue.
I tell you what. There is a group of some 80 Cochlear Implanted children somewhere in a town of Australia that were able to identify themselves amongst each other, and in turn accept each other. Nothing about “Deaf Identity” but the “Hey, you’re like me! without ever acting upon any prejudicial thoughts.
That’s who I was referring to in looking at one of the links that Ms. Raswant provided. The advantages that they have is that they’re in the same town, so they’re able to seek each other out and form these connections. We quite don’t have that advantage here in the adult deaf CI oral community as many of us are spread apart across the country. I’m one of the few adult CIers to be implanted as a young child. However, those with CIs as young infants are growing up at Clarke School for the Deaf and at St. Joseph’s, and they’re the ones that will really form the future deaf community. It’ll be interesting seeing this as the next evolution of the deaf community and deaf culture.
That is the time for us to take our deaf livelihood BACK from the puppetmasters whose really screwed up the quality of deaf life in many ways.
Our “deaf” way of life have been compromised for about 40 years. We must take our deaf livelihood back to the rightful postiton where we could be really intellectually and independent from the “clueless” puppermasters (ignorant hearing and self-denial deaf people).
I am NOT surprised about you, Lolypup why we, deaf people do not trust and embrace your existence.
FYI, I did read Paddy Ladd’s book last ten years before everyone did. I got the advance copy from Ladd’s publishing company while I researched on the issue of deaf militancy.
FSSA are not the bunch of deaf militants. They are very decent and thoughtful people!
Robert L. Mason )RLM)
I agree that the FSSA is not a group of Militants and that they are very decent and thougthful people, many of them are my friends. However we all have different opinions on this subject. A close friend of mine said this “DPN was about Civil Rights NOT Civil War!”
The cuirrent protest is in eseence a civil war, its dividing the deaf community, friends and foes alike.
Its time to put down our swords and start our deaf reconstruction and the only way we can do this is together not by a continued protest that will continue to divide us.
Lets embrace deafhood not use it as ammunition for further rift in our community.
Before the “Suppula Revolt” in Oregon (60s). Many deaf people tend to elect “hard of hearing” individuals to the top organizational postitons. Deaf members compromised themselves too many time for the sake of community interests. They thought that the election of hard of hearing individuals will bring the bridges between two worlds - deaf and hearing. In the end, deaf people realized that the society at large got the wrong impression about us, deaf people what we really could or could not do. The ability of lipreading and speaking did not reflect the deaf community at large in accurate ways.
The elder Suppula fought back and took the beloved deaf organizations back from the hard of hearing individuals because the elected officials really screwed us over and over.
The way of life of culturally deaf have been compromised too many times over past forty years. The educational standards of deaf education get really worse every time. Our deaf community get more and more and more dysfunctional and spilttering. What happened to the unity of deaf community. We, deaf people really could be politically and economically and socially powerful in the United States.
Social cliques and elitism always will exist in every society.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Interesting. You’re saying: in the 60s, the “Suppala Revolt” took back top organizational positions from the hard of hearing individuals who had them. Yet 40 years later, “the way of life of culturally deaf have been compromised too many times… educational standards get worse… deaf community more and more dysfunctional.” Hello? Isn’t this your cue that no subgroup within the deaf community can do it all alone? We need each other, all of each other. Yes, there will always be cliques and elitism. Birds of a feather, and all that. But for political and economic power, we must work together for the good of all. Think how much impact we could have if we *all* advocated for the same things: communication, employment, educational, and community access.
Curious Eyes, I meant that the hard of hearing indivdiuals really did not work along with culturally deaf individuals back in the 60’s (Oregon). The hard of hearing individuals of the past tend to think of themselves more superior to culturally deaf people. The handful of deaf people from the past, would assume that hard of hearing and other hearing people must be kinda smart and successful.
That was the reflection of societal attitude among hard of hearing and culturally deaf people within themselves.
I am not saying that we ought to go the seperate sphere of our deaf world into several deaf camps (factions).
I forget to add that I am going to say that we, deaf people could be politically and economically powerful if we unite fully as the deaf community at large, We have not been possibly achieved the political and economic muscles within our deaf community at large. We are everywhere, but not really unifed in the sense til the Irving’s BOT re-enegerized our suppressed desires and resilence into real actions.
Most important of all, we have to take a hard look at ourselves and our own identity as deaf people as what Paddy Ladd envisioned for all the deaf community at large.
The real truth about our nowaday deaf community at large are largely politically, socially and economically dysfunctional.
The status of our linguistic community have been mangled with various communication methods which end up in the sense of dysfunctional. We end up corralling ourselves into the camps of our communciation preferences, That was a perfect example of community dysfunctional within the deaf community at large.
How come the Deaf Professional Happy Hour tend to attract the hordes of college-educated deaf indivdiuals in large numbers? Why not the deaf grassroots? Not really many of them! We are kinda socially and economically dysfunctional.
I personally agree with you, Curious Eyes that we really must co-exist ourselves from culturally deaf to hard of hearing and CI users into the powerful bloc with economic and political powers.
The recent Gally protest brought up the best and worst within ourselves, the deaf community at large. The worst part was the lack of strong deaf leadership network within ourselves.
The deaf communtiy at large in America have been the victim of the “PAH” Syndrome for too long time. We end up getting indulgent and preoccupied with our private life which we hardly bother to engage in any civic activities for our community.
The current societal trends in our country also are directly responsible for the “cocooning” of our society at large with the fanaticism of condo buildings or houses without no front porchs or HDTVs and PCs to keep ourselves pre-occupied with material and entertaining indulgence.
The past civilizations have been collapased from the shrinking “civic” life. Bush’s America and Einsehowser’s America seems suffered from the same fate from real societal apathy.
The media community failed for not being enough tough on the Bush adminstration about the Iraqi invasion in the first place. That was an excellent analogy of what was really going on with our country so far.
Same thing with our deaf community at large for being politically and economically and socially passive for too long.
Robet L. Mason (RLM)
I forgot to add that I personally acquainted with Paddy Ladd while he was the “Doctor Chair in Deaf Studies” at Gallaudet University from 1992-3. I re-acquainted with Ladd at the Deaf Way II conference. Real easygoing and accomodating guy!
Paddy Ladd was not for the deaf elitism. He spoke on the issue of our own existence as a deaf individual in the collective society at large. He urged us, deaf people to work together for building up our social and political network.
That’s what happened with our deaf community at large after the Irving’s BOT slapped our face and hands with their illogical selection of individual to lead the Gallaudet University without any leadership and adminstrative qualities for the 21th Century.
We ought to thank IKJ and the Gallaudet BOT for re-energizing our deaf community at large with hard looks at ourselves who and what we are all about.
No questions about the very few deaf bloggers exploit the recent popularity of “deafhood” for finanical gains. This very deaf blogger did understand what the “deafhood” is all about. That same blogger have the right to express what he see fit to the label of “deafhood”. This deaf indivdidual really know what the “deafhood” is all about. At least, the same indivdual get himself to the NAD conference thru generous donations from the deaf community at large.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Unless this same person learn about the consequences of his own actions regarding other people when blogging, he’ll do fine. Otherwise, he will not doing any “Deafhood” or the Deaf community any justice. Perception is everything.
That’s why I addressed the issue of “deafhood” being distorted or exploited by some people last two weeks on the DeafDC blog website - the future of NAD blog forum.
Some people seen the same deaf blogger as a liability to the Gally protest. I personally do not see that blogger to be a liability which not really reflect the deaf community in general.
At least, we get real entertained by the same deaf blogger on many levels.
RLM
Like I said, perception is everything. It didn’t take much to get the myth going that Deaf people are really bad tippers. It wouldn’t take much to do the same for “Deafhood”.
Don’t be too sure of it nowadays since blogging is so much more visible and easily accessible to the world over rather than having it contained within the Deaf community only.
The “Deafhood” debate seems to be an exercise in Ivory Tower thinking among the elitists in the deaf community while the meat-and-potatoes issues and needs of everyday deaf people are forgotten. Someone please take a pin and puncture this “Deafhood” balloon of hot air!
Agreed.
Second! Especially considering this book has been around for 20 years and its just now being talked about. What does THAT tell us???
Hasn’t been around for 20 years– it was published in 2003.
The original book was published in 1987!
Interesting comments from a British forum course:
“A Sign of Culture. So in the end, the concept of deafhood has all of these features and the internal experiences which are consistent with the views which are expressed. Paddy Ladd believes that deafhood is threatened by mainstreaming and by new invasive medical techniques.”
This course was prepared by
Centre for Deaf Studies
© 1997 Centre for Deaf Studies
University of Bristol
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/De.....apter5.htm
Deafhood threatened? Ok. He says mainstreaming is bad. C.I. or other “invasive” medical technique is bad.
I thank the Lord that my mother put me into mainstreaming or regular public school and she didn’t listen to those yahoos saying I should be put into a deaf school. The amount of hearing I had (still the same today) didn’t justify putting me into a deaf school. I wouldn’t be where I am today.
Sounded a bit “militant” in thinking from Paddy Ladd back then.
And, no, folks, I never did call Paddy a Deaf militant per se. Please reread and note (#9040) that it was about a commentary/opinion from a different person about Paddy rather than from Paddy himself.
Get real folks.
Maybe an earlier version (or article?) appeared in 1987– but the copy of Paddy Ladd’s book I have right here says “2003.” In any case, the 2003 edition is the book that people are referring to now and discussing.
I SECOND Ya, Tom Willard for being pragmatic and realistic about the forgotten issues of “meat and potatoes” or “bread and butter” among deaf people. So the deaf community at large could be politically, economically and socially powerful if we are underemployed.
Sadly, the “blue collars” employment substantially disappeared in the nowaday America.
I don’t see the NAD people address the issue of “underemployment” among deaf people lately.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
I agree- it’s one of the biggest issues we have, and one that can definitely cross over to other deaf-oriented groups. Regardless of how we identify ourselves and where we stand on the continuum, under/unemployment is something that affects all of us as deaf people.
Never said any better than this. We need to eliminate Deafhood from the face of deaf society. Deafhood is the core of the stupidity we see from the ASL militants.
Roehm, instead of issuing blanket indictments of the concept, please explain why you think this way. Have you read the book, by the way? Ladd is the LAST person you’d call an elitist.
Of course the ASL militants and deaf elitists would use people like Ladd to put a pretty face on deafhood.
Let me explain it why “Deafhood” should be struck. Supposed it was a deaf person who grew up oral, never signed, never really mingled among Deaf people but understands the community, never went to RIT/NTID, CSUN, or Gallaudet, received his PhD elsewhere and understands about other deaf groups, including Deaf people. Writes a 500+ page book in a similar fashion as “Deafhood” but the title of the book is called instead, for example, “Personhood”.
A certain calamity arises out of one of the ABG schools when a Deaf president was selected over a deaf, oral president. A protest ensues questioning the selection process. Students start to buy the “Personhood” book for people with hearing loss and starts touting it. A few deaf, oral student leaders go to NAD and hold a workshop to talk about how it’s time that everybody accept each other and him/herself.
Would you go to a 4 part series workshop called “Personhood”?
I’d like to see these same people at NAD go over to the ABG or SHHH conferences and offer the same “Deafhood” workshops which discussed the same materials…even right down to the reparation issue saying that it was oralism that caused the strife and division.
Now, the word “Deafhood” came from the same group of Deaf people who defined “Deaf” as culturally deaf people for the past 20 or 30 years who have practiced in more ways than one on elitism who weren’t afraid to call you as “not deaf enough” if you came on campus.
Indeed, time has changed and that many are now realizing that it’s better to accept other deaf/hh people for who and what they are. Why is the concept on acceptance so hard? Do we really need to go around an call this “Deafhood” to everybody’s face? Frankly, I see it to be more problematic than helpful.
The silence is deafening! No one hasn’t even answered my hypothetical scenario. Would you go?
This silence is an interesting response which makes it all the more interesting as to why it may be so. It is also equally interesting to see the target audiences where these “Deafhood” workshops took place before Palm Springs were geared toward specifally at Deaf people despite the fact that there are more deaf and hard of hearing people with their organizations that cover Cued speech, oral, late deafened, hard of hearing, and sign language (non-ASL) suppport organizations than there are Deaf organizations.
Deafhoodism?
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.....sm_28.html
McConnell, you said it well, you said it last. I couldn’t agree more. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, the Deafhood proponents have an agenda, and it isn’t “unity.” Furthermore, it isn’t even necessary for those of us who are secure within themselves as a person with hearing loss, be it Deaf, deaf, HOH, oral, or purple.
….puncture “DeafHood”? Are you for or against? I am for DeafHood to help us work together peacefully into a better diversity of people as one big group. Preferrably eh, could you re-phrase the “hot air” with the “puncture” between the word “DeafHood”? Do you understand or you just don’t like the approach? I am helping you to understand that you are not okay and I want you to be okay with us in “DeafHood” evolutionary approach. I think it is a very positive approach, don’t you?
Don’t mind I give you a hand with correction in wordings?
T
:-)
I am not sure why this “deafhood” label has emerged. It appears to me that the so called “Deaf Identity” is in limbo. The 10% of the Deaf population are trying to create something that does not exist. The capital “D” is not enough? Deafhood could not be enough either and what else is there?
It looks like someone unplugged the drain in the bathtub of “Deafism” because of lack of understanding of “self?”
Allow me to gently suggest that you read the book then you may form your opinion as to whether or not it’s something that’s necessary. *smile*
Thats fair and I just purchased the book. I will read before I form any opinions.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Hi Rob, it was nice seeing you at the conference. Anyway in response to your post- we need to understand that the concept of Deafhood is still raw and new to many of us. I have skimmed through the book from time to time because it requires lots of thinking and analysis. But with time, I do begin to see the book to be a source of applicability for every deaf person. And when you go through a process in accepting for what you are, you will see that you will become more proud of being deaf than you were. But keep it in mind, the process of liberating and embracing yourself from deficit thinking as you grow into a deaf person. That, your d in deaf will become bigger than it was just like how it did for me.
Well, I’ve accepted myself for who I am as well as what I am (though I’d still take a pill that will restore my hearing loss) for the longest time. The problem is that there are people OUT THERE who have not accepted me for what I am. A hard of hearing person who prefer to speak and listen.
and this is where the problem starts. While it seems everyone is ready to embrace their own deafness in the name of deafhood they are not ready to accept the deafness of others.
It’s going to take time. I think certain people want this to happen NOW, OVERNIGHT, but that isn’t going to happen. It’s a process, one that needs to start within ourselves, and THEN our community, and then outside of that. I think some of the discussions that emanate out of the workshops will hopefully lead to re-examination of our community and its values, and where we’re all headed from here.
Why don’t you attend one of the “Deafhood” lecture someday and decide whether it make a sense for you and other deaf people?
I missed out on the “Deafhood” lecture by David Ebewerin last May at the Tent City. I regretfully skipped this lecture.
Just keep an open mind and see for yourself if the concept of “Deafhood” do make a real sense or not.
RLM
I am curious, as I have not seen it mentioned. However, my question! Are these workshops that are being given on Deafhood, are they approved and endorsed by the author of the book?
Yes, Lolypup. The author, Paddy Ladd, endorsed the Deafhood workshops being given by David Eberwein at the NAD conference. Read more about it at the NAD blog written by Jared Evans. Scroll down a bit until you come to the part where Ladd sent a page to David Eberwein during the presentation.
http://www.nad.org/site/apps/n.....amp;page=3
Thanks for the link!
RLM, if you are referring to me. I attended the Part 4 of the Deafhood workshop at NAD. Nothing new in terms of acceptance of others and self. Talks of oppression. Can do attitudes. And, of course, the taboo word…reparation.
Deafhood (or at least the embrace of it by the Bay Area deaf folks) is a natural response to the perceived threat to deaf culture in general. The threats supposedly come from the skyrocketing number of children with CIs, an increase in mainstreaming vis a vis the dwindling number of students at deaf schools, and more opportunities for greater assimiliation with society at large.
It’s my opinion that these perceptions are wholly without merit. There will always be ASL, the basis of deaf culture.
All of us must realize that society in general is rapidly changing, and in order to remain vital, the deaf ‘institutions’* must adapt. We cannot demand the society at large to ‘adapt’ to our wants, for that’s completely futile.
*What I meant by institutions is not deaf schools per se but the mainstays of deaf culture in general, i.e., deaf clubs, education, etc.
Here’s one example: the blogs such as this and Ridor’s are ‘replacing’ deaf clubs. This is an adaptation we really do not realize. We’re sharing information, discussing important issues, and the like here, just as we would at the deaf clubs.
I somewhat disagree with that notion. There are new alternatives to social gatherings being created that are pretty much like “deaf clubs” only that it’s more fun to go to. One example is Deaf Chat Coffee where people meet weekly or bi-weekly at their favorite coffee house, which is mostly at Starbucks, to discuss issues of the day.
Deafhood is about freedom getting rid of internalized oppression induced by rejection, and about social justice achieved through solidarity that creates a consciousness thriving in the Deaf community elevating individual freedom into a collective protective mindset.
deafhood: not to be confused with da ‘hood =)
is there anything like a hohhood? =)
Folks: any new concept such as “Deafhood” will be distprted from its original definition by “the masses” of deaf, hh, etc. I don’t mean that in a negative sense, but because so many of us have personal scores to settle with “the hearing world,” we will react in our own way to it. Some will grab the concept as a godsend because it gives them a sense of renewed identity and they see that Paddy laddy (the originator) has a ton of research behind it. Thus, our people of all shapes, sizes, hues and preferences will react in a variety of ways — which is normal. If they all reacted in the same way to this concept, I’d be worried. Coping with the life we encounter and how we react to it can include Deafhood. It will spread like wildfire because it is new and because reactions to it are exactly what they are now — many and varied from positive to negative and everything in between. It’s like a religion to some — which can be dangerous. So, let’s just say this: How you react to Deafhood tells us more about YOu than about Deafhood! Thanks!
They say that Paddy Ladd’s sign name is the same as “Jesus.” If so, then shouldn’t Deafhood be called Deafhoodianity? Just keep in mind what happened to Jesus in the wnd.
Kidding, of course.
I see the term “Deafhood” as being harmless as long as it connotes inclusivity and not exclusivity. That is: “I’m OK, You’re Okay” instead of: “I’m Okay, You’re Not Okay.”
Lolypup: “Its time to put down our swords and start our deaf reconstruction and the only way we can do this is together not by a continued protest that will continue to divide us.”
I agreed with what you said of DeafHood in a sense that we are in the “Process” of understanding ourselves as one big group of diversity of Deafness to work together and make ourselves better.
It was sad and some do take it as an advantage to use “fingerpointing” of a person and making the wrong sense of the definition in the DeafHood’s approach in a sense. It was not in the mean of putting label on a person to create a separation, but to help us look at the situation and to “come together” to make us look better on the whole as the majority of us. I really am glad to read what you said and I agree that it is time for us to analyze one another and ask ourselves what we can do to improve our “Society” on the whole.
Correct me if I said anything wrong.
Thanks
T
As you can see by the number of comments above mine, we can talk this thing to death. Deafhood is about self-actualization and self-identity and not accepting what we lack (hearing and/or speech) as a reason why we should strive to be like those who ncan do both, or allow them to “fix” us so we will be poor imitations.
hello
King Ormond oust (checkmate!) to King Jordan?
true?
yes, because I’m support Deafhood!
(or Unity for Deaf People)