In my recent Blog, “FSSA Threatens Gallaudet Board” a commenter, accused me of being audist and not culturally or mentally deaf. It began with an inquiry responding to his criticism that the Blog hurt the efforts of those fighting against audism, by asking how that was so. The commenter took the time to explain his accusation and linked to his article on audism.
While reading his response, I was immediately reminded of Wafa Sultan’s response to Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli during a disagreement on the comparison of Western and Eastern civilizations in which Al-Khouli accused Sultan of being a heretic:
Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don’t throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people’s beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.
Sultan’s message is that one person’s beliefs are not superior to another person’s. Simply because she is a Muslim, she is not bound to the beliefs of Islamic Fundamentalists. Likewise, simply because I am a deaf person, I am not obligated to fall in line with the opinions and attitudes of a group who may abhor any symptom of hearing society in a deaf individual. Just as those people can have their beliefs, I can have mine.
With that established, lets investigate the use of “audism” and the potential dangers associated with its misuse and abuse. The Gallaudet protests have revived the use of the word, audism, along with the new concept of “deafhood” but I will focus on the former in this Blog.
Audism is a genuine phenomenon that has unfortunately been liberally bandied about to ostracize anyone who does not conform to a set of beliefs and practices or who may disagree with a group’s beliefs. According to the commenter and his referenced website, we learn that audism applies to parents who do not know sign language, deaf people who do not know how to sign, proponents of oralism or members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, every single audiologist and speech teacher, the act of clumping deaf people with other people with disabilities, those who value their hearing and speech, deaf people who wear their hearing aids or cochlear implants, and more. In other words, audists are “evil and vile”. No doubt these arbitrary thoughts are fueled by anger towards a predominantly hearing environment and society where communication barriers are rampant in every part of a deaf person’s life.
Putting aside the rhetoric of light versus darkness, let’s examine the problems inherent in this definition. First, in Wikipedia, audism is appropriately defined:
Audism is a term used to describe discrimination or stereotypes against deaf or hard of hearing people, for example by assuming that the cultural ways of hearing people are preferable or superior to those of deaf or signing culture, or that deaf people are somehow less capable than hearing people.
It is important to recognize that no specific mode of communication or choice of assistive technology is included in this definition, and for a good reason. If an oral deaf person with little hearing loss assumes that they are superior over another oral deaf person with profound hearing loss, that is audism. If a deaf person who uses a cochlear implant gets up on stage to help lead the Gallaudet protest in fluent American Sign Language, that is not audism. If a deaf person who does not use sign language patronizes a deaf person who uses sign language, that is audism. If a deaf woman who can sign, decides to use her voice when making an order at Pizza Hut, that is not audism.
Lately, audism has also been used to describe people who questioned, criticized or were against the Gallaudet protests. Some who supported the protests found themselves doubting the decisions of the protest leaders and other actions associated with the movement. Does this make them audists? No. Yet in the minds of many protest supporters, simply labeling those who were not “with them” as audists may have been a sufficient defense to ward off persistent inquiries into the protest leadership and decisions.
Audism has also been used to describe those who may not be a part of or considered a part of Deaf Culture. For example, the commenter explains:
This whole fight is about audism and about non-culturally Deaf people learning to accept their culture & language.
Unfortunately this statement is a philosophy rather than a category of discrimination. A deaf person who goes about their lives without interacting with another deaf person or sign language is not an audist. Perhaps they may or may not exhibit audist attitudes, but simply because they refuse to learn sign language and become a part of Deaf Culture is not in itself an act of audism. In fact, forcing the person to learn sign language and become a part of deaf culture could be a form of oppression.
As we learned from the Deafhood workshops and presentations, the deaf vs. deaf battle only continues to hurt the deaf community. The deaf community suffers every time the word “audism” is used inappropriately. If the intention is to help people embrace their deaf identity, then hostility and casting the conflict as a good versus evil clash will turn away likely converts than attract them. It could also add to the stigma of Deaf Culture as an exclusive, insular entity that wishes to close itself off from the rest of the world.
Before we get carried away with criticism of the commenter’s ideas, let’s understand, and more importantly, accept, that there are really people who hold these beliefs, no doubt steeled by hard and difficult experiences being a deaf person in a hearing society. These painful aggravations, many which we all have had at one point or another can drive some to extreme reactions. As a result, the word “audism” is an outlet for them to express their frustrations and a means to justify their actions. Yet just as we must educate hearing and deaf people about the negative consequences of audism, we need to educate each other on the actual definition and appropriate use of the word. We should endeavor to make this label a positive catalyst and inspiration for constructive change.
Note: We will not tolerate personal attacks on the commenter. Please keep the discussion limited to ideas and concepts.
© 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.
Good and insightful post. I agree that the charge of “audism” has been used as a political tool to silence overt dissent.
It’s gotten to the point that I’m tuning out any calls of “audism” while I have this mental picture of Ridor ranting, raving, and frothing at the mouth. Oh, excuse me… “yowling” about audism.
It is hard for me to believe that I could read something so good in such a long time among the deaf blogs. Some Deaf people can be so horrifying to deaf people who even can sign ASL fluently and even better than they can, yet can speak and read lips. What a bunch of oppressing Deaf people that destroyed Gallaudet by using the word AUDISM as a tool that took the dignity away from the oust Gallaudet president designate while she is not the only person who makes mistakes. Learning speech and read lips at school can be valuable, because if I could not talk, I may be crippled from a car wreck. I spoke to the firemen that I was deaf and could read lips some along with the information how painful my back was that I could not move my arms to write. They understood and did a right thing that I was saved from being crippled.
Thank you for a wonderful comment.
Very good blog, Shane. About time someone like you stood up and said it.
~ Deaf Pundit
A necessary blog. Thank you As the term gets bandied about to silence those who disagree, it gets cheapened. It becomes “the Deaf who cried audism” if you will.
Beautifully said! I couldn’t have said it better. I believe my previous post about the changing identity of the deaf in light of the protest parallels with your discussion of what is and is not audism.
I have a testimony a bit related to this blog. I joined in an evening of delicious desserts and a deaf-friendly theatre hosted by a group of deaf individuals. During the show, deaf waiters and waitresses served pies and cakes. There were about five shows between five minutes to twenty minutes long. There’s this one particular show, the actor was telling many stories about hearing people. He mocked and made fun of them in horrid way (like he was not thinking twice) while most of the audience laughed partly through the act. I held back my tears. The person sitting next to me asked if I was okay. I answered quickly by asking her if her parents are hearing. She said yes. There! He was saying nasty things about your parents. Bottom line, I thought the actor went way over the line just like what you said, Shane. Good posting!
WAD, why don’t you tell the black comedian to quit making fun of white people? Why don’t you write Ann Coulter to quit beating up our liberal society? The deaf performer has right to tell anything to insult to the hearing world in order to keep his/her audience in high spirits. The viewers do really need good laughs as long as they need to stress low down because of highly pressure from the wicked audism world….
Oh, right. Audism justifies the extreme reactions by certain Deaf individuals. Right.
Have you even heard of the old saying — two wrongs don’t make a right?
I know it is good to have deaf pride. But it is not okay to be a cultural extremist. It’s intolerable listening to a very angry actor saying the meanest, stupid, & nonsense things and showing NO respect at all. That one act I saw was full of hatred.
Actually, WAD, I agree with Mookie in one sense — It’s hard to comment without seeing the show you saw, but Shane touches on this in his blog as well: while we must take a closer look at hardnosed beliefs, we must also remember that those beliefs didn’t come from nowhere. Thus they cast light on the context.
So I assume that while you’re probably right in saying harsh things were (and are)said, the response is ostensibly one borne of the cultural context (not of the derogatory things themselves).
So when someone makes a mean joke about hearing people, the subtext isn’t really that hearing people suck. It’s that our circumstances, finding outselves often in confusing or conflicting oppositions to hearing culture sucks. This is why black-white and conservative-liberal jokes are often funny as well, though they clothe real pain.
Exactly! Allison, you hit the nail perfectly on the head!
It’s also a fact that comedy is used to expose society’s ills, if done correctly.
Thanks for presenting a different insight. Yes, I am familiar with white-black and conservative-liberal jokes and how it sometimes triggered fierce debates.
My brain is short circuited; I wish I can remember the exact words what was said in the show as it took place approx. ten years ago. It’s like the act was focusing on genocide. Killing all hearing people for the betterment of deaf people, is it okay to comment it in a serious and furious approach (not in a humorous manner)? Putting hearing people to death for that reason is not okay in my eyes.
The problem here is- sometimes, the cornered animal often emerges as the true predator.
WAD,
Allison is right, if someone makes angry jokes, such as the ones that you mentioned then it hints that something is festering beneath the surface which deserve attention. In this case, deaf people have been very oppressed and that is why we are seeing pangs of a social revolution in the community. They no longer accept the status quo, and I can understand and relate to that.
Shane, gorgeous, gorgeous discussion.
I especially like this part: “These painful aggravations, many which we all have had at one point or another can drive some to extreme reactions. As a result, the word “audism” is an outlet for them to express their frustrations and a means to justify their actions.”
I suggest we should discuss this phenomenon as well. Clearly, we need a way to start such a discussion. Humphries in 1975 gave us a way to discuss audism just by coining a WORD. Perhaps your blog will give us a way to discuss the causes and results of such “extreme reactions.”
While from one viewpoint it does present as abuse of audism, I venture that it shouldn’t be dismissed wholly out of hand, simply because there’s something underneath the surface that deserves examination, but because it gets expressed through the “audism” framework (which is understandable — the word is certainly getting attention), it gets portrayed quite differently.
Allison,
That is an excellent point, although a group misuses the sensitive word, it is a good case study for understanding the underlying problems that have led to the movement.
I am not sure if anyone has done research on the influence of the word, audism, and perhaps even deafhood on the social consciousness of the deaf community. Perhaps that is a good subject for a budding Ph.D. candidate.
Can you also venture to guess at what may be driving the misuse of the word?
I can’t add much more to what has already been said here, Shane…well-written post with excellent statements providing some essential food for thought.
I’ve always been impressed with the high quality of the blogs that are posted here in DeafDC.com, and I often refer them to my friends - both deaf and hearing. I like to think that my hearing friends gain considerable understanding from reading the blogs here, which in turn help them to understand where I am coming from.
Yes…I have hearing, non-signing friends whom I love dearly, and I will fight to the death anyone’s criticism of such. They are as significant a part of my life as my Deaf, ASL-signing friends. I will not give them up, and if my refusal to do so makes me an audist, so be it.
By the way…off the topic but yet kinda related - I was about to start this off by saying “At the risk of sounding like a stuck record” and then thought twice about it. This IS a Deaf blog site, after all. But at the same time, I get a little frustrated with those folks who are soooo gung ho at correcting any “auditory references” one might utilize in expressing ourselves. Yes, I realize that many deaf people might not be able to personally relate to the sound of a stuck record, but we still can understand the concept nonetheless. Should I stop utilizing such a term because it’s not “deaf-friendly?” Would the use of such a phrase (which I learned as a kid in my hearing school surrounded by hearing classmates) label me as an audist?
For that matter, what would be the deaf-friendly visual counterpart to that “stuck/broken record?” Do we even have such a term? Yes, we have signs that we could use to indicate that “same old thing” concept, but how would we translate that into an english idiom that would say the same thing without referencing sound? Or does such a term exist?
An inquiring mind with too much time on her hands would like to know!
Virginia Beach,
The best visual sign that I can come up with is making a “Y” with both hands, facing them away from the body, and rotating both of them in front of you.
Same here, Shane…that’s the sign that comes to my mind as well.
But what I was actually asking was an English written idiom or cliche or whatever you wanna call it that would be the counterpart to “sounding like a stuck record” but without a sound reference.
The only other English equivalent I can think of is “I’m joining the chorus here, Shane…”
But interestingly, this one also has a sound reference, in that it refers to music.
Other than saying “I agree with the above comments,” or “I second that opinion” or whatever…do we have any other English idioms that would be synonymous to saying “at the risk of sounding like a stuck record” that would be more “Deaf-Friendly?” That doesn’t make reference to sound, hearing, or music?
Geez, what is my problem today? I’m asking some strange questions here…
I’ve often asked these very same questions to myself- especially since now I’m raising a child. Just how do I best convey these idioms without losing meaning with my rather choppy signs? I fear that part of it may have to do with how I think too much. I’ve seen deaf people able to turn sound references into beautiful ASL- they just do it without thinking!
I offer my sympathy. Deafhood has a lot to answer for as does Audism terminology, we’re all getting very fed up with the dissent and angst both cause. Ironically Deafhood started here in the UK, perhaps we are stronger then deaf America, we see where it would lead, and opposed it, (and it’s founder Mr Ladd).. I just wish these deaf who invent silly terms for discrimination would just stick to the one, and not suggest deaf discrimination is any worse than anyone else’s. Audism must go to, because like deaf hood it is abused by the activist, so it has become a term of abuse itself. I’m staggered there are classes on it in America, stop them now before it’s too late. We have next to none here in the UK and so much better off for it.
MM,
Audism or deafhood are not “silly” terms. They each deserve careful thought and discussion. Audism is real, and deaf people experience it everyday although many of us may not recognize it.
Racism has helped people of color understand the oppression that they were experiencing. Without the word, they could only react with emotion at something that they knew was wrong. With the word in place, they can describe it and thus engage in an intelligent dialogue about its impact. Racism is prevalent throughout books on American history and social studies. There are numerous workshops, research papers, and presentations on racism. Like racism, audism should become a generally accepted word in deaf education, deaf history, and deaf studies.
Deafhood is relatively new. Right now its being interpeted in many different ways, even in ways that the author, Dr. Paddy Ladd, did not intend. It should be interesting to see how it develops over the next few years.
Sorry MM…
I’m not buying your argument.
Stopping classes on audism and deafhood simply because you believe it encourages abuse by the activists would be counterpart to stopping sex education classes in the schools because some individuals believe it encourages promiscuity amongst teenagers.
There will always be those folks who will abuse something or the other just for the heck of it - who are going to think, say, believe, and act as they will…no matter how hard you try to teach them otherwise.
But removing education for many because of the behaviors of a few isn’t the answer.
Shane, thanks for writing this. “Audism” gets thrown around quite liberally and with impunity these days in the Deaf community. To these people, I would like to say: Lest not peer into the abyss, lest the abyss peers back into you.
Whoa. I do not abuse the term as Sovnarkom has claimed me to. Like Shane said, Audism is discrimination based on the ability of hearing, that being hearing is better than Deaf.
It all boils to *attitude*. And, yes, it included SOME deaf persons who refused to sign primarily because it would make them look Deaf! That falls within the definition of Audism.
Now, about the Protests, audism was largely used to define and slam the pro-Fernandes because THEY accepted things as the way it goes. It is like, “Oh, we must accept this because we are deaf.” That also falls within the definition of audism.
Last night, I watched The Boondocks — God knows I LOVED that show. There was this African American janitor who was resigned to the fact that whites are better than African Americans. He went on to list the best fighters in the world for 30 minutes — all white — thn one person said, “What about Muhammad Ali?”
The janitor shot back, “He dodged the draft for Vietnam.”
It is all about mentality and attitude, really. Shane, I understand that you wanted to question or interrogate the FSSA’s position but let’s face the reality — you did not report the positive side of the FSSA, but was so quick to report the negative side of the FSSA. That, by itself, legitimizes others to question whether if you’re Audist or not!
Cheers,
R-
I respectfully disagree. YOU bandy it about quite freely malfoy. In fact, this post exemplifies your attitudes pretty well.
What did Regina attempt to say this time? LOL.
R-
Sorry, need me to simplify it?
Nah, I don’t read yours so each time I see “Regina”, I skip. But thanks for the offer, though.
R-
Ridor,
Good analogy. That could be a case of audism if the janitor was a deaf person criticizing a deaf boxer, simply because they have internalized the audism to the point where it becomes part of their subconscious.
Let’s say the coach of a women’s basketball team keeps substituting her best player liberally, the fans can feel the momentum shift back to the opposing team every time the player is taken out. As a consequence they keep losing games. The fans relentlessly criticize the coach’s decision in the media. After several games of hearing the criticism, the coach modifies her game plan to keep her best player in for longer stretches. The team starts building up bigger leads towards the end of a game and winning more games, thanks to the criticism of the fans. Perhaps I could be considered someone who hopes to see the best come out of the protest via constructive criticism.
I agree with a number of the protesters’ grievances, but I cannot say that I agree with all of the tactics, decisions and public statements made by the organization that purports to be the voice of the protesters. Hopefully the constructive criticism by Bloggers can help the FSSA understand what is necessary to win over more support from the deaf and hard of hearing community. But then again, if the FSSA choses not to do that and simply focus on the input of closeby participants, thus disregarding what concerned outsiders have to offer, that is their prerogative.
Does this make me an audist?
Nope, not at all. :-)
Cheers,
R-
You said that the protesters just slammed at JKF….no it is not true, FSSA held Gallaudet by its neck as if it was a hostage with a threat that there would be many fires set up all over and breaking many windows that can hurt or kill anyone and the gates would be shut forever like the savages with no brains would do out of rage. Ah, these savages surely had her effige burned while they chanted, drank, giggled, and did some strange things that the world’s jaw dropped. That kind of horrifying threat forced BoT to terminate her. Now at least Gallaudet is breathing but is not healing. It never pay to threaten with violence so that Gallaudet stays alive. The whole world knows about the “Plan B” the another threat by FSSA. All just because the Deaf forbid and use the word AUDISM as a tool to brainwash many other deaf all over the country to be followers as if they had gold rings on their noses for the leaders to pull the rope around. I do not worship ASL when it comes to education because ASL can not improve grammar for the deaf. FSSA wanted someone who forbids audism, uses ASL only, popular among the Deaf, maybe wearing pants and tie with well trimmed haircut, tall, accepts the kids sitting on his laps and rock them to sleep after a bedtime story in ASL. Rider would flip crazy over him.
“Deafhood” simply empower deaf people to make best of themselves to tear down the wall of oppression and self-hatred/denial which contribute to the question of their own deaf identity/existence.
I am with Ridor about applying “audism” to deaf people, who would unncessarily reinforce the misconception about deaf people what we mainly use communication form - American Sign Language (ASL). Someone deaf use voice in front of other culturally deaf during the mixed social settings of deaf and hearing without the use of sign language. That is simply an audism! Why can’t this deaf individual with speaking and signing ability use the equal communication footing at the same time for being socially and culturally inclusive?
I would feel socially and culturally excluded whenever someone deaf engage in limited communication form (voice to voice communication). That would really piss me off as a culturally deaf person! Deaf individuals with speaking ability ought to be more conscious about including the culturally deaf people in the public place or non-public setting.
I personally experience several time when someone deaf with speaking ability tried to undermine me and other culturally deaf at the bar scene for eliminating such a competition. I suddenly confronted that deaf individual -”What are you really doing?” The deaf person with speaking ability said “Uh, well…..” I caught this person what he told someone hearing about us, culturally deaf being animal-like with signs. Many deaf and hearing people never aware of my superability to lipread, but I don’t want anyone to attempt orally to me. I always said “Sorry, you have to write down what you want to say” on writing pads. That was really an equal communication footing for everybody deaf and hearing participate in the social setting.
Or someone deaf with speaking ability try to grease hirself into the conversation with hearing person like “I could help you with interpreting”. Who the f..k he or she thinks? I rather see hearing people attempt to make comunication with me thru note and pad or gesture or sign language or text communication. That is it!
Let’s suppose if someone hearing say to me “You have an excellent English writing skills!” I would inquire right away what he or she really meant. If this hearing person say “You know that many deaf people have bad English”. I bluntly remind that hearing individual about the real shame of generalization of deaf people having bad or poor English skills. That lie upon my own responsiblity to educate the ignorant ones and society at large about the real danger of generalization or stereotype of any particular group or minority. I am doing is to affront the practices of audism itself than saying “Well, I know” with phony smile.
I recall the personal experience at the West Virginia School of the Deaf in early 80s. One deaf fellow schoolmate came to the deaf houseparent (residential advisor) with the MA degree to help him out what the word meant by the use of dictionary. The deaf houseparent (RA) fully explained it. So the student still don’t satisfited what the deaf houseparent (RA) told him and came to me. I told the same thing.
n the end, the deaf schoolmate turned to the hearing RA, who was just a junior high school dropout. His exact word - “Hearing people always right” in ASL. The hearing houseparent (RA) told the deaf schoolmate that both of us were clearly wrong what the word meant. The deaf houseparent and I looked at each other and couldn’t believe it! The deaf schoolmate took the hearing RA - junior high school dropout over the deaf houseparent with the MA degree and me, top student at that residential school’s accelerated program.
The deaf schoolmate had a low expectation of deaf people in general. That was surely an audism on his part. He and other deaf youngsters often underestimate other deaf people an equalivent to the practices of “audism”. The same deaf schoolmate chose to trust hearing people over deaf people. Audism, again!
One culturally deaf teacher at the WV School of the Deaf fought real hard to keep another culturally deaf individual takes up the teaching postiton in the academic wing. This deaf teacher rather see the Vocational Wing consist of numerous deaf instructors than having real competition from the academic wing attract the students to their studies. That is clearly a form of AUDISM by denying any deaf student the real opporunity to maximize their own opporunity in the academic studies. The very same deaf teacher intentionally hold their own students to the vocational studies to serve his own interests.
No wonder about lack of deaf teachers being hired for the academic studies for past 30 years. The same culturally deaf teacher hold all the power to himself. That is AUDISM no matter if we are culturally deaf or not. The deaf teacher let hearing staffers and faculty members internally oppress deaf students, not free them to succeed whatever.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Shane,
It’s normal that we redefine Deafhood and Audism repeatedly. These “gel” words haven’t reached to the point where they become “concreted” words as final. It’s same thing with Racism, Sexism, Feminism, and Ageism. That’s healthy.
It’s ok for people to believe or define what Audism means to them, as it is ok for you to define them.
Your quotation: “They refuse to learn sign language and become a part of Deaf Culture is not in itself an act of audism.”
A person refused to hire a Black person and become a part of Black culture is not in itself an act of racism?
Hearing parents of Deaf children refuse to learn sign language and become a part of Deaf culture is not itself an act of audism?
Doctors refuse to help an aged patient is not itself an act of ageism?
Police refuses to help woman who got raped because she wore sexy clothes is not itself an act of sexism?
A woman refuse to call police when a gang attacks at a man who is gay is not itself an act of hate crime?
Your quotation: “In fact, forcing the person to learn sign language and become a part of deaf culture could be a form of oppression”
IS EQUAL TO
“In fact, forcing deaf person to learn oral and become a part of hearing culture could be a form of oppression.”
For me, I think Audism and Deafhood are the most exciting era for Deaf community with diverse background. I have seen many wonderful changes in Deaf community. It isn’t just them but hearing community, their attitudes; they have shown a lot respect to Deaf community and ASL itself.
I must emphasize that ASL is NOT one of communication Modes. ASL is a governed-rule language, which already met its requirement. It is same as English. But Oral doesn’t have its own language. Oral Method is a mode that helps Deaf people to learn to speak. ASL is not to help Deaf to speak but as a whole well developed educated human being.
Some deaf people (wannabe hearing) need to stop putting down on Deaf people for loving themselves as a Deaf person and knowing ASL is the best for everyone in Deaf community.
Why in the world that some educators and medical people invest their so much energy and time by preventing ASL accessing to these Deaf people who never exposed to ASL or brainwashed them that ASL is a bad thing? It’s simple because once people learn ASL; they will embrace it too much. Of course, they will learn speech in order to communicate these hearing people but will always switch back to ASL if there is opportunity.
Shane, you have a different perceptive about Audism. That’s ok but not to point a finger at organization or others for their own beliefs. Embrace their information, their difference of perceptives and their definitions that help you to reevaluate about your beliefs from time to time.
The definitions of Audism and Deafhood will be transforming again and again in Deaf community.
If it weren’t for Audists, I would use my educational time by learning different subjects such as ASL and Deaf studies, Written English, Math, Science, Film, History, and any General Education. All my teachers would be expert at using ASL and have mutual respect for it. My life will be almost perfect.
Whoa! Great post, Aidan. You NAILED everything!
Cheers,
R-
Well said, Aidan.
I especially like this one:
“In fact, forcing the person to learn sign language and become a part of deaf culture could be a form of oppression”
IS EQUAL TO
“In fact, forcing deaf person to learn oral and become a part of hearing culture could be a form of oppression.”
The cultural and linguistic aspect of Deaf community is a make up of deaf and hard of hearing people from all walks of life — be it a product of oralism, SEE, PSE, CS, CI besides ASL’ers — who chose to immerse themselves in culture (Deaf) and language (ASL) they were deprived of. They have enormous respect for ASL and its culture with attitude that’s embraced. It’s been that way for MANY generations.
Majority of deaf children were and continue to be denied access to ASL and its Deaf community. Many of them didn’t know about it until YEARS later. Denied by whom? So, Aidan’s quotation on force of oralism (or denial of ASL/Deaf Culture) is true and commonly practiced.
Denying ANY deaf child access to ASL and its Deaf community other than what is offered to them is a form of audism and oppression. What’s there to hide about exposing all of them to ASL and its Deaf community? It is healthy to expose a deaf child to everything that’s out there and be aware.
If some people don’t like the cultural and linguistic aspect of the Deaf community, that’s their right and I will not object to one forming their own that’s not ASL/Deaf Culture-related. Asking us to downgrade ASL and Deaf culture to please a few is a big no-no as it’s about preservation.
Aidan:
You stated: “A person refused to hire a Black person and become a part of Black culture is not in itself an act of racism?”
Refusal to hire a black person based solely on skin color is racism. Choosing to not become a part of Black Culture is not racism.
You also said: “Some deaf people (wannabe hearing) need to stop putting down on Deaf people for loving themselves as a Deaf person and knowing ASL is the best for everyone in Deaf community.”
How do you know ASL is the best for everyone in the Deaf Community? Doesn’t this kind of blanket statement illustrates the attitude of audism?
True about how do we know ASL is the best for everyone in the Deaf community. We won’t know until the denial and deprivation of access to ASL/Deaf Culture and its Deaf community for deaf children by our hearing counterpart are put to an end.
Vikki-
I have some friends who are Black do feel that if people refuse to become a part of black culture is racism. For example, some black people feel offend that white parents adopt black babies and not to invite them to their true root. It is not something that I make up. It is something that I see and experience on first hand.
Based on a strong research and interviews with people age from 5 to 90, and with my first hand experience that proved ASL is the best for Deaf children to learn and they pick up so fast with ASL and their personal growth. Wow! Amazing! I am aware that I have a strong belief, which is ok.
I was a teaching assistant at two schools. I could see a big difference and impact on them when I used ASL.
I also worked children from 8 to 13 years with emotion disorders. They didn’t know how to express their feelings so they acted out on their feelings instead. Once their ASL has been developed, my gosh, they have improved so much.
“Doesn’t this kind of blanket statement illustrate the attitude of audism?”
No, this kind of blanket statement doesn’t illustrate the attitude of audism.
Firstly, I have friends who come from diverse background such as different modes of communication. We mutual respect each other. They have respect for ASL.
Secondly, Deaf Community is where all Deaf people with diverse background embrace ASL and knows that ASL is a true language.
The community is where most people feel safe, comfortable, and flexibility and they have common experiences about obstacles they face as minority group, and have respect for its language.
I hope that I answered your questions. It’s ok for you to disagree.
“For example, some black people feel offend that white parents adopt black babies and not to invite them to their true root.”
THAT part is true. If anyone of one race should adopt or raise a child of another race, all attempts should be made to expose the child to the culture, language, and attitudes. Whether the adopting parents agree or not.
I was referring to your statement that a would-be employer MUST be initiated into a person’s culture as a condition for hiring that said person. That isn’t racism if the employer chose not to.
“The community is where most people feel safe, comfortable, and flexibility and they have common experiences about obstacles they face as minority group, and have respect for its language.”
Why do some of the people who commented on various blogs on DeafDC.com do not feel they are “safe, comfortable, and flexibility” just because they may state unpopular beliefs? That is like saying black people who feel ebonics isn’t representative of their slang/language aren’t a part of the Black community overall.
You know, we were just talking about this over in Gally-Net. I told a story about a friend who, during the protest, told me that there’s no such thing as reverse-audism “because deaf people cannot oppress up.” Meaning that it’s hearing people with the power, and not the other way around, so while deaf people can be prejudiced against hearing people and react extremely against them (or against fellow deaf people with some hearing/oral skills, etc), it’s still not audism, because the raw power to oppress is lacking. I wasn’t sure I agreed because if numbers are all you need to oppress a given group, then all oppressed groups would be minorities. Yet Sunni Muslims oppressed Shiite Muslims in Iraq for years, and white slave owners on southern plantations in America ruled them with an iron fist while being outnumbered by blacks in some areas by a ratio of 10 to 1. And I’m not sure if women outnumbered men in America for say, the last fifty years, but it’s a pretty good bet that the numbers were roughly equal, but surprise. Women were oppressed by men. So it’s not numbers. It’s power. And I would bet that if we want to define what is an audist-based attitude or behavior, what we should first define is the means by which people obtain power over others.
Just my opinion. Excellent post, Shane.
Chris
Chris Heuer — another twist on oppression is apartheid in South Africa. Even though the Caucasian population was significantly smaller, they had the dominant hand in politics. Yes, this is a clear case of racism, but you can also hold it up as a political allegory. If a significantly small percentage of the population has “control,” how are we to react? And if the “Strong Deaf,” which is (in my opinion) a very small subset of the deaf community, “controls” the issues and ways in which we are to conduct ourselves “appropriately” as deaf people, then is that perhaps not a similar concept?
Note: This comment is simply rhetorical….It is an IF question. As a deaf community, we are a small subset of the general population. As members of a deaf culture, we are a subset of the deaf population. Is it our right, our privilege, to determine how all deaf people of the U.S. (or world) should act and believe?
Bottom line, folks: We’re all individuals, colored by unique histories, families, experiences, etc. You can have two deaf identical twins, but their thoughts are not the same.
P.S. Shane, great blog. ;-)
Hilary, you presented an interesting perspective — actually, you claimed to indicate that the strong Deaf controls the issues — prove it!
Many deaf organizations/agencies are being run by whom? Definitely not a person with strong ties to the Deaf Communities!
Cheers,
R-
Exactly my thought!
How true! That’s why the “Suppla Revolt” erupted in Oregon back in the mid-60s!
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Ridor, I said “if” — IF IF IF. I didn’t say they do. hence the next paragraph about saying it was a rhetorical question, an IF question. Next time, please read my comments more carefully. Thanks. :)
First, I read carefully and even saw the “if” and the note about it being a rhetorical question. Says who we can’t answer to a rheotrical question? :)
What Ridor said is true and it is something the audience should know because I’m sure many didn’t think about that.
what about the other way around?
racism is also defined for the groups of colored people discriminating against the white people.
i know a friend who wish he can make hearing people deaf. he really hates hearing people. he often dreams of ‘deaf state’ where every hearing individual is being rejected.
audism is being defined as the discrimination on the ability of hearing. it can be the hearing people discriminating against deaf people or group of deaf people discriminating against hearing people.
for instance, a deaf company refuse to hire a hearing, who happened to be CODA and culturally Deaf. just because the individual can hear, deaf people rejected him/her.
NOW THAT’S AUDISM. that is one point people have not address in blogs.
Hi Hilary,
I understand what you’re getting at. But the only thing that I mean is that we should make a study of the means by which small minorities retain control over large native populations. South Africa, as you say, is a great example. White people almost had to be the minority in South Africa, yes? I confess to ignorance on the subject, but it would seem to me that there’d almost have to be far more black people. Yet white people were the rulers. It’s fascinating. What retains that kind of power? Amazing that it is even possible that small minorities anywhere can get control to that extent. And that power cannot be dependent upon simpile, if superior weaponary. Look at America in Iraq. Our weaponary is far superior, yet we’ll never retain control of the country. Its citizenary are ferocious. And yet when Hitler came to power, his relatively small Nazi Party was able to brainwash the bulk of citizens and turn them into people who people who could carry out the atrocities of World War II. What is it? Charisma? It must certainly play a part. Propaganda? Of course. Actual superior weaponary? It helps. Superior numbers? If it’s not necessarily a factor elsewhere in the world, why shouldn’t it be for us?
Imagine what we could do if we figured out how the whole machine works and not only use our knowledge to shut it off so our own people aren’t continuously oppressed, but actually turn it around and use it against our oppressors?
All that I’m saying is… the day we figure out how to do that, the problem of defining audism or reverse-audism will have taken care of itself.
Chris
I’d like to add one more thing, to further illustrate what I mean. Do you remember that commercial of the soccer player… he was an amputee (his leg) and had a fake leg, but he was bouncing around on that thing and performing slow motion acrobatics that was just pure poetry–he was an amazing player… formidable… anyone would be worried about how to beat him. They wouldn’t even notice his leg.
Now is that kind of commercial propaganda? In a sense, yes. I remember reading somewhere about how a lot of people in wheelchairs lamented the “super-crip” image… as if you have to be an olympian level athlete (despite your “handicap”) to be the equal of those who have full use of their legs. Why aren’t accuontants in wheelchairs showing up in those commericals instead? Or aren’t they worth anything?
Good point, but still. That commercial sends a powerful message: even with a fake leg, you can bounce around like this, you’re still awesome. And I can see how such a message would influence people if it got more air time. Now apply something like what Hitler’s people use to do with propaganda…. giant flags and portraits that made Hitler look like a god.
The whole thing suggests that peoples’ mentalities can be manipulated quite easily, which in turn suggests that racism and audism aren’t fixed problems… they can be wiped out as soon as those in control start sending the appropriate messages. The only problem is that those in control have not traditionally been black people or deaf people (though if you think about it, what is the message: “the Mecca of the Deaf” or “the Harvard University of the Deaf” or “the cultural capitol of the Deaf” besides propaganda? How many people do those messages lure to Gallaudet every year?). Thus the messages that would put those minorities in power are never sent.
Think about that for a second, because with this recent protest came the explosion of blogging across the Deaf Community, and with that has come… what? Changes in the messages that we send out. Suddenly we’ve got people like Ridor sending his kind of message, and people like Shane sending his, and Elizabeth (MishaXena) sending hers. And what goes along with that? Changes in what it means to be deaf. All of the pieces have been tossed up in the air now, all because of messages and words and arguments. We’ll never be the same again as a community, and already that has people freaked out and distressed. Imagine what it would do if we had the money and determination like the kind that fueled Hitler’s propaganda machine? Imagine if we figured out even more effective ways to send messages, and furthermore, explored what made a message effective. It took months and months and months of messages and arguing to make the Michigan School for the Deaf make any changes at all in the Starving for Access protest. It took months and months of messages to make the BOT of Gallaudet change its position on JKF.
Imagine if we worked out ways to get the same types of things done in one month. And further imagine we applied that kind of power to changing Hearing America’s opinion on what deaf people are capable of?
Just some thoughts.
Chris
It would be a dream come true if we could do it in one month. Many of the wrongs we see in the Deaf community that has been going on for decades and decades will be corrected.
Blogging and vlogging in the Deaf community are one way, but it doesn’t reach the mass of people in our society, especially the hearing world. Money is the issue that Deaf community lacks to successfully dispel any misconceptions about us in the media.
What comes to mind is the Jews. They are an oppressed group and make up only a small percentage of the population but what helps them get ahead is their wealth. Because of that, they gained acceptance and visibility in the mainstream.
What still doesn’t make sense to me is we see many hearing people control agencies, schools and organizations that serve deaf people. Do we see that with Jews, Women, Blacks, Gays and the likes in their own community. Hearing people continue to be spokespeople for us. It could be why we continue to have so many problems in the Deaf community. Audism is alive and kicking.
Chris — loved your mini-blog up there. :) I never saw that commercial, but from your description, it is definitely propaganda-like. I don’t know that I like the term propaganda simply because it holds such negative connotations. You’re right, though, it is.
I think one thing the advent of the Internet and the blogosphere has done is prove to not only us, but worldwide, that we are all individuals and that we each have our own perspectives on the same topic. Some of us may be of similar mindsets on the issue of audism, and yet vastly different on something like gay marriage.
I’m not sure that we can change what it means to be deaf. But I think we can grow as a community to learn, appreciate, and accept the diversity in our huge deaf community. And perhaps even do so without bickering and flaming one another by way of pseudonyms. :)
Don’t forget, some people are overt audists, some are covert audists.
Some people need to be more clear and should specify which they are talking about. In some situations what a person really means is: “I suspect that this person is a covert audist.”
Now if Shane took this into account (about what people are trying to claim), then he would have written his essay differently.
Brian, do you mean “covert” or “unconscious?” Is it possible to be audist, racist, sexist, or some other -ist without fully realizing what you’re doing? A covert audist would be someone who knows s/he is audist but hides it.
Yes, a covert audist would probably know and would be hiding it, but the term could also be used for people who suppress or repress knowledge of their own subconscious attitudes.
There’s a lot of research in linguistics on the question of language attitude, involving covert vs. overt attitudes. People will tend to say one thing, but their actions do not reflect their overt claims.
So when Ricky talks about people’s attitudes being the issue, I think he is alluding to this kind of thing. If someone is a covert audist, maybe you cannot prove that they are an audist by their behavior, because particular behaviors will not provide clear proof. However, those behaviors might form a pattern and could spring from a bad attitude, which amounts to being a covert audist.
How about a hearing guy declaring himself the hero of a Deaf protest?
That never happened.
Brian Riley is correct.
Closet” is another word
for “covert”.