This morning, Michael Chorost, the author of Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human, gave a presentation at Gallaudet University suggesting that the deaf community is undergoing a slow decline because within 30-40 years there will be a reduction in “large-scale causes of profound deafness”. He thinks that Gallaudet, known for its strong values in open communication and community ties, can remedy this problem by taking the lead in finding new and innovative ways to communicate. Michael’s presentation examined more than the current state of affairs at Gallaudet or even the short-term future. He looked farther into the future.
Michael described how the deaf community is already changing with the presence of more students with Cochlear Implants on Gallaudet campus. Even the National Association of the Deaf, who once used “cultural genocide” to describe the initial onset of Cochlear Implant usage, has since softened its position. Such changes in attitudes and positions by deaf leaders have sparked productive dialogue on various issues in the deaf and hard of hearing community, according to Michael.
Cochlear Implants are on the rise. Michael cited a study in Australia that found 45% of deaf babies are implanted and believes that a majority of deaf babies born to hearing parents in the United States are receiving implants. He thinks that most of those implanted with CIs in the U.S. come from white, affluent families and “live entirely in the hearing world.” On the other hand, minorities would make up a large part of the “signing deaf,” thus making the signing community even smaller, more diverse, and especially economically disadvantaged. This could divide the deaf community into “haves” and “have nots.”
He proposed a different course for the future of Gallaudet, one which will focus on new ways for everyone to hear using technology, rather than focusing solely on deafness. He envisions hearing people interested in manipulating their hearing through Cochlear Implant-like devices in the future, so they can tune out sounds such as a person’s snoring or a jackhammer in the vicinity. “Imagine, 30 years from now, a cochlear implant for biologically hearing people. It would be seen as an enormous benefit by the hearing world,” Michael marveled.
In any case, he had a proposition for Gallaudet University and the deaf community: “Who better than the deaf community to actively seize the lead in developing communications technologies that interact directly with the nervous system? And to experiment with new social forms to explore their uses? We already have one foot — more than one foot — in that world.” Michael presumes that the deaf community is already at the cutting edge of neurotechnology through CIs, so they can take the lead in this field.
“At the moment, Gallaudet thinks of itself as a liberal arts university for the deaf…I believe that perspective will eventually lead to its decline. But if Gallaudet thought about itself as a place where community is explored, rather than just signing deaf community, it could build a unique niche among American universities that would ensure that it lasts all but forever.” He offered a comparable instance of this type of occurrence: Harvard University was founded in 1636 to train clergymen but has since evolved to become the prestigious, secular University it is today.
Finally, Michael offers his vision of Gallaudet in 50 years:
It could be a campus populated by people with unaltered, altered, and enhanced bodies of all kinds, with the common goal of exploring new ways of experiencing the world, new ways of communicating with each other, and new ways of sustaining communities that meet the primal human needs of being understood, being accepted, and being valued. Only a small percentage of the students would be unable to hear, and that would be either by choice or by some as yet untreatable condition. ASL might have a similar status on campus as Latin does at Catholic universities today: a source of connection to the community’s heritage, but not necessarily the sole language of daily use. The campus language might well be a rich combination of spoken English and ASL signs.
Note: The transcript of Michael Chorost’s presentation was posted on his website prior to the presentation.
© 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.
I’m convinced this kind of environment at Gallaudet is on the horizon. Excellent presentation.
Hey Mike! Maybe not in the near future but certainly in the next 50 years it’s a real possibility. Chorost may be ahead of his time. We’d have to wait for the next generation of deaf to come of age to provide the impetus. To be honest, I see this happening at RIT already than I do at Gallaudet in 50 years.
Excellent post! Wish I was there to pick his brain as well!
I would have asked him why can’t this same technological impetus be pushed upon the American Sign Language? Why does the technology have to focus exclusively on the ear system.?
Why not apply the technology research and know-how towards making it possible to use ASL to communicate with hearing people anytime and anywhere? I’ll have to make a vlog about this! :-)
Oooh, do the vlog, Jared!!!
Yes!!!
I totally agree why NOT use ASL as another mode of communication for the hearing people?!!
It’s no brainer…
Oops, I forgot my suit and glasses, Shane… so yeah, I’ll just help myself out the door… no need to sic the guards on me…
:D
Jared, we can. On the campus of Gallaudet we can simply empower students to learn, explore, discover, develope and even patent important discoveries that would enable people to bridge the communication gap even closer. This was my oft repeated suggestion in my blogs and at the blog/vlog conference as well. Gallaudet Univ could easily cater to this kind of niche development while encouraging students, staff, professors and grads to pool in their resources and make the campus an intuitive one when it comes to communicating.
I discovered that the way Gallaudet students communicate depends on the specifics of their hearing, where they grew up, and who raised them. To give you an example: had my hearing loss been just five decibels worse, or had I been diagnosed just six months later, I would not have been able to learn English well. I would almost certainly have grown up using ASL and would have come here for my undergraduate education.
(Did he really say this? He’s obviously looking down at signing Deaf people.)
The comment above came from his speech
I just read his transcript and I can’t believe he said that, even after interacting with people on campus last fall. Had he really paid attention, he’d certainly have noticed that English ability is definitely not dependent on decibel level.
This guy sounds like an innovator, certainly, but perhaps a little overly optomistic. The day that hearing people get CI is the day hell freezes over. If you have natural biological hearing, what would the advantage be to destroy that to “tune out” snoring? That statement alone proves the guy has a screw loose. AND I am unclear as to his vision for Gallaudet. “Enhanced bodies of all kinds?” What does he mean by that?
I think you may have missed the part where he said: “Right now, there’s no way to alter biological hearing without damaging the inner ear, but in several decades’ time it may be quite possible.”
I love this guy’s optimistic attitude, but the pessimisim in me somehow wonders if his vision will ever be achieved.
Yes, you’re right. I completely missed that part. **Shuffles away**
I’m with you about the pessimism though, but I tend to be a “glass is half empty” person. Who knows though.
Julie, several decades ago would you have believed that we would have computers, stem cells that can repair heart muscle damage, cochlear implants, and computer chips so small in its etching you’d need a micro/nano scope?
Hmmmm… well, he made it clear that the future is against us, with the increasing number of deaf babies getting implanted, going mainstreaming, etc.
He could be right. After all, we always say that parents are the children’s best advocates… so they have right to make the decision, whether we agree or not.
In response to Michael Chorost’s vision of hearing people getting a CI:
It’s quite funny, really because I think I’ve got the advantage to “switch my processor on and off” based on annoyances. I do not habitually tune out, but there are times that I would much rather have peace and quiet. My hearing friends have said, “hey, no fair. Keep it on!” when unwillingly placed in unpleasant sound environments such as construction sites, deafening (no pun intended) bar noises, or in a building with a defective fire alarm. I do, however, try my best to keep it on at all times. I think CI’s provide a great benefit and I think that CI users generally can appreciate the opportunity to process sounds. I can’t blame Chorost for envisioning the possibility of hearing people getting a CI, but I think that would be morally wrong. It would disrupt the meaning(s) of deafness, I think.
He cites “One recent study concluded that about 2/3rds of children who get cochlear implants by age 1½ reach the same performance in spoken English as biologically hearing children within six months of implantation.”
Other recent studies concludes that CI childrens will not develop language skills with same performance as hearing kids at age 12-14. ASL kids seems to have some better language skills later in life than CI kids with no sign language, especially cognitive skills seems to be better in some areas. So one can say that early in life, CI looks like it is working like the kid was a hearie, but later on, ASL pays of better. It’s important to look at all the research, not only the ones that favors CI or ASL.
I do not take this speech very seriously, beeing very San Francisco style, entertaining with extreme optimistic and SI-FI imaginations mixed with popular sience. But nice Gallaudet is open to everyone!
Since you conveniently cited Chorost’s research, where’s this “recent study” that the opposite effect takes place at ages 12-14?
I concur. Thanks for pointing out the other studies.
Silver Spring, it’s time for you to learn how to use google. I found the studies in less than five minutes. Use the google, Luke.
It’s really interesting, after all I have firsthand experience with the current generation of CI children. I’m heavily involved with Spring Camp Cheerio, which is considered an auditory-oral camp that’s sponsored by AG Bell, NC Cued Speech Association, and Carolina Children’s Communicative Disorders Program. This wasn’t the case 5 years ago. It used to be Cue Camp Cheerio, but AG Bell parents got heavily involved. The name change reflected the need for more funding and that the camp became more “diverse.”
Basically, I’ve been asked to be director of Spring Camp 2008. Errr, thanks for the offer but I’m not sure if I want to be that busy.
You can see the implication here, in which ASL basically doesn’t exist at camp. I’ve been working to change that by inviting out more college age signers that do have the CI. The parents keep telling me how they’re blown away by the success I’ve had with the CI, since I was implanted at 6 years old. I argue though, that I had access to language through Cued Speech BEFORE I had access to hearing. Profoundly deaf signers would probably say the same thing too.
Carol Flexor is a well-known name in audiology, with her research on FM systems and the success of “oral” children. She’ll be making an appearance this year at camp, so I plan on giving her the Inquisition treatment in terms of determining her perspective on language acquisition. I’ve heard all the stories of how she’s against ASL and Cued Speech, and that she has some quirky beliefs concerning implants. I’ll be sure to report back to you all on the outcome.
But I do have to agree that more and more parents are seeing the potential in mainstreaming their children and moving away from ASL. I’ve discovered a trend of students that go to college with special education programs that includes certification in interpreting, and some tend to change their mind and desire to work with CI kids to help them achieve “spoken language.”
I strongly support the use of CIs in deaf children, since I’ve achieved great success with it. But I caution parents, it’s not a cure-all. Access to spoken language still is a key issue in child development. I still can’t quite decipher lyrics in music, yet I can understand about 80-90% of what my professors say in the classroom as I have no transliterator. That’s not as good as 100% is it?
I can’t decipher lyrics in music either, but I can make out the lyrics if I have the song sheet in front of me. I’ve had the CI since I was 7, and I’d have to agree with you that it’s not a cure-all device, but it sure helped me with my language development skills. My speech improved once I heard my voice, and I still train my ear to pick up sentences on the radio.
You know, I wish more people were like you, encouraging all options. I tell people to go for ASL and to also go for CI surgery if their audiologist recommends it.
To the CI users on who commented on this blog…
Chorost said, “These numbers suggest that most white and wealthy kids will get implants and live entirely in the hearing world…”
If your CI makes you “almost hearing” why are you making comments on DeafDC.com? By participating, one could reasonably surmise that you’re not living “entirely in the hearing world”.
Should such participation be stigmatized like that?
I’ve never thought of myself as “almost hearing” with the CI because I consider myself a part of the oral deaf community. I went to deaf school, was mainstreamed, and still have deaf friends.
I don’t think my participation on DeafDC.com is stigmatizing me.
Chorost is entirely too optimistic because I think that those deaf children with CIs will still seek out others like them for a shared sense of commonality. They won’t be fully assimiliated into the hearing world because their speech, and CIs, still sets them apart as the “other” in this society.
Psh, stigma my arse.
I get stigmatized for not being fluent in ASL by certain deaf people.
I’d like to think that Chorost is a racist, or an eugenicist, or just a ignoramus, but then I don’t know him personally.
I will say that history has shown that the wealthy will do whatever it takes to make their “special” children as normal as possible. How do we think that Abbe Charles Michel De L’Epee was able to do all the work he did?
Does it seem that the lack of education reflects the abundance of poverty?
I’ve always lived in the hearing world. I just happen to take vacations from it whenever I turn off my CI for the night and go to sleep or interact with other deaf people.
Implanted or not, if you get down to the basic, biological “nuts and bolts” (no pun intended,) when the CI comes off, you’re still deaf.
I know many deaf individuals who can hear well enough with HA’s to use a phone, or understand what’s said on a radio, their status as deaf is never questioned, nor their participation in the deaf (or hearing) communities.
I prefer to think (or hope?) that people with CI’s, like myself, have the ability to move within BOTH the hearing and deaf worlds with equal ease. There is never TOTAL communication on either end though. I’m not completely fluent in ASL, and there are some people I can’t understand when they speak, due to various reasons (lisps, accents etc.) CI’s aren’t a magic pill that magically allows you to hear everything. They require work, and a willingness to accept that hearing is an ongoing process, that you never really stop learning.
I’ve attended both hearing and deaf colleges, I have hearing and deaf friends, and I consider myself to be a deaf woman, who can hear with the assistance of a CI. Its the best of both worlds, and I love it.
According to Michael Chorost’s transcript, as I read today, I felt that he is stigmatizing the deaf community as a community possibly changing into a hearingized community. It is true that the technology changes are rapid and it is also possible for Gallaudet itself to accommodate to the technology changes smoothly. Gallaudet University itself had been known as the first university to support deaf college students and hearing students eventually. However, the spread of CI users is a good plus to the Gallaudet community to allow diversity among hearing aid users, CI users, and non hearing aid or CI users.
This ongoing issues about Cochlear Implants really makes me sad. I do not support children or babies getting C.I. because it is not the parent’s decision to cut up their child’s brain to put a giant magnet in their heads. What happens when a baby gets seizures? brain tumors? epilepsy? or forced to not able to do somethings all because they are not allowed to have MRI testings or experience things freely without worrying if they are allowed to use plastic playgrounds or metal playgrounds. What happens when the chip breaks? Child go into surgery once again? It sickens me that hearing people go around saying C.I. is a cure for deafness. IT IS NOT A CURE. It helps them hear some just as good as a hearing aid can for some.
C.I. is like a giant technology which and when the future comes, today’s C.I. users will be considered using is old fashioned and totally unnecessary. Like when VCR, captioning machines, TTY first came out, they were huge boxes and now they come in tiny little box or a chip that can be installed in TV and no boxes needed. I think hearing people think C.I. and installing giant magnets is more important than the cons. Deaf people do see the CONS and the PROS of C.I. I see more cons than pros. So you can hear - 1 PRO - CONS? - Costly, could be deathly (surgeries and repeated surgeries if chip breaks), hassles - MRI, cannot or supposedly not use certain or go thru certain things like I mentioned above.
Hearing people and doctors cannot go around saying CI is a cure and it works. I do not think CI is very effective. I see more CONS than I do PROS. Please tell me the PROS of C.I. today than the CONS. I met half of C.I. users they regret getting it, not because they can hear, it’s because of the cost they have to go thru and pay and also multiple surgeries they have to go, and it’s not 100% effective to their hearing.
I’m sure I’ll be slammed for being against today’s C.I. procedures.
I am not against anyone who has C.I. I empathize those who do.
Actually, it is the parents’ prerogative to make those decisions for their deaf child. They have the right to do it, and I support them in making that decision, whether to implant their child or not.
They have a right to do that to their child but when a child grows up wondering why they have a piece of machinery in their heads will not be too happy about it or some will come to be happy about it.
I guess it’s a parents perogative to abuse their children as well cuz it’s their child correct? or if a child dies from CI surgery, you support that as well? Yes I am being dramatic at this point but there is a fine line where a parent must strongly consider taking a risk of their baby’s life to get surgery so they can be “NORMAL” and hear somewhat few decibals higher lower than they have already? does not make them a hearing child.
If they do it, I am not against them either but do not support it.
I have that “machinery” in my head and I’m quite happy with it, thank you very much. My mother made the decision to implant me at 7, and I know it was the right decision for her to make.
Whether a child is implanted with CI or not is not really my business. As much as some of us cringe at the thought, parents do have that right.
However, I do take issues with how many deaf children failed linguistically wise due to heavy emphasis on auditory and speech.
When you said it is parent’s prerogative to make those decisions for their deaf child, I do agree. In order to make a decision, it is sensible to expect that parents are provided all information available. Way too often, they are given one sided or limited information and are geared towards the view of the medical establishment community.
I await for the day that all parents are given ALL information from and exposure to both the Deaf community and medical establishment community.
The majority of deaf children and people in our country remain to be illiterate. I found this statistics among deaf children in Canada very alarming:
“93% of all Deaf children in preschool are enrolled in AVT and oral programs, but by the end of preschool, 67% remain. When elementary school begins, 58% remain, and by the teens, only 31% are still in oral programs. This shows that nearly two-thirds leave oral for ASL based programs by the teens. CHS states that deaf children are placed in ASL programs only after failing oral and AVT programs, resulting in children having neither a command of ASL or English with devastating long term results.”
For more information about what’s going on in Canada, go to Dianrez’s blogsite:
http://www.xanga.com/dianrez/5.....anada.html
This leads me to be curious about the statistics in America.
Yes, a lot of hearing parents are not given full information. I knew one family who gave their son CI and they were only given 1 sided information by their audiologist and their doctors that it is the ONLY suggestion to cure his deafness and it’s SAFE blah blah when he became sick, he was not allowed to have MRI which could have been provented but yet he almost died. That’s why I am angry about the CI program only being 1 sided, the law states must give info on side effects on medications but it did not apply to CI users because the mother was so upset that it ruined her son’s life by getting CI and also she was pressured by her family member and her doctors to get it or he will not be a normal child. Now he is even worse than he started in the beginning. Shame.
I think my real issues with CI is not people getting CI but how CI is defined by hearing people and why CI is so commonly misunderstood by hearing people that their kids are now normal by using CI. It does not work that way. I guess I would be happier if if people got CI knowing both sides of the story what the REAL PRO and CONS of getting CI not just the PRO giving some parents false hope.
That’s all. I do apologize if I come off insulting but it just angers me when it’s all 1 sided. Thanks Katherine for making it clear for me to explain.
Once upon a time, I too did NOT support cochlear implants. I did not want an alien device in my head. That was 15 years ago. Today, I am a bilateral cochlear implant consumer and I have no regrets! What I missed in having a hearing child… I enjoy every minute of through my grandbaby. To hear her first cry. I witnessed her birth. To follow her journey in learning speech as Nana became Greema and then Grammy and finally Gran’ma. I would give anything to have been able to hear MY child say those things. Oh, the frustration when ordering lunch one day and my child asks to visit the Memonite girls… I thought she was asking for lemon ice. Sweetheart, Taco Bell does not have lemon ice. She became very upset and could not make me understand. So, why didn’t I teach her sign language? Because she rejected it! She thought that if she didn’t sign them Mom would not be deaf. She was a hearing child and I was not going to force sign language on her. I had a choice to have a cochlear implant or NOT and I’m only sorry that I didn’t choose to get one sooner. If my child had been born deaf, would I have seen that she got a cochlear implant? You bet! Contrary to popular belief, the implant is no where near the brain. It is sandwiched between the skull and skin with a strand of electrodes that lead off to coil through the cochlea. It is NOT child abuse. It’s a gift! I’m very blessed.
Parents who believe risking their babies to surgeries to be hearing are narcissitc and VAIN who believes that their children should be PERFECT. That’s my opinion! Why can’t people just love what God has given them and what they were born with?
Surgeries that can fix inner ears like they do when people lose their nerves the doctors perform surgeries so they can have a sense of feeling whereever their nerves are damaged. Ears can be like that but I think it’s totally unnecessary to put a giant machinery in their head cuz they are deaf! To me that is a sign that DEAF IS A DISEASE OR DEAF IS BAD! Where is the embrace of deafness? without drilling holes in our heads.
My mother would certainly disagree with you on that.
whatever!
so would mine.
using your logic, I would suggest you not have anything to do with your children. just let the child be born and fend for itself, because, according to you, what RIGHT do I Have to decide what’s best for the child? if he/she wants to stand up.. let ‘er rip, wants to speak… let ‘er shout, hey…. I better not impose education on my child (again according to your logic) because what right do I have to do that? “God made this child the way it is, if it’s supposed to be educated.. it’ll run to school.”
It’s the parents decision on what’s best for the child, and being deaf, especially in this day and age, isn’t necessarily something a parent should wish for their children, if they can help it.
btw.. your MRI argument is invalid, it’s the magnet that prevents the MRI, it can be easily removed and easily put back. Especially with the new equipment.
I disagree with you, it is not easily removed! You would have to get surgery to remove it then surgery again to put it back in?
That’s fine with me, those who are happy with CI and require MRI or scans that magnet is in the way, that’s their decision to face more consequences, all I am saying is as long you both got 2 full sides of the story pros and cons and still want to get CI that’s your decision to make and if you are happy then I am happy for you. As I said I am not against people who decide to have it or those who do have it, just against the idea that doctors or audiologist feels that CI is the cure and using CI should not be considered deaf. I saw a TV show on Soap Channel where an actress son was deaf and she cried and cried and they said they have a CURE for him, CI!!!! She said my son is now normal, he can hear and everything. Her son does not sign or anything. Just because he is using CI does not mean he’s hearing!
I also saw a show where some guy bit into a chicks neck and drank her blood and the only way to cure that problem was draw the shades when the sun is up. OH MY GOD! It MUST be reality!
/sarcasm off
look, it’s not like the magnet is embedded inside the skull cavity, it’s right under the skin. There are alternate options to an extremely expensive equiptment like MRI’s…. using an MRI would only be necessary as a last resort.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong, you dont’ have a clue what it’s like to be implanted nor do you have any idea of what happens when children or adults run into road blocks like MRI machines. Proof that you use an analogy and proof of what you understand through day time soaps is evident enough for me to set you aside.
your opinion is flaw and duly noted.
The newest CI’s (such as Cochlear’s Freedom) allow for minor surgery in order to remove the magnet and allow for MRI scans up to 1.5 Tesla. Removal of the magnet does not require general anesthesia which is another advantage - there is a small incision made, and the skin peeled back slightly, the magnet removed, and then the MRI scan proceeds, after which the magnet is replaced and a few small stitches hold the skin flaps together until it heals. If I had a condition requiring an MRI, the minor surgery would be a small inconvenience.
I would also like to add - if I was a child born deaf today, and my parents chose NOT to implant me, knowing what I know now with regards to how amazing my CI is, I’d be very upset with the loss of those initial language acquiring early years.
I have a friend in Holland whose daughter is now 3, and was bilaterally implanted with the Freedom 2 years ago and she is speaking English, Dutch, Norwegian, and ASL. I find her a remarkable example of just what is possible!!
Oooo I absolutely love this part of your response….
“I have a friend in Holland whose daughter is now 3, and was bilaterally implanted with the Freedom 2 years ago and she is speaking English, Dutch, Norwegian, and ASL. I find her a remarkable example of just what is possible!!”
(rubs chin) should I implant my child or give him the option when he/she’s 18 years old and let him lose valuable speech and language development OR stick him in the deaf community and thrive on asl….. hmmmmm decisions decisions.
implanting too late and delaying speech, language and cognitive skills necessary to do so is FAR too important to be neglected by morality upon preserving an social ideology.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. I think this is one of the biggest arguments you’ll encounter. There are so many people on both sides of the debate as to whether language acquisition, and cognitive development is documented “sufficiently enough” to use as a behchmark upon which to make decisions. Some stress letting the child decide for themselves when they are old enough (the age for being ‘old enough’ vary - from early childhood to late teens.)
I think my friend’s daughter is a very good example of what *is* possible - with the enforcement and positive attitude, and education that is required to achieve this level of hearing. Perhaps she’s an exception, but I believe that the fact that she can switch languages given the correct environment (I believe one set of grandparents speaks Norwegian, the other Dutch, and the parents speak English and ASL) is proof enough that the CI’s benefits.
I know there are ongoing studies happening, and I will be watching the results of them over the next 10, 20, 30 years eagerly, and I look forward to the day that CI implantation is looked upon with a positive light.
I don’t believe that deafness will ever be eradicated. There is no need to worry about a “deaf genocide” happening either. Regardless of the successes of CI’s, there will always be people who can not be implanted (occification of the cochlea, auditory nerve problems, improperly developed auditory cortex etc,) as well as those who hear too well to benefit from a CI, and those who simply chose NOT to be implanted. Deafness won’t go away - as I have said before- when the CI comes off, the individual is still deaf.
Allison spoke in her blog recently about “deafbutts” - people who are deaf, but wear a hearing aid. There are also those who are deaf, but wear a CI. :)
Dear Anti CI
I am a CI mother with a CI son who likes to wear it even during bedtime. You cannot go around syaing things like this since you are not one with a CI. You just do not know.
well tell it to the other CI users who are unhappy cuz their parents forced them to have it!
Children/teenagers will be unhappy with their parents’ decisions regardless of what they entail. A teenager with a CI will be angry that her parents had the surgery done on her, a male who was circumcised will say it should have been his choice, etc. A parent’s job is to do what they believe is best for the child’s future.
I think a lot of people who don’t like what Chorost is saying are afraid of the truth in his words.
It is like saying if people disagree with someone anytime, they are afraid of the truth. How do you know it is not the other way around that he’s afraid of what might fail?
That’s not what I’m saying, actually. If someone tells me the war in Iraq is justified and I disagree, it’s not because I’m afraid of the truth, it’s because I believe it’s wrong.
This situation is unique in that the changes Chorost suggests could potentially prove fatal for Deaf culture as we know it. As it is, the Deaf population is dwindling; deaf schools are shutting down left and right, Gallaudet enrollment is down. Even at Gallaudet, the environment is not predominately “strong Deaf” anymore. iPods are nearly as common as Sidekicks, and students SimCom in class as often as the teachers do.
I’m not saying anyone is wrong for being afraid that their culture is on the verge of extinction (or radical changes). I’m just saying that perhaps the fear of that is what’s keeping people from accepting technological advancements.
Yes a child will always be unhappy with their parents’ decisions regardless but you are making it sound like when a parents say no you cannot go to the movies with your date is nothing compared to getting a surgery that has a machine in your body and not when it comes to something that’s scarring or permanent fixture on their body that they cannot get rid of. They will always see that giant scar on their head, those who are unhappy that is.
I’m sorry but CI is still new and I am going to gurantee there will be an advanced CI where surgery may not be required and it could be something laser surgery or a tiny chip without using a huge magnet and hearing aid box to attach to the CI. Look at the hearing aids we used in the 70’s and had to use a hearing aid bra, CI is like that now, it’s like we are back ing hte 70’s but this time with CI bra. :o)
One of the issues that provoked my parents to get a CI was because I had profound hearing loss and they feared for my safety when it came to environmental sounds. I couldn’t hear anything below 50 dB with hearing aids. Now after my upgrade to the Freedom implant, my last audiogram indicated my hearing level was at 10-15 dB and my speech threshold was 20 dB.
I would actually sleep with my CI if it wasn’t such a waste of batteries. To me, hearing is something I hope I never lose again in my life. I went deaf for two weeks during the time of my second surgery, and I was a very different person. I hated being deaf. I missed out on so much. I had gotten used to being hearing.
I didn’t even need pain medication for my second surgery. Sure it was sore, but I would have endured any pain just so I could have my hearing back again. I commanded my audiologist to find someone to turn my processor on five days after my surgery, instead of the two weeks I would have had to wait for her to get back from vacation. I was that desperate.
Off-topic, but: The language you use in your comment makes me think of something someone said in class the other day while we were discussing Judith Butler and her take on gender — are we our gender (”I am female”) or do we have it (”I have female characteristics”)?
At two separate occassions in the comment above, you refer to yourself as “being hearing,” and then later having hearing back. Just interesting to notice, I thought.
I would not be surprised one day it will be plastered all over in media a son/daughter is suing parents for proceeding with CI in him/her.
The other day I was in food court at a local mall. There was this 9-year-old girl with CI sitting with her mother. They communicated to each other orally and spoke very slowly. The girl’s eyes were so fixated on her mother’s lips. At one point, when she saw me signing to my hearing partner, she was fascinated. Her mother was visibly upset and told her not to observe us anymore. How sad that was for me. Her mother is doing a great disservice to her; robbing her of other opportunities, such as a beautiful language, namely ASL.
While many parents explicitly stated that they wanted their child to have the best opportunity for early language development, I also think they have their own hidden agenda. They just don’t want their child to be any more different than them.
Make no mistake…I am not against anyone who is mature enough to make an informed decision to have CI.
exactly my point! Parents or Audiologist or doctors or hearing people feel kids who get CI should be treated like HEARING people when they are relying on lipreading. CI will make them HOH than DEAF but HOH do rely on sign language! CI is a total misleading case where many believe CI is a cure for deafness. Poor girl she is going to grow up thinking she cannot be deaf cuz of her CI!
Actually she’ll be thankful that she’s not isolated on 99 acres of land because she is forced to be “Deaf.” that’s my viewpoint, if I was a parent.
“99 acres of land because she is forced to be “Deaf.”
huh?
I’m Deaf and I’m not isolated anywhere.
Silly you.
Excuse me! I have been considered hard of hearing all my life because I was not born stone deaf. I have bilateral cochlear implants now and you want to call me hard of hearing still? I don’t thinks so! I don’t speak with a deaf accent anymore. I don’t have to ask people to repeat what they say to me and I sure don’t have to depend on sign language. Yes, I am still deaf and I’m not hearing but, don’t you dare call me hard of hearing. I am a cochlear implant consumer and I hear just fine!
I’m hard of hearing.
*shrugs*
I like/agree with Sophie Shifra-Gold’s comment above (81040). Chorost’s presentation sounds like he thinks he’s a progressive optimist, and his vision smells of “Hey, who moved my cheese?” in that he embraces change. As transcendental as his vision for hearing people with implants sounds, however, I have a bitter taste in my mouth.
I’m afraid he embraces change according to a set of principles that would suppress Deaf people or even, given his vision, people for whom biotechnical adaptations are not as successful. And the way he says ASL can survive as a connection to our heritage (thus rendering it quaint) screams his opinion. Clearly, to him, the ability to hear is still the mechanism that separates the wheat from the chaff.
I would hope he takes some time to gain a more nuanced understanding of life in the Deaf community before he proposes future directions for Gallaudet.
Anti-CI, you briefly mention that modern day cochlear implants will be compared to as VCRs and large computers. I would like to point out that I received it in the 1980s, it WAS a chunky device, but it helped me hear. Dealing with toting a device was no more of an annoyance than those few who carried those “large” cell phones. Today, it has become a wireless device. I think we’ve moved beyond the VHS stage, but it certainly has the potential for advancement.
When given an opportunity to be able to hear, I think any parent would want that for their child. My argument is, if the child grows into a teenager and decides he no longer wants to wear an implant, so be it. I think it’s much better to do it early in life and make that decision later. If the parent waited for the child to make the decision, all the critical period for language development and brain plasticity has passed.
I am not here to argue that CIs are better or anything, because I do not want to appear as one sided. I am simply pointing out in the defense of the parents. They are just as confused and want to do the right thing. It’s not their fault for wanting their child to be more like them or to have opportunities to succeed in all ways possible.
I’ll keep my abrasiveness in check for this blog entry. I promise (heh.)
where I don’t fully agree with Ms. Kaftan on much of her view points. But I have to say, I do understand where she is coming from as well as people like herself. The assimilation of the CI is inevitable. Differences have always been feared and differences have always been sought to be corrected by those who do not understand. Hearing parents who were forced into the decision will be biased. In a world where the norm is being able to hear, see, smell, walk, talk, and sing a tune, the norm is always going to trump the minority, if it can be trumped. Despite being a minority and unfortunately misunderstood, the Unite States Government and much of it’s society have tried exceedingly hard to make life easier and as accessible to the Deaf population as much as they can. That’s a hell of a lot more than what China has to offer. (using a comparison of societies.) Deaf are not allowed to drive in China, at all. The US Gov’t will not abandon us, but the degree of it’s motivation is decided by how often it’s “hand gets bitten.”
I admire the deaf community for it’s dedication to preserve it’s ancestry and it’s beauty, but with the rapidly increasing technological and social advancements. Chrorost see’s that, I see that, CI’s are the wave of the future, it can only get better. As, i’ve said before… the need for institutes for the deaf and the dependency on ASL will eventually fade and evolve, maybe not in our life time but surely enough.
Well, I believe CI needs to clarify it’s true purpose. Tell what parents and potential clients the pros and cons. I do agree they need to be told both sides.
okay there’s 3 sides to every story, their side, my side and the truth. =)
In all reality, even the most educated person in the world only listens to what they want to be told.
but, yes… the doctor and the audiologist should give the entire list of options from all sides. However, I suspect that neither side would be happy either way. “that explanation does not fit enough the deaf explanation!!!” “that doesn’t explain enough of th the benefits of being hearing!!!!”
who’s gonna be happy?
Not too long ago, hearing aids were heralded as the downfall of the deaf community, a prediction which speaks for itself. HA’s are readily accepted in the deaf community. With time, so will CI’s. Of course there will always be some who refuse to believe or acknowledge the benefits of CI’s and the choice to remain ignorant is their own.
I’m not saying that all CI experiences are positive. There are some people who aren’t happy with them, who haven’t or don’t achieve the level of hearing they expected, or for one reason or another, the CI does not perform correctly. During my pre-implant consultation with my audiologist and the surgeon, I was informed of these possibilities, and well educated on what to expect and what not to expect. In all honesty, my CI has far exceeded any, if all expectations I might have had. Perhaps I’m simply lucky, or perhaps its because I considered *any* advancement in my hearing to be a positive thing, even if it was minimal. By going into the process with a minimalistic level of expectations, everything was a bonus.
Parents who expect a “magic bullet” will be disappointed. A CI isn’t something that is simply implanted and then expected to do everything on its own. Parents and children have to be prepared to work with it. I fully support the “whole toolbox” approach to communication in CI implanted children, teaching them speech AND sign language. I disagree with parents who shun sign/ASL and focus on speech and hearing alone - because when the CI comes off, the child is still deaf. There will be instances where the CI will or can not be used (while swimming or in the bath for example) and in those situations having sign language to fall back on is an advantage, not a crutch. Giving your child the best of both worlds should include the LANGUAGES of those worlds, in order to fully appreciate the wonders and uniqueness of each :)
Well said, Dyniece!
Like you, I was fully informed about the same thing, especially what to expect and so forth.
Knowing that, I was not even disappointed at all and really enjoy using my CI.
I still say I am deaf because that is really who I am, though.
I do not understand speech but it does help lip-reading easier - but doesn’t mean I catch all the words, just a little more and at ease.
I understand my family at home when they are talking to each other most of the time, but I still have to look at their faces. I’m used to their voices and tones.
My speech is horrible and I don’t care