|
| Reflections on Last Week's BlogProtest or Censorship?
The response to my blog "Enough with blogs about CI surgery!" was interesting. Not only were there both pro and con responses on the blog itself, it spilled over into other blogs as well.
http://aslci.blogspot.com/2009/06/enough-with-ci-blogs.html
http://radio666fm.com/mephisto/?p=828
The first responses were positive. It touched a nerve in other Deaf people also sick of blogs about CI surgery and its skewing focus in the lives of d/Deaf people. Then came rather defensive responses: some saw it as an attempt to censor DeafRead to eliminate CI blogs, asserting instead that it is a part of the d/Deaf experience and that it definitely belonged in DR, and that one can simply skip over them using the Custom feature of DeafRead.
No suggestion was made to censor at all. My blog was a protest: The CI surgery blogs imply that hearing is necessary in order to become a competent individual. Effectively, this is a medical model that ignores all that Deaf people have accomplished through the generations without aids.
It also seemed that DeafRead was moving away from one of its original premises: to showcase the culture and accomplishments of Deaf people. Cultural topics were losing ground to medical topics. I wondered if uninvolved people reading these blogs might get information that supports a disability perception by the majority.
A Call for Respect, not an Attack
Some also viewed last week's blog as an attack on CI users and mentioned radicals such as those in DBC, AFA and the Deafhood movement.
Far from it. We know that CI wearers are increasing in our cultural community and that future generations will have an even larger percentage of CI users than our hearing aid wearers. As for "radicals", we must define the term first. Offering my definition as a starting point: a radical is a person who is unreasonably one-sided and does not take others' viewpoints in consideration. A radical is an extremist, favoring drastic reform immediately.
While the views of these individuals may make others uncomfortable, they all are after the same goal: respect for deaf people, respect for American Sign Language, and inclusion of ASL in early childhood education. If some of their leaders are critical of the CI, they are saying it is overused, hyped, and involves a restrictive therapy that allows no sign language. Does this criticism make them radicals? Are they representative of the organization?
Part of the problem is that these Deaf groups do not have a clearly written position representing their organizational view, so people are attributing extreme anti-CI sentiments of a few members to the whole organization. By labeling them radicals, they are then dismissed as crackpots. Their original premise, RESPECT AND INCLUSION, is lost in the confusion.
Violence?
The topic then abruptly shifted to violence, brought up by pro-CI bloggers who said they had been threatened, and following that, another respondent said she had heard of five CI parents who had been threatened.
http://aslci.blogspot.com/2009/06/where-is-line.html
http://radio666fm.com/mephisto/?p=835
My initial reaction? Skepticism. Up to now this had been mentioned vaguely, without facts or reports to cite, and seemed intended to validate their position as heroes fighting Deaf radicals for the good of humanity.
Well, I don't know.
We've seen in the news sickos causing deaths on campuses and in workplaces. We've seen extremist groups attack buildings, killing people in them. Who am I to say that this cannot happen in the highly polarized d/Deaf community? Hmmm? Well...
..........
I came across a nutcase known for blog rants against the CI. It was at a Deaf festival and this person seemed an unlikely candidate for the term "crackpot" at first. Within the first few minutes, though, it became obvious this was no normal-thinking person. An emotional, determined, on-a-mission obsession. Histrionics of "I will fight for defenseless babies who are innocently born to parents who not accept them as God made them!" "I will not give up on hard fights!" These were the milder things this person said, but the eyes held a glint of paranoia. This is not who Deaf people want to speak for them, and this embarrassing person has been banned from online forums. Personally, I don't think this one is actually planning anything worse than verbally making it difficult for others. (Unfortunately, the diehard CI blogs use this person as a blanket example of "Deaf Culturists" that they must fear and fight against.)
..........
So, it would be safer to err on the side of taking threats seriously, just on principle.
While we are talking about threats (which was brought up in a divisive way,) we have a right to ask for more specific information. Names? Locations? Cyber addresses? Background? What led up to this threat? Who are these people and what harm can they potentially do? How many people, or is it just one or two? What can we do about them? How can we discourage and disclaim this so that people will listen to us?
The reason many of us did not respond to past mention of threats is probably that it is foreign to our experience. We just did not see any, and wondered if those who mentioned it somehow exaggerated it or brought it on themselves by their provocative comments. That doesn't make it right, though. Violence is never acceptable, no way, nohow. (If those so inclined individuals are reading this, please know you are hurting the cause of Deaf respect and acceptance, and are actually being used by some CI extremists to discount the rest of us.)
Discourse is Healthy and Progressive when one Listens.
An advantage of sharing blogs with opposing views is that we tend to come together on points of agreement. Examples:
I personally have come to accept that the CI has some value but still hold out on how this value is measured and by whom.
Certain CI bloggers have come out and said that ASL has value, but still reserve judgment on who needs it.
Parents have said that the "radicals" have important lessons to pass on about past mistreatment in education, but they still say today's young Deaf generation is different than any in the past.
More Deaf people are accepting that ASL is not for everybody, but still believe that it belongs in the child's first offerings.
Parents, regarded at first to be unwitting and credulous people desperately trying to find a cure, are now seen as mostly involved people asking questions and making informed choices.
The dialogue needs to continue, and fences that stop it need to be taken down.
| | |
| Enough with blogs about CI surgery!  Medical and cultural views on being Deaf
These two viewpoints on being d/Deaf couldn't be more opposite. In the medical view, one focuses on the deficit (loss of hearing) and curing it. In the cultural view, the person is accepted as a Deaf person and the most sensible language is used. Sign. In the medical view the person is brought to a standard or as close as possible. In the cultural view the person is appreciated for who he is.
Actually, the medical view is a demeaning one. It defines the person by his nonfunctioning ears. The ASL sign "box-mouth-box ears" is apropos because it means focusing only on the ears and the speech. Nothing else is considered.
Not considered is the person who may be intelligent, creative, skilled, experienced and productive. All that matters is the aforementioned two parts of his anatomy and their function.
Oh dear, Aunt Matilda is talking about her operation again!
Too many bloggers talk about their surgical experiences and go into detail what they go through in recovery, mapping, travel to appointments, in handling complications and breakdowns, and even in hearing birds or insects. That may be interesting to them and to others having similar experiences, but does not explain who they are.
 An example of a medical focus is Lyndon B. Johnson, here showing off his gallbladder surgery scar. This man may be President of the United States, but here he is a patient obsessing over his midsection, showing it off as if battle scarred. In this instant the world recoiled: is this the leader of the free world so undignified as to pull up his shirt and demonstrate the gory details of what was done to his body? I imagine that cochlear implant patients feel a similar need to show off their experiences and scars, but, please, life and the Presidency are far more than such physical details. Long after we are dust, the world will remember our accomplishments longer than surgical experiences.
Far more interesting is if they revealed who they are, what they are doing, their opinions, and their life-fulfilling experiences apart from their surgeries. In the case of parents writing about children, there is an emotional aspect that makes one uncomfortable to read about...because of the expense, time, emotional investment and parental uncertainity in them and leaves one wondering if they are missing something. Even at two or three years old, children are individual personalities with varied characteristics.
People, not scars!
I'd rather hear about Beethoven and how he worked by imagination. I'd rather hear how he managed his professional life, his creativity, earned his living, and related to other people. I'd rather hear about the kind of person he was and where his creativity came from. That he held a stick in his teeth touching the piano as he played is relatively unimportant compared to the accomplishments he made. Could you credit his symphonies to that stick? Would the same stick enable another person to compose equivalent works?
Similarly, I want to hear how little Adam took apart a toy and manipulated its parts to see how they work, or how Kathy observed a street artist and did her own interpretative work, and to see the work itself. I want to read the first scribblings of young Mark. And tell me that the baby figured out how to reach the doggie by rolling all the way across the room. And I'll tell you how my deaf baby would scoot under furniture on his back to examine the underside and that he now is considering automotive mechanics at age 21. And all of these would happen anyway whether or not the child had been implanted.
I want to hear how a teen or adult CI implantee is sorting out his hearing and deaf experiences and coming up with a new perspective. I want to hear how he is resolving conflicting perceptions and community expectations. I want to hear about new ideas for future generations to work upon.
Are the "bad old days" truly in the past?
Back in the hearing aid and oralism days, deaf children were constantly evaluated in their hearing, use of aids, their speech progress, were scrutinized, corrected and pushed and pulled, and grouped not by intelligence but by their facility of speech and residual hearing. I am told this does not happen with cochlear-implanted kids, and that today's enlightened teachers are focusing on the natural environment with CI-aided hearing. Well and good, but the "box-ears-box-mouth" focus is still there. Anxious parents and pressured teachers are aware that what comes out of the mouth and what information goes in the ears are paramount, and the child as a person is secondary for the first few AVT-dominated years. That has to leave an indelible stamp on the child's personality. Add to that the prohibition against ASL during AVT therapy and one can see the effect of a restricted environment during a critical period of development.
There is also the possibility that the CI ultimately gives a semblance of hearing akin to being hard-of-hearing, and we are all aware of the marginal existence of today's HOH people. Are the CI kids being prepared for a life that is neither here nor fully there? Is supplementing with ASL enough insurance to avoid this marginal feeling? Are the CI kids being psychologically prepared to handle the challenge of expert guessing and incomplete hearing? Are they being taught that they are still whole and capable people, regardless of the level of hearing and speech they may attain?
The guy is deaf, get over it.
The cultural model teaches that being Deaf is okay, that to have less than normal hearing or different speech is also acceptable, and that it does not reflect on oneself in any way. The box-ears-box-mouth concept is irrelevant as a measure of one's worth. The cultural model teaches self-respect; that there are Deaf people who are excellent models of adaptability and accomplishment and that oneself can become a worthy model for others, too. Tools such as hearing aids and CI's are only a small part; treated as minor assets or necessary annoyances or even optional devices. No emotional aspect is attached to them; no more so than for glasses or shoe inserts.
My wish for the upcoming CI generation is to know that although they may have more options than the generations before them, they are still welcomed along with their families to the Deaf Community to make their own unique contributions, and that ASL is the way to ensure this resource is available to them. I hope they are not being fed incorrect information such as that Deaf people are limited, or living in a lonely world, or are deprived of opportunities. Nor that they are successful because of the CI. Nor that they have to meet the expectations of the Hearing community even if it does not mesh with their own capabilities. And my wish is for all d/Deaf people to unite in telling the hearing community to see us as capable individuals unrelated to and regardless of our hearing ability.
| | |
| The CI, Audism and Deaf Credibility The CI controversy
"Audists!" "Hearing supremacists!" are some choice words being flung about. What caused this? Some hearing legislators up in Wisconsin saw that some parents were getting free CI's for their children but others had to pay tens of thousands of dollars. The lucky families were covered by state health insurance or top-quality health insurance; but the others had none or limited insurance. So the civic-minded legislators decided to equalize things and passed a bill forcing all insurances to cover CI surgery for children. Hearing parents celebrated but some Deaf-culture people raised a ruckus.
Who is this bill hurting? Not us. What's the big deal? Destruction of Deaf Culture, ASL, that? Come on, get real. AGBell with his millions of dollars failed to destroy Deaf culture even as schools went oral for nearly a hundred years and are now adopting sign language again. The hearing aid and its ridiculously exaggerated advertising failed to make a dent in the Deaf community as thousands of them were shoved into drawers. Mainstreaming took thousands of Deaf children out of schools for the deaf, but they came back in increasing numbers years later. Even today oral deaf people are expressing wishes to learn ASL and be accepted in this mutually nurturing society.
This bill has nothing to do with forcing the CI on Deaf adults. It still remains a choice of a limited group: parents. There is a growing consensus today that the CI helps more than it harms the Deaf community: it gives people one more tool to gain information, it does not affect the solidarity of the Deaf community, and more parents are accepting that ASL can also benefit children with CI's.
Deaf Credibility
Where does that leave the Deaf Community? With egg on our faces because we protest. We risk being dismissed wholesale as crackpots even if many of us are neutral today about the CI. The reason is that Hearing people are overwhelmingly supportive of hearing restoration. They may think, if we allow some people to remain deaf, what will happen to ME if I were to lose my hearing? With the pea-brains that Hearing people have, it is remarkable how their influence affects everybody else. We need to pick our battles carefully, and fighting an expectation that everybody has a right to five senses isn't a winnable one.
How the anti-CI movement could backfire
Consider this scenario: hearing employers checking first if a Deaf applicant is wearing a CI. Why? Avoiding the problem of a deaf worker asking for interpreters or crying "audism" on the job. Or Deaf people being considered limited if not wearing a CI because of overly sensational publicity about its opposition. We could end up under worse pressure from the Hearing community to get implanted. We laugh today at the cartoon Mr. Magoo blindly blundering about without his glasses, but the hearing society will laugh at Deaf people goofing up things without CI's.
It's lack of knowledge and audism, not the CI that we must fight.
Let's cool it, friends. Stop bashing the CI and let's start shooting down misconceptions such as Wisconsin Rep. Cullen's muddle-headed remarks: “This (CI coverage by insurance) bill is going to allow children to keep their hearing, to become members of society, to go to school and keep a job.”
THAT is what we must fight, the assumption that we cannot become members of society, go to school, or keep a job without hearing by the CI. The prevailing Hearing attitude that being Deaf is unfortunate and pitiable is our biggest handicap, not the CI. We have to prove, over and over again, that not hearing is simply not a problem for us, given a fair chance.
The CI is just one of many technical tools available for d/Deaf people and itself is no threat to us--beside its drawbacks because of surgery, lifetime maintenance and occasional failures. It's time we all got off that rickety bandwagon and start building up our credibility so that parents, administrators, professionals and teachers listen to us.
We need to tell people that--
- the CI hype leads to overexpectations and unrealistic perceptions by Hearing society.
- Sticking a CI into kids does not magically make d/Deaf people disappear from the school system, the community or the family.
- the CI industry has a strong element of commercialism and inflated expectations and is to be regarded with caution.
- the CI does not give normal hearing. It requires frequent adjustment and constant adaptation only to give somewhat variable hearing.
- the CI has limited hope for deaf people to have the advantages of hearing people. There will always be shortcomings and limitations in communication.
- people who wear CIs still need special services such as assistive devices, communication aids, and are still deaf when the CI is off.
- children with CIs may have some benefit in mainstreaming and oral education, but visual language (reading, writing, and visible communication) will still be useful.
- children with CIs need a full spectrum of language input, not restrictions such as mandated by AVT.
- a flexible approach is needed including all methods with the aim of tailoring for the individual at different times.
- ASL itself is not a threat to language skills of CI children, contrary to what some say.
- ASL is a cultural asset cherished by Deaf people and is a beautiful, well-loved and freely expressive language.
- Deaf people have historically functioned equal to hearing people. They work, attend college, raise families, enjoy life, and live independently. Addition of the CI is not required for this, but can be regarded as an enhancement.
- There will always be poster children in every method, every school and every therapy. Their presence does not prove that any one is best, including those that utilize CI's.
- Consideration of the individual child, his needs, his abilities and gifts, and his family's ability to give ongoing support is important in considering what method to emphasize. It is imperative that all available tools be given for a broad base.
- The history of deaf education has important lessons to offer today's CI generation. It would be tragic not to learn from the mistakes of the past.
- Getting to know Deaf people is a rewarding and interesting experience for parents and community members.
- Like racism, it is a powerful, emotionally loaded word used sparingly to name a problem; with a calculated intent to change the situation.
- Audism refers to values of the Hearing majority being used to oppress Deaf people, to deny opportunities, and to limit life activities unnecessarily.
- It is not correctly used to refer to accidental, ignorant, unthinking, or unintentional actions, nor to refer to horizontal oppression between Deaf people
- Audism is not cured by the CI, nor is it caused by the CI or any other hearing devices, but is caused by attitudes.
- It is reduced by effective public education, intelligent legislation, and critical awareness of how proposed changes can affect us.
| | |
| How Oralism Divided the Deaf CommunityThe hard sell of oralism in the middle of the 20th century was something I grew up with. Hearing people have a natural bias; they cannot think of living in any other way same as we cannot think of living without our sight. Remember how salesmen would play on our weaknesses to sell us cars, furniture, clothing and jewelery? That is how the oralist group works--including the industries, the professionals, hearing evaluators, teachers using oral methods, principals. They play on the weakness of parents even to naming their schools. Take a look at Chattering children in Virginia, Hear-ME-Now! in Maine, Hearts for Hearing in Oklahoma, and Child's Voice in Illinois.
Teachers told us when we were young, "You talk so well. So perfect, perfect! Not like those people who use ugly sign language." (making grotesque wigglings with the fingers) Glossy, four-color brochures were found in offices and mailed to homes of parents touting the benefits of new hearing aids. They were the most glowing of junk mail, picturing delighted parents and happy babies all with their mouths open. One was expected to be convinced that the latest hearing aid was THE breakthrough that would miraculously result in talking children. Magazines of professional associations serving the deaf contained full-page, full-color hearing-aid advertisements. Daily newspapers invariably had one-column-by-three inches ads in boldface: "DON'T BE DEAF!" as if it were some terrible disease. (I grew up with an instilled horror of being considered one of those ignorant, weirdly flapping-hands people.)
  Among them would be expertly designed flyers and brochures from the AGBell association. They ranked right along with the John Tracy Clinic in information mixed with thinly disguised promotion of hearing aids and services. They contained pictures of sunny rooms filled with toys, happy children and smiling teachers. I used to feel slightly sick to my stomach on seeing these and my teeth hurt from their sweetness. If I expressed distaste, my parents would shame me out of it. "These are nice people who work hard at helping deaf children!"
Moving through school, I was barraged with a steady stream of "you are so smart, you're better than those others" always with a reward for talking. If I had any useful hearing, that would have been complimented like my better-hearing friends, but instead I received compliments on a shiny new hearing aid or new earmolds, or a new hearing aid holder. Some days the praise would be limited to the mere fact that I was wearing the thing. My parents were told in PTA meetings, "Never allow your child to sign or associate with those who sign. It will have a terrible effect." Warnings were repeated, "Sign language is of the past. Discipline in speaking is necessary for a successful future." "Do not sign or they will not learn to speak." What a burden to lay on parents, but they invariably bought it since they wanted their child to talk like an intelligent person.
Was it possible to enter a school for the deaf with a worse set of attitudes? I had no difficulty picking up fingerspelling, but had a priggish attitude toward signing that was fostered by a school that used the fingerspelling-only approach. This did not sit well with fellow students, for they signed behind the backs of the teachers and derided me for not doing it, too. My attempts to speak in class were made fun of even by students that could talk better. I had to fit in by learning that this was oralist philosophy--considered false, pretentious and never acceptable in the Deaf school community. My fellows saw through me and systematically knocked the oralism out of my head. Just as teachers mocked sign language to me, my Deaf classmates mocked me with gross-looking mouth flapping, too-intimate views of dental work and tonsils or lack thereof. When that wasn't exaggerated enough, forearms would be flapped together in imitation of hippopotamus mouths opening and closing. It took weeks to learn manual communication, but years to become a full member of the Deaf community.
That was for the lucky oral deaf people who eventually were accepted as part of the Deaf community. As I finished college and worked as a professional, I met more oralists who were still isolated in the Hearing community. They were afraid of offending their parents, some of whom were dedicated and aggressive. One parent slapped my desk when I used sim-com with her young adult deaf daughter and ordered me not to sign. Some young oral deaf went to work or a few went to hearing colleges, but hit roadblocks. I visited one who had difficulty at work because she did not know how to alphabetize files and thus refused to leave home. I taught her, through writing on paper, to fingerspell groups of letters and memorize them that way. A college student had social problems and expressed intense loneliness. I offered her support, but there was little to be done otherwise until she decided to transfer to another college that offered more services. Some oral deaf saw no future in the Deaf community, others needed to be introduced very slowly before they could overcome their bias against sign and be able to meet others like themselves.
At this point the most ardent supporters of the CI might say that they successfully integrate into the hearing community and thus have no need for sign or being part of the Deaf community. I have no problem with this, if it is true. For many, it is not, and these are lost people indeed. In talking up the benefits of aided hearing, one must never overlook those that it does not help.
The credo that AGBell and its subsidiaries pushed now seemed a travesty that suppressed the vitality of humanity and limited expression for too many Deaf people. The mistaken do-gooders fueled by philanthropic businesses obtained revenue in the belief they were saving deaf people from a life of isolation. The paradox is...it actually increased isolation and depression. What if benefactors focused instead on how deaf children can connect to the community, and considered any form of communication a success? That flexibility itself is a goal? What would have been the effect on the Deaf community? Instead of a deeply divided community, we would have a heterogenous, widely varied and mutually accepted people.
Consider the village of Chilmark, Mass. in the 19th century. There Deaf people were an accepted part of the community, everyone knew some sign and those that talked, mixed it with sign. To be Deaf there was to be a member of the whole community rather than a separate group. It is my argument that if not for Milan 1880 mounting an assault on sign language and a media war promoting oralism, our community would be more inclusive and more accepted in the hearing world.
There is work to do to recover from that historic setback. Begin with the parents in the maternity wards and welcome them into an all-inclusive atmosphere with options all equally acceptable. Mentor whole families to promote a Chilmark-like acceptance of everyone as equals. Fight the public misinformation from hardcore oral/aural adherents and uninformed media people. Teach deaf children that the hearing world is accessible and open to them. Promote schools that offer flexibility as part of their strategy. Save schools for the deaf and open them to include hearing siblings and community children. There is more to do, but only a few places to begin. One of them is to replace all oral/aural agencies eventually with more inclusive programs. In the light of new information and flexibility, such institutions will fade as did the Tyrannosaurus Rex.  
| | |
| A HOH View on Deaf ActivismMichelle and I have been good friends since we were teens at a local high school. Back then interpreters were not common, so she passed me notes in class. She confided that she had a hearing problem and in the years since has experimented with various devices such as the TTY and CapTel. Today she is an active member of a HOH group and answers questions from the community as part of their public outreach. Although she lives in the hearing community, Michelle learned some sign language to keep in touch with her Deaf friends. We keep up a lively correspondence and bounce ideas off each other often. Here is a sampling of her recent remarks about the AFA rally earlier this month.
"...Hearing people don't "get it" when it comes to Deaf Culture, the importance of ASL, and other related matters. When hearing people see Deaf protests and hear words such as "audism", "paternalistic" even "self determination" they still don't get it.
"Most hearing people think the Deaf fight is not rational. ...In other words unless hearing parents have a Deaf child it's a non issue and the picketers are just another crazy fringe group that doesn't really have an impact on them (hearing) or their lives.
In fact some see it (Deaf activism) as a lack of understanding of the world and even childlike behavior (yes, paternalism rearing it's head). Most hearing people think the Deaf fight is not rational."
"There is also some disinterest when there are activists heading out to Albany or Washington in wheel chairs and the like. Basically, the "able bodied" see a group of people who need a lot of help from "normal" people to rant about the fact "I can do anything"- it seems like an oxymoron to a huge segment of the population.
Unfortunately deaf activists are seen much the same."
Michelle is describing Deaf activism as it appears from the Hearing side. We need to listen to people like her in order to design a media war against audism. She talks about hearing parents of deaf children:
"Parents of hoh/deaf kids are a different matter. "I receive emails all the time from distraught parents who have either just found out their baby is deaf or hoh or parents of hoh teens looking for resources as their child is the only hoh kid in the school and they are feeling the pinch. ...although they see the resource people* as being intelligent and well meaning, the parents don't get it. "They can't understand how "those people" can be happy about a child being deaf or severely hoh. "There is a big mixture of (as you know) guilt, anger, frustration, helplessness and utter panic and confusion. They don't get it. "I myself find it very interesting because although I understand it on one level some parents view their deaf child as somehow marked for life or something worse, I find it hard to understand the anguish and the thought their child is doomed. I would imagine, however with time the panic subsides and as their child grows the parents become more educated and aware and hopefully attuned to their child..."
(*professionals in local programs for deaf children)
Michelle touches on how Deaf and HOH/hearing groups can work together:
"In our committee meetings there is always discussion of how to bring in the Deaf community and we wonder how much inclusiveness is wanted on the other end .
"Bottom line I would prefer that the hoh not be lumped entirely into the hearing person's viewpoint because most are at least open to understanding the Deaf views, even if they don't really understand.
"The HOH can become allies to the Deaf community if the realities of the history you have gone through is completely understood. I can also fairly say that in general the Deaf community is recognized as an entity unto itself...
"What our chapter would like to see is both of our groups coming together and working toward common causes ... in my opinion, the hoh need to fully understand from where the Deaf community is coming, but there isn't a spokesperson who can "get through" to some as it is a difficult for most to comprehend. ...Most hoh people go to great lengths and expense to hear and function in the hearing world so the "enjoyment" of being part of Deaf Culture is totally foreign."
There you have it. The biggest divide between the HOH/ hearing communities and the Deaf community is the medical viewpoint. They feel it is a problem to be cured, we feel it is simply a way of life. We need a connecting person who can explain both sides to each other.
How can we bridge this divide and add our numbers together to empower ourselves toward our common goals?
We focus on the goals, not our cultural or lifestyle differences. We find ways to communicate, even if it must be by writing or use of interpreters or a mixture of sign and lipreading. We get together, identify the targets of our needs, and present a united face.
This is important. The HOH, late-deafened, oral deaf, and friends of theirs are a bigger group than the culturally Deaf, but share the same problems that we do. We need their involvement, and they need ours.
a discussion of the cultural differences and the numbers on both sides
the original article that kicked off the discussion
Deaf Pundit on being culturally Deaf and the oral deaf viewpoint
A thoughtful article why HOH is not a culture itself
| | |
|
