DEAFHOODism: Part II

Click me and check inside for free!

Deafhoodism - a Deaf status quo regarding Deafhood; a system of Deaf beliefs accepted as authoritative where acceptance and, sometimes, blameless actions toward other deaf and hard of hearing individuals outside of Deaf culture would be required. It is also a self-discovery oriented process involving sustained meaningful interaction with and commitment to, Deaf social, cultural and/or political life where a deaf or hard of hearing person would become a Deaf person someday.


For most of my life I have always accepted people with hearing loss ranging from mild to profound. Each one of them share the most common and pervasive issue of our time. Communication. Nothing new. This isn't exactly a surprise. Now, I have been reading Gallynet-L for about two months now the topic has been more on "deafhood" where many offered their opinions on the subject. Of those who offered a differing opinion that questioned "deafhood" were sometimes attacked. While others seeked clarification. Although the some of the concept is great although not new but in practice can do a lot of good. Although "deafhood" on many levels still reek of politics.

Here's what I am seeing and I am not alone in this. I support the deaf/hh community which holds all of the subsets of hearing loss organizations and communities such as SHHH, Alexander Graham Bell, late deafened children and adults, cochlear implant users, and a whole host of others.

I support the whole deaf/hh community rather than just the Deaf community. I feel it is more important to support the larger group than to focus too much on the much more smaller minority group. That’s the difference between me and other people who throw themselves completely into supporting only or mostly the Deaf community. And that's fine. I choose a different route since there are 30 million deaf and hard of hearing people in the United States versus 900,000 Deaf people. And because of that I am more aware of oppressive attitudes.

Whether passively, aggressively or subconsciously there are many forms of oppression whether it’s the majority upon the minority; minority upon the majority; a minority group against another minority group; or a minority group who oppress those from within. These oppressions do exist! And it is a very common practice. Much more common than people would care to acknowledge. I believe the root of this problem stems from trying to seek control over certain groups of people. One of the ways to gain power over particular groups, sometimes wrongly, would be to play the victim card. This is done by constantly assigning blame against the oppressors in their constant epic battle of "us" versus "them"...whoever they might be.

David Eberwein provided in his powerpoint presentation during the early days of the Jane K. Fernandes protest at Gallaudet a classic reminder of who the victims are and who the oppressors are. In one powerpoint slide it said

"Enemies of the sign language. They are enemies of the true welfare of the deaf." - George W. Veditz, National Association of the Deaf, 1913.

That was then in 1913. George Veditz's statement would ring nearly true to those who had hearing loss greater than mild to the low end of moderate. Today, it's a different story. We have technology that can address the full range of hearing loss from mild to profound. We have hearing aids and cochlear implants that can help aid in the reception of sound. And for the most part provide the ability to communicate just as well as a hearing person when it comes to listening and speaking. This is especially true among those in the mild to moderate/severe hearing loss category when signing would not be necessary at all. I cannot see how a person with mild hearing loss would have the need to use sign language to communicate and be a part of the "deafhood" movement and become a Deaf person. There are more people with mild to moderate hearing loss than there are those with severe to profound hearing loss. People with lesser amount of hearing loss prefer to be involved in the hearing society than deaf. A little dose of reality there.

At this point for "deafhood" it does seem to reek of Deaf politics. Analyzing Eyes said it well:

I hear what you're saying. I know that you WANT me to believe. You say that you work at Fremont, are not elite, and not deaf of deaf. Great. I believe that "you" (and perhaps David Eberwein.) are sincere and filled with good wishes. Unfortunately, I don't believe that others promoting Deafhood are equally pure and honest in their motives. Deafhood is a good concept, certainly. It doesn't mean we all have to be perfect angels. I'm offering the observation that many people espousing Deafhood these days are using it to oppress others.

Could it be because people are suspicious of the sudden push for "deafhood" by mostly those from the Deaf community? Look at Fremont, California where one of the first "deafhood" workshop took place in 2005. Fremont is a city that includes 6,000 to 7,000 Deaf people living thee. A very potent and visible group. It's easier to try and set the agenda with an already receptive Deaf audience. Many people have shared the same concern and suspicion regarding this sudden push for "deafhood" that occured nearly at the same time with the birth of the "Gallaudet for Unity" cry.

Capitol D in DeafDC provided a possible but very good explaination a few months ago on why many deaf and hard of hearing people are suspicious of this "deafhood" movement. The first "deafhood" workshop began last year in 2005 in California where it was mostly directed at an already receptive Deaf audience to begin with rather than having a deaf and hard of hearing audience.

From experience, I can tell you why there is a split about Deafhood concept.

I support Deafhood. I also agree that Paddy wrote a wonderful book. I am a teacher who is proud to be Deaf even though I came from mainstreamed background. This book validated my feelings that I am Deaf with capital D.

David Eberwein (DE) did present directly from Paddy’s Deafhood book at the protest. I think it is great for the FSSA incorporate Deafhood identity.

Please be aware that DE also only hangs out mostly with Deaf of Deaf. He also hangs out with Deaf who have Deaf of Deaf partners. We have seen him make fun of others who identify themselves as D but in his eyes they are d. We have seems him make fun of CI people. He represents the opposite of Audism, oppressing those who do not fit in his “Deaf of Deaf” club. The public perception is not good so many Deaf people in california are not convinced about the tru intention or agenda of Deafhood by DE’s group.

People who defended DE are either part of his inside Deaf of Deaf group in Fremont or just saw his presentation for the first time at the rally. Those at the Tent City do not truly know how he treats other teachers and Deaf people unfairly at our school and in our community.

Because of his actions, his DeafHood crediblity isn’t there. Before you defend him further, there should be a campus wide survery at his school to get the facts on how people truly feel about his treatment. Then again, it might not work because many are afraid to be on DE’s Deafhood Black List.

DE needs to practice what he preaches. I also think there needs to be a more credible presentator than him. I am impressed with how FSSA presented diversity. FSSA represents reality. I am also thankful for Paddy’s response to the protestors to stop the “Deafier than Thou” attitudes. Paddy also needs to send this message to CSDF.

DE needs to make his DeafHood group at school grow with people of color as well as people of diverse background, especially those who grew up mainstreamed, and even with CIs. Once he starts practicing this, he will become a more credible speaker.

I know many praised the California website. Again, it is all DE’s cronies. You will not find diversity of people in that group. It is why so many people in California resisted the Deafhood website because of the perception they perpetuated that we are not Deaf enough to be part of this group. If you are not a native signer in Fremont, they will turn their noses.

For many people this "deafhood" movement doesn't exactly pass the smell test. However, many do walk the talk when it comes to the true acceptances of other deaf and hard of hearing people regardless of their background and communication preferences. There is still the question of whether power politics is indeed at play here when it comes to promoting "deafhood." But if it's true what Capital D said then those people violated the very precept of what "deafhood" is all about. For healing to start one can begin by making a public apology to those people. That action alone would be a sign of true acceptances of others. Once that is done then the healing process can start.

See DEAFHOODism...part I if you missed it.