The philosophy of "deafhood" as it pertains to a deaf or hard of hearing person's journey based on his/her hearing loss experience explicitly acknowledge and support the use of cochlear implants and even oralism. Nothing about "deafhood" ever said anything about rejecting cochlear implant or oralism since they are a part of the whole diversity facet that makes each deaf and hard of hearing person unique in many ways. One of the many valid ways of how a person with hearing loss live his/her life. It becomes a part of that person's identity. Not only that such a philosophy also lends support regarding the diversity and acceptance of Cued speech, SEE, PSE, use of hearing aids, AVT, speaking, talking and listening over the phone, CART, note takers, closed captioning, open captioning, subtitles, and so on. Even living the full and rich life as a person with hearing loss not ever having the need to use or even learn sign language certainly fits the "deafhood" philosophy. The same can be said of those who use ASL. Nothing is rejected under that philosophy but supported and acknowledged instead. It makes no distinction or specificity.
The true philosophy of "deafhood" accepts diversity. A person's journey is a deeply personal one that cannot be pidgeon-holed or boxed in for convenience sake. The problem with "deafhood" nowadays it's no longer seen as a neutral philosophy. It has become a political and ideological machination bent with a money motive designed in mind to segregate and discriminate people with hearing loss based on certain criteria (e.g. not "Deaf-centric" enough). The concept of "deafhood" has de-evolved away from the concept of diversity and acceptance and into the maws of power and politics. If it were about diversity it would have been plainly obvious for all to see.
The mask has fallen off.
3 comments:
We have added your blog address to our blogroll today, ccacblog.wordpress.com
Would appreciate your doing same, and/or...adding ccac blue logo and tag line to your homepage.
Lauren/CCAC
www.ccacaptioning.org - our site has logo and membership form to join - free membership for all, one mission: inclusion of quality captioning universally
I like the picture, adeptly defines deafhood.
There's also dh leaders and core members out there defining what dh is and what it isn't. Looks like we got eons of definition.
What's really weird, most of all, is how some folks who have been deaf/hh most of their lives has claimed they have not not accepted their deaf self and they claim that by going through this 'deafhood process' and workshop it has helped them understand and accept their deaf self. What a crock. These folks were fed that crap.
I've understood my deaf self and where/how it manifests itself in the world at large and also in the deaf world for a long time and I just find it hard to believe that anyone that has worked in deaf schools for 20 some years would say that they didn't discover their deaf self until they attended that workshop. What a crock.
You have no idea how many noses I've caused to wrinkle up when I bring up the word dh among the many deaf/hh who has been deaf all their lives and have already accepted and understood their deaf self.
What the dh leaders are still in denial about is the fact that the history of deaf in America is not reflected truthfully in Paddy's book and that is where the deafhood movement has deceived many with false historical accounts. Blame the hearing, blame AG Bell, - creating mob mentiality - Colonialism! A wordism! and all that.
These Bay Area dh folks are just making a fool out of the deaf community at the deaf community's expense.
;o)
Right, Candy.
People accept their hearing loss and do the best they can and enjoy living despite that. No other criteria are needed to determine the necessary level of acceptance of oneself.
Post a Comment