I choose to capitalize "Deaf" for all Deaf (and Hard of Hearing) people, not to signify any cultural affiliation, but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people. I believe that the d/D distinction is unnecessarily divisive, cumbersome, and ultimately more trouble than it is worth, although it did serve an important purpose in its time. But using Deaf for all does not signify cultural membership, just as not all Black people are necessarily part of Black culture or all Jews are practicing religious Jews.Since I'm persona non grata over at Deaf Echo I will as usual make my responses here and write my opinions on what Don Grushkin said. I will disagree with his attempt to move the goal post on what "D"eaf is to mean nowadays.
Noticeably over the past few years a few notable people in the culturally deaf community have been attempting to change the meaning and definition of the word "Deaf" to include any and all deaf and hard of hearing people, including culturally deaf people. But the problem is that the term "Deaf" with the upper case "D" has always denoted to mean culturally deaf people and this was explained by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, in Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture (1988) on the meaning and difference between "D"eaf and "d"eaf:
We use the lowercase deaf when referring to the audiological condition of not hearing, and the uppercase Deaf when referring to a particular group of deaf people who share a language – American Sign Language (ASL) – and a culture. The members of this group have inherited their sign language, use it as a primary means of communication among themselves, and hold a set of beliefs about themselves and their connection to the larger society.Granted. The culturally deaf community was able to grant their own exclusive right to capitalize the letter 'd' in "deaf" to mean one thing and one thing only as exactly as what Carol Padden and Tom Humphries pointed out. And become members of an exclusive heritage group or so they say. Otherwise by not accepting the very definition set forth almost 30 years ago by Padden and Humphries would mean it could no longer to specifically mean culturally deaf people. It would simply become a generic brand with no identification on culture and language (ASL) that ties itself to a specific heritage group. In fact, that very act would devalue the very word "Deaf" away from the culturally deaf community and disappears altogether with no identity at all. AGBell members who are deaf or hard of hearing who do not know a lick of sign language are now defacto Deaf people. No need to focus on ASL, deaf culture, culturally heritage and language. All that would be rather strange if not outright blasphemous to a lot of culturally deaf people and of all things coming from a guy who is helping run Deafhood Foundation. Funny how one thinks that by saying deaf/Deaf is "divisive" yet there were ASL-only Deafhood workshops (here, too). So much for the concept of including everybody this "Deaf" idea of Don Grushkin's.
Another thing, there is no common ethnicity that ALL deaf and hard of hearing people share regarding their physical trait on hearing loss. Ethnic means that a group of people either share a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. Nothing about hearing loss which is a physical trait. The only commonality here we all share is hearing loss whether it is bilateral or unilateral. Whether born with it or acquired hearing loss later in life. And that communication access, as it varies from one person with a hearing loss to another, is the other commonality amongst them as well. Some struggle more than others. Some are fine with it. Some do not have the need to sign while others do require sign language to communicate.
What has been divisive is some of the nonsense deaf politics that have been going on for years rather than over two simple words, deaf and Deaf. There are two groups. The culturally deaf group and the not culturally deaf group. You have hard of hearing, deaf, and culturally deaf. And that's a fact of life.
13 comments:
I don't think 'Id'ing' deaf people by capitalisation or not, has helped anyone at all. Certainly it has promoted conflict and issues at the point of support access. Those without the 'kudos' of the 'D' find themselves marginalised in support areas and offered nothing but sign support. I think those that allude to capitalisations of the D, had better thank whatever Gods they worship, the non 'd' cannot mobilise themselves. Or they would know what isolation really is.
My take on Don Gushkin's piece over at Deaf Echo:
If d/D is divisive, then we need to go back to the English grammar rule, which means every time we use the word deaf, it should be used as a lower case unless it is the first word in a sentence, then capital D is used.
That's it. That is un-divisive.
I have seen other bloggers over time saying the same thing.
Mike, d/D had many meanings over the years. At one point it meant, those who are deaf of deaf. True deaf with deaf heritage. So, you see why I don't like d/D. It is bigot, using D.
.
Candy,
Absolutely. Bigoted. It's funny how for almost 30 years they embraced the big "D" as an exclusive, quasi-cult like, membership culture using the definition of Padden and Humphries. An attitude of exclusiveness. The same goes for saying, "I'm Black but he's black and not Black." Pure, unadulterated ego.
And now some are trying to move the goal post to try and include everybody with a hearing loss under one umbrella as "Deaf." Try and say that to a group of people with mild hearing loss saying you are now "Deaf." A group of who have no need for sign language and function just fine. Ain't gonna work. It'll simply backfire. They've dug their own hole and are attempting to fill it up except the hole is getting bigger. And all this play into the whole Deafhood (Foundation) approach, too, by reaching out to the larger hearing loss community. Not..gonna...work.
I chuckled at the title of your post. It was funny.
I shake my head at the ideology that Dr. Donald Grushkin exhibits. It is his business to think whatever he wants (the First Amendment is intact, last time I checked) but the ideology will not be helpful at all. It fails to recognize the pluralism and the huge diversity in the deaf population as you described. It is offensive to many deaf people who do not identify themselves as members of the Deaf culture when the proponents of the ideology insist that they must be Deaf. Have the proponents learned anything from the history? The U.S. attempted to impose the idea of Melting Pot on the immigrants but it did not succeed. Instead, the immigrants still retained their identities that they acquired from their native countries or cultures. Saying that all deaf people are Deaf is like trying to impose Melting Pot on them. It is not going to work, as you said.
I have to wonder why some people are promoting the ideology of applying the cultural identity of Deaf to all deaf people in spite of the reality. Is it because they want to build the Deaf Ethnos? Is it because they fear that the technology of cochlear implant and medical technologies are changing the landscape of the Deaf culture? Is it because they want to build Deaf Utopia where unity and single identity (read: collectivism) are required? (I came across the idea of Deaf Utopia in Dr. Richard Clarke Eckert’s presentation that is available at http://blog.lib.umn.edu/gara0030/iggds/2012/07/registration-open-minnesota-symposium-on-disability-studies.html . Dr. Erik Olin Wright talked about the utopia at Gallaudet University – see http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/mar12/galludet_0312.html .) I will wait and see what true colors they are showing over the time.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Deaf utopia, again? Gallaudet University is an utopian example? In what way? Socially? Technologically? hierarchically? It may be an ideal place to go for a variety of reasons but the problem is you have deaf and hh people at Gallaudet University that make up 95 to 97% of the campus population. That kind of tight social fitting cannot be done at that level once you leave the gate of Gallaudet University. You become 0.2% (0.002) of the total population in the United States. The only way to achieve something close to that of Gallaudet University if you live in large enough cities (e.g. Rochester, NY; surrounding communities of Washington D.C., etc) that have large clusters of culturally deaf people in their area. That's not utopia, neither is Gallaudet University's example. Rather it's an example of isolationism by mixing with your own kind and very little to do with hearing people. All black universities are not examples of an utopian campus. Ideal perhaps but utopian because they've become isolated with their "own kinds." An utopian society would be more liken where members are able interact with each other cross culturally and linguistically. For that to happen technology will be key in helping bridge that communication gap where it becomes 2nd nature to communicate with anyone regardless of mode of communication or language used. We'll be more likely to segregrate ourselves withn our "own kinds" than to mix and interact with those not of "our kinds." Just our basic human nature that we do this. Nothing utopian about it no matter how much fantasy you can throw it to other people.
Correction: "Ideal perhaps but NOT utopian because they've become isolated with their "own kinds."
I'm puzzled at Grushkin's "...but to emphasize the common ethnicity of Deaf people". If he regards both culturally Deaf and deaf (little d)people as an ethnic group, then what exactly is Deaf ethnicity?
It goes to reason, based on what Grushkin said, that Deaf ethnicity would not be based on the use of sign language which gave rise to Deaf culture.
It would be based on the incontrovertibly physical fact that we can't hear.
But, but (*gasp!*), that's like saying we're all deaf, not Deaf.
I know that seems confusing...lol.
Grushkin's reasoning, that is.
Ann_C
huh? this is NONSENSE! A bunch oral extremists like you are whining over a simply issues. many people think you are a nut and non-make sense. how sad you are...
anony @2:46 PM,
I support sign language. How does that make me an "oral extremist"?
I think you need to re-read again carefully what I wrote.
I use sign language every day, attend deaf clubs in the UK, for 25 years, and with an cultural deaf partner, hardly an oral extremist. (Unless you are saying I am extreme because I can talk).
Well - it seems to me that more than a few people who have posted haven't a clue as to what ethnicity is, nor why the concept of ethnos has been appropriately applied to the Deaf American community.
As for the grammar freaks - you are in error - ethnic populations do use uppercase. It is racial categories or designation based on physical attributes ALONE that is lowercase. If one is refering to Deaf Americans - then deaf Americans is incorrect. Please check ASA style manual, APA style manual, and CMOS if you doubt this. Hence, the question is whether a Deaf American community is out there that exhibits enough of the characteristics of ethnicity to warrant the analogy of being like ethnics AND whether historical patterns of majority - minority relations parallel that of other ethnic populations. There is a long list of publications reaffirming the ethnic status of Deaf Americans. A comphrehensive listing of these is available in Lane et al's PEOPLE OF THE EYE. Go look it up. In terms of publications disputing ethnic status there are to my knowledge just three (Sabatello 2005), Tucker (1998), and Davis (2008). All three were vigorously challenged in my own article on Deaf ethnos, especially Davis. Myers and Fernandes/Fernandes and Myers did not challenge the concept of ethnicity, but did make a poor attempt to challenge the idea of Deaf ethnicity being a centerpiece of Deaf Studies. Of course they used Davis as a source for that --- without figuring out how incoherent he was.
Anony @ 2:39 PM,
Is that you Eckert? Too bad you didn't leave your name behind.
The only commonality is that we have a hearing loss whether it's bilateral or unilateral hearing loss ranging from mild to profound. That's it. You could throw in communication as a problematic issue for the many of us but not necessarily for all of us.
Approximately 98% of the 35 million people with hearing loss are not culturally deaf. No one can deny that culturally deaf population is in the extreme minority of people with hearing loss. The crux of my argument here was about what Don tried to do and that is to call everybody hearing loss as "Deaf" people and not deaf or hard of hearing. For the last 30 to 40 years the word "Deaf" was already fully established by culturally deaf people reserved as a definition for culturally deaf people. Don just mangled that.
It's about him attempting to move the goal post.
Won't work.
Lane's "People of the Eye" book evolves around culturally deaf people and discussed about their language, their communication style, cultural and social rules, their rich history as signers, their cultural identity and heritage where they make up only 2% of the population of people with hearing loss. Deaf ethos? Not a problem. However, Don Grushkin said "common ethnicity" and not "Deaf ethnicity" which, again, refers to culturally deaf people ("big D") and nothing about the rest of the 98% of the population with hearing loss.
You, anony, are on a different tangent here. Good luck on calling the millions of people with mild or even moderate hearing loss as "Deaf Americans." How about "Hard of Hearing Americans"? How about calling those with 20/35 vision "Blind Americans"? What I saw was an inartful attempt at political correctness on Don's part. Having one's cake at eat it.
Correction: Having one's cake and eat it.
Post a Comment