The Deafening of America

In a Facebook conversation it got around to the use of the word "Deaf" and how one court is trying to avoid using a noun that create different classes of people such as deaf and hard of hearing. I asserted that by saying "Deaf" will not work to define a group of people with hearing loss since the word "deaf" has been far too long been ingrained to mean one thing. Same goes for "Deaf" as a more recent definition coined by Padden and Humphries back in the 1970s. I have broached this topic a few times in the past.

A comparison was used for the word "Deaf" by using "Blind/blind" in making a case. A term used by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB.ORG):

".... all of their members to be blind regardless of visual acuity."

To them it creates a "classless" non-discriminatory definition within their own class of people (B/blind) from those with normal range of vision even though 90% of their members happens to be not legally blind. I'd like to see NAD admit that some of their members are not legally deaf as well even though I suspect some of the NAD officers are pushing for the whole "Deaf" wording. Just a suspicion. Not that it's true or anything like that.

This "Blind" definition is still discriminatory. What I mean is that it still show differences between classes of people from the "haves and have-nots," essentially so.  But using the "Blind" description/definition will not work just as "Deaf" will not work. What I am talking about are what people see themselves as.

Let's take the mildest form of hearing loss whether it's in one one or both ears they would not consider themselves as "deaf."

The meaning of the word "deaf" has been ingrained for far too long to mean one thing and that evokes that a deaf person means the person cannot hear a darned thing.  In retrospect using "Deaf" won't work to include all people with all range and types of hearing loss. The same goes for "blind" which evokes a description of one who cannot see a single thing. People see "deaf" and "blind" as the extreme end of hearing and visual (acuity) loss, not the mild types.  Instead of that, people try and use an alternate "safe" terms like "legally blind" and "legally deaf" to discern the differences but even that can present problems, too.  When one says "blind" to what does the term evokes for you? Same for "deaf." What does the term evokes for you? Perspectives vary.

There are people with 20/20 vision who do wear glasses. Are they blind? Hardy. Saying "legally blind" emphasizes the extremity of visual loss as opposed to simply saying "blind" which doesn't help much here. Do people with mild hearing loss considered as "legally deaf"?  Even if the person is 1 to 5 db above normal hearing range? Or even 10 dB? The type of accommodation and function between people with vision loss and hearing loss are quite different in level and scope. With glasses you don't miss things visually but with hearing aids you can miss things such as words by not understanding every spoken syllable. There is an inherent problem with the word "deaf" (saying "D"eaf doesn't help either) to include every single people with any amount of hearing loss, even by 1 or 5 dB above normal hearing range. Just won't work. The same goes with the word "blind."

If the court want to create a word that does not break into two different classes of people (e.g. deaf and hard of hearing) then create a word, a noun, that does not carry a stigma. A word that's neutral in meaning. A word that doesn't create a misunderstanding (e.g. deaf, Deaf, blind, Blind). In other words, find something else other than those words because they won't work to fit all people with hearing loss. Just like "Blind." It won't work. Find a noun that fits and describe people with a certain condition. Even by saying "Deaf" is still discriminatory but the word does discriminate between those who cannot hear to those who can hear. It does create a separate class. The problem is the amount of functional differences. Same goes for "Blind."

It's true that we fit in the category of people with hearing loss. There's no denying that.  The same goes for those that fit in the category of people with vision loss. But are all of them blind? There's already an inherent problem in using that word, capitalized or not. Not matter what words to use to define a group, it's still discriminating between classes of the haves and have nots, essentially so. People use other terms like "mobility-challenged" instead of "crippled" or "handicapped." But saying "mobility-challenged" evokes extremity of a condition but it's certainly far better than the other two denigrating words. I'm older and can't run like a young teen in a track event but I'm still quick and nimble. Am I "mobility-challenged"?

What about "visually-challenged"? Or "hearing-challenged." Or "hearing impaired" which is about the hearing that is impaired, not the person. Same for "visually impaired." What is the best PC word around to avoid "classes" of definitions and not offend or confuse anyone? Saying "Deaf" will not work.

Good luck with that one.

Oral only are now officially Deaf by Humphries and Padden

The "Redeafined" blog is one of the few blogs and people out there using the capitalized "D" in "Deaf" to not mean as an inclusive group for all deaf and hard of hearing people - an attempt at a new ideology, or in this case moving the goal post, on what "Deaf" today supposed to mean in place of deaf and hard of hearing. I explained earlier in my recent blog on how that example of using "Deaf" is set to fail because of the confusing message and meaning behind it will simply be lost with the rest of the population of people with hearing loss.

Simply put, it won't work.

JPR said it well in one of my blog about this very same subject:

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.

Indeed. it won't work because people have their own identities and how they are comfortable with it. You cannot force an ideology on other deaf and hard of hearing people's own identities in the name of collectivism and unity.

JPR continues:

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 will wait and see what true colors they are showing over the time.

I explained in response to JPR's comment that a "Deaf utopia" doesn't exist in the sense of "deaf and hard of hearing utopia" when taken on with the new meaning and definition of "Deaf."

Is 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 gates 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; and perhaps in some 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 not 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 across 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.  (In reality) 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.
 

So, the "reDeafination" use of "Deaf" will not confuse the message, the meaning and definition as established by Humphries and Padden back in 1988.  We have deaf and hard of hearing communities, not a Deaf community because a Deaf community means a culturally deaf community and not of those who are hard of hearing who are fine with speaking and listening, oral users, S.E.E. users, CUED speech users, deaf AGBell members, and anybody with a hearing loss who isn't a culturally deaf person. I can imagine the utter ridiculousness in trying to convince a person who has a high frequency hearing loss but has mild hearing loss ("late deafened") that he is a Deaf person.

No. It won't work. Still kind of incredible that people are willing to shove some three decades of the definition brought forth by Humphries and Padden in 1988 (as seen proudly in NAD's explaination) down the drain. If they weren't dead already they'd be rolling in their graves.