I was reading this fascinating book, The Civil Rights Movement in American Memory, by Renee Christine Romano, and came across a chapter which discusses the disability rights movement and deaf people fighting for their civil rights. It discusses the idea of trying to convince everyone to view deaf people as a cultural or ethnic minority. A lot of excellent points were made in this chapter and I am going to include some of it here to share with you all.
On deaf people likening their struggles with African Americans (Civil Rights Movement):
In rejecting the idea that deafness might constitute a culture, many respondents also went on to question the linkage of deaf rights to civil rights. As one letter writer quite bluntly put it, "It is more than a little sad that proponents of Deaf Culture have misappropriated the terminology of the civil rights movement." For this writer, deafness was a medical problem that limited one's options in life. It was thus unreasonable to compare deaf culture to African American culture and to suggest that both groups faced discrimination, which required similar political solutions. Once deafness was defined as an individual medical problem, the civil rights analogy fell apart. (Romano, p. 326).
I have seen some people online comparing Carl Schroeder (ASL activist) to Martin Luther King.
On viewing deaf people as a linguistic cultural minority:
How could deafness be a culture? Fair treatment was one thing. Cultural identity was another. Identity politics rhetoric may actually have undermined the civil rights rhetoric in the public sphere. (Romano, p. 329).
Offering civil rights to deaf people would strike most Americans as just and fair. But curing deafness would similarly appear to be a good solution, and perhaps a more attractive one. (Romano, p. 329).
Most hearing parents view their child's deafness as a calamity and fervently wish their child could hear. Identity politics rhetoric is incomprehensible to these parents, who mostly want their child to identify with and fit into hearing culture." (Romano, p. 329).
But after cochlear implants exploded onto the scene in the 1990's, hearing parents seemed to face a more attractive option. Only with the emergence of this powerful medical technology could a competing idea emerge, the notion that perhaps the best way to protect the civil rights of deaf people is to transform them into hearing people." (Romano, p. 329).
Robert Funk, a prominent proponent of disability integration, believes that for most disabled people, "disability will disappear as an issue once the disabled are integrated fully into the mainstream society." Having achieved integration, there will no longer be, by Frank's lights anyway, a need for a disability culture, a culture here presumed to be built mostly out of necessity as its members try to find refuge from a hostile ableist culture." ( Romano. p. 335).
Look at someone like Marlee Matlin. She is very successful because she was able to fully integrate into mainstreamed society as a deaf person (still signing fluently, while using her voice when she chooses). Her disability disappeared as people focused more on her incredible talents and what she is able to do, not what she is lacking. It was not because people view her deafness as an identity. They choose to focus more on her other attributes that makes her who she is, while acknowledging her deafness as something that makes her truly special.
What about those who acquired deafness during their adult years? Should we expect them to view being deaf as a good thing or a positive attribute? Will they become an identity and become part of the Deaf cultured section of the deaf community?
Nadina LaSpina, a disabled writer and activist said, "I would not trade my disability for anything." (Romano, p. 337).
Should the formerly able bodied who acquire a disability be expected to think, "I would not trade my disability for anything?" (Romano, p. 337). Do we really expect them to accept deafness as an identity that they should claim with pride? (Romano, p. 338).
I think it is very unrealistic to expect everyone, deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing to view deafness as a cultural identity. We don't have to convince everyone to view deafness as a cultural identity to secure civil rights.
But hearing people need not believe that deafness is a culture in order to affirm that discriminating against deaf people on the job is wrong or that failing to provide an interpreter for a deaf defendant in a courtroom is a travesty of justice. (Romano, p. 338).
Please keep this in mind when you are out opposing the AB 2072 bill. Instead of merely opposing the bill, provide relevant changes that should be made to the bill. Do not focus on the idea that deaf people should be viewed as a cultural or ethnic minority because not everyone is going to buy that. Try a different tactic. Try to see it from other people's viewpoints and understand why trying to convince others to accept the cultural identity notion is not working.
(e
*These are my opinions. They do not reflect the authors' opinions.
On deaf people likening their struggles with African Americans (Civil Rights Movement):
In rejecting the idea that deafness might constitute a culture, many respondents also went on to question the linkage of deaf rights to civil rights. As one letter writer quite bluntly put it, "It is more than a little sad that proponents of Deaf Culture have misappropriated the terminology of the civil rights movement." For this writer, deafness was a medical problem that limited one's options in life. It was thus unreasonable to compare deaf culture to African American culture and to suggest that both groups faced discrimination, which required similar political solutions. Once deafness was defined as an individual medical problem, the civil rights analogy fell apart. (Romano, p. 326).
I have seen some people online comparing Carl Schroeder (ASL activist) to Martin Luther King.
On viewing deaf people as a linguistic cultural minority:
How could deafness be a culture? Fair treatment was one thing. Cultural identity was another. Identity politics rhetoric may actually have undermined the civil rights rhetoric in the public sphere. (Romano, p. 329).
Offering civil rights to deaf people would strike most Americans as just and fair. But curing deafness would similarly appear to be a good solution, and perhaps a more attractive one. (Romano, p. 329).
Most hearing parents view their child's deafness as a calamity and fervently wish their child could hear. Identity politics rhetoric is incomprehensible to these parents, who mostly want their child to identify with and fit into hearing culture." (Romano, p. 329).
But after cochlear implants exploded onto the scene in the 1990's, hearing parents seemed to face a more attractive option. Only with the emergence of this powerful medical technology could a competing idea emerge, the notion that perhaps the best way to protect the civil rights of deaf people is to transform them into hearing people." (Romano, p. 329).
Robert Funk, a prominent proponent of disability integration, believes that for most disabled people, "disability will disappear as an issue once the disabled are integrated fully into the mainstream society." Having achieved integration, there will no longer be, by Frank's lights anyway, a need for a disability culture, a culture here presumed to be built mostly out of necessity as its members try to find refuge from a hostile ableist culture." ( Romano. p. 335).
Look at someone like Marlee Matlin. She is very successful because she was able to fully integrate into mainstreamed society as a deaf person (still signing fluently, while using her voice when she chooses). Her disability disappeared as people focused more on her incredible talents and what she is able to do, not what she is lacking. It was not because people view her deafness as an identity. They choose to focus more on her other attributes that makes her who she is, while acknowledging her deafness as something that makes her truly special.
What about those who acquired deafness during their adult years? Should we expect them to view being deaf as a good thing or a positive attribute? Will they become an identity and become part of the Deaf cultured section of the deaf community?
Nadina LaSpina, a disabled writer and activist said, "I would not trade my disability for anything." (Romano, p. 337).
Should the formerly able bodied who acquire a disability be expected to think, "I would not trade my disability for anything?" (Romano, p. 337). Do we really expect them to accept deafness as an identity that they should claim with pride? (Romano, p. 338).
I think it is very unrealistic to expect everyone, deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing to view deafness as a cultural identity. We don't have to convince everyone to view deafness as a cultural identity to secure civil rights.
But hearing people need not believe that deafness is a culture in order to affirm that discriminating against deaf people on the job is wrong or that failing to provide an interpreter for a deaf defendant in a courtroom is a travesty of justice. (Romano, p. 338).
Please keep this in mind when you are out opposing the AB 2072 bill. Instead of merely opposing the bill, provide relevant changes that should be made to the bill. Do not focus on the idea that deaf people should be viewed as a cultural or ethnic minority because not everyone is going to buy that. Try a different tactic. Try to see it from other people's viewpoints and understand why trying to convince others to accept the cultural identity notion is not working.
(e
*These are my opinions. They do not reflect the authors' opinions.
Good post! Right, disability issues will disapear or almost disapear when one integrates oneself into mainstream society. For many, almost wud be right. I don't have disability issues at work. As for promotion -, my co-worker and I share same frustration...not bec she's a lesbian nor bec I am HOH but because often it is NOT about what you know. It is about WHO you know.
ReplyDeleteCandy
I think in real; terms the deaf treated the disability rights movement with contempt here in the UK, they utilised aspects of access via disability rights, but rarely if ever took to the streets or campaigned WITH them.
ReplyDeleteYears ago I was the only deaf person in the United Kingdom in attendance for the launch of what is now the Disability Discrimination Act (UK). Later I joined with disabled via a coalition, the best years of my life support wise, I got nothing from the deaf movement.
After a few years struggle the DDA was mooted as law, the disabled objected to the clauses, it was a watered down thing that left far too many loopholes, that still exist today. The Deaf were the first to renege on the disability movement and take less than what we asked for, to gain status for culture instead, the disabled were none too happy.
Today UK deaf STILL demand access to things and campaigns the disabled launch, but still refuse to stand alongside them, deaf versus disability, you have to wonder why the deaf got involved at all, or, why the disabled allowed them to. Appalling support from the deaf, they only thought of themselves.
2 days ago I attend my area disabiliyt pride celebrations, only 4 deaf attended TWO were interpreters the deaf demanded but never used, and me, and a woman who stayed 10 minutes... but attached to deaf-blind. Not a single deaf charity or group attended.
Deaf hate the disabled tag so much they abuse the disabled... so as not to be linked with the concept.
“Once deafness was defined as an individual medical problem, the civil rights analogy fell apart.” Why should we accept such an unthinking dismissal?
ReplyDeleteIt is the mischaracterization of Deaf as a medical issue that has caused much mischief in the past. A person’s acceptance in Deaf culture has never (to my knowledge) been based solely or mainly on his medical status. Language and attitude are far more important. Medical manipulations do not automatically change these.
Caution is warranted here. Genetic manipulation likely will make it possible for parents to change the racial assignment of a child. Will that then make racial discrimination “an individual medical problem”? I cannot imagine that anyone would accept that.
David
I've enjoyed reading your blog because you present your opinions very well and always seem open to other viewpoints. I think this is really the key to dialogue within the deaf community.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the film "Re-defining D-E-A-F" by Ryan Commerson? It's on www.mosinternational.com. It brings up many good points about society ,ideology, and the meaning behind words.
I think the point is that throughout history, deaf people have been subjected to medical experiments all in the name of "curing" them. Oralism was heavily enforced in schools when there were NO "tools" such as hearing aids or cochlear implants. Why? Sign Language was banned in almost all schools after 1880. Deaf people have always been FORCED to learn on hearing terms. Despite all this, deaf people have continued to celebrate their existence through ASL and culture. It appears that deaf people themselves have always sought to improve their lives and participate fully in society ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Meanwhile, the medical establishment (along with society as whole) tends to think that a cure at any cost is necessary.
We are seeing terrible costs of that mentality. Even with advances in the medical front, deaf education is still in a dismal state. The deaf community is a place where "failures" of all sorts come in - angry, confused, and bitter. Whose fault is that? No deaf person should be made to feel like a failure. Yet, if one goes through years of medical intervention with minimal success - how is that person supposed to feel?
I don’t believe deaf people have issues with the ability to hear or speak. If there was an immediate cure with no dangers, risks, or side effects, there would be much less debate than the one about cochlear implants.
That is why many deaf people shun the word “disability.” It represents the ideology of the medical profession that has sought to cure deafness at all costs.
I believe that deaf people should be viewed as whole human beings with full capacity of participating in society - whether they can speak or not. Deaf people (especially babies) should not be used for medical experiments with the goal of eradicating deafness. Deaf people should be afforded the human right of language from day one.
It is really beside the point to argue whether deaf people are a disability group or a cultural group.
ReplyDeleteGrouping people together and comparing them to existing models, such as the Black people struggling for civil rights, is more meaningful. Are deaf people subjected to the same disenfranchisement and discriminatory actions as Black people were?
Viewed this way, certain truths come out. Yes, deaf people as a group have experienced discrimination, deprivation of civil rights, and exclusion on the basis of hearing.
If viewed as a disability group, an additional obstacle comes into the picture: cure the disability and presto, no more issues. Well, not exactly.
Why should we wait for the disability to be cured? Why wait 20 years for a better treatment, 2 hours for an interpreter, 2 months for special arrangements to be made so one could enroll in a course?
Human rights are a given, and are not to be held up for any reason whether it is a disability, a skin color or any other feature of humanity.
Thank you for all of your comments. :) I appreciate hearing your views and thoughts on this. I would like to hear from others their take on this.
ReplyDelete(e
The main point of this post is that the general population will never understand or accept the idea of deaf people being a linguistic cultural minority. I totally understand why many deaf people (especially the older generation) feel this way. We will still need to fight for our civil rights, but talking about us being a cultural minority rather than disabled will not work. Not many people will ever understand or accept this.
ReplyDelete(e
David said, "Genetic manipulation likely will make it possible for parents to change the racial assignment of a child. Will that then make racial discrimination “an individual medical problem”? I cannot imagine that anyone would accept that."
ReplyDeleteOf course no one would accept this. I think racial issues are different in a lot of ways from disability issues.
Most deaf babies are born to hearing parents. Babies are born the same race (or mixture of two different races) as their parents.
Race will never be seen as a "medical problem" but deafness will always be seen this way, whether you like it or not. That is the reality.
(e
I want to make a comment on the comments made by David and (e.
ReplyDeleteIt may be too repulsive now to think that it is permissible to change a child's skin color through genetic engineering. But, I can guarantee that a half-century or a century from now, changing a child’s skin color will be no longer an ethical or moral issue for the very large majority of the population.
History has shown repeatedly that any new technologies tend to be met with great resistance. Over the time, except for the technologies that are proven to be extremely ineffective, increasing number of people start to use the new technologies and the resistance against the new technologies starts to disappear (although not wholly because there will be always small number of people who do not accept the new technologies; in a disparaging way, they are called Luddite).
Back to your post, your post is thought-provoking. There were several attempts in the past to disassociate the concept of disability from the deafness that forms a core characteristic of the Deaf culture but it was never adopted very widely by the majority enough to exclude it from the category of disability. It remains to be seen if it will ever happen in the future.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Dianrez the primary issue is, thatthe deaf carried on with the view disabled people represented a 'Medical' view of things which deaf rejected, this was not true at all, disabled were/are in the forefront of all rights campaigns for quality and access,. they started before the deaf did and still are the primary movers in access stakes today. All the deaf did was demand their access from THEM,while providing no support or back-up to equality campaigns, to my mind that is abuse of disabled people. I don't buy the cultural excuse.because in effect it was used as a form of elitism and abuse of the disabled movement here. If you ask who made the many initial forms of access for involvement you will find the disabled did this first,, not the deaf and not the system. I was surprised the deaf could think culture was a valid excuse to refuse support for others... Culture versus disability still rules, it's what the disabled now call 'disablism' and practised by able-bodied and deaf alike ! One final example was the recent issues in my area of clubs (deaf), being moved or closed, deaf objected to two new venues because they were asked to share with disabled, go figure... Obviously disabled are not in the business of criticising others equally disabled (Which many acquired deaf still think applies to them). Or does culture reject them too ?
ReplyDeleteRenee Christine Romano who wrote The Civil Rights Movement in American Memory shows that sometimes the most progressive people may still need a paradigm shift to understand the Deaf civil rights movement.
ReplyDeleteSociety still has authors, politicians, administrators, and other "authorities" who conveniently decide what's right and what's best for Deaf people.
The belief that in order for Deaf people to be fully integrated in society they need to be cured of their deafness or learn how to hear and talk is exactly what's creating the oppression and exclusion from society. Instead, if Deaf people who use American Sign Language were to be tolerated and accepted, then Deaf people would have a place in society.
The idea of mainstreaming and integrating Deaf people in society is exactly why over 90% of Deaf and hard of hearing students are not passing their California High School Exit Exams. I'm sorry to say, but over 90% of Deaf and hard of hearing students who are mainstreamed do not get a good education. They are more isolated and restricted in their environment even with the best cochlear implants and the best hearing aids.
Please. Marlee is successful because she can bray? If that is the case, why does she accomodate Jack Jason to all meetings, all trips, all functions ... ?
ReplyDeleteYour argument is invalid.
As usual.
R-
You may say deaf may never be a cultural minority, What about ASL?
ReplyDeleteLike this blog:
http://rallycapsdotnet.blogspot.com/2010/03/sharks-and-sunflowers.html
I contacted Renee Romano, the author of the book today to discuss the specific quotes.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I learned... First of all, it was a historical essay written by Rebecca Edwards about the debate going on at the time of the Gallaudet University Deaf President Now protests. As a historical essay, there are no positions-- just a presentation of the debate happening at the time.
From Renee Romano:
"This book is really about how the memory of the civil rights movement is invoked and used by different groups today--Rebecca's essay looked at how students at Galluadet had compared their own struggle to get the school to hire a deaf President to the struggle blacks engaged in during the civil rights movement. She outlines the debate within the deaf community about whether deafness should be viewed as a disability or not--as I recall, Rebecca doesn't take a position on this as much as she describes the debate. But if you are interested in continuing this conversation, you should really contact her (she also had an essay on deaf culture in a relatively recent issue of the Journal of American History)."
Best regards,
Tim Riker