However, I have been accused of being an 'audist' or thinking that being deaf is a bad thing because I use the term 'deafness'. No one gave me a good explanation or told me why the word was seen as bad.
I learned from California State University's Deaf Studies' website that 'deafness' is a term used more by those who agree with the medical model or see deafness as a disability.
Here is an excerpt from the site:
Deafness is a term often determined by the medical field that focuses on abnormality, diagnosis, and handicap. It also focuses on looking at deaf people as individuals with hearing loss.
I had no idea that the term deafness was seen as a negative thing by others. I really had no idea. The few people who took offense did not take the time to explain this to me. They just called me names (mostly through emails and other forms of contacts) and said that I don't see being deaf as a good thing (which is not true!!). If someone had told me why, I would have understood better why some people will get upset and then I would explain why I used the term and that I did not mean it to be negative. No, but instead, some people chose to see me as they want to see me without first telling me why they are upset and then asking me questions to better understand where I am coming from.
Now, I am still going to use the word if I feel it is appropriate to use. I think everyone has a right to choose how to identify themselves and a group of people however they see fit, whether it is deaf, Deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired, people with deafness, etc.
(e
It's a clinical term, I guess, with hardly any other application.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't go with describing oneself, like one is French, or female, or a farmer. Use words like frenchness, femaleness, farmerness and you'll get odd looks.
Sometimes I catch myself using "deafness" and backtrack to avoid being trapped into that semantic pattern.
If one is to view one's deaf experience as a positive, culturally shaping, life-affirming and character-building quality, using "deafness" is going to contradict that. Let the medical people keep it, we don't need it.
I guess the word "deaf/Deaf or HOH is the most suitable way to describe someone. A lot of people do not like HOH but it is very appropriate for those who do not feel deaf enough or do not feel comfortable to use the word "deaf/Deaf" To me, I do not mind which term is directed to me, even if it is deaf/Deaf, HOH or a person with deafness. It's just a term and doesn't really bother me. I know it does bother a lot of people so deaf/Deaf/HOH is best to be used
ReplyDeleteDeafness, the state of being deaf. It is a medical word, misused by people, mostly those with hearing loss, who have an aversion to a medical term being applied to the simple fact they can't hear.
ReplyDeleteA lot don't like it because when used it doesn't describe their degree of loss, that is profoundly deaf. You can't a have bit of 'deafness' or severely deaf or... in that respect it is the only area I disagree with, either you are deaf in the profound sense or you aren't.
Years ago degrees of 'deafness' would not be acceptable. You were deaf or you weren't, so much easier then ! These days I see so many people with various aids etc and many have so much 'useful' hearing, I'd be suss they had 'deafness' at all.
It seems some sort of trendy thing if you have hearing loss now, to declare to everyone "I am deaf!" as if it is something to celebrate. OK for political correctness, not OK for addressing the real issues it brings..
Thank you all for your comments. Now, I am going to be a bit more careful about using the word 'deafness'. For now, I suppose I will use 'deaf and hard of hearing people' and stick with that.
ReplyDelete(e
oh please. Don't let those people bully you, (e. IMO, there is entirely too much fuss over these suffixes -ness and -hood. -Ness and -hood both refer to a state, quality, condition, or degree. Deafness never used to mean anything negative - until certain people made it so. In my line of work, I've had to substitute other words for "deafness" to appease those people. So I might say instead: "So-and-so was found to be deaf [or hard of hearing] at age 2 years," or "So-and-so's hearing threshold levels are in the profound range bilaterally." This same group of people objects to the term "hearing loss" to describe someone born deaf. I can sort of get that since you can't "lose" something you never had. In formal situations, like a professional article, I might say "persons who are deaf or hard of hearing," which gets extremely cumbersome after you'd said it five dozen times. Geez, it's just semantics - like calling a stay at home mom a "domestic engineer."
ReplyDeletePeople, deaf and hearing, certainly are weird about mere words. I have a Deaf friend who won't even say the word "deaf" to waitstaff at a restaurant, he simply points at his ear and gestures to write. I always say, "We are deaf." (His speech is as good as mine, if not better.) Another Deaf friend always says, "I can't hear" instead of deaf. That simply causes the hearing person to shout louder. Some hearing people say "non-hearing" instead of deaf. That one really makes me roll my eyes.
It's a nice thing to attempt to be politically correct, but both tolerance and judgment are needed on both sides.
... and by the way, if you clicked the link to the CSU web site, you'll notice it's by Patrick Boudreault, one of the board members and promoters of Deafhood. His spouse is Genie Gertz, another one. Consider the source, eh?
ReplyDeleteAnon-Thank you for your comments! :)
ReplyDeleteCall me deaf, call me hearing impaired, call me what you like as long as you treat me as an equal member of the human race and not like some one who has had their brains removed with an ice cream scoop !
ReplyDeleteTo me the name is not important, what matters is that I am treated as an equal and not talked down to as so often happens.
Kind regards, Judith van der Roos.