Deafness and the myth of normality

[sqbr]

Am feeling particularly sick and stupid today, but before I forget two interesting ideas which came up in the second half of "Inside Deaf Culture":

Sign language poetry which uses the physical forms of the signs, and adds extra meaning through extra non-sign movements, like their position in physical space and the movement of eyes and head etc. Like those chinese/japanese etc poems which use the sub-symbols of the ideograms to make complex inter-references, I think that sounds really cool and am a little sad that as someone who doesn't speak/read the language (or any other non-alphabetic language) I can't truly appreciate them. But I guess they're not for me.

Also an idea I've encountered before but am still getting my head around: that being deaf is not being a "failed normal person", but a (hopefully successful) Deaf person.

One of the authors came from a (happy and self sufficient) Deaf family and community and so it was only when she went to a hearing school that she learned that other people saw her as "disabled" rather than simply living a different sort of life to hearing people. They talked about the pressure on parents to give their kids cochlear implants and then bring them up as a "normal" child, even though chances are they won't be able to hear 100% and could benefit from the support and community of sign language and the deaf community, especially if the implant has to be taken out (which happens some times), and how even 100% deaf children are sometimes brought up in hearing environments as a "normal child", learning to lipread etc because non-deaf people tend to see being deaf as this horrible affliction which must be fought and denied as much as possible, even if this means making the deaf person's life more difficult and unhappy than if they just lived a Deaf life. EDIT: Note that they're not against deaf kids or adults getting hearing aids or whatever, they just don't think it should be pursued at all costs, and to the exclusion of letting them interact with Deaf culture as well as hearing.

The first time I encountered this sort of idea was I think Stephen Jay Gould talking about how doctors always push really hard for siamese twins to be separated, even if they might be healthier together and there's a high chance the surgery will kill them, partly because we non-siamese twins find the idea so utterly strange and alien that we can't imagine anyone being happy living that way.

The authors made the comparison to people from minority ethnic backgrounds being pressured to try as much as possible to assimilate and "act white", and I think there are some similarities (both sorts of groups have experienced nasty issues with eugenics and being forced into abusive institutions etc), though I don't think the two situations are quite equivalent. EDIT: Certainly the issues around the Human Genome Project and parents choosing the nature of their child are different, it reminds me more of the debates about the "gay gene".

Also I wonder to what extent other groups of people with disabilities have formed distinct subcultures (rather than "let's help each other deal with this annoying thing in our lives" support groups), I get the feeling the strength of the Deaf community stems a lot from the fact they can't speak and so have developed their own distinct language. Certainly none of the disabled people I've known seem to feel the same way about their disability as the authors of the book did about their deafness, but then again that might just have been them not talking about it with me, a non-disabled person.

Anyway, this is all a bit stream of consciousness, I just know that stuff I read when I'm sick tends to be be forgotten easily and wanted to get my thoughts down.

Now I have nothing left to read :(

Comments

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

I think part of that is that for people who can hear, the idea of being *without* hearing seems as if it can *only* be a terrible loss and deprivation, from being able to hear a car coming to being able to hear music, hearing is just such a deeply, profoundly important part of our lives.

See, for me, there's a strong argument for things like cochlear implants, for reasons like "hearing a car coming", while acknowledging that that's not supplying "normal" hearing, and so being a part of deaf culture will help replace the cultural deficit left by the inability to appreciate the things that we are given by sound. But I still think working for a cure for deafness forms would be good, and it's not "wrong" to suggest that the deaf would be well-served by being able to be granted hearing.

It's not like deaf culture is impenetrable to people with sound. If you were fluent in sign language, in the intricacies of body language etc, you could appreciate deaf culture AND hearing culture. It's an addition, not a subtraction.

The argument that deaf culture is valid and excellent and appreciated by deaf people? Totally on side with that.

The argument that deafness and deaf culture are somehow *superior*, and therefore it's an insult to suggest that it would be a life improvement for a deaf person to (re)gain hearing? That's just ablism in the other direction, and it's just as sucky.

This relates to my view on multiculturalism, which is, essentially, that inclusiveness and general addition is *good*. I don't want to stop celebrating Christmas in the name of multiculturalism, I want to celebrate Christmas, the Hindu festivals, Chinese New Year, and all the other things I don't even know about. In a better world, hardly a week would go by without another festival, filled with character and culture and everyone could appreciate the joy and beauty of each other's histories and traditions, instead of nobody's.

[alias_sqbr]

it's not "wrong" to suggest that the deaf would be well-served by being able to be granted hearing
...
The argument that deafness and deaf culture are somehow *superior*, and therefore it's an insult to suggest that it would be a life improvement for a deaf person to (re)gain hearing? That's just ablism in the other direction, and it's just as sucky.

Oh yes, but they're not saying that. A lot of Deaf people use various sorts of hearing aids etc, and Deaf culture includes various people with no hearing problems at all (kids with deaf parents for example). They're just against better hearing/less deafness being pursued at all costs without considering the consequences due to an inflated sense of how bad being deaf really is, or the benefits of Deaf culture for the not-completely-deaf. All things being equal it's better to be hearing than deaf, but all things are not equal, and one can be both hearing and Deaf.

I'm sick, but I think one of the points they make and which I think is an important part of multiculturalism: you can think your culture is not better than another while still thinking it has particular advantages another doesn't. There is a particular beauty to sign language, for example, and you just don't get that from spoken languages. Doesn't mean it's better overall, but it does mean you can't just dismiss it as "the inferior language you use when you can't speak" and expect everyone to join you in looking forward to a day when noone is "forced" to use it and it dies out (this is different to looking forward to a day when everyone can hear). Different cultures are good in different ways, and it may not be possible to simply blend all the good bits into one even better culture, although there is certainly something to be said for trying to do this to some extent in terms of learning from other cultures to improve ones own.

Also, I don't think anyone's against christmas as long as it's not compulsory :) (Which I think is fair, I wouldn't want Ramadan to be compulsory!)

[vegetus.livejournal.com]

This is really well written and awesome. Thanks :)

[alias_sqbr]

Thanks!