From: Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Fran O'gorman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: DEAF CULTURE
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:15:29 GMT
Reply-To: Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:272/94 - Monroe Electronic M, Monroe NY
X-Fidonet: Silent Talk Conference

Index Number: 23431

[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]

Hi Laurel,

 LG> James, I have read the book "Disavblingg of the Deaf Community",
 LG> and I can see that ASL and Deaf Culture are really the most
 LG> appropriate cultural formss for the born-deaf or pre-lingually
 LG> deafened.  But, I still do not think that Deaf culture is simply
 LG> another culture -- like English culture or French culture. Any
 LG> more than riding around in a wheel chair is a cultural alternative
 LG> to walking.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here (as I think others might
do so also) but I really wanted to comment on what you were
saying.  I haven't read the book you're referring to so alot might
have to do with how that book defines 'culture' (if it supports
your view) but I think that this is definitely open to debate.  It
may sound like semantics here but to say that Deaf culture is not
a culture is to try to force Deaf culture into a very narrow
defintion of culture and then say it doesn't qualify--

 LG>  I have three reasons -- 1) There are six thousand
 LG> words in ASL.  There are six HUNDRED thousand words in English.

The number of words in a language doesn't give one language or the
culture from which it springs a higher standing.  The native
American languages typically had fewer words than the European
ones but for a variety of reasons.  The kinship factor allowed for
a greater understanding (without specific words) of what one meant
by a term or word (no need for new words for shades of meaning,
the hearer knew what was meant) and their culture and lifestyle
was simpler so they simply had less 'stuff' to name.  While the
Europeans thought (because they were so different) that these
cultures were primitive, actually the contrary was true, as we
have come to realize today.

(As an aside, the Spanish have 2 words for 'know', one for just
'knowing' in a very generalized sense-- sort of to 'know of'--
whereas the other word for know denotes a deeper knowledge like
knowing a person and having a relationship with them.  English
only has the one word to do the work of both conotations... I
think Spanish is for good having another word for this but don't
have a problem with English because it doesn't.)

 LG> 2)People with all their senses do not sometimes develop sign
 LG> language and sometimes develop spoken language.  Cultures of
 LG> people who are healthy and have all their senses ALWAYS develop a
 LG> spoken language.  Infants with all their senses do not sometimes
 LG> babble and sometimes make finger motions.  Infants with all their
 LG> senses ALWAYS babble.

Some cultures are more gestural than others (like the Italians)
but all use whatever is at their disposal to communicate.  It just
so happens for the non-oral deaf person, speaking isn't one of
those things.  Monkeys use their tails to climb since they have
them, I'm sure if we had tails we'd take advantage of them too.
I think this is just a utilitarian pragmatic thing.  Also you use
the word 'healthy' -- having lost one's hearing (while it might
have occurred as a result of an illness) is not in and of itself a
matter of ill-health.

 LG>  The only hearing people who have EVER used
 LG> sign language are the American Indians (or Native Americans, if
 LG> you prefer).  And that was only because there were many tribes,
 LG> with many languages, and it was considered humiliating and
 LG> degrading to learn another tribe's language.

There are other cultures that used sign, but you're right they are
the ones that used it the most but the reason they didn't learn
the language of another tribe was because language was looked upon
as a sacred gift, and was thought of as much a part of the body as
the head or limbs.  For this reason an Indian never spoke the
language of another nation except through the capacity of an
interpreter. It was both an affirmation of being happy with one's
own language and that of one's ancestors and a mark of respect to
the other nation's language to speak only one's own.  At least
this is what I know of the Iroquois from my home state NY.

 LG>  So, Deaf Culture may
 LG> be best for the Deaf, but it is NOT just another culture.

Maybe not *just* another culture, but I feel it IS a culture.
It's linked by common experience, language, humor, etc., etc.

 LG>  It IS a
 LG> handicap,

Now again I may seem to be arguing semantics here, but the word
'handicap' is a heavy.  While it may not seem as negative as some
terms the etymology of it alone is not good.  It comes from the
Dickens' era of England when persons with disabilities were
relagated to begging in the streets with 'cap in hand'.  But now
it is still viewed as something that holds one back and so can be
viewed as very relative.  While it poses difficulties, I don't
think many here, oralists or signers feel handicapped by their
deafness.  They put up with the aggravations it poses and move on.
If a person so chooses, they could be handicapped by a hangnail,
and while I don't pretend to minimize the challenges deafness
places on people's lives, the people here have definitely risen
above the 'handicap' and don't feel handicapped.  That's my
perception anyway.  If we had a 250 IQ and a face and body like
Julia Roberts, maybe we could say we're not handicapped but
everyone has their limitations but are not necessarily
'handicapped' by them.  In fact I read once where extreme beauty,
instead of an asset can, in some circumstances, be a handicap.
Anyway I hope you get the idea of the realativity and semantics
involved with that word that I'm trying to point out.

 LG> and they ARE communicating in a way that is not
 LG> instinctive for the human animal.

Actually gestures are somewhat instinctive (unless you've got some
kind of paralysis and can't) but gestures without speaking is not
for the hearing person but can be for the non hearing person (or
person not able to speak for another reason like a stroke or brain
injury).  My daugther who is brain injured started to make up her
own sign language to communicate with us before the school finally
decided to switch her over to sign.

 LG> 3) If Deaf Culture is just
 LG> another culture, how come nobody ever VOLUNTARILY becomes Deaf?

People don't become Black (a guy did once to experience black life
and write a book but not usually).  But they sometimes do enter
into their society, perhaps marry into it or whatever... and the
same is true when hearies learn sign and become socially involved
with a deaf community.  But you can't change who you are nor would
anyone want you to.  That doesn't happen with the other cultures
either.

 LG> My grandparents voluntarily left Europe and voluntarily became
 LG> English speaking Americans.  Where are all the people who have
 LG> voluntarily become deaf?

Learning another language and becoming assimilated into another
culture doesn't take away your previous heritage.  Your
grandparents were probably considered Dutch-Americans or German
Americans or whatever country they came from.  They didn't have to
cut off an arm or something to do that.

 LG>  How come, when two deaf people have a
 LG> hearing baby, they do not automatically take the baby to a doctor
 LG> and have its auditory nerve severed?

Because being deaf is something to be dealt with.  They can assist
the child in dealing with his or her difference if she or he is
deaf but if the child is more like everyone else, life is easier
for him or her.  No one wants to make life more difficult than it
already is.

I'm not trying to minimize the challenges deafness brings to one's
life.  But the word 'handicap' seems so negative.  I hope you
understand the spirit in which this was written.

Oralists are not involved in Deaf Culture usually and this is fine
too.  The bigger hearing world is theirs and I know Ann would like
to see the Deaf culture people open up more to the hearing world
as much for their own benefit as anything else.  That's another
whole issue.  But what they (the signing deaf) do have presently
still constitutes a culture in my opinion.

Actually I think Ann would take issue with you on your first
statement in your msg where you said that signing is probably best
for people who were born deaf as she was born deaf and is an
oralist.  I'm not even going to discuss what's 'best' but just
what 'is'.  Some people seem to manage oralism successfully, and
some in the end do better with sign...but after all is said and
done, we should accept each other in however way we communicate
and move on from there.

--Fran

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!272!94!Fran.O'gorman
Internet: Fran.O'gorman@f94.n272.z1.fidonet.org