DianrezMusings on communication
About this Entry
Posted by: dianrez

Visit dianrez's Xanga Site

Original: 6/12/2007 3:56 PM
Views: 151
Comments: 6
eProps: 6

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site


Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps!2 eProps! 2 eProps from:
GARE_RARE
MelowM
Stanelle


Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Don't like the word DEAF? How about....

 

Political correctness sometimes swings in weird ways.  A while ago we got stuck with "hearing impaired" by those who couldn't bear the word "DEAF" for some kooky reason.

"Hard of hearing" was the first euphemism, since nearly everybody was using it when they meant DEAF as in deaf as a post. Let us pick that one apart a minute to see why we oppose it. Hard as in struggling, to hear? Nope. Hard as in calcified, leathery, solidified, petrified? Nope. Our problem is the word hearing. We don't have much to do with hearing nor do we count it as a daily life activity.

So it is with "hearing impaired".  We aren't impaired as people, and to be called hearing impaired when we don't have or use hearing to begin with is kinda silly. Would one say we were flying-impaired, aquatic-impaired, or even invisible-impaired? What we don't have, isn't broken.

Both imply a quality of defectiveness. Both imply that hearing is a standard of humanity, and anything less is LESS. So in this category we have hearing-disabled, defective hearing, hearing loss, and hearing aids.

Side note on hearing-disabled:  if one remembers the definition of disabled in computer programming, a function that is turned off. It can be permanently or temporarily deactivated, but is still present. All the components are there. This is different from the word disability as more commonly used. Still, for general use, it carries the connotation of "broken" which we want to get away from.

 Just about the only word left is DEAF.

Yet hearing people have problems with this word. Something about it raises their hackles, makes them squirm, and they grapple for a better-sounding euphemism. To them, it is an insult, a barb implying unresponsiveness, deadness and impenetrability, if not outright density.

Well, great to have that out in the open. What words are better?  A quick look in the thesaurus shows that there aren't many options.  A look in the Babelfish foreign language translator for the words deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired and silent yields:

doof, doofenstommen, gehörlosen, sordomudo, surdus, sourd,  audition-altéré, silencieux, sourd et sourd-muet, taub, Hörfähigkeit-gehindert, leise, taub und stumm, sordo,  udienza-alterato, silenzioso.

As with all borrowed words in English, a new word has to have a certain attractiveness, an immediate recognition of being a better description than our English word. 

"Culture", "Society" and "Seeing people" have surfaced in the past. Here are a few more to try out: "visual culture;" "dysacusis" or "anacusis", medically based words meaning impaired or lacking hearing; and "silent society".

Can readers add to the list and start tossing them around to see what fits?

 Posted 6/12/2007 3:56 PM - 151 views - 6 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

6 Comments

The money isnt following the word 'deaf' it's following 'hearing impaired' based on the grantwriting results I've recently seen.

Richard
Posted 6/13/2007 12:04 AM by Richard Roehm - reply

OK, instead of hearing impaired, let's look at the word vision impaired, shall we? OK, we don't say seeing impaired, that's for sure. So, how about audio impaired? Hmm, no, that's not going to work, either. I just know that "vision" impaired is not the same as "hearing" impaired; rather, let's take the same concept - what's hearing vs. vision as opposed to hearing vs. seeing? You know what I mean? Audio? But that doesn't make sense. OK, auditorally impaired? That's kind of awkward... But hope you can see where I'm going here
Posted 6/13/2007 7:10 AM by Sunflower - reply

Visit GARE_RARE's Xanga Site!
Yeah Men !!
Posted 6/13/2007 11:27 AM by GARE_RARE - reply

Visit MelowM's Xanga Site!
Deaf, it's always seemed a divisive term to me, and I think 'deaf' IS replacing HI and HoH, it's just deaf culture refuses to recognise that, which is a different issue, although they heavily subscribe to it when clarifying themselves, and the non-cultural deaf to keep them in their 'place', not working all that well....  I noted at least 15-20 deaf.read blogs recently dedicated to the rise of 'deaf' comment.  It would pay to appreciate the 'deaf', are the majority of those with hearing loss, might not pay to upset them too much.  I think you will find they don't view themselves as 'poor relations' to cultural deaf anymore but more than equal to them.  They have little time or patience with endless re-defining terms either, they're finding a voice.
Posted 6/13/2007 12:20 PM by MelowM - reply

Visit Stanelle's Xanga Site!

"Deaf" works for me...though I'm sorry to say that I am not "prelingually" deaf. I don't consider myself a "poor relation" to anyone,.but a person ,..who is rich in the experiences, that my life in this world, has given me! 

I must say that I feel that the culturally Deaf MUST be recognized as a defining point in American society as to what "hearing loss" really is.  Everything,..every human experience must start from a certain point, and Deafness and Deaf Culture,..I do believe,..must be the starting point for the human experience of what is known as "hearing loss,"..whether that loss is total or partial.

Respect for the Deaf or the deaf will begin and end with the feelings of acceptance or hatred that society as a whole has for those ,..who are living out the culture of the Deaf.  That is why I feel we must all,..whether deaf or Deaf,..must stand up as individuals in our own pecular,..(as in individual ways)..ways and try to help society as a whole see Deafnes or deafness,..or "hearing loss" or however you want to define the human experience of living with less sound or no sound at all,..as just one of the many facets of the human experince of life as a whole.

IMO,.."hearing loss" of any sort is, in actuality, a new opportunity for humanity to define itself in a new way on our road to defining ourselves as to just what it really means to be human.

Posted 6/16/2007 5:10 AM by Stanelle - reply

Actually, in my experience, it isn't the deaf who keep coming up with all these fancy terms. As an oral deaf growing up, I didn't think too much about any of these terms till I realized they kept changing it on me, even though *I* didn't change. At that point (I was probably in about 7th grade or so) I basically said "Screw this -- I'm deaf and that's it, and if you people don't like it then you can lump it." In my experience, all the fancy renaming are by hearing people who are uncomfortable with DEAFNESS in any and all of its forms...
Posted 7/10/2007 11:45 AM by BEG (site) - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to dianrez's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in dianrez's local time zone:
GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Free Web Counters
Free Counter