Ammunition for Annihilating Audistic Attitudes
By Guest Blogger on Tue 26 Jun 2007 |
Email This Post
By Jason Lamberton
I subscribe to the New Scientist magazine, which often antagonizes me because it occasionally carries pieces that are, according to me, siren songs singing sourdicide (sourds = deaf + genocide). Or, in less antagonistic words, the magazine from time to time heralds the work being done towards a cure for deafness, often carrying articles that carry a certain British tone of disdain towards sign language.
For example: a 25 September 2004 letter to the editor said:
Although profoundly sympathetic to the wish of deaf people not to see themselves as disabled, I believe they are deluded. I need only one word to refute the “different but equal” claim: music.
Should a cure be perfected, to withhold it from a profoundly deaf infant would be an abominable act.
[emphasis mine]
Deluded! An abominable act! Whoa! It seems like the English folks over there in the offices of New Scientist think that music is central to life. A recent (12 June 2007) Technology Special Report on their website touting “New implant may ‘bring music to the deaf’” helps drive home that assertion. Another article titled Ear implant success sparks culture war (23 November 2006) opens up with the sentence: “COULD the end of sign language for deaf children be in sight?” Yet another letter calls us genocide-invoking whingers (16 December 2006).
But, lately, they have fallen silent on the issue of deafness till a couple items came up in recent issues. So, for my first piece as a guest blogger for DeafDC.com, I wanted to bring up two recent items to attention. We should keep these pieces in mind as evidence of the need for ASL (or BSL, et al.) to continue its existence, that it is not a threat to cochlear implants, and that it can actually contribute to the full utilization of a CI, and ultimately, a bona fide cure for deafness.
I know that this issue is not new, but I just wanted to rehash it and sorta celebrate the fact that scientists out there are actually starting to realize and acknowledge the empowering power sign language has on a developing infant brain. A letter to the editor by Anthea Fraser Gupta, a sociolinguist at the University of Leeds with research interests in child language in a social context, in the May 26, 2007 issue, entitled Grammar Lesson said:
There are many languages based on gesture, notably various sign languages, and these have grammar just as complex as that of speech-based languages. Speech is not essential for language. [emphasis mine]
The first thing that came to my mind was “yay! Another bit of evidence that the oral/CI method should not quarantine itself from the healthy benefits of sign language, evidence that should be used to show hearing parents of deaf babies what to do.”
In the next issue, there was a short column called Babies are watching your language:
…showed that deaf babies use visual cues to learn sign language, but ‘never did we dream that young hearing babies acquiring spoken languages also use visual cues in this stunning way.’
Interesting. The article claims that, up to eight months of age, hearing babies, because their auditory processes in the brain are not yet developed, rely on lip-reading. That ability disappears after eight months unless the baby’s raised bilingually. The twin brain processes enables the baby to “switch” from reading lips to hearing speech.
This drives home the point that babies with CIs are better off learning sign language as soon as possible. It improves the baby’s chances for perfect speech (the sole goal of nearly all hearing parents of deaf babies), which is the crux of their desire to open up a hole in their babies’ skulls in order to implant their cochleae. Ostracizing sign language from the baby’s early development destroys the potential to build a strong foundational framework for learning speech. No wonder there are so many oral/CI failures!
Jason Lamberton is a student pilot, progressing towards his life-long goal to become an astronaut. He will enroll in Gallaudet’s Masters program in Linguistics this fall, and was a Ph.D. student at George Washington University doing research on a 3-D ASL animation and gloved computer recognition of sign language (the AcceleGlove) — research projects which Jason plans to continue working on at Gallaudet. He has more interests than he can handle, and considers himself an autodidact — a self-taught person.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
20 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I don’t know about you.. but I’m not a failure.
I’ll agree that a modicum of ASL in the ripe years would be cool to start on the baby for communication purposes. The baby can’t develop it’s clear speech processes until later in the latchkey years. But children are VERY attentive and able to communicate back with hand signs. BUT, understanding speech and using speech the best possible way shouldn’t be neglected.
I’ve always thought that sign language of any kind is actually a cure for deafness.
Deafness = Inability to hear. hmmmm ASL = form of communication. Hmmm I dont’ think ASL cures deafness of not being able to hear the baby cry for 3am feedings.
DAMN…. Stegosaurus’ had a walnut sized brain…….
Havent you heard of general assistance devices? You know them things with light bulbs and strobe lights?
Hello.. how does strobe lights and assitive devices “cure” deafness? Deafness is THE INABILITY TO HEAR! how the hell does a flashing light make you HEAR?
lets just write this off as bad intelligence OR even lousy choice of words and get on with our lives. =)
I see that you use “deafness” in your blog. We don’t say blackness when we refer to Black people. Hope the Deaf community will work together to stop using deafness. It is as bad as the word disability.
Oral/CI failures? It is interesting that you have evidence to back up quotes or statements with the provided links, but nothing to back up “oral/CI failures.” I think the two are separate and do not believe there is enough consistent evidence to support a direct correlation between the two (ASL vs. CI).
Well,
Like the most of us, Jason is a member of the Deaf community. It is safe to assume that the oral/CI failures migrate to the community, and it is only natural for him to assume that what he sees in the Deaf community is also true for the world at large.
If you ask me, this is insular thinking.
Have you read “Rebuilt” by Michael Chorost. He’s an implanted deaf individual who is so enthusiastic about the CI technology, his book’s subtitle reads “how becoming part computer made me more human”. But even he acknowledges not every CI operation and the training that comes after is successful, even with those who got implanted while very young. So sign language would be a good insurance, not to mention that it helps with language development- even with hearing kids. Baby sign language is becoming trendy. Case in point: “Meet the Fockers”. :)
In the book, he says he has noticed the extremes (ASL, anti-CI and 100% oral, CI) have mellowed and moved closer to the middle ground. Deaf community isn’t as violently opposed to CI as it was mere 10 years ago and many CI-oral proponents have decided it wouldn’t hurt CI deaf children to learn sign language. His observation, mind you. How accurate it is, I can’t say.
Am I the only one to think that looking for audism and audistic attitudes under every rock and behind every lurking shadow is an exercise in masochism and a colossal waste of time?
HEAR HEAR!
You, Jason Lamberton are truly a cool and fascinating deaf person ever I encounter someome from the Deaf “Instant Generation”. \
You always have been real hilarous for wearing the army helmet during the “UFG” protest. That is your own personal trademark.
Wish you an adventuresome summer, Jason. Many thanks for sharing this appalling article from the lesser known magazine. Sadly, we still put up with the audistic stuff toward us, deaf people in general.
We ought to worry about the upcoming NBC-TV (brand new) show this fall. I will write the blog piece on this tv show which would be likely to create real frightening impact on our livelihood as deaf people. Bien?
I am in the nursing home right now from such an unforunate auto accident few weeks ago. I did get struck by the incoming car while I walk on the crosswalk as a pedesterian. I am currently rehabilating on my broken left and right leg (surgery to repair five different knee pieces and broken femur bone). I hope that I could walk again in a month or two months.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Times like this, it makes me sad whenever I read articles such as Jason’s and comments from the opposing viewpoint.
In one polarizing camp, everyone is willing to diagnose everyone as an “audist” simply by questioning whether it is so great to be deaf and why it’s one thing to be proud that one is deaf but that whether it’s really a good thing to want one’s children to be deaf, especially in a global society that now places a premium on knowing several languages (and please, let’s not include American Sign Language as meeting that criteria as required by employers). It’s either that or they have no serious inkling of how reality works and that the majority of the world could really care less about their entrenchment into deaf society and deaf pride.
In the other camp of the opposite spectrum, it appears that not everyone has gotten over their insecurity about being deaf and end up going to bed feeling bitter over the fact that they can’t hear and be able to move up the career ladder as quickly as their peers are. It’s either that or they’re just plain dumfacks as an old friend of mine used to say and are eager to pick a controversy.
Is it any wonder that most of the well-off and educated deaf people I’ve meet have shrugged their shoulders and walked away? It’s those two camps that are bringing down the entire deaf community and those two groups apparently are in too much love with themselves to realize that.
Along that line of thought… I came across a good quote on my Google homepage. (Just to clarify - it is not directed at Scott.)
“You are not superior just because you see the world in an odious light.” - Vicomte de Chateaubriand
Hi Scott:
But don’t you think that things are changing now? For example, I find myself able to stand comfortably in the middle on a number of polarizing issues. I have no problem with deaf people getting implants if they want them, but I do have a problem with children being implanted and then all of the attention being placed on using residual hearing when an easily accessible visual language (ASL) is right there, ready and waiting whenever the child is ready. I’m definitely not in favor of considering “culturally Deaf” only those people who were born to Deaf parents/families, went to residential institutions, learned ASL as their first language, etc. But I’m also able to see how a lot of deaf people have been mentally colonized beyond anything they’re capable of recognizing. And this goes for a lot of so-called (according to the old definition–Deaf families, residential institutions, etc) “Deaf” people, too.
Not everything is audism, no. Because many things are simply based in ignorance. But there’s also a lot of potential personal empowerment to be found in discovering one’s identity as a Deaf person–an identity that you decide upon and create for yourself, not an identity that others define for you (and by ‘others’ I mean BOTH hearing and D/deaf people). Sometimes I fear that it’s not the polar opposite extreme groups that cause the biggest problems. They’re caused by those of us in the middle when we “shrug our shoulders and walk away.” Maybe if we stopped doing that, there’d be a lot less people feeling like they’re stuck between two worlds.
Just my respectful opinion.
Chris,
I wonder, though, if sometimes the reason those of us in the middle walk away is that we’re just TIRED of the never-ending politics and debate on what it means to be deaf. One reason I love my job right now — as a technical writer — I don’t have to deal with negotiating philosophies and attitudes about deafness, nor do I need to educate students about more than just ASL. Don’t get me wrong — I LOVE teaching ASL. But I have to remember, as a teacher, that I need to explain all the sides to every topic, not my opinion. And believe me, THAT gets tiresome after a while. So, as a person “in the middle” (I tend to call myself an “outsider”), sometimes I walk away just to get a breath of fresh air and experience something that’s SO inherently non-DEAF.
I’m a human being — being deaf does not define all of me. Does it impact my life as a whole? Yeah, sure. Of course it does. DUHHH. But do I want my deafness to be the be-all, end-all of my existence? No. :)
In short, I need a break from the identity debate sometimes. I think we could ALL use a break, as a matter of fact. :)
Sure, me too! As much as I love political and identity discussions as well, I too need a break from it now and then. But I also notice that you can walk into any one of a dozen bookstores in Dupont Circle (or really any bookstore) and find shelf after shelf packed with books on what it means to be gay. You can go to the Smithsonian museum on Native American History (or really just any bookstore anywhere), and find hundreds and hundreds of books on what it means to be a Native American Indian. For me those books, much like these discussions, aren’t so much about “how to be” something, they aren’t so much about saying “you’re either this or you’re not,” as they are about saying “This was my experience, and this is what I think.”
Extremists aren’t our biggest problem. Why do deaf people go looking for other deaf people in the first place, either at college or in these blogs or whatever, if not to find some sense of themselves? If they get here and all we have to offer them currently is extremism, then maybe we owe it to them (and ourselves) to build up the middle.
Point taken, Chris. But we’re an even smaller minority than the other populations you used as examples. (I speak of the profoundly deaf population, which apparently hovers around 3% of the national/global population — it’s either 3% of the total population or 3% of the “people with hearing loss” population — I forget which). With a group that small, it’s either going to be very cohesive or very divisive. And right now, it’s the latter. And I’m frankly sick and tired of all the drama.
I just want to be. deaf. :)
Jason, not sure if you are aware of this, but Britain has been in oral stranglehold for centuries, and a very tiny percentage of schools in Britain use BSL, if at all. Suggest you read Paddy Ladd’s “Deafhood” book…it covers British Deaf history and current state of deaf life there. It’s pretty bad. They don’t have it as good as we Deaf Americans do.
Jason, not sure if you’re aware of British deaf history, but Britain has been under oral stranglehold for centuries, and nearly all of their schools are oral. Very few (if any) use BSL, and they didn’t start using BSL in these schools until after 1996.
Recommend you read Paddy Ladd’s book “Deafhood”, which covers British deaf history and current status of deaf in Britain. It’s pretty grim. We Deaf Americans have it good here in comparision.