“Divisive Language” & “Benevolent Militants”

The word “militant” carries a negative connation for most people (except for those who think of themselves as militants). This word derives from the 15^th century Latin word “militare" meaning “to serve as a soldier.” When Aidan Mack described movements such as the Civil Rights movement and the Women’s Suffrage as “benevolent militancy” I had to stop and look at those two words next to each other. “Benevolent” suggests a good nature or indicating a concern with charity. The first thing I thought of was how that phrase seemed to be a great example of an oxymoron. “Uncompromising” has many synonyms, but “militant” isn’t one of them.

I would not describe the Civil Rights movement as a form of militancy at all, rather instead it was an era of “civil disobedience,” where people with strong beliefs chose to disregard the law, or the status quo as it was through direct action and non-violent resistance. Nor would I describe the era Women’s Suffrage as a period of militancy, even though there were militants present during both periods of reform. The key leaders in those movements were determined, resolute, unwavering, and unyielding in their cause, yet they weren’t militants.

What I take issue with the most is how some people freely take on the label of “militant,” disregarding the history behind the meaning. History is full of militants who have won and lost physical and psychological battles against those they considered to be their oppressors or enemies. Violent confrontation served as the ultimate endgame towards whatever militants’ goals were, whether it was to create change or to uphold the status quo. All people will remember is the violence that took place. Hamas, anyone?

This is not to say that confrontation didn’t take place during the Civil Rights movement. People will recall the boycotts of public transit in Montgomery, Alabama and sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina. The aggressors during this time were the people who wanted to uphold the status quo. The victims were the ones who endured water hoses and police dogs while trying to exercise their right to freedom of speech, which they were really never given in the first place.

Reform served as the ultimate goal for most American political movements in the past century. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Susan B. Anthony are described as reformers who played a large role in organizing people together for their respective causes. The language they used played a crucial role in uniting people together, which some people in the deaf community today could take a few notes from. If individuals in the deaf community want to be successful in reforming the field of deaf education, they need to be aware of the language they use in speaking out to the general public. Divisive language won’t win any points for those who are attempting to rally people together behind one flag.

I will not call out anyone here, but I will use the example of the AG Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Today’s deaf community has never seen so much animosity against one organization, all because of one critical issue – the issue of American Sign Language. Some advocate it as the language of the deaf, while others advocate it as essential to the development of language and literacy. It’s not the position itself that is in question, but how people push their position. Obviously some people are very tact about stating their belief that all deaf children need ASL, while others just froth at the mouth when decrying the inhumanity of the oral method or even Cued Speech.

Given the current composition of the deaf community, it’s obvious that sign language has worked for some and not for others. The same goes for the oral method. Cued Speech still yet has to endure the test of time as it only has been around for almost half a century, yet enough adult deaf cuers have found success for parents and professionals to keep promoting the visual communication system as a way of achieving language and literacy. Regardless of the method, what’s obvious is the importance of the parents’ involvement in their children’s development. The more they’re involved in their child’s life, the more language that child will be exposed to.

Parents who are first-time parents of deaf or hard-of-hearing children may stumble across blogs full of hostility and may leave with the wrong impression of people that use sign language or other modalities, carrying that with them as they make critical choices for their own children. They have the right to make their own informed choices, regardless of whatever other people believe they should do.

In an ode to Paotie – “Be nice, or be nice at it.”

- A Former Leftist Radical