How the Deaf Community came to be divided
This is based on my own research, which I presented at the Deaf Studies Today! 2008 conference and have submitted for publication in a Journal. I apologize for the length (almost 11 minutes) but with the amount of historical background information I couldn’t make it any shorter.
The Pounder Deaf Man said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Dr DonG,
Wow, thank you for sharing the review of history in deaf community. Everyday, I keep learning what going on out there with NAD, AGB, DBC, and etc. It is nice to learn on what started the break up and I have hear the story and knew what effect from AGB but never in the “inside” the cause. This seem to be part of answering my questions that I have been asking. Thanks, I’m still learning what going on and even with history.
The Pounder Deaf Man
The Rogue said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:33 am
It was very interesting about How the Deaf Community came to be divided from late 1800’s until present. I already knew Technology already impacted on the deaf community between Deaf and Hard of Hearing but not deeply in details. I didn’t know there was previous organization during late 1800’s before AGB and NAD.
I am just so curious how AGB and NAD are divided in early 1900s’s? Are they divided by Doctors, Psychologists, Scientists, Engineers, Professors or whatever you named it?
I hope that you keep making the documents like History Channel to educate people. I am History buff myself as well.
DE said,
July 11, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Muy excelente.
MM said,
July 11, 2008 @ 11:28 am
I don’t think deaf became divided, there were ALWAYS separate deaf and HI sectors some worked together some didn’t, but there was never unanimity of direction. Maybe captioning is one area where every sector wanted the same thing ? access to the telephone, emergency services others ? But POLITICS ? there has never been unanimity. I don’t want to quote the A G Bell outpouring but did approve of one statement I read they put out,
‘Better to work on what we have in common, than concentrate on our difference’, hear hear to that surely ?
DrDonG said,
July 11, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
MM,
Yes, there were a few Deaf who supported Oralism and Hearing-Centered ways, but overall, the research indicates that the majority of Deaf and HH were fairly united in their views and support of Deaf ways of life. My point here is that we were made to be MUCH more divided than we should be at this time, but that doesn’t we can’t be united now. I agree we can and should work on what we have in common, rather than concentrate on our differences.
deafmommie said,
July 11, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Hi Don,
I understand what you’re saying but I’m sorry that your argument is a little bit flawed. There were/are still profoundly deaf people who can speak and even can use the phone very well out there. Sometimes deaf people were classifed as HOH, later on, they found out that they weren’t really HOH, it was just that they could speak/hear well.
I think it just depends on a deaf individual if they are destined to be born with the ability to learn how to speak/hear well.
I believe that the division among the deaf community was caused by speech audiologists/teachers who determined who and who couldn’t speak/hear well, not because of their hearing loss degree.
DrDonG said,
July 11, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
D.M. –
This comes from a historical perspective — before the current era of hearing aids and Deaf who can use the phone and talk. If you look back on the NEGADM constitution, you’ll see those Deaf who could talk because they had become Deaf later, or some who might now be classified as “hard of hearing”. But back then they didn’t use those terms — everyone was “Deaf” or “Mute” or semi- one or the other. But you’re right, it wasn’t just audiologists who created the division — speech teachers, regular teachers, and the whole Oralist educational system was involved.
Tony Nicholas said,
July 11, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
And MM, how do we work on uniting through our similarities?
amy said,
July 11, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Don
had his first real conversation on the phone- with the aid of this technology. We may or may not learn ASL as his second language. I am not at all opposed to this. The problem is that to learn it I recognize that we should be in immersion. I am happy to sign only in that setting however I do not feel welcomed in that type of setting - I feel that the division has come from the Deaf side…and not the hearing…
approximately half way (40% of the way) through you mentioned that oralists did not stop teaching deaf people to talk but that they kept failing because they couldn’t give Deaf people hearing ability. Then you went on to talk about the advances available to Deaf people to be able to access sound. I guess I am not understanding the overall message of this post. It seems that you are saying that Deaf people should be united in ASL however as you mentioned, there have been advances in hearing technology. So why should there still be a united stand in ASL or is that not the point of your post? I am curious why you did not mention the cochlear implant as an important part of history. DS received his at 13 months old…I will be the first to tell you that, especially with his other issues, it has been ‘interesting’ however even just today, my profoundly deaf son (almost
I found you via DV where i am also a blogger however I focus on children w/ multiple disabilities. Feel free to check it out.
Respectfully,
Amy
Patrik said,
July 12, 2008 @ 4:19 am
Very interesting! Did you write this article from your presentation? It would be great if I can get partly of your work and references. Good work!
DrDonG said,
July 12, 2008 @ 6:13 am
Patrik –
Yes, the article is written. It has not been published yet so I am not making it widely distributed. I will post a pdf of the article after it has been published. But if you are working on something and need specific references, let me know and I will share with you.
DrDonG said,
July 12, 2008 @ 6:21 am
Amy,
The point of my post was that the Deaf community is divided along communication and hearing ability lines, but the division was created not by ourselves, but by the audist educational system. The division was created long before the Cochlear Implant, so that is not relevant to what I was saying.
But, even with the implant, Deaf people are not “Hearing”. The implant itself doesn’t even give real sound or sound in the SAME way that you as a Hearing person perceives it.
You say the division has come from the Deaf side, and not the Hearing… well, you are looking at the result of practices conducted by Hearing people for over 100 years which have made Deaf people more suspicious of Hearing people. If you look at the history, before 1880, Deaf people were more willing to interact with and be open with Hearing people.
MM said,
July 13, 2008 @ 7:37 am
I think you are avoiding the fact Don, most issues these days are coming from fellow deaf and HI people, because hearing mainstream wouldn’t come here to discriminate or attack. What you are seeing and others in the ‘Deaf’ world is the rise of the non-deaf, the non-signer, the oral users, the hearing and CI aid users even the hard of Hearing have a voice now. Deaf are finding it very difficult to embrace that diversity, and THAT is the problem, because they find it as difficult to communicate to them as they do with hearing,but it is quite wrong to tar us with the same brush.
There are as you say ‘Many roads to your deafhood’ you will accept many won’t take cultural deaf roads or directions ? and if they do not, are they damned or non-community ? what ? You are just building a wall around yourself. each will take their own path, they won’t take Pady’s… who has amply demontsrated a lack of deaf awarenes.
Joseph said,
July 13, 2008 @ 11:13 am
I actually believe both MM and DonG are correct.
Yes, there is the problem that Deaf people in England became deeply resentful of hard-of-hearing people or Deaf people who could speak well. These people were generally spoiled by missionaries in the British system who ran charities and Deaf Clubs. In England, however, there was a point before the term “hard of hearing” where Deaf people who could hear some or speak were called “Deaf can speak.”
I am not clear that the same division happened for the same reasons in the United States. In the US, things happened the way DonG said. There was a drive to classify students differently and get as many students who could speak into classrooms. Where I grew up, in public school in NYC, great emphasis was placed on whether you were deaf or hard of hearing. But other divisions exist. One example would be Deaf people who were educated at Gallaudet versus what’s commonly termed “grassroots” Deaf people and the group commonly termed the hard-of-hearing. In New York, for example, many “grassroots” Deaf people are deeply suspicious of people who come from Gallaudet and “tell them how they should sign” (actual quote.)
Our Deaf community is extremely diverse. MM ties Deafhood too strongly to Deaf Culture. Deaf Culture is one path people can take on the road called Deafhood. I think Dr. Ladd believes Deaf Culture is something every Deaf person gets a little of. This might or might not be true. I think it’s vitally important to encourage diversity in the Deaf community. I think there is a drive to find a common bond with all Deaf people and that this bond COULD be ASL. It could also be our common experiences as people who are Deaf in a majority community that is hearing… I don’t think every person in the Deaf community ‘feels they are fine.’ I think they ARE fine - but, for example, Deaf people who became so while part of hearing families are probably still suffering a grieving process etc. etc. Our identities are diverse. That’s what makes them real.
Anyway, Don, thanks for a good post, obviously inspired much discussion - Joseph
Paul said,
July 14, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Excellent! I agree with everything you say. It is a simple divide and conquer strategy by audists as mentioned in the MASK OF BENEVOLENCE by Harlan Lane. Thanks for presenting facts that oughta blow everyone’s minds. I fully agree about the commadarie among deaf in the last century.
It started around 1880 and it took about twenty years for audism to take effect globally. It is time for us to turn tables and reduce audism at all costs!
More needs to be done!
=)