Guest Vlog: What is Deafhood?
Click here to play, subtitled.
The guest vlogger here is Joseph, a good friend of mine. I consider him one of the experts in deafhood largely to his commitment to the book and understanding the differences between UK and US deaf communities. Based in New York, his education has took him across the ocean where he studied at University of Bristol, under the one and only Dr. Paddy Ladd. Joseph believes in fully educating all Deaf children about their options and letting them decide what to do with their lives.
Now people, I will not accept bashing on Joseph for presenting his understanding of deafhood, whether it agrees with the current Americanized version or not. His credibility is sound and I will stand by him on that.
We will not tread into these waters. Let’s have a healthy discourse this time, aye?
-Ben Vess
For more information on bilingual education in the classroom: go to his blog Many Tribes!
July 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Thanks for the kind words! Hope people enjoy this discussion.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Wow, that’s true therapy for me! Thanks, Joseph.
Th actual interpretation of Deafhood (Paddy’s and not the American/militant/one way to be Deaf’s interpretation) is what keeps us unified.
The one way to be Deaf’s interpretation is causing divisions in our cherished Deaf community.
It is so sad.
You have given me some hope.
July 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
[...] Paddy Ladd’s Conception of Deafhood: http://blog.benvess.com/?p=148 [...]
July 13th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Joseph ..
Interesting vlog. I commend you for a nice presentation!
Here’s a thought: identities are as diverse a human fingerprints, so why must there only be TWO definitions of “deafhood”?
:o)
Paotie
July 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
It is well clarified of what Deafhood is all about the process in itself!!! Excellent statement!!!
July 13th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Thank you, Ben for permitting Joseph to tell us the true version of Paddy’s interpretation of deafhood. His version is actually the same as mine.
Hopefully more people, especially the grassroots Deaf people will understand this.
I’m personally disappointed that some leaders would twist this original meaning to promote their political agenda, and even more when it means financial profit for them. I’ve learned a lot from my experiences of the hijacking and deceptions within DBC and, as a result, I won’t be trusting other people asI used to. I’m saddened to see our baby project used to manipulate Deaf Community. These people have a lot to answer to the D/deaf Community, especially those they have harmed.
July 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The document is very interesting. It is true, I tend to read their blogs from Ben Vess, Dr, Don G, Aidan Mack, and Mishka Zena. I love to involve the discussion in any subjects instead of backstabbing or manipulating . Unfortunately, some immature people comments stirred things up and things became more complicate.
I would like to read Dr Paddy Ladd’s book. The book called Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood by Dr Paddy Ladd, correct? Is the book available in any library?
July 13th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Paotie,
With respect - the point was that the version from the book allowed for almost anything, as long as there is discussion inside or outside (you have to be thinking about what you’re doing, not just reacting.) The other version I’ve been hearing about only permits one way. I guess another version could be somewhere in between - allowing for only some kinds of being Deaf. I’m sure none of us wants to see a kind of Deaf person who hates themselves, or a Deaf person who takes advantage of other Deaf people, but that would also be part of the range of Deaf experience. Good point though.
-Joseph
July 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
The Rogue -
You can buy Dr. Ladd’s book online from amazon.com if you want to, but you can probably request it at your library. I know it’s at ours in NY!
-Joseph
July 13th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
WOW! Very good vlog! Good job, Joseph! That’s what Deafhood’s all about. It is UP TO US how we define ourselves as Deaf persons. There is no right way or wrong way. It’s individual’s process. I feel sad about the situation going on the DeafRead but after I saw your vlog, you put a smile on my face.
Hey, by the way, what is SLY? :o)
Aidan
July 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Quite a while ago I wrote this blog:
http://www.xanga.com/dianrez/489056893/regarding-the-latest-new-word-deafhood.html
It’s an attempt to define “deafhood” as I saw it used at the time, before the Deafhood Foundation got its start. Perhaps you might think my examples off the point or even naive. I’d be interested in what you think, however.
As a social framework to understand a segment of the world’s people, deafhood is a great beginning and offers some theories to be tested. I’d be surprised if in the future we don’t see more social frameworks proposed.
Kudos, Joseph, and thanks, Ben for hosting his vlog!
July 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Thanks, I will check it out at the library.
“Deafhood” is like to build your own identity, character, reputation and self esteem while you involved with different kind of deaf group in deaf community. It made sense to me.
I grew up in hearing environment through my famil, friends and school. In early 1990’s, I arrived RIT/NTID and it changed my life as “culture shock” because I never got used to hang out with so many deaf with their different deaf culture. I chose to hang around with different group of people with ASL, PSE, Cued, Oral and Cochlear Implanted. I graduated from RIT then back to hearing environment at home and workplace.
I love to discuss in politics because I grew up near Washington DC and read Washington Post Newspaper. My father used to work for World Bank and United Nation. He was agriculture engineering and taught poor people how to raise the farm properly in third world country. My father taught me so many things about different culture from all over the world and he accepted who they are.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Hi,
I’m unable to view the vlog for some reason, but I’ve read Joseph’s writing about deafhood at his old blog. I hope that’s enough to give me a feel for what he has to say on the topic. *smile* I’ll accept any clarification if needed.
I loved what Joseph had to say at the time and I thought Dianrez’s entry was pretty good when I read it awhile ago.
I’ve read the book and taken the class (I read the book before I took the class too). We had to read before class, so we came to class with our opinion already formed of the week’s reading. I mention this to counteract the idea that we were brainwashed.
I don’t believe there is “only one way” to be deaf. The book doesn’t say that either. Joseph doesn’t say that either. There are many, many ways to be deaf. Of course. Not all of us can be DoD, voice-off, grew up at a residential school, Gally grads who went on to work in the Deaf community and have Deaf children. Goodness knows, *I* don’t fit that profile. Many of my friends fit that profile even less. I’ve never heard DE, Ella, or Genie insist on this.
My understanding is that a self-actualized Deaf person values and uses his/her country’s native sign language, sees being deaf as mostly a positive thing, and is comfortable in his/her own skin and how he/she interacts with all people, regardless of the language/mode used. This is what deafhood is all about - a framework for understanding where we were, where we are now, and where we’re going, both as a community and as an individual. The process is very individual, but it impacts the community as we go through our process individually.
Is this a bad thing? I think it’s a very positive thing. I don’t see people insisting that there’s only one way to be Deaf - and I’d give those people a serious dressing-down if I did!!!
July 13th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Hi Jenny - and also Mishka -
I didn’t on purpose name any particular names on this vlog, because I’m not talking to any particular person. This is a problem throughout the Deaf community and it’s about comprehension and clarity.
I have not seen the presentations of DBC. I know Paddy Ladd is friends with and respects DE and many of the other people who work with the Deafhood foundation. But these are complex ideas and we should be talking about them as much as possible. The Deaf community is changing. The answers should keep changing too.
Joseph
July 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Jenny ..
You wrote:
“My understanding is that a self-actualized Deaf person values and uses his/her country’s native sign language, sees being deaf as mostly a positive thing, and is comfortable in his/her own skin and how he/she interacts with all people, regardless of the language/mode used.”
So it is ONLY about language, eh? Everything else is trivial and “language” is by far and away the most important factor/variable of Ladd’s conceptualization?
At what point do deaf people move BEYOND language and celebrate other things in life?
What’s with this obsession with language, language, language?
:o)
Paotie
July 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
It was nice to see Joseph Santini’s face. We have participated in the DeafAcademics listserv before, but never knew who he was.
Joseph presented a pretty good explanation of Deafhood. My only disagreement is that he says they are two separate processes. I say that they are actually part of the SAME process.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
DonG ..
You are perfectly demonstrating WHY the NAD should NOT adopt deafhood principles of any kind - too many conflicting interpretations.
Does the NAD advocate religion? Or any other self-help concept? Philosophy beyond ASL?
Good luck to the NAD in sorting that mess out.
:o)
Paotie
July 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Joseph, I am waiting for your answer to my question about SLY. Thanks, Aidan
July 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
TYPO: SLY
Correction: SYL
July 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Wow, beautifully signed! I love the concept of deafhood as ever evolving process that occurs through continued discussions and debates about what it means to be deaf, etc.
This directly contradicts what the Deafhood foundation is preaching- by offering their own framework of what a self-actualized deaf person should look like. As evidenced by the leaders’ comments, deaf people with CIs do not fit within that framework. Of course, on the outside they might say Deafhood embraces all deaf people but look closely at the messages, especially DE’s explanation of deficit thinking over on Joey’s vlog- images of CIs are constantly overlapped with images of money and greed.
It seems to me as if the Deafhood foundation is encouraging the idea that deafhood can only be accomplished by attending their workshops and receiving the stamp of approval from the leaders. All other viewpoints are considered heresy and no healthy debate is permitted here on the v/blogsphere. At least that’s the impression I have after catching up on the blogs and vlogs as well as the comments over the weekend.
I should take a closer look at the Hands and Voices organization….
July 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Joseph, thank you for the clarification. You and I are in full agreement - we need to keep talking about these issues and examining them as individuals and as a group.
Paotie, that’s not what I said. It’s not only about language.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Aidan,
“See You Later”
I liked that part too lol.
Jenny,
I couldn’t help but notice the same thing Paotie did..“My understanding is that a self-actualized Deaf person values and uses his/her country’s native sign language…he/she interacts with all people, regardless of the language/mode used.”
I took the liberty of taking a large chunk out of your sentence and I do notice a contradiction. I mean, this is almost in the same breath–uses their sign language and regardless of the language. uhm. It seems to me you are insisting the one way is sign language…
clairfy?
Also, it seemed pretty clear that Joe here said deafhood applies to hearing people. That hearing people, too, have their own deafhood. Am I not wrong, Joe?
-Ben
July 13th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hi Aidan - SYL is “see you later”
Hi Paotie -
I don’t understand what exactly the NAD is proposing to adopt, to be honest. If they had something really specific, like, “The NAD proposes that American schools adopt a course of action to ensure Deaf and hard of hearing students are appropriately counselled and socialized as part of encouraging the youthful process of Deafhood,” I would be happier. If they said “The NAD proposes that Deaf and hard of hearing students be given a free manual to help answer questions and provide contact information for counselling organizations for young Deaf people,” that would be very specific and good. It would help those people figure out who they really are. That’s in line with Deafhood and developing your identity and it could very well save a couple of lives of depressed, lonely students. If they said “The NAD proposes Deaf schools adopt a stringent ASL-language study class to raise standards for linguistic construction and expression across the board as part of the process of Deafhood,” that would be pretty harsh and way overdue. But right now they are planning what? Just training? That was it. They wanted to get their staff training on this new concept in the Deaf community. I guess this training will come from the Deaf Bilingual Coalition - they seem to have a specific organization with a specific staff number in mind.
The other resolution which seems to make people angry is the “ASL is a Deaf Child’s Right” resolution. Presumably they don’t know that all of Europe already ratified such a resolution, and hearing parents are, surprisingly, NOT killing Deaf people. Of course, those countries also provide financial support in the form of free classes and time off from work with pay to study their native signed language - thus getting rid of one of the biggest objections to such a resolution in this country. Is the NAD willing to contribute funds or start a national fund to provide this service to parents, or start a national movement to change? Because if not, it’s just hot air, and it does nothing for Deafhood and doesn’t help anyone, least of all parents, understand the needs of the child.
-Joseph
July 13th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
well put, my thinking parallels what you have explained…hallujah, so I wasn’t wrong after all and certain people are
not naming names here tho heh. and aidan, when he said SYL, it probably refers to see you later.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Joseph, thank you for the clarification. You and I are in full agreement - we need to keep talking about these issues and examining them as individuals and as a group.
Paotie, that’s not what I said. It’s not only about language. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Aidan, I think SYL = See You Later… correct, Joseph?
From what I viewed in his vlog, I do not see anything new in it. That is what Genie has been saying all along that Deafhood is a PROCESS - that is it. And that we are on our own journeys, we have different experiences, depending on our upbringings. There are no set “rules” of what our Deafhood should be all about - at least, from what I have seen.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Ben,
Glad to clarify as best as I can and thank you for asking. As for using/valuing the country’s native signed language, it’s not all the time, only in appropriate situations. Some signers are also comfortable speaking with voice, using the spoken language of the country, as appropriate. Some signers prefer to write/ytpe, using the country’s written language when a situation calls for it. Some signers have other forms of communicating, such as gestures, when they feel it is needed. Some use all of these or some of these at varying times.
The point? The native signed language is valued and part of the person’s communicative repertoire, along with other tools (but no judgement or criticism from others about whatever else is/is not in the person’s repertoire nor self-flagellation - how many times have we heard people lament that they wish they could write or speak better or people criticize others for how they communicate?). No insistence about only one way here.
Me make sense now?
And there is more to Deafhood - peace with oneself, one’s culture(s), one’s community(ies), higher expectations for our community in terms of education, a more positive outlook on being deaf, et cetera. It’s a journey, not a destination - one actively explores, analyzes, mulls, and discusses these issues and others related to the state of being deaf. As Joseph said, we need to keep talking and examining these issues.
Does that help clarify my understanding of deafhood for you, Ben?
July 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Joseph…
Thank you for your vlog about Deafhood. I’m beginning to understand the concept a little better than before. I’m considering on buying Paddy Laddy’s book eventually.
Ben…
Thank you for posting your friend’s vlog to show everyone what is Deafhood all about.
Misha
July 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
A thing to consider with American Deafhood is this list: http://www.dbcfacts.com/dh.shtml
I think that list contradicts with the deafhood that Joe is trying to portray.
-ben
July 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Thank you, Ben for inviting a guest vlogger, Joseph in your own blog to share with us all!!! Cool!!!! Thanks so much, Joseph for your own time explaining to us better understand what the deafhood is really all about!!!!
July 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Ben,
It’s interesting seeing someone else lecture on these issues. I think my interpretation of Dr. Ladd’s work is slightly different from DBC’s list. I am only critiquing this list because it is the only thing I have seen, and because I do have something to say about it. The list seems to focus on the needs/experiences of people who are already signers - look at that list they provided, where an unspecified group of people feel people “sign too much,” etc. Not every Deaf person is a fluent signer and some of them speak. ASL is very important, especially in childhood, as a means of ensuring full communication no matter what. Adults should be free to choose their own path though.
From the website you’ve shown, I’m concerned people might be getting the message that if you don’t use ASL, you’re automatically in the bad-person category. I don’t think this is so, and there is no evidence this is so. We talk about fearing audism because of limitations by others - well, it’s possible to limit ourselves too.
But it’s also very possible that we need to continually think about how we present Deafhood to people - but the poster I’m seeing doesn’t really have any value. What are the two categories? DEAFNESS seems to = “What people who hate signing deaf people think,” and DEAFHOOD = “What people who sign and are comfortable with signing think.”
What happened to the “Medical” and “Cultural” models? What about the third model - the access model of Deafness - the one which is still most in place today? The access model of deafness is discussed in detail in several modern works. Essentially, it holds that Deaf people are “normal” people who just need to be given access, and then can be treated normally. One form of access would be an ASL interpreter. I’m concerned that this model, which dominated for almost half a century and still dominates in most places, has been dropped in favor of only showing the more polarizing “deafness” and “Deafhood.” If this was dropped in order to make the presentation shorter, well, I understand - huge book! - but I think it might be confusing.
Let me be clear - I totally support the use of ASL - I’m not against it. I think we need to argue for that, though. Deafhood isn’t about that. Deafhood applies to everyone and their search for an identity. What makes a better person, what makes a Deaf person a whole person? Isn’t that up to the individual to decide? It’s not always clear-cut. Someone with hearing parents might never be able to or want to completely use ASL, because there is another part of their life and culture that they embrace, also. Furthermore, studies in the US and abroad show that Deaf people from minority communities form their own definitions of what it means to be Deaf - and sometimes those definitions are not going to include the ones on the list Ben showed me. Are we going to say their lives aren’t valid? We have to be careful!
I hope I’ve made my thoughts clear - this is a complex conversation!
July 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Jenny,
There are oral deaf who do not know or use ASL infrequently because they are primarily immersed in the hearing community and rarely come into contact with other d/Deaf. This is to say they are comfortable with speaking rather than using sign language as their primary communication mode, and some use hearing technology.
That’s me, Jenny.
And Deafhood as defined by Paddy Ladd doesn’t cover the journey I took…??? It’s not entirely about language.
I don’t look down any deaf person’s preference for sign language, just as deaf people who use sign language and are immersed in Deaf culture shouldn’t look down on deaf people who prefer speech and hearing technology. But this navel-gazing does happen between both groups unfortunately.
This is why I’m on DR and DV as a commenter. I have seen too many times on the deaf blogosphere this mudslinging and I’ve tried many times to say that kind of crap has to stop.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I have viewed Barry’s DBC Facts via the link provided by Ben above.
I have seen how their presentation has been distorted by Barry.
First, “Deafness” is indeed a medical term, WHY?, this term was created by medical professionals which focuses on our EARS as opposed to our WHOLE SELF-BEING. They measure our SELF-BEING based on our ability to hear, our ability to speak and such. Naturally, I do NOT want to adopt Deafness as my WHOLE SELF-BEING. It’s just a very small part in my EARS that doesn’t even define WHO I AM as a whole.
That’s where DEAFHOOD comes into the picture that defines WHO I AM. Again, just like Genie and Joseph said, there is no one way of being Deaf.
In the powerpoint (a copy) posted in DBC Facts, it showed opposite terms between Deafness and Deafhood, I agree as those were used in research documents done by medical professionals, classifying us in negative terms. Harlan Lane provided examples of terms in his “Mask of Benevolence” book.
Once again, I am saddened to see how hatred some individuals feel toward strong advocates, so much that they feel the need for a witch hunt in order to pull them down. The destruction is already done. The best thing I can do is to keep going, and not allow those pull down the rest of us. Sadly, down the road, there is now even a greater division among us. Maybe it is for the best.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Let’s see, Ann -
-You’re a member of DeafRead and DV.
-You’re engaged in discussion about being Deaf and what that means.
Sounds to me like Deafhood! It doesn’t matter if the path you choose goes in a different direction from Paddy’s or mine. The point of Deafhood is making sure we’re aware of that process and those decisions and know what they mean. And you obviously do, which means under the rules of Deafhood, you might just be a well-adjusted Deaf person.
How does that feel?
July 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Ann_C,
I’m not saying it’s primarily or only about language. That’s only one part of the equation. Deafhood is a complex concept, and I encourage you to read the book, if possible, and to keep engaging in discussions and exploring the concept. I agree with Joseph - it sounds like you’re on your Deafhood journey.
And I’m tired of the mudslinging crap, especially in the past two weeks. It has been HORRIBLE. You and I agree on that.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Jenny ..
I apologize: your words looked and sounded like English, but they did not make sense, especially with the contradiction Ben pointed out.
Aww, I am sorry - I forgot your “native tongue” is busy eating your contradictions.
Want a napkin? You appear to be drooling ..
:o)
Paotie
July 13th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Impressive! Simply point. Understood clear and now I want to see the Deafhood workshop and so I can deduct my decision. I am sure DH workshop is great but not for EVERYONE. Each individual have their own experiences, backgrounds and journeys like my mother did. She made her decision and felt fit into this philosophy.
Crystal clear vlog and thank you, Joseph.
July 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Joseph ..
You wrote (to Ann):
“Sounds to me like Deafhood! It doesn’t matter if the path you choose goes in a different direction from Paddy’s or mine. The point of Deafhood is making sure we’re aware of that process and those decisions and know what they mean. And you obviously do, which means under the rules of Deafhood, you might just be a well-adjusted Deaf person.
How does that feel?”
Here’s a thought: I occasionally go to church with friends, in part to socialize and in part to discuss various religious themes. My friends are all Christians (of different denominations) and we enjoy discussing religion.
I am atheist.
Your application of Deafhood as described above means that YOU would identify me as a “religious” person.
I am not. I am atheist. I researched religion (as well as lived it as a child), and over the years, I came to my own conclusion about religion.
I am not religious.
So, the solution to the conflict of your statement would be what? “Language.” What else is there to “share” with deaf people, besides “deafness?”
“Language, language, language.”
As you will note with the DBC, the ONLY priority in life is to celebrate ASL and hate AG Bell. Deafhood proponents advocated in the US tended to do the same things (along with “attitude! and must reject AVT!”, among other things).
So .. your definition and Paddy’s conflict; yours and DonG’s conflict; DBC/Deafhood and former DBC founders’s conflict; and on and on.
The funny thing about all this is that as time goes by, there will be MORE fighting about what “Deafhood” means (or not.) It has already started.
Again.
:o)
Paotie
July 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Aw, Ben!!!
I couldnt see this video… is there any other way to see this video, please? Thanks.
deafk
July 13th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ben, thanks so much for bringing in Joseph about Deafhood, I surely now have a better understanding about it. You have made it more sense than what I’ve heard in the last while, for years I couldn’t even figure out what’s Deafhood really is than the harsh being against every other kind of deafness. Now I know, thanks so much for clarification. HOpe to see more of Joseph’s meaningful vlog and of course yours too Ben, you’ve been awesome as well.
Enjoy the beautiful day,
Namaste,
Susan (Toronto, Ontario)
July 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Here is the link of Dr. Patty Lane’s presentation about Deafhood at RIT/NTID in 2004..
Pat I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EExpDalJJDY
Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmn4pt81B4k&feature=related
July 13th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Nice try, but no, Paotie-because I’m clear about my definition of Deafhood, while in your example about religion, the definition of a religious person hasn’t been stated. I’m happy to agree to disagree, but no, my response isn’t language, language-it’s communication and the sharing of ideas. A little different.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Interesting posting… makes more sense to my mind.
Lately Deafhood has been “Americanized” so it ends up that we have to meet the expectations of Deafhood instead of Deafhood meeting our expectations. Yes, it is a personal journey for each of us and we all have our own definitions of d/Deafhood. I guess that is why there are conflicts among us because our expectations are different and therefore not “acceptable”.
Thank you for clarifying a bit.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I really enjoyed Joseph Saniti’s vlog presentation very much.
I have ONE question for Joseph and Ben about Joseph’s nationality.
Is Joseph the British subject or American himself? Just out of curiousity, because he seems using some Getusuo signs like “share” and “identity”.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
July 13th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Fughgetaboutit…the definition of deafhood. The idea of deafhood sucks. Mainstream deaf people couldn’t care less. We’re people. We’re deaf. So what, attaining the understanding of deafhood, whatever that is, isn’t going to change anything.
Let’s go out there an read all the thesis written by many people and make a hood out of them.
This thesis written by Paddy is his view of what he saw as part of his journey from being in the hearing world to discovering the deaf world in England. If anything his book is a good research material to get a good insight of how the British Deaf lived.
Deafhood?
It’s all preposterous.
Just my view.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Hey Ben, smile.. Thank you for showing Josephs show about deafhood. Good Job! Ben I hope I will see you soon and get together. We will discuss about it. Email me.. hugs
July 13th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’m at the airport waiting for my next flight. I’ll be the VIP that takes care of stuff….. really cool.
Whatever I have not seen your vlog, I still fist~smack you. T~mobile sucks!
I believe that the deafhood is unconstitional. Ill look at your vlog as soon I get back from the town.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Thank you for clearing the meaning of “Deafhood” with your friend explaining it. My thought excatlly to what “Deafhood” is all about.
Keep up the good work!
The Ponder Deaf Man
July 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Truly, what I was trying to say is, it’s not the language. It’s the communication that matters, regardless of what language is used.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
What an eloquent vlog. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it; you have a wonderful way of boiling down a complex field and making it accessible to a lot of people. Great summary, Joseph!
If anyone else’s still reading this comment thread, I’d like to add that Deafhood–the discussion, inquiry, and analysis of one’s own self and membership in his/her community–can be used as a starting point to take action to make a more equitable world.
I feel there’s a lot of confusion as to the point of Deafhood. Some may walk away from Joseph’s vlog saying, “You can’t take action on Deafhood; it’s just a process!” But it certainly can be an inspiration.
Even Dr. Ladd writes several recommendations at the end of his book for creating a fairer world for Deaf people to exist. Many of those recommendations are “radical,” but they are also congruent with what DBC is trying to do. When I see people saying “Deafhood has hijacked DBC,” I cringe, and Joseph’s vlog explains exactly that. A process cannot hijack an organization. But people’s interpretation of that process certainly can.
No one said social change was easy, but many have said it must come from within. The last several days have been very painful for people who follow the DBC, AGBell, and Deafhood story. At the same time, all these discord is ultimately part of the greater Deafhood painting that Joseph paints: continuing our own healthy self-inquiry.
Let’s see what happens.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Thank you, Joseph, for making this vlog and clarifying Dr. Ladd’s meaning of Deafhood. You know, I have had his book for two years, I wanted to arrive at my own understanding of what Deafhood meant, but the fact is, I never finished it because - how do I say this without seeming insulting- I just plain couldn’t grasp what he was trying to convey and had other things to do. But with this vlog you made, I was left saying “That’s all? Now, *that*’s the meaning of Deafhood I like and can work with!” It is just disingenious for people to cherry-pick statements from the book and twisting it into something that Ladd didn’t mean.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
[...] I’ll share my thoughts on Deafhood and all that it entails. But I think Joe Santini’s guest vlog on Der Sankt Speaks touches on an important fact: Deafhood as conceived by Paddy Ladd and Deafhood [...]
July 13th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Paotie,
You are clearly not interested in engaging in meaningful dialogue. You might want to try moving beyond the old, tired puerile insults. I’m not going to respond any further, because it would be unfair to Joseph to hijack this thread - it is producing the type of thoughtful, kind, and caring dialogue that has been stunningly absent from DeafBlogLand over the past two weeks.
Thanks, Joseph, for making it happen.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Joseph, sooooo what am I to do after I have a session of Deafhood (discussions about my/our earthly existence)? What do you suggest is the top 10 things I could do to have a “mature” deafhood?
July 14th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Salut Joseph,
You interpret Paddy Ladd correctly. He set up Deaf_Culture, one of Gallaudet University’s Vax notesconference, during his tenure of the Chair of Dr. Powrie Vaux Doctor in 1993. When he returned to England in 1994, I was asked to take over his place as moderator. Albeit in England, he still posted some comments. In one of the comments, he said he had interviewed deaf people in different states and found that, even though all of their backgrounds were widely varied, all of them had something in common: DEAF (emphasis mine). At the 2007 NAD Conference, Bernard Bragg said: “We are all just deaf”. Two weeks ago on his blogsite, http://www.bernardbragg.com. he repeatedly emphasised, “We are all just deaf”. Be X an ASLer, be Y an implantée, be Z an oralist, all of them “are all just DEAF”,
Some deaf people misunderstand about the concept of Deafhood. They mistakenly think that Deafhood means that ALL deaf people must learn sign language. Au contraïre, a deaf individual can choose any communication mode he so desires. If he wants Cued Speech, that is his choice. As Poet Milton says, every individual is gifted with free will of choice.
The journey of Deafhood varies from individual to individual more widely than some deaf people might think. My father lost his hearing at 16 of age. Was his journey of Deafhood a happy process? No, it was a bitter process even though he learned and signed sign language fluently. What about my mother? She was deafened at the age of two. She had a happy journey of Deafhood, but the happy journey had shifted into an unhappy journey when she realised at the age of 16 that she could never live “dans le meilleur des mondes possibilites” . Soit.
Joseph, it is fancy to see you here on DeafRead because I always see you on Deaf-Academics. I particularly enjoyed watching your vlog! You signed so eloquently. Hope you will, henceforth, participate on DeafRead.
July 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Jenny ..
You said: “You might want to try moving beyond the old, tired puerile insults.”
Here is a suggestion: instead of producing foaming-at-the-mouth claims, such as “putting words into my mouth,” try to make your arguments a wee bit more coherent.
Like .. try to avoid contradictions to your own thesis.
‘Cos .. like, it makes you look, “old, tired and puerile.”
:o)
Paotie
July 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Joseph ..
You wrote:
“Nice try, but no, Paotie-because I’m clear about my definition of Deafhood, while in your example about religion, the definition of a religious person hasn’t been stated.”
Then please tell me what YOUR definition of a religious person is, since YOUR definition of Deafhood is “clear.”
Nice try.
:o)
Paotie
July 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Paotie -
Off the top of my head-A religious person is someone who regularly engages in the practices and customs of his tradition as well as personally dedicating themselves to the tenets of that tradition. Just walking into a church or having a discussion wouldn’t do it; I’m sure janitors do that every day. (Do you read Pharyngula? You should - great atheist blog.)
But Jenny - Paotie isn’t being peurile. People are supposed to ask questions and have discourse. If we’re afraid of it, we can’t get our Deafhood on! Besides, he’s been nothing more than respectful, except for the bit about “since YOUR definition of Deafhood is “clear.”" -
Paotie, if we don’t explicitly state what definitions we’re using, how can people provide feedback on those definitions so that we get closer? I’m using the definition of Deafhood from the text, yes, but I think it IS clear. It’s kind of big and encompasses a lot of things, but I like that, because I think there are many ways to be a Deaf person, and they’re all valid. I think some people, for example, might not think a person born in isolation in a distant place, who only learned to speak and never learned about his native sign language, was a Deaf person. But to me that person’s experiences would also be Deaf experiences. Not every Black person in America was formerly a slave, but slave narratives are part of the African-American experience.
To Jean: Yes - I think I mostly got to understand Dr. Ladd’s perspective after many many many late night discussions. I think of it this way. There are many, many different experiences which women have under different cultures. Nobody would take the life experience of a woman and say, because of that experience, she was not a woman. Instead it goes the other way. We say, because a woman lived this life, it is a woman’s life. We have people in the Deaf community today who say “Because your life is like this, you are not Deaf.” Me, I want to say, “Because you are a Deaf person and have lived this life, it is a Deaf person’s life.”
OK, enough for now. All of your comments have really warmed my heart and Ben has asked me to work on a sequel, so I’m thinking, “Where can Deafhood take our community?” But if anyone has other suggestions I’d be happy to listen.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
[...] Joseph's vlog: http://blog.benvess.com/?p=148 [...]
July 14th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I am curious. Why does DeafHood need to be revisited?
We have been doing things for so many years under the “Deaf” term.
In my opinion, I believe the word itself is self-explanatory. The Deaf term includes all degrees of hearing loss. Deaf people have defined their way of life, culture, folklore, and etc.
When I was growing up I have seen Deaf Adults use, “Deaf Power,” “World Games for the Deaf,” “World Federation of the Deaf,” “Deaf Rights,” this is part of the Deaf identity that I knew of. Why do we need to coin another term?
It is not my intent to create a flame war on this topic; however, I just wanted to understand why do we need to find another label to identify us?
Lastly, I love the “Deaf” term and I am very proud of it.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Hi Stephen,
I think Paddy coined the term basically as a way to disassociate “deaf” (which has been used medically/pathologically) from that sense of “Deaf” that you described — that we are Deaf together, that we all have a sense of having a Deaf identity for ourselves. He wanted to make it equivalent to “sisterhood”, where women of all kinds can feel united in their feminity, or “nationhood”, where people living within a country feel united as a people of their land, despite their individual differnces.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Joseph, I have no objection to discourse. I love discourse. What I object to is comments like “I think you’re drooling.” Maybe you haven’t had the opportunity to see many of Paotie’s comments here and there. They are beyond juvenile. What is in this entry is extremely mild in comparison.
Questioning, sure. Discussion, sure. Insults, for-for?
July 14th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I second Jenny’s sentiments. Paotie too is a major instigator of horizontal violence. I have continually seen Paotie sneer at and denigrate anyone who expresses views different from his in a manner that is not conducive to discourse. In one example, I was having a civil discussion with “MM” about how it might be possible for Deaf to try to work together, regardless of personal views, when Paotie jumped in and basically put down everything that we (or maybe I) were saying. He is one of the wolves I have discussed, pure and simple. It is because of people like him that the Deaf community cannot find a way to unite.
July 15th, 2008 at 2:01 am
isnt he horribly cute?!? heehee
July 16th, 2008 at 4:08 am
[...] snide, insensitive comment that did absolutely nothing to add to the dialogue was posted on Der Sankt Speaks: Jenny [...]
July 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Joseph-
Thank you for making this vlog. You should do this more often.
Loved the money quote at the end. Thank you for clarifying further the Deafhood concept.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Beautiful said/signed!
Please visit my blog
July 19th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Ben, don’t give up! we need to stay strong.
I have heard of a term “deafhood” yet I wasn’t getting clear back then but now I got it clear and like what Padd explained the original meaning.
However, I learned that the deafhood foundation really abused and hijacked the term “deafhood” for their own purposes so I don’t agree with them as how they abused it. Not good!
Then it’s CLEAR enough that several certain DBC leaders who hijacked DBC with their Deafhood purposes which doesn’t belong to their original mission purpose at all in the first place. Those should be removed or never shall be solved.
It’s about those deaf babies and ASL, not about the Deafhood which rather belongs to the deaf teens and adults, mind you.
I agree with Barry, Mishka, and others.
It sickens us to read such ugly insults or non-sense fusses by some people in the blogs… those won’t solve but destroy the sole purpose. We don’t need those type of leaders to screw DBC up.
Otherwise, it’s pleased that we have DBC for the outreach on those deaf babies to stress ASL (and bilingual). Also that the DBC is only a year old so let’s give it some time to improve its image and purposes over the time ahead.
It’s like some birth pangs for the DBC.
Recommend them to remove those hijackers then restructure the DBC and stick on with its original mission to reach the hearing parents, and make them to approach AGB to iron things out so we could reach those hearing parents there more effectively.
Remember that 95% deaf kids’ parents are hearing after all! So we need to reach them more effectively and properly.
At last, I even wondered as if DBC leaders/core members don’t decide to clean their house soon enough… in case if they decide not to; then I really believe that it’s high time for us to set up a NEW and CLEANER organization replacing the fouled-up DBC in sole purpose to stress bilingualism for those deaf babies and deaf kids everywhere especially to make bylaws and such necessary to strengthen the organization just like Barry explained. Mind you that the DBC leader is the same leader at Deafhood foundation, too therefore it’s easily manipulated by them and of that leader so we don’t want that happens again. Agree? I hope.