Awwww DAMN! I saw a vlog and thought I would actually see you signing (even if it was in BSL)! You trickster, you!
I think those first pages were setting up what has been the traditional definition of "Deaf" vs. "deaf".
But I agree with you that it is not fair or necessarily accurate to say "deaf" do not sign or want to socialize with Deaf people. That is why I use "Deaf" for all of us -- remove that distinction, and recognize that we are all part of that community, since we share the biological and psychological orientations/tendencies that come with being Deaf.
I don't know if you read further into Ladd's book, but he did explore the issues further and I do believe that he shows, like we have been saying, that "deaf" people can and do have "Deafhood", even if they may make their own personal definitions of such somewhat differently than others of us may.
I also agree that "deaf" people who try to retain membership within a Hearing community are in the same position (and probably worse) than Deaf people are.
I don't understand what you mean in your third frame ... "always hearing?" What were you referring to there? You mean deaf who become Hearing, or Hearing people?
I really think you can't take those first lines as attributive of the whole book. I think he was setting up the history and definitions as they have been set before establishing his thesis which reconceptualizes the above.
Hi Don, I know further into the book there are ifs and buts, but first impressions count, Paddy Lays the foundation of division before anything else. You HAVE to accept the d,D thing before you can go along with whatever else follows.
I've no objection to him labelling those deaf who use sign language, even if it is accurate, and I will cover that aspect further on, that's up to them, but he has no right making generalisations like this, you can be different without drawing lines between deaf people..
If you proceed NOT to question the d,D thing, then you have bought in to the hype. It IS a big assumption to suggest deaf prefer hearing to them, and that we're all desperately hanging on to what was aimlessly.
There is no real declaration as to at what point one becomes 'cultural' in a deaf sense ? Paddy suggests birth, I don't agree !
We can do this at ANY age, or at ANY stage of our lives when we go deaf, and/or not, there are choices. What defines culture is simply, deafness. What follows are attempts via ability, to resolve the communication issue...
I'm considering signing a vblog again now, I tried a long time ago and got badly mauled in the UK as not being very good at it, so it put me off.... Hence I stuck to text in various forms. If you take as you find I may try it....
Personally, I prefer the d/D. The "d" refering to the pathological view of the audiogram of the ear. The "D" refering to the person as a positive whole being who has a sense of pride and connection to others through ASL.
I would much prefer my child be Deaf than deaf. I can almost guarantee that hearing parents are receptive of this information if they are only given the chance to be educated.
But this can suggest the 'd' deaf are negative by default as Mr Ladd inferred. Are there NO negative 'D' deaf ? I'm not sure you should state a preference because that too seems negative towards 'deaf'. Be positive for them, not at our expence....
We want the negativity from signing and cultural deaf taken out of the equation, and for them to be a lot more accepting than they are. Mr Ladd panders to that negativity I feel. They don't need to stand on us to look taller....
how about the "D" referring to the person as a positive whole being who has a sense of pride and connection to others through the shared experiences of being deaf? Hard of hearing people, late deafened people, and oral deaf people raised in the mainstream also have strong connections to each other through their particular shared experiences, without ASL. ASL is simply the communication channel through which the bonding occurs. You can have Deafhood without ASL, right?
D/d original meaning was way different from the beginning until now. Reasoning was that the elites had to justify that meaning so as not to create more division, but more was created nevertheless.
(anon 1), Can not those who acquire a deafness (Whatever age), be 'whole' people too ? We are rather bored with the pop pyschology of some 'Deaf' attrubiting constant mediacl intonations to everything we say or do.
In Understanding deaf hood (Page xviii), PAddy attributes the small 'h' to 'deaf' as well, in this case clearly, as HEARING people, which he says is how 'Deaf' see them.
You have one advantage to signing a blog here -- I would have no idea how to judge whether you were signing good BSL or not... ;-)
I would agree that Paddy does place a preference for seeing us as 'D'eaf, but I think his thesis does provide room for you 'd'eaf people being "whole" people too, as long as that is where your Deafhood journey has taken you -- and from what I know about you so far, you have developed your own sense of Deafhood as a 'd'eaf person -- after all, you married a Deaf signer, you participate on these Deaf websites, I presume you do socialize at least somewhat with the Deaf community where you live, you do care about many of the Deaf issues, although you have some perspectives that I don't agree with... but that is a separate thing I'm not going into here....
I'm going to work on a vlog that I hope will address some of your other points, and points that some people have raised here. Watch for it, as I'm sure you will.... ;-)
I'm probably living proof of having a universal ID :) Just because I do deaf things doesn't nail me to deafhood, or give me Mr Ladd's labelling system, he is obsessed with division by decibel, mode and lifestyle, he's old news.
11 comments:
Awwww DAMN! I saw a vlog and thought I would actually see you signing (even if it was in BSL)! You trickster, you!
I think those first pages were setting up what has been the traditional definition of "Deaf" vs. "deaf".
But I agree with you that it is not fair or necessarily accurate to say "deaf" do not sign or want to socialize with Deaf people. That is why I use "Deaf" for all of us -- remove that distinction, and recognize that we are all part of that community, since we share the biological and psychological orientations/tendencies that come with being Deaf.
I don't know if you read further into Ladd's book, but he did explore the issues further and I do believe that he shows, like we have been saying, that "deaf" people can and do have "Deafhood", even if they may make their own personal definitions of such somewhat differently than others of us may.
I also agree that "deaf" people who try to retain membership within a Hearing community are in the same position (and probably worse) than Deaf people are.
I don't understand what you mean in your third frame ... "always hearing?" What were you referring to there? You mean deaf who become Hearing, or Hearing people?
I really think you can't take those first lines as attributive of the whole book. I think he was setting up the history and definitions as they have been set before establishing his thesis which reconceptualizes the above.
Curiously what do you make living?
Good Vlog!
Good vlog.
Since the "deaf/Deaf" term appears in the vlog, would
you, by any chance, know who coined "deaf/Deaf"?
I consider "deaf/Deaf" an unacceptable term in that it prompts divisiveness.
What say you, MM?
Hi Don, I know further into the book there are ifs and buts, but first impressions count, Paddy Lays the foundation of division before anything else. You HAVE to accept the d,D thing before you can go along with whatever else follows.
D/d is for ?
Divisions ?
Decibels ?
Discrimination ?
Dogma ?
Diversity ?
Difference ?
or simply deaf ?
I've no objection to him labelling those deaf who use sign language, even if it is accurate, and I will cover that aspect further on, that's up to them, but he has no right making generalisations like this, you can be different without drawing lines between deaf people..
If you proceed NOT to question the d,D thing, then you have bought in to the hype. It IS a big assumption to suggest deaf prefer hearing to them, and that we're all desperately hanging on to what was aimlessly.
There is no real declaration as to at what point one becomes 'cultural' in a deaf sense ? Paddy suggests birth, I don't agree !
We can do this at ANY age, or at ANY stage of our lives when we go deaf, and/or not, there are choices. What defines culture is simply, deafness. What follows are attempts via ability, to resolve the communication issue...
I'm considering signing a vblog again now, I tried a long time ago and got badly mauled in the UK as not being very good at it, so it put me off.... Hence I stuck to text in various forms. If you take as you find I may try it....
A comment from a hearing parent:
Personally, I prefer the d/D. The "d" refering to the pathological view of the audiogram of the ear. The "D" refering to the person as a positive whole being who has a sense of pride and connection to others through ASL.
I would much prefer my child be Deaf than deaf. I can almost guarantee that hearing parents are receptive of this information if they are only given the chance to be educated.
But this can suggest the 'd' deaf are negative by default as Mr Ladd inferred. Are there NO negative 'D' deaf ? I'm not sure you should state a preference because that too seems negative towards 'deaf'. Be positive for them, not at our expence....
We want the negativity from signing and cultural deaf taken out of the equation, and for them to be a lot more accepting than they are. Mr Ladd panders to that negativity I feel. They don't need to stand on us to look taller....
how about the "D" referring to the person as a positive whole being who has a sense of pride and connection to others through the shared experiences of being deaf? Hard of hearing people, late deafened people, and oral deaf people raised in the mainstream also have strong connections to each other through their particular shared experiences, without ASL. ASL is simply the communication channel through which the bonding occurs. You can have Deafhood without ASL, right?
D/d original meaning was way different from the beginning until now. Reasoning was that the elites had to justify that meaning so as not to create more division, but more was created nevertheless.
Candy~
(anon 1), Can not those who acquire a deafness (Whatever age), be 'whole' people too ? We are rather bored with the pop pyschology of some 'Deaf' attrubiting constant mediacl intonations to everything we say or do.
In Understanding deaf hood (Page xviii), PAddy attributes the small 'h' to 'deaf' as well, in this case clearly, as HEARING people, which he says is how 'Deaf' see them.
No,it is how HE sees them.
Hi MM --
You have one advantage to signing a blog here -- I would have no idea how to judge whether you were signing good BSL or not... ;-)
I would agree that Paddy does place a preference for seeing us as 'D'eaf, but I think his thesis does provide room for you 'd'eaf people being "whole" people too, as long as that is where your Deafhood journey has taken you -- and from what I know about you so far, you have developed your own sense of Deafhood as a 'd'eaf person -- after all, you married a Deaf signer, you participate on these Deaf websites, I presume you do socialize at least somewhat with the Deaf community where you live, you do care about many of the Deaf issues, although you have some perspectives that I don't agree with... but that is a separate thing I'm not going into here....
I'm going to work on a vlog that I hope will address some of your other points, and points that some people have raised here. Watch for it, as I'm sure you will.... ;-)
--Don G.
I'm probably living proof of having a universal ID :) Just because I do deaf things doesn't nail me to deafhood, or give me Mr Ladd's labelling system, he is obsessed with division by decibel, mode and lifestyle, he's old news.
Post a Comment