It is said Harlan Lane may have started all the division by submitting the capital D to ID signing deaf, whether Harlan or whoever created the D, what started as a simple and easy way to identify a cultural deaf person, actually labeled a lot by default, who weren't, thus cause and effect equaled division, as they felt excluded, and some saw it as creating an elite among deaf, with the ASL or BSL at the apex, and the rest below struggling to get there, the 'non-deaf'. These days they tend to be on the defensive and backfoot, via the anti-D backlash, and officialdom that adopted the D, started receiving challenges to the definition, claiming there is no way to differentiate between one deaf person or another, and they shouldn't be trying, as it clouded and undermined supportive systems.
At the time, the deaf and CI users, were not on the map response wise, now they are and do NOT like the division, it doesn't fit in with unity, diversity, or inclusion, and it is time to drop the D, in the cause of unifying us all, while the D exists that cannot happen. What started as a cultural 'dream' has turned into a terminological nightmare, and warfare of discourses.
A lot of blame goes towards those who seized upon the D to attack those who didn't sign, determined to distance themselves from the rest.... obviously seen as a far bigger 'threat' to culture than any hearing discrimination. Over the last few years the debates have shifted right away from mainstream-deaf, and access issues, to d versus D ones, with mainstream looking on in puzzlement. Having adopted the D to pacify sign using deaf, they didn't understand the rejections of it, by others.... All deaf sign don't they ?
D became a weapon, a weapon, I think is now obsolete, since little positive online seems to emerge from its use any more, it is just undermining. Near every mention hits some nerve, and gets heated feedback, with D in many areas seen as representing a very exclusive club that has set 'rules' for membership that is unacceptable, that it could never be defined did not help much. The conundrum was the dual acceptance, of both the medical AND the social models of deafness and whether this was right, or even possible, of course, it was, and the social model came under fire, as the other sectors of deaf pushed support for implantations, better hearing aids, more research into alleviation of deafness, and even support for genetic manipulation to zero the deaf gene. They were quite capable of 'coping' with deafness, but wanted to hold out for other options too.
Sadly some seemed to enjoy seeing the arguments taking place, and seized upon it as 'Us against the world', all probably fed by insecurities as to if a culture or sign language, would survive an integrated diversity of us all. It will change certainly, there is no doubt of that, it is changing now, hence the colonization debates, which rather than highlight our diversity in communications, which 'colonization' IS, tends to draw a line as to what 'real deaf' are.
As each barrier falls, some continue with the scorched earth policy, and re-erect more barriers as they retreat. Deaf.read tries to appease everyone, to set areas aside, which did not work, they know it, we know it, they hope the culture hardline won't see, it can't happen.
It will certainly not stop critics seeing this as an opt out, and a partial, albeit unrealistic return to 'Deaf-Only' areas, thus re-enforcing the segregation again. In reality the option to ignore some viewpoint is simple, don't log in, or you can exercise your own judgment and ignore it, it's not rocket science, and we are all adults. However it doesn't stop comments toward those people blissfully in ignorance of the main area, still being offered up.
This is Ostrich Syndrome, sticking your head down a hole, and then hoping, nobody will see you, or sticking exclusively to ASL or BSL or oralising, and hoping they don't know what you are saying... 'keeping communication in the 'D'eaf family..'? or protecting the language ? This hasn't prevented people learning the sign and still countering some view given, access is a double-edged sword.
Lord Nelson at the battle was warned about the Spanish coming at him, he stuck a telescope to his blind eye and said "I see nothing..." ignoring warnings, it would be foolish however to assume the D people can get away with that, by reverting to deaf exclusive areas, and sniffily adopting the, I just won't engage with them attitude, Nelson at least knew the Spanish would still keep coming, and he would have to meet that challenge. The terminological warfare has to cease.
16 comments:
Please get your facts straight! It was not Harlan Lane who first proposed it. It was James Woodward who did in his 1972 paper.
You've lost your credibility
many times. Do your homework!
Typical rubbish. The big D are out there in the communities producing actual differences these days rather than squabble with the lonely hearing impaired population who thrives online looking to discriminate minorities. I'm a student so I'm near my laptop more but I'm out in community several days a week making some kind of concrete differences rather than waste time spouting this kind of nonsense.
Obviously, you haven't read Harlan Lane's book Mask of Benevolence. DrDonG says you're an academic. What a joke!
What on EARTH are you jibber-jabbering about???
This article is just shooting from the hip.
There's no such thing as "rules" about who is this or that. If you identify yourself with Deaf culture, then you do. If you don't, then you don't. Realistically, anyone who uses a natural sign language such as BSL or ASL is culturally Deaf to one degree or another. If you use a little bit of sign, then you should at least feel that you are a little bit culturally Deaf.
This is not a big issue. You are making an issue out of something that is not an issue.
Now now now folks, stop defending something or anything.
Someone started this D/d thing.
If anyone has this paper written by this James Woodward, please produce it.
As a deaf of deaf, I have heard of this since early 70's and it was originally used to denote those who are elites and those who are not. A way to classify and divide? yup, you bet! Did I like that? nope.
It is those who are late deafened that has done a lot for the deaf community, not the other way around.
"It is those who are late deafened that has done a lot for the deaf community, not the other way around."
That's an outrageous claim. Where is your proof?
The divisiveness of the word D/deaf seem to have started during UfG and Deafhood. I don't recollect any prior to these two events.
Anonymous at 16:03 --
I never said MM is an academic. I have said that he usually is thoughtful, although I frequently find him to be wrong in what he is thinking about.
Anon at 17:10:
Woodward first made that D/d distinction in "How you gonna get to heaven if you can't hear Jesus?" (I may have gotten that title slightly wrong, but you can find a copy of this through Harris Communications, I believe [although you will probably find they classified it under "religion", even though this booklet has NOTHING to do with religion]. That booklet was written around 1972 (would have to go to my copy to find the exact date).
As for when the d/D thing became divisive, well, that is a point of contention. Probably, it has always been so, since I know people have had issues about the d/D thing for a long time, even though it did become somewhat of a standard since the late '80s to describe those who subscribe to a cultural view of being Deaf compared to those who do not. More recently, the Canadian Cultural Society and Harlan Lane (I think) has proposed an end to the d/D distinction because of the divisions, arguing that to be Deaf is an ethnicity, and ethnicities are capitalized like Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. Whether one actually practices the behaviors of their ethnicity is irrelevant -- like Blacks who were raised with White people -- they may act "White", but they are still ethnically Black. So whether a Deaf person signs or believes in Deaf culture or not, that person is still Deaf.
MM has had a problem with this idea. Hopefully he will see the logic in it someday.
I vlogged about it last year and you can read at:
http://deafprogressivism.blogspot.com/2007/10/should-we-get-rid-of-small-d-in-deaf.html
Yes, it was Woodward's statement about the d/D concept as I have seen his statement popping up in several readings. Although I don't agree with the idea of labeling d and D and that I do agree that it creates division, I would propose a capital D to include everyone who is deaf. (I used a small d to describe audio condition as opposed to Deaf people). We are all Deaf. How's that? :-)
Happy Deafhood reading!
Capital D "Deaf" has to be related to natural sign language. If someone signs a tiny little bit, then they are a tiny bit culturally Deaf. If someone does not sign at all, then obviously they are not culturally Deaf.
Someone who holds none of the values of ethnic Blacks, cannot be ethnically Black. Skin color alone is not enough, just as being deaf alone is not enough.
If you say skin color alone is enough, then that is racism, which is wrong.
Anon 19:23,
While I understand your intentions but tell me why shouldn't these ethnic groups who don't practice culture or even speak their native language still identify themselves as a capital I in Irish or whatever? Why should it be different for the Deaf? All ethnic groups are capitalized no matter if an individual practices the culture or speak the language.
As for blacks or Blacks, I am not sure if I have seen the use of capitalization but definitely have seen the use of capital A in African-Americans for all although they are not ethnically Black.
They can say they have "Irish heritage," but they are no longer part of the ethnic Irish group, maybe because it got blended into the majority culture in their area.
If there are some people in Boston, MA, maybe the Irish culture still is there, and they can claim to be ethnically Irish.
It is unbelievable how people get upset about the D/d differentiation. All it is is a useful sociological distinction...helps in comparing groups for understanding both a little better.
Whoever took it as an "elitist" definition needs their head examined. This is an artificial distinction that real Deaf people don't feel...most of us have friends in both groups and don't think any more of it.
Those that feel threatened by "not Deaf enough" need to search within themselves why they feel so.
The commenter who said "Realistically, anyone who uses a natural sign language...is culturally Deaf to one degree or another. If you use a little bit of sign, then you should at least feel that you are a little bit culturally Deaf." has it right.
The Harlan Lane comment was via a question I put online, asking who was responsible for the D, Woodward came up, and then another said Lane was first, anyway thanks for the comments, not that it makes any difference, because the D is for division, I think there is ample proof via these responses, everything I said about the D is amplified via them.
Personally I will never accept the D, I believe, a number of others agree on this. It is not about culture, or sign language, but about the way the D is used, which I feel is discriminatory, and contributes to division.
Deaf village exists as further proof.... It is not just a 'social distinction' but a social DIVISION as well, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. I think the lie that the D is 'just an identifier' is at the root of the issue, it is now a flag standard, the activists of division are rallying around. If you read deaf.read at all, you can see this, perhaps, you have opted for the ignore button so haven't !?
I too, have never claimed to be an academic, it was just an aside via a comment via Don. As we all know deaf people are too stupid to be academics............
For the anons, I am considering removing anons from responses, this is because I feel if you are going to be abusive, then let's see the whie of your eyes..... This time they go through, next time, they won't. Fair warning.
The rise of "D" in word "deaf" started after the DPN movement (Deaf President Now 1988) as I have been student at NTID and before that, I haven't never heard of the necessity to use capital "D" to denote and it was never in dictionary till few years ago... I have been writing "Deaf" or "deaf" according to grammar rule for long time regardless! I ignored the new addition of vocabulary, Deaf, to the dictionary.
See this;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Deaf
Usage Note: The rise of the Deaf Pride movement in the 1980s has introduced a distinction between deaf and Deaf, with the capitalized form used specifically in referring to deaf persons belonging to the community—also known as Deaf culture—that has formed around the use of American Sign Language as the preferred means of communication. The issue of capitalization is different with deaf than it is for a term such as black. In the case of black, the decision whether or not to capitalize is essentially a matter of personal or political preference, while with deaf the capitalized and uncapitalized forms differ in meaning as well as style. Only persons who are self-identified as belonging to Deaf culture are appropriately referred to as Deaf.
====================
I will continue to write grammar wise as it has been before it came up.
Post a Comment