MOS International’s Re-defining D-E-A-F
Everyone!
THIS IS IT! “Re-defining D-E-A-F”, a video by Ryan Commerson. MUST SEE!
This is my greatest delight to endorse introduce Mos International’s newest website focusing on the video done by Ryan Commerson called, “Re-defining D-E-A-F”
It all began when Mr. Commerson needs to submit his master’s thesis paper to earn his Master’s degree, and with his uncanny vision and creativity, he decided to present this paper in a video format!
When I was at National Association of the Deaf conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, my very good friend of mine grabbed me and she literally demanded me that I must attend to Mr. Commerson’s presentation. I was unable to attend because of my duties as a NAD’s vlogger with my full schedule.
I met with Mr. Commerson and told him how much I regretted missing his presentation and was hoping if he could offer me a very brief summary about his presentation. Mr. Commerson was extremely gracious by giving his valuable time away from his schedule to have me view his video on his Macbook.
I told Ryan, “Why am I going to watch this video? I was only asking for a brief summary. Mmm..”
Ryan said, “Amy, press the button and watch this video.”
I did.
I must say this that I am truly honored to be able to view this video.
After watching his video, I cried, jumped up and down with joy and screamed throughout this video,
“THIS IS IT! That is a perfect way to present this information to everyone about what does it mean to be DEAF!”
I told Mr. Commerson that this video is a GEM! I made some suggestions how to promote his work in the national and international levels, which he did!
Ryan explained to me that he partnered with Wayne Betts,
who is one of the founders of Mosdeux.
Commerson and Betts worked together to make this video possible and they announced the website just now. The website is called: Mos International.com and please go…
no.. no… RUN, RUN…
to this website and watch this uncanny video that will blow away your mind and senses. This video will make you THINK.
I will write up a brief review of this video after this posting sometime soon.
Best,
Amy Cohen Efron
October 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am
thanks soo much for your update on many deaf movie i am happy about it smile
October 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am
1 Chronicles 4 verse 9 thru 10
October 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I viewed entire movie in that website. Two THUMPS up big time. He talked is making a brilliant sense. All of you know, right now we have thousands to millions or more ever on video logs in entire world so they can see who we are. Also there is diversity what we are in video. We need to work with MEDIA CENTER for better change.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Amy….
WOW! That is the most powerful! My hubby and I really loved it and felt more empowered. We kept nodding our heads at several points that Ryan made. He has hit the target each time!
That should be shown to the whole world! I can’t wait for it to come out with subtitles for hearing people to view it since I do want to share that with my hearing friends, family and relatives.
Misha
October 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
A good idea to use it as thesis. An excellent movie and re-definition of D-E-A-F. I learned something new from it. Thanks for sharing.
October 25th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Ryan Commerson is a Godsend! He has a depth of knowledge and intellectual vigor in philosophy, psychology, sociology, a deep sense of understanding about what drives or forces people — even without a
Ph.D. degree. I have always admired Ryan Commerson
since Day One which was when he was on a hunger
strike in Michigan.
I have joined his group today. I hope that DeafReaders
will join, too.
October 25th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Mr. Ray Commerson did a good job in his video and it gave me plenty of food for thought. Although he did not use the word, his presentation does remind me of how propaganda operates.
I find it a bit ironic that he mentioned and used the doctrine of Ferdinand de Saussure in his video. The influence of Mr. Saussure on linguistics is one of the main reasons why signed languages were not recognized as true language for the most of 20th century. That he mentioned it in his video surprised me but then, it was his own business in deciding how he wanted to tell his view.
Still, it was a good video, more thought provoking than “The Legend of the Mountain Man” that I watched last night.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
You went to National Association of the Deaf conference in New Orleans, Louisiana and you watched on “Re-defining D-E-A-F” film in summer.
I am surprised that you already know what the definition of Deaf is because you never talk to the audience for almost 4 months. Why don’t you bring up Re- defining D-E-A-F in your vlog in August?
October 25th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Responding to ChrisH first…
I went to the conference as well as many other people had went. Several people have seen Ryan’s presentation.
The reason why I didn’t bring this up in August because I did not have an access to his video for me to vlog about, until recently, Ryan alerted me via Facebook that there is a website up and running, then I presented my vlog about this.
I left a video comment on DeafVideo.TV a while ago about Ryan’s presentation as well.
Now, it is a good time for everyone to see the video done by Ryan Commerson and Wayne Betts.
Hope that answered to your question, Chris.
Thank you,
Amy Cohen Efron
October 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I must reassure you and other viewers of Ryan Commerson’s film that Prof. Dr. Dirksen-H.
Bauman is much more knowledgeable about the
aforementioned Ferdinand de Saussure. Ryan
is lucky to have been associated with him.
October 25th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Defending Amy. Reply to comment nbr 8, ChrisH
October 25th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Champ! MUST SEE is a right word! Bravo! Bravo! Thanks to you, Ryan, Wayne, actresses, actors and crews! Great job! Very powerful and deep thoughts. What can we do about D-E-A-F? POSITIVE IMAGES! Yes! Yes!
Bob
October 25th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I want to provide two points that are not compatible with the assurance as claimed by Ms. Jean Boutcher (comment number 10).
A key point that is not mentioned in the video on the subject of the dyadic relationship between signifier and signified is that the relationship must be arbitrary, according to the doctrine of Ferdinand de Saussure. Because some signs in signed languages are strongly iconic, they were not recognized as true language for very long period of time. The requirement of arbitrariness in Mr. Saussure’s dyadic model of sign is a major obstacle to the path of recognizing signed languages as true language. It is only the recent one or two decades that some linguists started to admit that some signs in the languages, both spoken and signed, are iconic and this is enough to contradict Mr. Saussure’s requirement of arbitrariness.
Second point is that the model of sign as presented by Mr. Saussure is not the only model available to understand the process of meaning. The book, “The Handbook of Semiotics” by Winfried Noth, covers many different models on the meaning. Basically, there are two major groups based on relationship: Dyadic and triadic relationships. I don’t know if Mr. Ray Commerson did research on different models of meaning but if he did, his reason for choosing Mr. Saussure’s model over other models especially when the former does more harm to signed languages than other models is still not known, at least to me.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Wish the film showed more of what Itard wrote in 1821 about the “discovery” (sign language)….can we get a translated page or two of that journal to understand the context of what Itard was thinking about signs?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:52 am
I ran. I fell. I was floored!
New Knowledge…
New Identities…
New Meanings…
That says it all.
Thanks for sharing.
~ LaRonda
October 26th, 2008 at 4:11 am
We, all LOVE that movie and idea. We SUPPORT them 100%.
But… Sad to say. Deaf character = NOT a marketable idea in real business world.
ASL courses went high 432%, because of VRS, Interpreter jobs (which is HOT MARKET - NOT for deaf cultures or anything in deaf community, they just want to get GOOD jobs after they graduated. That is all).
If they want to win this world and hollywood / media giants. They need millions of dollars! Think about audience!!!! in this world. Forget about deaf population! It is too TINY or even doesn’t exist in the big market.
Look at other deaf-made movies. They are depending on single VRS corporation sponsorship. How pity! Too long way to reach Hollywood level.
I don’t mean to insult or put negatives on this. It’s just the fact we face this real world. We need DEAF billioniare elite to do something and take ACTIONS.
Wake up!
Dan
October 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hi Dan!
October 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Amy’s pet peeve BUT
October 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Thank you very much for sharing that with us. Great! A part of the video also helped me get an idea what to write some papers for my psychology class.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Ecnarb and Jon,
Cool! I agreed with you all. I hate “BUTs” and “CAN’Ts” too.
At the same time. I hate seeing another deaf-movie flopped like other deaf-movies (They just got from VRS funds which is $100-50K). How pity!
I am just concerned about the facts. I am working with some hollywood producers and directors, even the movie investors - my relatives. Revenues are their MAJOR FACTORS. So they can get profits from movies. Not from deaf movie-goers and Not from ASL students (hearing). Minimum of 2 million movie-goers per day. They need to WIN HEARING audience and Hollywood HEARING actor / actress (budget of $10-20 million).
Now. I have nothing more to say..
Just keep their good jobs up! Good luck!
Dan
October 26th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Joseph Pietro Riolo,
I also watched the same movie (“Legend of the Mountain Man”) last night. Were you in Danvers, a little north of Boston to watch it?
Apropos Saussure’s definition (to label it as a ‘doctrine’ is too strong for me) of languagehood of a communication system in Posting #13: Not only arbitrariness was a requirement, but also that a human language must be spoken. This requirement is what supported oralism and denies the sign language of the deaf its languagehood. Arbitrariness was also used against sign language, especially in the ascertation of sign language being primitive, limited, lacking a grammar, unable to express abstract ideas and logic. I am of the view that the criterion of speech was politically much stronger than that of arbitrariness to the disadvantage of deaf people. Thank god, the arbitrariness requirement has been relativized. Right now, the speech criterion is no longer valid thanks to the existence of sign language itself, our contribution to knowledge of human culture and humanity!
To Dan in posting #20: Why are you using past tense “I agreed”? Do you no longer agree?
I have yet to view Ryan Cumerson’s video.
Hartmut
October 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
amy, ryan does not need any endorsement. his work ’speaks volumes’ on its own. your throwing in an ‘endorsement’ appears to be somewhat narcissistic.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Alexa,
You made an excellent point, and I have replaced the word, from endorse to introduce.
Yes, RC’s work does speak volumes on its own and I am in a full agreement what you said that the word can be very misleading and inappropriate.
Thank you for this valuable feedback, Alexa.
Amy Cohen Efron
October 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
The Experience Economy ISBN 0 87584 819 2
October 26th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Hartmut’s comment (comment number 21) is another matter that Mr. Ray Commerson has to look at. I have very little knowledge that Ferdinand de Saussure placed some emphasis on aural form of communication. For example, according to the book “Handbook of Semiotics” by Winfried Noth (it is available at Google’s Book Search), one of the design features of language is acoustic manifestation (page 59 in the book). It is not clear to me if he intended it to be the only form of communication that is allowed for language. Hartmut seems to know more about it than I do. In any way, I do appreciate some education from Hartmut.
(To Hartmut, I watched the movie at Scranton, Pennsylvania last Friday. I mentioned the movie to express my relative opinion on the video.)
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I could not access the video on Mösdeux website. I therefore don’t know what Commerson has said in the film, if he has also mentioned Saussure’s requirement of sound and speech for languagehood.
This requirement is much more sinister. It may have started with the audistic interpretation of St.Paul’s “fides ex auditu” (”Faith comes from hearing”). St.Paul may have spoken of the ability to receive the word of God and hearing happens to be the only means of receiving word for about 99% of the population. No one knows if St.Paul also meant to say that deaf people are incapable of faith. 300 years later, St.Augustine did say in his early writings that deaf people are incapable of it. But he later changed this to say that, after hearing a report of a Martha Vineyard’s like situation in a village or two in Italy and seeing two deaf persons in Milan conversing in signs, deaf people are indeed capable of receiving faith through sign language. But the audism in many readers of St.Augustine encouraged them to read only the first and to ignore his change of opinion.
Later on, language philosophers and linguists reiterated the importance of aural/oral aspects of human communication and added other requirements, apparently because they wanted to exclude sign language because of the iconicity in many signs. (Some of them also said that reading requires speech or knowledge of the sound system of the language.) The requirements are called “design features of language”. Two of those design features are important enough to give trouble to the languagehood of sign language: arbitrariness and duality of patterning. W.C. Stokoe needed first to show that ASL does meet these two requirements and came up with an inventory of a finite set of cheremes (later renamed to phonemes) to show the duality of patterning in ASL. Even the fact that iconicity can be recognized in a number of signs and movement morphemes, it plays no role in the structure of ASL. Saussure’s “highest degree of arbitrariness” need to be relativized to “sufficiently arbitrary”.
Saussure received criticism by another language philosopher Jacques Derrida, calling his theory “phonocentrism”. We could make this word a synonym of “audism”, because audism also centers in the value of hearing as being the motivator of a systematic and institutionalized set of behaviors toward deaf people.
Noone here has said anything what is being newly defined to the word “deaf” beyond the ethnic designation, which permits the capitalization to “Deaf” according to the English orthography. I suspect what Commerson wanted to encourage us to live 100% Deaf, with all our soul and to proclaim Deaf as a value. This sentiment can be expressed by a few slogans
“To be Deaf that is the question”
“Nothing is wrong being deaf”
“I am deaf, but not my ears” (I challenge you to interpret this oxymoron)
“To your deafhood!” (as a toast)
“Be Deaf!” (instead of “Be well!” in greeting or letter closing)
“Enjoy being deaf!”
“Surdo ergo sum” or “I am deaf, therefore/ergo I am”
“Humanity to be wholly human needs the existence of Deaf people”
“Deafness is nature-given” (or “godgiven” for some religious people)
God spoke to Moses “Have I not made one deaf or mute? I being your G-d?” (See Exodus, 4-11)
“To be deaf is as natural as is green for a tree.”
Ciao, be Deaf!
Hartmut
October 28th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Mr. Ray Commerson only mentioned the name of Ferdinand de Saussure and used his definition of (semiotical) sign in term of dyadic relationship (signifier and signified) to explain how people attach the meaning/concept/idea/image to the word. (Also, he mentioned very briefly that he was the father of linguistics.) So, the theme of the video is to change the meaning/concept/idea/image (change the meaning of deaf) while the word remains the same (the word “deaf” itself remains the same) through the process of reconstitutive representation, if I recall the words correctly. That is all he said about Mr. Saussure.
My reason for bringing it up is that the mention of Mr. Saussure and the usage of his definition are so discordant with the whole picture of Mr. Commerson’s presentation that I found it very ironic. What I am trying to say is that his presentation is to improve the prestige of signed languages but mentioning Mr. Saussure and using his definition is anticlimax precisely because his influence is responsible for denying signed languages the status of language.
To Hartmut, I learned a lot from you about Mr. Saussure’s bias toward aural. Do you by any chance have the list of references where you got information about his bias? If so, can you mail it to me privately or post it here? If not, that is okay. I don’t have a good habit of keeping the list of references for myself.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Hartmut,
It is refreshing to read two comments like yours. I know that the blogger and many commenters above feel the same about your two comments, for one of the commenters constantly talks down down down some bloggers and commenters as if he were the all-knowing person and others are wrong.
Now to Exodus 4.11, I have always regarded Moses as a man who lacked the oratory skills, but some people interpret the verse and say that Moses had speech impedient. Most unlikely due to multiple mistranslations.
Please visit DeafRead and comment or even blog as often as you can, Hartmut,
Before closing, I will say, I am deaf; therefore, I exist!
Salut!
October 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Jean Boutcher,
how did you learn that Moses only lacked oratory skills? Who taught you so?
Moses is known to have a speech impediment. But some interpreted it as “lacking oratory skills” - a kind of denial. There are different stories of how Moses got the impediment. For me, the denial of speech impediment is more interesting. It shows the audistic mentality behind the commentators. They simply did not want to entertain the notion of Moses having a physical imperfection.
If you read further down in Chapter 4 of Exodus, you will find Moses’ brother Aaron serving as his interpreter. So Moses was leading the Jewish nation by using an interpreter! The ten Commandments was brought to the Western Civilization via an interpreter! Alas this was not shown in Cecile de Mille’s movie. Howie Seago should have played Moses instead of Charlton Heston. GRIN
October 30th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Riolo, thanks for giving a few more details of Commerson’s video. Do you remember what he said is being new in the “redefinition” of ‘deaf’. Anything different “new” from what Carol Padden has written?
You are right, mentioning Saussure in the context of sign language is anti-climactic. The aural/oral bias in the definition of what is language is much older than Saussure. The principal deniers of languagehood of sign language, the oralists, preexisted him by around 150 years.
I read Saussure mostly indirectly. So I don’t know if he ever discussed sign language and took it into consideration when he introduced the design features to define a language. Other linguists after him said the same thing that language ought to be sound-based: Sapir, Bloomfield and Hockett, who proposed 16 design features for language. The first design feature is the aural/oral requirement. I believe, these names is in the Handbook of Semiotics by W. Noth, you referenced.
Thinking further on this, I don’t think that linguists’ pronouncing that a lanuguage must be sound-based was done out of prejudice against sign language. They may have thought that what deaf people use in their communication may simply be too different from French, English, Chinese, etc. to compare. They were too focused on the spoken languages. It is probable, they have not said that this communication of the deaf is inferior to spoken language. Only the French language philosopher Chondriac who witnessed the public demonstrations of de l’Epee mentioned concreteness in Jean Massieu and speculated that sign language may have this weakness.
Hartmut