All The Young Dudes

Tales Of The Deafhood - Misunderstanding the Concept of Deafhood

February 29th, 2008 | No Comments | Posted in Blogging/ Vidblogging, Communication, Culture, Deafhood, Tales Of The Deafhood, Technology

MM, in his latest post, Ancient & Modern, rightly points out that much has already been said about “deafhood”. I’m not going to take him to task over what he says, because it wouldn’t achieve anything. However, there are few points that I want to pull up for discussion, because I consider them important for discussion and understanding. Starting with the misunderstood term, Deafhood.

The term Deafhood is much maligned one. As I have said in a previous post, Tales Of The Deafhood - Deaf Communities Part One, DEAFHOOD, is not prescriptive in its definition. Paddy has offered up the term as a starting point with which we DEAFIES and deafies can use to explore how WE see ourselves and OUR place in the world. More to the point, how we can derive at a definition of ourselves that does not rely on [without resorting to] Hearing people or the Hearing view of deafness, for us to measure ourselves against.

Understanding Deafhood is not just about references to the past. It is also about understanding the present and how the two are related. If you wish to understand the present, you really do need to understand the history. This applies to Deaf and deaf people, as much as it applies to the status of Women, Gays, Disabled people, why wars happen, why conflicts are so protracted, et al.

Anybody who has given or received undergone counselling, will know that to understand the present, you need to understand the past. You can not grow as a person, if you don’t understand or acknowledge what is holding you back. The person you are now, is not just the product of your life as it is in the present, but heavily influenced by factors, both positive and negative, in your past.

The trouble with MM’s style, is that he asks some good questions, but uses smoke and mirrors, to deflect any meaningful responses, Especially, if they probe too deeply. He could contribute meaningfully to this debate, but he chooses not to. That’s his prerogative. But this post, like much of his criticisms of Deaf and Deaf culture, are an example, of the need to understand and acknowledge effects the past has on the present.

So, to answer MM’s question, Milan and A G Bell, are very much relevant to the ongoing dialogue of deafness. Read my previous critiques of Paddy Ladd’s book, the linx which can be found at the end of this post.

None of us come into this life unencumbered. From the point of conception, there are forces at work that will help determine the person you will become. From the moment you start to exercise your free will. You will be encumbered by a variety influences and forces that will conspire to shape you in both negative and positive ways. That will haunt or empower you.

DeafRead is no more a uniter of Deaf and deaf people, than Slashdot, Yahoo, Google and DIGG unites hearing people. What DeafRead is not a community, nor is it a forum. It is a blog and vlog aggregator that allows people to promote their work to a wider audience. It will no more define the Deaf and deaf community, than Slashdot, Yahoo, Google and DIGG defines the hearing community.

The internet, or Cyberspace if you like, is building on some previously established patterns of communication [and global interaction] that Deaf and deaf people have been using. To an obvious example, the chat or Instant Messenger programs, of which the TTY/ Minicom can be rightly seen as a precursor. Then there is the blog, which is supplanting email discussion lists, and it’s visual brethren, the vlog [or v-blog]; and let’s not forget the humble webcam, which in turn supplants the video letter, use of text, and makes video conferencing accessible. What started out as a games platform and word processing machine, has become a multimedia and communication centre.

DeafRead is aggregator. It publishes links to various blogs and vlogs. Which in turn link to various other sources of information, fact and opinion. But it does not mean we are any more a community online, than we are offline. It is more accurate to say that it reflects the diversity of cultures, opinion, personalities and clashes of the real world Deaf and deaf communities.

Media Watch: Deaf Militancy, Protesting, and The Deaf Community

February 28th, 2008 | 35 Comments | Posted in Communication, Culture, Media Watch, Politics

Living DownUnda, I can’t profess to know all the details of the protest that Der Sankt of Bucket of Crabs is criticising. But as an avid reader of news from around the world, I am familiar with the style of arguments that Potato, Coconut, MM@TheRim, and other writers employ in their criticism of Deaf actions [some better than others]. Der Sankt is going to have to do better than this, Stupid = Deaf people??, cross posted at Stupid = Deaf People??if he wants to convince us of the veracity of this claim that protests and militancy are not appropriate methods for action.

I will list some of the problems inherent in this post Stupid = Deaf people??, to illustrate some of the common tactics that they employ:

The title of the piece, Stupid = Deaf people?? is a dead giveaway that the post will be a personal rant. Not a credible report or analysis.
The target of criticism is always the Deaf community. The deaf community, are too busy letter writing, and drinking tea at committee meetings to bother protesting.
Lack of [hard analysis] of the situation. Der Sankt presents no facts, except for some links to reports.
It is merely an opinion piece by someone who is clearly embarrassed by the actions of other members of the community. Not someone with a credible gripe.
His statement, “As a member of the Deaf community, I feel that we are responsible for the hearing world’s reaction and thoughts towards the Deaf community..” plays the “Blame The Victim” game.
The actual news coverage he links to, are two paragraph affairs that say nothing other than that the head honcho doesn’t sign, and that the right to protest is being quashed.
Belittling sign language as a valid reason worth fighting for.
Undying belief that diplomacy is the best course of action [in some situations, I agree. But quite often, if you know your history, diplomacy feeds you bread crumbs, direct action excites revolutionary change].
Accusing the Deaf community of being immature.
Equates protests and militancy with immaturity and diplomacy with maturity [arched eyebrow].
The belief or insinuation that “our” militant actions and protests [among others] hurt us as Deaf people more than the hearing world ever could. Basically we shouldn’t rock the boat.

This manner of debate is quite common among Deaf people, at least in my experience. I agree that one should choose their tactics judiciously, in other words employ street smarts and guerrilla warfare tactics. Use the the face of a diplomat by all means. Smile when you kick them in the balls. They will love you for it. But there is no need for the bullshit, that currently pervades many an opinion piece. If a Deaf person’s confidence, self esteem, and belief in the Deaf community are unshakeable, then they wouldn’t resort to the actions listed above. They would not need to be embarrassed by other peoples actions.

A Critique Of A Book That The Critic Never Read: Indiana Ladd and the search for Deafhood

February 27th, 2008 | 3 Comments | Posted in Culture, Deafhood, Politics, Tales Of The Deafhood

It is all very well to have an opinion. That is your right and that is my right. It is all very well to behave like a troll. That is your right and that is my right. But mere opinion does not credibility make. As we have seen with Deaf Militancy and the so called Oppression Of CI users, uninformed opinion, lack of analysis, and a historical awareness, gets in the way of understanding and building bridges. Not only that, opinion that makes no attempt whatsoever to cultivate an informed nuance, analysis and historical awareness, and instead prefers to breed in the murky waters of, “That’s what I think. Period.”, that encapsulates trolled vanity. In which case, all that is important, is that one is heard, and one is seen to being engaged in debate, without actually engaging in debate.

The Last Crusade [Indiana Ladd and the search for Deafhood?],is another prime example of trolled vanity. The author is well known in UK circles - email lists, forums, and blogs. He is famous, or infamous, as the case may be, for pushing his opinion with an invitation to respond, only to obfuscate, shift the terms of the debate, miss the point, avoid the question, or respond with yet more questions when people respond. He is always on the attack, whenever Deafness is portrayed in a positive light, or that anybody dares suggests that there is a Deaf culture. There are other mitigating factors that further convolutes the dialogue. Namely, his inability to accept his deafness.

I know that deafness provides us with challenges, I know there are difficulties in our relationship with the hearing world, and I know that deafness affects people in different ways. What I do not appreciate, is Deaf people becoming punching bags for deaf people who simply cannot entertain the notion that Deaf is good. Who feel they have been cast a drift from the hearing world, that they seek someone to blame. And that someone to blame is the Deaf community.

I have reproduced his post below for you all to read, and you can make your own judgements. But there are a number of problems with the post [its reasoning], and just about everything he writes, the main one being, blaming the victim. Perpetually stuck in victim mode, with no nod to progressive ideas as to what it means to be Deaf.

First off the bat though, is the total dismissal of Paddy Ladd’s work, and the much maligned concept of Deafhood, that is the opening paragraph. Add to that, the trivialisation of the Stop Eugenics campaign. Invalidation by trivialisation. He then proceeds to ask numerous questions, provides no answers, makes assumptions, all written in the style beloved by the gutter press. Word usage that illustrates no understanding or appreciation of the concepts being bandied about. Shows no insight into the relationship between issues. No appreciation of cause and effect. No historical understanding. No nuanced analysis. Only opting to blame the victim, that is, Deaf people for all our current ills. Going as far, as to blame Deaf people for the strained relationships they have with the hearing world.

The problem is, his writing is framed in such a way, as to disallow a bipartisan siding. In other words, if you agree with him that Deaf people may lack self confidence, you may also find that you are agreeing to the idea that they are totally to blame for their problems. It is black and white, with no shades of grey. The Last Crusade [Indiana Ladd and the search for Deafhood?], taps right into the fears that hearing people have about deafness. Instead of assuaging those fears, MM demolishes any last vestiges of positivism, and all that is left is total despair [I'm being hyperbolic here I know].

He offers no answers of his own.

Indiana Ladd and the search for Deafhood?

Emperor’s new clothes ? confused ramblings ? the first deaf bible ? A last ditch stand by a diminishing community to re-invent itself against the onslaught of Cochlear Implantation, removal of the deaf base (Deaf schools), challenges to British Sign Language, reputed to be in decline, and recently Eugenics issues to ‘ensure’ no more deaf are in the next generations, whilst also apparently failing to convince anyone outside the deaf community there is much positive about being deaf to make it worth preserving.. ? You decide.

Have the hard-core sectors of deaf activism, contributed to the negativity surrounding deafness ? Attacks on Oral deaf, Who is really deaf and isn’t ? The right or worng way to communicate ? constricting the deaf world so immersion and integration is impossible, launching access campaigns that won’t be taken up by most who prefer to stay as they are in a minority area and only with other deaf like them ? Catch 22, you move out or stay Isolated, Martha’s Vineyard was a prime example surely ? when a road out emerged, the community vastly diminished, unable to ‘compete’ with a wider world outside it.

There are the Deaf versus deaf “wars”, where the medical versus the Social models, continue to divide us into contentious and polarized camps. Yet, it may well be unless these two camps unite deaf culture could fail, certainly continue to struggle, because support and cohesion within the deaf community is failing badly, who else but other ‘deaf’ are going to have any sort of empathy ? If the ‘Deaf’ community would be honest with itself, it PREFERS to be with their own kind, while that is a right or preference, what does it offer future generations ? Isolation and secularization of deaf people ? More of the same ?

To raise access and awareness issue, suggests deafhood is counter-productive, making a virtue of the Isolation, indeed, re-branding it, a culture that omits (In the UK), near 9 million people with hearing loss. Those prevented or attacked for wanting alleviations or CI’s, or prefer oralism, from thus being part of the ‘culture’ are then not going to add any of their weight behind the ‘Deaf’ are they ? They are going to join hearing in the drive to get rid of deafness, acquired deaf in the fore front, because while they do cope with their deafness, they’d rather NOT be deaf either.They are increasingly taking on cultural deaf who attack them for being medically oriented, and who use weapons like “Sad people not coming to terms with deafness”, “Losers’”, or “discriminators against deaf culture and its members”. It’s heady and heated stuff ! It seems the twain will not meet, when one wants in to deaf culture, and the other wants out of deafness altogether, compromise seems almost impossible. There are those who feel Paddy Ladd offers deaf nothing but more of the same, but at least more glitz…. lauding deaf culture as a stand alone entity not needing to be part of anything else. A sort of quest for the holy grail re-write…. it fails generally because there is no clarifications of the deaf, who they really are, just adding confusion and vagueness to fill the gaps…and the deliberate omissions of acquired deaf input to the whole thing, despite using much of their input as basis….

This is cultural suicide in real terms, since it demands the rest of mainstream/society foot the Bill, then butt out, it doesn’t work that way. In the United Kingdom Integration and Access is the stated aim, to that end they will close off areas where deafness is secularized, they want deaf people out there and included (Don’t WE ?). Obviously we would prefer to see more actual proof they are doing it ! but the aim is clear, inclusion doesn’t fit in with this Deafhood, since there is no quest for a Deaf ID with most…..

The bottom line is always going to be the whole thing rests on being deaf, a sensory deprivation, research as we all know is attacking deafness daily, and even major deaf groups like the RNID are stating £16b is too high a cost for being deaf and HI in the UK, and others too, we aren’t cost effective ! and they want deaf groups to actively promote medical research into ridding the world of deafness, a set donation set aside by all to treat deafness as a medical issue, yep that from deaf groups.

Promotion of deaf culture and its maintenance and protection has the same bottom line, it HAS to promote being deaf as a right and ‘virtue’, since eradication would destroy it, but it will never justify this to the hearing world, they have not convinced 9 million HI either….

Co-existence is one argument used, but in deaf terms do we really see that ? It’s a parallel society meeting only at points where contact with the system is inevitable, even then to do it via a 3rd party. Do deaf understand the realities of access and integration and what they have to do to make it really work ? If they believe they cannot be equal via integration then this is not a concept many are willing to go with. It is a test as to if deaf culture can survive as a stand-alone thing, OUTSIDE the deaf community, and if a closed community can offer deaf people any advance…..if they have faith in their culture, surely it will ?

Is not the problem, the deaf community lacks confidence in itself….? Continuing to make attacks on mainstream/hearing/and the ‘deaf’ are not going to help it at all is it ?

Sphere: Related Content

Can It Be A Good Thing To Be Deaf?

February 24th, 2008 | 9 Comments | Posted in Culture, Research, Studies

Rachel Cooper is a hearing philosopher who penned a paper on the subject of deafness. The paper is titled, CAN IT BE A GOOD THING TO BE DEAF?, and it attempts to answer the question, Can It Be A Good Thing To Be Deaf? Now, you and I, would already consider that question answered. Hosed and dusted. When I say you and I, I do mean those of us who identify as Deaf with a capital D, and who do not consider ourselves disabled. However, there are those who beg to differ. Like the deaf and the hearing. Well, that’s life! [shrug]

Still, the topic peaked my interest and I wanted to see what Rachel had to say on the subject, and if she had anything new to add to the debate.

I have to admit though, my initial response was “Whaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttt?” and words like inconsistent, obfuscation, moving goal posts, and trust a hearing person to write this, rent my morning stupor. Luckily, I had a nice long walk [as one does, when one doesn't drink herbal teas, or have partner who will imbibe them with more pleasant thoughts upon waking]. The long walk allowed me to stomp out all the caustic thoughts I was ready to pen in rebuttal. Seriously, I was planning to re-read the essay [for my own credibility, if nothing else] before pulling ideas out of thin air [as many do] and pen [well, type] a more measured response.

Upon re-reading, the paper made a lot more sense, and I could see where Rachel was coming from. In her own words:

Increasingly, Deaf activists claim that it can be good to be Deaf. Still, much of the hearing world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of deafness in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be deaf it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being deaf, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being deaf may plausibly be a good thing for some deaf people but not for others.

The above premise is a laudable aim. One which I’m not convinced that she successfully achieved. Her overall conclusion, “I conclude that being deaf may plausibly be a good thing for some deaf people but not for others.” to answer is rather lame. It feeds into the divisiveness of the various methods used to deal with deafness. It shifts accountability for the status of Deaf and deaf people from the hearing world and onto ‘deafness’.

While the question itself, CAN IT BE A GOOD THING TO BE DEAF? is a superfluous one, it still needs to be asked. Time and time again, because successive degenerations [pun intended] of hearing people still go “Duh!” when confronted with the conundrum that is deafness. [Sorry couldn't resist that barb!] Because of the ignorance of Deaf history, and the hegemony of the disability model still reigns supreme, newly deafened people, deaf, and Deaf people just coming out, often have no barometer by which to measure themselves, other than the disability model.

The paper CAN IT BE A GOOD THING TO BE DEAF? serves up a myriad angles, that are worthwhile for hearies and deafies to exercise their brains over. It is equally beneficial for us Deafies to grapple with them too - the issues raised in the paper I mean.

Like I said, the question is a superfluous one, and one that has already been answered. I know being Deaf is good. Let’s get on with life!

It’s a lot like the question of homosexuality actually. The only people really obsessed with homosexuality is heterosexuals themselves. “Why are you Gay?” “When did you become Gay?” “Were you abused as child?” and that’s not touching upon social, cultural and religious vilification issues. And so it is with Deafness. Why? Why? Why? Why, in……………..deed!

To highlight the superfluity of the question, what if we substituted Gay, Woman, Black, or other minority group for deaf?

Increasingly, Gay activists claim that it can be good to be Gay. Still, much of the heterosexual world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of homosexuality in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be Gay it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being Gay, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being Gay may plausibly be a good thing for some Gay people but not for others.

Increasingly, Women claim that it can be good to be Women Still, much of the world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of Women in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be a Woman it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being a Woman, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being a Woman may plausibly be a good thing for some Women people but not for others.

Increasingly, Black activists claim that it can be good to be Black. Still, much of the hearing world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of Blackness in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be Black it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being Black, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being Black may plausibly be a good thing for some Black people but not for others.

But the following premise is never put forth:

Increasingly, Hearing people claim that it can be good to be Hearing. Still, much of the Deaf world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of Hearingness in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be Hearing it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being Hearing, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being Hearing may plausibly be a good thing for some Hearing people but not for others.

I get exasperated when treading familiar ground presents findings that reinforces the dominant viewpoint. If I were a hearing a parent reading Rachel’s premise as quoted above, I would take that as evidence that my individualised solution to dealing with my child’s deafness is right. Of course, Rachel’s paper isn’t that simplistic, but I’m not convinced though, that the paper poses any direct challenge to hearing people’s perceptions of deafness, let alone the question, “What is normal?” I don’t think she goes far enough. Her language is not forceful enough. Where I might say, “Well, it so. Here’s why!”, I can see hearing people go, “Yeah, but! Yeah, but!”

Then again, my complaint that the paper doesn’t pose any direct challenges, or that the language is not forceful enough, is more to do with my preference for a heated rhetoric, foaming mouth, champing at the bit, ready to wreak havoc and administer justice, style of debate. Thumping the lectern and throwing out the Bible!

Sure, Rachel’s paper forced me to consider deafness from a philosophical point of view, and to consider it dispassionate detachment. I did enjoy re-reading the paper. But it is hard to deal dispassionately with something that I consider to be an intrinsic part of me. Though, dispassionate debate and argument in the d/Deaf sphere is in short supply. The hearies generally aren’t much better. Their general approach is rarely dispassionate or objective [then again, not every Hearing person can be a Harlan Lane can they?]

Yes, there is much to savor in Rachel’s paper, and I don’t feel that I’m doing her paper justice [her conclusions notwithstanding]. In her discussion of the five senses. She shows how their value fluctuates according to circumstances. For example, while to hear may be good thing, too much sound can be detrimental. Living near the railroad tracks as opposed to living in quieter suburban streets. Another interesting take, is her description of the problems between the deaf and the hearing worlds as relational.

Rather than the communication problems stemming from the child’s inability to hear, or from her parents’ inability to sign, the communication problems suffered by deaf people are relational problems - the problem stems from the fact that the child cannot hear coupled with the fact that her parents cannot sign. As such, the communication difficulties of deaf people can be solved either by hearing people learning sign language, or, potentially, through altering the deaf person (e.g. through cochlear implantation).

Still, the crux of the matter lies in the conclusions she draws. While I understand the reasoning, I simply don’t agree. Rachel’s conclusions do not state outright that being deaf is good. She states that whether it is a good or bad thing to be deaf is hard to determine [arched eyebrow] and that the value of being Deaf/ deaf, relies on the weight of its advantages or disadvantages in a given circumstance. That is all very well, but I can’t help shaking the feeling that the larger question of hearing peoples perceptions of deafness and the role those views and perceptions play in the determination that deaf is good, is largely ignored.

I do recommend that you read, Can It Be a Good Thing to Be Deaf?

ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY:

Response To Amy’s Vlog Response On Militant Thinking
Are Parents of Deaf Babies Fully Informed of Choices?
British Sign Language in decline..

Adversity and…the audacity of hope?

Deafhood and Education

Sphere: Related Content

Tales Of The Deafhood - Oral Vs Deaf

February 23rd, 2008 | No Comments | Posted in Communication, Culture, Identity, Personal Development, Politics

I meant to post a response to CAN IT BE A GOOD THING TO BE DEAF?, but recent visits to various forums, and reading of blogs, forced me to repsond with this post. I know I am repeating myself, and at times I feel like I’m bashing my head against a brick wall, but this particular issue never dies. Which I’m sure many of you will agree. The issue I am referring to, is never ending the tensions that exists between deaf and Deaf people. The reasons for this so called war, and tensions, are not what people commonly believe them to be.

Whenever people gather to discuss and debate issues about deafness, the responses often betray other underlying issues, which propel the debates into slanging matches, avoiding the issue being discussed, shifting of the goalposts, ignorance, superficial analysis, refusal to engage the questions asked, and outright dishonesty.

The tensions that are continually being played out, are not the result of two opposing camps, with two opposing views. They are the direct result of hearing hegemony [or control and influence if you like] in deaf and Deaf peoples lives. The medical model of deafness. This is underlying cause of tensions between, and the wedge that divides, deaf and Deaf people.

If you really step back and analyse the dialogue between deaf and Deaf people, you will notice that issues like poor self esteem, poor education, low literacy, disenfranchisement, disengagement from society, fear, late onset of deafness, unable to deal with life change, confused identity, and even sexuality and gender, are being played under the guise of choice in communication methods, the right to choose the best methods, use of technology, parental rights, and a morbid fear of being an outsider, all of which have very real detrimental effects.

Let’s face it, the oral program is alive and well. Built on the medical model that decrees that we shall be fixed, and that the precious gift of eharing will be ours to savor. It uses technology to hide behind. Sometimes it is very blatant, such as the cochlear implant, and sometimes it is more subtle, such as in communication choices [or more facetiously, giving the inexperienced child the wither all to make a choice, when it is impossible to make an informed choice if they are exposed to one or two methods!]

It is a common re-occurrence, throughout all the forums I visit, such as The Tower Of Babble, and the blogs I read, such as, At The Rim. The reasons why I write. Deaf People’s Oppression of CI People? Give Over!, MEDIA WATCH: DeafRead and Oppression?, Does Deaf Militancy Really Destroy Sign Language [ASL] and Deaf Community, MEDIA WATCH: A G Bell Letter [The Original Letter], and in my continuing Tales Of The DeafHood series, are part of my own desires to clarify the issues. Both for myself and others. I write to better understand the forces that drive deaf and Deaf people. To better understand the forces that work to divide us. AND TO CRY FOUL, when organisations such as A G Bell, try to bluff, bluster, and bullshit.

In many ways, the dialogues between Deaf and deaf people, are very much like the dialogue between the right wing and the left wing. The right wings, the more extreme and nuttier they are, the less credible and more rabid their arguments are. There is little or no serious analyst or thought that goes into their viewpoints. This is what I seriously think of the oral, people of the little d camp. This leaves us little old lefties, the people of the big D. Even there though, more thought needs to go into opinions expressed.

Our debates are not really about the best communication methods, or best means of education, or the right to choose, or any other insinuation of choice and the right to self determination. They are really about belonging [which is what we all desire and is perfectly natural] and a morbid fear of difference, being different, and being seen as different.

The oralies, as exemplified by A G Bell, see the signing Deaf as the personification of that very difference they wish to avoid, so the signing become a target for their fears and frustrations. The Deaf camp on the other hand, view the oralies, the sole preserve of the select few, from which they, the Deaf, have been excluded, rejected and forgotten. So, the oralies become targets for their fears and frustrations. To cap it all off, both camps have to deal with the frigging hearing world.

We are all fighting the same battle to find ourselves and our place in the world. It is just that one method is more holistic than the other!

Tales Of The Deafhood - Misunderstanding the Concept of Deafhood

Media Watch: Deaf Militancy, Protesting, and The Deaf Community

A Critique Of A Book That The Critic Never Read: Indiana Ladd and the search for Deafhood

Can It Be A Good Thing To Be Deaf?

Tales Of The Deafhood - Oral Vs Deaf

Recent Post

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

Meta