| Subcribe via RSS

Deaf Awareness Week: People Of The Lie

I’ve always hated Deaf Awareness Week. It was never about who we are as people, but who we are as “sufferers” of an affliction, a medical condition, a problem, an impairment, a disability, for which some medicos and deaf awareness raisers come up with such dehumanisating terms as neurologically devastated, implanted, or users of sign language or assistive listening devices.

Defintion by being deconstructed into miniature components, rather than the whole human being.

Ever since becoming Deaf Aware, I’ve come to hate, maybe not hate, but dismissive of some of the organisations that purport to represent us. As the Devil is aware, some actually do some good work, much to his chagrin. But the problem lies in organisations that use the “jack of all trades and master of none”, approach.

I’m in complete solidarity with GOD, Saltbar, Gwallgofi [friendly Leprechaun] and North Of The Stupid Line, and others, regarding RNID’s campaign, World Without Sound. It is actually quite derogatory towards Deaf people. The campaign, along with Deaf Awareness Week, does little to raise awareness about Deaf people as human beings.

RNID, as a long standing organisation, should be sensitive to this.

I must admit, that parts of the campaign, such as when they Subtitled Big Ben, Piccadilly Circus [now there's a touch of irony there or aptness there], and Trafalgar Square. RNID staff or hired hacks roamed the streets with signs, banners and placards with words that simulated sounds, is actually witty. I can actually see the humour in it, but it is being used in the wrong context. I, however, used the same pictures, and recontextualised them.

Now the question that needs is answering is, why is it derogatory towards Deaf people. The answer is quite simple really. If Deaf people regard themselves as a people with a culture and language, and do not consider themselves disabled or that sound is not central to their sense of well being, then how does a campaign such as the one RNID is currently running, raise awareness about this rather big difference? How does an organisation that purports to represent just about every Deafie and deafie in the UK, insult one segment of their constituents, but running campaigns such as this? How does the RNID further the betterment of Deaf people by rehashing the medical model, to the detriment of the segment of its constituents that define themselves as a cultural group?

In my post, The Tree Of Life, The Fruit of Knowledge, Of Good & Evil, published at The Devil’s Playground, I talked about hearing and deafness being polar opposites. One being the equal of the other. That problems arose because the hearing side did not understand the deaf side. RNID’s work, while beneficial to many individuals, is not healing the rift, or closing this schism between Deaf and Hearing. Indeed, a schism can be seen between the Deaf and deaf, who are polar opposites.

That’s how RNID operates. It mines that schism between the polar opposites that are Deaf and hearing.

While awareness of the physical and emotional consequences of deafness is a necessary, it is equally important that we understand that deafness, or absence of sound, is not the bad thing it’s made out to be. Deaf and hearing are different, and there are consequences yes, but one is not better than the other, nor more desireable than the other. It’s something we have simply deluded ourselves into believing is the case.

RNID knows very well what it is doing. It is not an ignorant organisation. It’s not a truly representative organisation, sure, but it is not ignorant.

Sphere: Related Content

Does Deaf Militancy Really Destroy Sign Language [ASL] and Deaf Community

February 21st, 2008 | 8 Comments | Posted in Culture, Politics, Urban Myths

What are the first thoughts that come to your mind when you see words militants, extremists, and activists? Do you register a positive reaction or a negative one? Do you only think of anarchy, anger, frustration, and violence. Sure these negative emotions don’t resolve anything, but the irony is that it does lead to change, unfortunate as it is. Think of the Stonewall Rights, or the never ending Palestinian struggles, or even the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

People forget that militancy also means no compromise and activism is active fighting for one’s rights. And why should Deaf people be any different?

David Kerr posted on this topic under the guise of a warning: Deaf Militancy Destroys Sign Language and Deaf Community. As I started reading, alarm bells started ringing. I know what David is trying to say, and he has some good points. But he plays the ‘blame the victim game’, and focuses on one meaning of militancy:

  1. Fighting or warring.
  2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially
    in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.2. n. A fighting,
    warring, or aggressive person or party.

I understand the need for differ tactics when fighting for our rights, and tactics should suit the occassion. But a blanket condemnation wins no favours. Nor does it lend any credibility to criticisms when people exhibit counter productive behaviour. I don’t have a problem with militancy and activism, because I try to understand WHY people are behaving as they are. Face value judgements are a dangerous thing to make. It makes a fool out of the person doing the judging. Remember though, to understand why militancy, extremism and activism occur does not mean that you agree with them. Understanding the intents and motives behind an action, will help to plan and carry out better informed tactics.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with demonstrations, sit ins, and public expressions of anger. Do you honestly think that Gallaudet would have had it’s first Deaf president, if the students simply negotiated? My reading of the situation is that the hearing board were not amenable to the desires of the Deaf students [and by extension the Deaf community]. So public demonstrations and taking to the streets were unavoidable. It’s all very well to have tea and scones with jam and cream, while we discussing our mutual concerns in a civilised manner. Sometimes, you just have kick them in the balls to get any action.

It’s one thing to deride deaf militancy, activism and extremism, but to infer that it contributes to the rise in cochlear implants, is crap. To blame the lack of positive materials and information about Deaf culture and sign language on deaf militancy, is again crap. What is forgotten is the hearing and oral deaf worlds own complicity in this lack of positive materials and information on deafness.

When popular media focuses on words like silence, adversity, disability, and precious gift of hearing, and when the hearing world creates a stereotype that oral deaf too readily fall for, such as the fright that AGBell had when that Pepsi Ad was created. That’s where we should be pointing the finger. Preferably the middle one, sticking out of balled fist.

As for the poor parents frightened off by Deaf people expressing their humanity, surely it’s their responsibility to research that information. With the internet, positive information is never too far away. Thirty years ago, this assertion would have been true, but not these days. Positive information is there, you just have to look.

Like I said, we have a role to play, and yes we have to be judicious in the tactics we employ to further our cause, but I have no time for blame the victim reasoning, or appeasing hearing people by not  showing aggression or anger. Hearing people have thick skins, and ironically, are also deaf!

RELATED LINX:

Response To Chipmunk’s VLOG on militant
IT IS OK TO BE NON-VIOLENT MILITANT

Sphere: Related Content


Warning: stristr() [function.stristr]: Empty delimiter. in /home/radio666/public_html/alltheyoungdudes/wp-content/plugins/wassup/wassup.php on line 2093