Nobody assumed deaf people are idiots, but stoid has a point that denying hearing aids etc. to children, because of cultural issues of the parents, has a wrong feel to it. Adults can make decision for themselves, but fooling around with children for the sake of cultural identity is simply awful.
[puts on asbestos underwear]
Is there a “wheelchair” culture? Do paraplegic parents want their able-bodied children confined to motorized conveyances solely to “fit in” with their own existing circumstances?
No.
I’d like to see handy’s take on this before we get all carried away, but my own point still stands.
Monstro
Just as a heads up, when you write a sentence like this at the top of your post. . .
You’ve basically eliminated any rationale for your post.
I’m with Stoid on this one.
Well, gobear, I’m assuming you and Stoid are experts on deaf people? At least I’m willing to admit that I don’t know what people are feeling and thinking, and that maybe I shouldn’t judge people based on my own perceptions of the world. The last time I checked, this kind of honesty was a good thing.
My rationale is just as valid as yours. Its just not as set in stone.
Just as a heads up, you know…
For the families in which both parents are deaf but the children are hearing, this does not seem to be such a problem.
I have had many debates about this, especially when I was doing some fundraising for a specialist centre that teaches deaf kids how to speak (especially w/cochlear implants etc). Many people I approached (who were active in the deaf community) had the opinion that children should NOT be taught to speak, and that they should only be offered signing. I totally disagree.
The ability to communicate verbally with other people is one of the defining features of humaness. It gives us the opportunity to project our ‘selves’ on to the world, claiming our identity as individuals but also our interconnectedness with others. It’s how we get what is happening in our ‘head’ into the collective heads of the world. More than the sense of sight, it is our hearing and our speech that allows us to interact in an active way with our environment.
Absence of hearing IS a disability. It closes us off from meaningful relationships with much of the world, and confines us to only sharing ourselves ‘fully’ with others who are similarly disabled and who share our ‘language’. Now, while I might acknowledge that there is a deaf ‘community’ who share a number of common traits and goals, that does not mean that they possess a unique culture for many of the reasons already noted in this thread. To propose that such a ‘culture’ should be preserved and reproduced is ludicrous.
I see the synthetic creation of a deaf culture as a way of coping with the personal and social isolation that the deaf encounter daily. In itself, that is fine by me. I too have limited hearing and I understand the problems that arise. HOWEVER, denying children the opportunity to fully experience the rest of the world by limiting them to a lifetime of interaction with other deaf people borders on child-abuse IMHO. Signing is NOT an alternative to verbal communication IF a child has the capacity to develop some hearing and language skills: it is an adjunct and IMHO should NEVER be presented as an either/or option
kambuckta: Did you or did you not miss the point above where Sign Language qualifies as language?
I agree with this, which also fits in with the OP.
The analogy with languages and cultures such as Welsh and Basque would be if parents who only spoke Welsh demand that their child not be taught English in addition to Welsh, for fear of losing their unique culture. I think that we would consider this a form of child abuse. Sure it continues the culture, but it severely limits the child’s opportunities. By all means let the child learn Welsh, and speak that with his/her parents, but if the means is there to also allow the child to fit into the dominant culture, I think that’s the way to go.
Monty, did you or did you not miss the point I made that offering Sign Language as a SOLE means of communication for children who might otherwise have verbal facilities is what I am criticising.
I’m not denying that Sign Language IS a language. I AM denying that the deaf ‘culture’ is one that needs to be perpetuated.
Got it?
handy has previously demonstrated some very distorted views of cochlear implants, which is bad enough, and made his view rather clear in the past when he once referred to children with cochlear implants by the incredibly unfortunate name of “FrankenDeaf”, for which I did the rare thing of pitting another Doper and taking him to task for it.
I am a pediatric audiologist who works at a children’s hospital that has a cochlear implant program. I am also severely-to-profoundly deaf.
I’ve written on Deaf Culture at length in previous threads, so I can’t think of anything better than to rip myself off from a prior discussion on Cochlear implants:
My take on it is that Deaf Culture is a very real thing, and the foundation of Deaf Culture is the use of sign language. But in order to understand their objections to cochlear implants from a cultural perspective, I feel that a little history is necessary.
Generally speaking, children who could not benefit from hearing aids had no viable alternative except to learn sign language (or total communication). As hearing aid technology improved throughout the mid to late 20th century, the percentage of deaf children that could benefit from hearing aids increased.
Myself as an example: I was born in 1973, and was diagnosed with severe-to-profound hearing loss at the age of eighteen months. The only practical hearing aid capable of providing adequate amplification for me was a bulky body aid that had to be worn in a pouch secured by a chest harness. It wasn’t until several years later that a smaller, behind-the-ear hearing aid was developed that was suitable for my hearing loss.
If I was born just twenty years earlier, my chances of acquiring oral communication skills would not have been as great. If I was born just fifty years earlier, then my chances of learning oral communication skills were zero, for there were no amplification systems in the 1920s powerful enough for my hearing loss. I would have either learned sign language, or have been mute.
In this way, the improvements in hearing aid technology has decreased the number of individuals whose first and only choice would have been to learn sign language. Eventually, the point was reached where the only population of hearing impaired individuals that used sign language as the primary means of communication were those who were unable to benefit from even the most powerful and sophisiticated hearing aids available.
Enter the cochlear implants. This technology was developed to specifically be used in those individuals who could not benefit from any type of hearing aid. From the point of view of the Deaf, it appeared that the last bastion of ASL users was under assault, for if the cochlear implant technology gained widespread acceptance, it would reduce even further the number of individuals that would use sign language, and if the technology was ever perfected, it would possibly eliminate the need for sign language entirely.
Threaten the continued existence of sign language, and you threaten the existence of Deaf Culture.
The problem here is that culture is not a genetic birthright. It is an acquired characteristic. A baby born in France will grow up learning French culture; a baby born in Spain will grow up learning Spanish culture. But take just one of those babies and put them with a Russian family, and that child will grow up learning Russian culture. There is no “culture” hardwired into the brains and nervous systems of human beings.
This is the thing that some Deaf persons seem to forget when they argue that putting a cochlear implant in a deaf child would rob that child of his Deaf culture. But the child at that age hasn’t learned any significant culture, except for whatever parts he or she may have picked up from his or her family.
And in 9 cases of 10, a deaf child is born to two hearing parents, parents that are generally unaware of Deaf culture, and would rather their child be a part of the family’s culture rather than someone else’s. It is an understandable desire, but some parents have been condemned in unbelievably harsh language for it.
The fact that cochlear implants destroy the remaining residual hearing in the ear is the reason why one of the strongest criteria used for cochlear implant candidacy is that the person is unable to benefit from even the most powerful hearing aids.
As for what they actually hear, that’s harder to describe. In the initial days after the cochlear implant is first activated, what the person reports hearing is often indeed described as a “static” sound. Over time, the brain learns how to interpret the new input, and the sound quality of what the person hears greatly improves.
Outcomes do vary. There are a number of individuals who receive only limited benefit from cochlear implants. There are others whose benefit is so spectacular that their speech is almost indistinguishable from that of a hearing person’s. And there are a lot of persons in between these two extremes. It is difficult to predict in advance just precisely how much benefit the person will obtain from a cochlear implant, but there are a number of factors that have been consistently shown to be crucial:
[ul]
[li]Pre-linguistically deafened vs. post-linguistically deafened. A child who became deaf after having some language development is far, far more likely to have significant benefit from the cochlear implants than a child who was born deaf.[/li][li]Age. The younger the child at the time of implantation, the better the results tend to be. The window of opportunity is surprisingly short. There is good evidence that if a child has not learned any significant oral communication skills by the time they are five years old, the chances for any future development is greatly diminished.[/li][li]Commitment to an oral education program. The importance of this factor can’t be understated, yet it tends to be underestimated by some families seeking cochlear implants for their child. If no effort is made at immersing a child in an oral education program after receiving the cochlear implant, then it has all been a waste.[/li][/ul]
Parents who have a deaf child face many choices. None of these choices lead to a quick and easy path.
Commonality of experience.
“Commonality of experience.”
So can we look at parent-chosen deafness like other life impacting rites of passage? e.g. female circumcision, neck rings, etc.
The success of these implants is certainly an issue. I’d be interested in a poll of deaf parents: if a perfect solution was found, would you use it?
re: wheelchair culture. I seem to remember Reeves got a little grief at some point for too much focus on the miracle cure instead of securing proper handicapped access/rights. I’d love more informed comments.
Deaf culture is not “bullshit.” Sorry.
It is not just language or “abscence” which defines deaf culture, it is a way of life, a belief system, and a method of adapting to their surroundings which is unique from many other cultures. Sign is a vital part of the culture, to be sure, just as language is a vital part of any culture. Deaf culture, simply, is defined by a way of life and a community far removed from many of the things most hearing people will ever experience.
There’s no easy way to convince you of this unless you’re willing to listen, and since you’ve chosen to make up your mind after watching a single documentary on the subject, I’m not sure you are. However, if you’ll take a recommendation, I’d recommend you read Oliver Sacks’ excellent book Seeing Voices. It’s the best book I know of about the deaf culture, written by a doctor who took the time to experience it for what it was. If you can read that book and not be convinced that the concept of a deaf culture is valid and alive today, I don’t know what would convince you.
All of that said, I agree with part of your OP. While deaf culture can be rewarding and wonderful for those unfortunate enough to be deaf, I find it hard to understand the choice to limit one’s children to that culture. I don’t share the idea that one’s children must experience the same culture that the parents have, even if it’s been a rewarding one. For example, I’ve never taken an active role in the GLBT subculture, but if my children chose to do so later in life, I’d be fine with that. It’s not my place to limit their choices or capabilities for them.
Then again, it’s also not my place to tell other parents how to raise (or conceive!) their children, so it’s all a bit of a non-starter for me.
Also, I know a child of two congenitally deaf parents, who was fortunate enough not to have been born deaf. Nevertheless, she was deeply involved in deaf culture at an early age, using basic hand signs when she was only a few months old (much earlier than most children learn to “speak”), and experiencing much of the deaf way of life from the inside. She was several years old before she even knew there was anything “different” about her family. Now, she is part of the hearing culture (she works in a phone support department for the same internet company where I work), but she unfailingly speaks of her experience with the deaf culture in glowing terms. Also, she recognizes a clear difference between the deaf culture and the hearing culture. I mention her to point out that it is possible to experience deaf culture in a meaningful way as a hearing person, and not all deaf parents choose to limit their children like the father on the documentary.
So, I can see why you reacted the way you did towards the documentary, Stoid. As a parent myself, I find it hard to imagine deliberately limiting my children in any way: physically, emotionally, or culturally. I don’t choose to do that for my children.
However, some parents do. Some parents choose to raise their kids only in a Christian environment, for example. Is it your place to tell these parents not to do this? Is it mine? It is no different for deaf culture… you may not agree with the people who participate in that culture, or make their children participate in it also. However, I doubt that you can seriously support the idea that it’s your place to dictate what these parents should do, or shouldn’t do.
While I can understand and agree with a small part of your OP, I feel that it’s mostly misguided and ill-informed. You pass judgment on deaf culture based on a single documentary you saw? Forgive me if I find that a bit juvenile. Trying reading a little more about it, or try looking a little more deeply. You might be surprised by what you find.
However, dismissing deaf culture as “bullshit” based on the presentation of a single documentary is itself… well… bullshit.
Sorry.
On preview: Atreyu, thanks for your contribution to the thread as well… well-said.
Avalonian, there is a big difference between bringing a child up in a particular culture, and forcing them (by virtue of denying them access to medical treatment like CI’s) to remain in that culture for the rest of their lives.
A very big difference.
Compare signing to Welsh.
Welsh was pretty much a dying language (still is, in certain respects) so to extend and expand it, the Welsh language movement managed to get Welsh made a compulsory language - either first or second - in all Welsh school.
But all Welsh children must still learn English.
To deliberately segregate and effectively marginalise an entire group of children just because you want to protect a certain threatened (if indeed it is threatened) culture is just inappropriate. I realise there is fear there, but I also sense jealousy.
There must surely be other ways to protect and expand deaf culture like Welsh has been. Campaign to get sign offered as a GCSE language in more schools, for hearing children as well as hearing impaired children to learn. Produce deaf theatre performances with translations/explanations for non-signers, and get hearing people along. Back cochlear implants but at the same time push an education campaign to make hearing people realise that cochlear implanted children aren’t quite hearing children, and still need some special help.
I agree completely, and as I said, I wouldn’t choose that for my kids. However, do you feel it your place to make that decision for all parents?
Also, there’s a “big difference” between disagreeing with some participants of deaf culture and declaring the entirety of deaf culture bullshit. That’s my main beef with the OP.
Atreyu, thank you so much for your professional insight into this complex issue. I concur with all that you have said. I was also unaware of handy’s views on this topic. I suggested him solely because I was aware of his deafness and felt that those with first hand experience might better elucidate in this thread.
I’d like your views on the recent advances in cochlear follicle rejuvenation. Although this will be intrepreted as yet another assault on “deaf culture” by polarized elements of the deaf community, I see it as a stunning development in potential restoration of hearing for many who are currently candidates for cochlear implants.
That’s a good point, Avalonian. However… and I am not being mean spirited here, but a observation comes to mind.
How different is this from forcing, say, a child of a Christian Scientist to have insulin shots? Their culture forbids traditional medicine, but I am reasonably sure that the state has often stepped in at that, or similar points.
While implants are not perfect yet, it is not too hard to imagine a point no more than say ten years from now where they are nigh-perfect, though they may still be limited at implant point.
A child with diabetes will live, untreated, though for much shorter than a normal lifespan, and have, well, some rather horrid side effects.
Should we not force the parents, to preserve their Christian Scientist lifestyle?
Yes, I know the analogy is flawed. What would be a better one?
Immunizations?
Damn…now you’ve got me! 
The thought of imposing my beliefs on another person sort of contradicts all of my other tenets (about freedom to do what you wanna provided you don’t impinge upon the rights of others blah, blah etc etc).
Having a hearing implant does not quite equate with denying a kid life-saving treatment (such as a blood transfusion) so I can’t use that example as an analogy, bugger it. Nor can I suggest that an amputee who removes the limbs of his child should be entitled to the same freedoms, because that is taking something away rather than restoring something. A subtle but important difference.
But I STILL think that the decision to disallow a deaf child to have the possibility of restored hearing is a bad one. Perhaps they wish to do so for ‘all the right reasons’ (from their perspective) but they are wrong ones from my POV.