Deafness IS a disability, NOT a culture

Just gotta get this out of the way;

I laughed, loudly.

As for the question at hand…I’m not deaf, I’m paraplegic, so I’m only gonna speak from a general “physically disabled person” perspective…

Yep, there’s a disabled culture, a very intricate one, I think. I even receive a newspaper geared toward the physically/mentally disabled. Personal ads & everything!

The culture, I think, arose out of one specific commonality - we’ve all got physical problems that have the possibility of seriously impeding us, if we allow it. We banded together to share. It’s a feeling of belonging - one gets to forget that one’s markedly different in whatever way from most of the population.

I’ve noticed something, though, if I may hijack for a moment. I’ve noticed amongst my disabled peers a sort of dichotomy - either they become very involved in disabled culture, or very averse to bcoming involved. I tend to run toward the latter - I’m still working out whether that’s a good thing. [/hijack]

Look, this isn’t hard to understand. Yes, one could say that there is such a thing as “blind culture”, or “paraplegic culture”, because those people share things with each other that they don’t with the broader community.

But “Deaf culture” has an added dimension. The added dimension is that most deaf people find it difficult to communicate with most hearing people. And they find it effortless to communicate with other deaf people. Sure, deaf people can write, they can speach read, they can get vocal training. But it will always be harder. So deaf people tend to seek each other’s company more often than paraplegic people do, or blind people do.

The key is that deaf people, because of their disability, become a linguistic minority. Can we accept that Chinese immigrants who speak no English but live in a linguistic enclave around people like them are part of “Chinese Culture”, but are isolated from “American Culture”? Well, in some ways the deaf are less isolated because they mostly are part of hearing families, and most have english literacy skills. But in other ways they are more isolated, since they will often never be able to learn to speak english proficiently, whereas a Chinese immigrant could learn to speak English.

Deafness IS a disability. It is a disablity that creates a linguistic minority, and therefore creates a separate community, and therefore a seperate culture.

Just to give an example. My nephew is profoundly deaf and has been since birth. He can read and write, he can use email, he can read books, he does a pretty good job speechreading. But he can’t speak english, and never will. All his close friends are deaf. Why? Because he goes to a school for the deaf where all the teachers sign. Sure there are some hearing people his age who sign, but most of them do so because they have a deaf family member. And this is likely to continue throughout his life. Most of his friends will be deaf, most of his social contacts will be with other deaf people, and most of THEIR friends and social contacts will also be deaf.

And so we get an isolated deaf community. Yes there are points of contact…hearing family members, the internet, books, hearing teachers, etc. And an isolated community with only a few points of contact with the wider community is going to develop in ways that diverge from the wider community. Think Venn diagrams here, people. There are deaf theatres, deaf clubs, deaf boarding schools, deaf universities, deaf mailing lists, deaf newletters, etc. Yes, they are accessable to hearing people who learn sign, or who have a reason to join an internet group for the deaf. Add in that many deaf people are isolated from their hearing families, since no one in their family bothered to learn to sign beyond a few rudimentary concepts.

Deafness is a disability that neccesarily forms a culture, unlike most other disabilities. Jeeze, this is just like arguing whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity. Can’t it be both?

I’m not certain that even all folks w/a profound hearing loss consider it a disability, more like a ‘different ability’ (my friend Jill would be proud of me).

I have no problem seeing the ‘deaf culture’ ‘blind culture’ as viable and real. And while deaf people cannot generally hear the same level of sounds that we do, it’s not necessarily true that they cannot appreciate music. They absolutely do, and in a way that may be profounding more rewarding to them. I have no way to compare. I do know that they have a better ability than I could ever have, to focus on task at hand, since they’re not distracted by noises off the street, etc. There’ve been adaptations made that allow for most issues

and, absolutely, I find it very difficult to understand how/why some one w/o a hearing loss would find it necessary, helpful or in any way a positive to say to those who have a hearing loss “you’re disabled, what you ‘think’ is a different culture is merely an adaptation of the main one, the hearing one, that you cannot fully participate in” and, if that ain’t what you’re sayin, then please explain to me why it is important to you at all to decide that a ‘deaf culture’ exists or not.

It’s two, two, two mints in one! :smiley:

How odd, I seem to be hearing exactly that.

A better title for this thread would have been 'Deafness is a disability first, a culture second’.

The impetus for me starting this was, obviously, the couple who deliberately bred a deaf child. The key being deliberately.
This is an action that states that: belonging to the deaf community is of greater value than the ability to hear. And I simply find that ludicrous.

I also find it very unseemly the way this couple has sought out publicity regarding their choice. This re-affirms the idea that they value their culture more than they value the ability to hear.

If their family was deaf, and their parents’ friends were deaf, and their lives revolved about their disability/culture (since you’re now clarifying your stance, I’ll use both terms)… well, one could argue that a deaf child is going to be better off in that family than a hearing child. Or, at the very least, certainly not WORSE off.

There are some interesting conversations happening in the dwarf community about this issue as well, incidentally.

How does one deliberately have a deaf child?

Check out the story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49849,00.html

On the other hand, there are other situations in which Sign is better than spoken language. I’m hearing- so is my whole family- but my mother is a volunteer interpreter, so we all know at least some sign. We have found ourselves using sign among ourselves in situations when it is better or easier than talking, for example, when we’re on opposite sides of a noisy room, when we want to talk quietly (like in church, or when Dad is immersed in the television), or when we want to talk without being overheard by others.

I’d submit that every form of communication has its benefits and drawbacks- spoken, written, and signed. That doesn’t make any of them better or worse. I don’t think anyone is denying that deaf people can’t hear. But the culture of deafness is like the culture of any linguistic minority- they come together because they speak the same language, and find themselves creating a culture they can be proud of from that starting point.

Of course, I’m neither deaf nor Deaf, so I could be wrong.

And what about outside the child’s family? What about when the child grows up and prepares to launch a career? Employers can be compelled to make reasonable accomodations, but there are a good number of jobs which are, by nature, invariably off-limits to the deaf.

Being able to hear doesn’t make it the least bit harder to learn sign language. The difficulty deaf people have communicating with the rest of us, OTOH, is undeniable.

Wanting to have your child be like you is a tad arrogant. Forcing your child to be like you in the hope of permanently indoctrinating him/her into your culture, knowing the difficulties he/she will certainly face, is simply barbaric.

Then you’re either stupid or have a huge chip your shoulder.

There was no call to tell amarinth (s)he’s stupid. Please take a stroll around a medium- to large-sized city anywhere in the country and make a conscious effort to notice how many (or, more accurately, how few) services are designed to be accessible to the Deaf. Once you’ve done that, seek out a member of the Deaf community and ask if you can spend a day with him or her. Pay close attention to how that person is treated AFTER someone sees them using Sign Language.

**handy?

handy?**

“Paging handy on line 2, thanks”

i didn’t notice your cite… is there one?

assuming the above is correct, it can be concluded that those are side effects of missing one of your senses. (blind people have more finely tuned hearing than seeing people because of pure nesscessity).

again, can you find a cite for those claims scoop?

How odd, I seem to be hearing exactly that.

You know…I have been “hearing” the same stuff about those “upity deaf people”…

It’d be a lot easier if you were to quote what you were replying to. Or at least elaborate a bit more with your post otherwise none of us really have any idea what you’re talking about. By the way, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board.

Marc

Can you elaborate a little without us having to actually make the experiment?
How is s/he treated?

“This re-affirms the idea that they value their culture more than they value the ability to hear.”

And given that it is their choice to make, what the hell difference could in possibly make to you?

IMO (and I know this is great debates) deliberately bringing up a child that is deaf is terrible. There is no reason to think that a person that can hear cannot participate in deaf culture. I have known many that actively did just that. Deliberately making sure your child is going to be deaf just makes it sure that child will miss out on alot of things in life.
plnnr: It is not their choice to make either. Nobody should have the right to GIVE their child a disability. It sure as hell makes a difference to me, I have a concious. What difference does it make to me that people beat their children? None. I still don’t like it, and will actively speak against it. Your argument is flawed. Who cares the difference it makes, it is a matter of right and wrong.