I don’t disagree with any particular part of this, although I think the distinction between skill and ability starts to get too subtle to bother talking about. There are contexts in which the inability to speak a foreign language is tantamount to a disability, but I don’t think the terminology matters very much.
Agreed. It’s just one of those messy situations where the right thing doesn’t necessarily bring about the best outcome for all concerned.
I guess it would have to be dealt with in whatever way is normal for any such situation. Let the affected community debate and decide the outcome for themselves. Sometimes the vocal minority is composed of extremist nutters who just need to shut up, other times, it’s composed of visionaries who have thought things through more deeply and carefully than the general populace.
I don’ have any opinion on which scenario is at play in the particular case at hand.
To the first part: a coma.
The idea that I am arguing is the question of the OP and I am focusing on the terms “not best thought of”. I don’t really care about and have no interest at all in arguing whether they do, objectively, have a disability (see post #51). Although the wording was a bit clumsy I think I made that fairly clear in my first response. Most of my response was about whether there was any point to thinking of deafness that way.
In one respect, the question in the OP is about one of many continuum in human behavior. A variety of human traits have been regarded as disabilities in the past and now are no longer thought so. Two examples: left-handedness and homosexuality.
Left-handedness did not require much from society to stop viewing it as a disability. Some tables, some scissors, and it was and is not a disability in the slightest sense. It does represent a variant in human behavior though.
Homosexuality as a disability was not finally removed from the DSM until the mid80s. It was probably mostly due to the clear case made by the subculture of homosexual individuals that there was no reason to treat their particular variation in human behavior as pathological condition that it ceased to be viewed as pathology by medical professionals. The removal of that view from the rest of society is the process we are in today.
The labeling of a person as disabled and viewing them as disabled is a societal norm. It can change. Almost by definition, accommodations have to be made when a group of people are to be re-classified according to societal norms. Our societal norms are reflected in every last element of our society, from institutions to building designs. My view is that deafness, according to those who have the disability is not best thought of as a disability.
Although I do not have first hand experience it seems that deaf people are developing a culture that allows them to adapt to their particular human variant in societies developed with hearing as an assumption. I think if not messed with by well-meaning people, those most motivated, the deaf people, can develop all of their cultural norms required to adapt to hearing society and clarify for hearing society how best to accommodate them. I am sure with the proper development of XBOX kinect-like or cell phone motion sensor technology there could even be near instantaneous communication between sign language communicating and spoken language communicating individuals.
Not directly addressing Eonwe: Since many are making the argument that deaf people are primarily disabled due to lack of communication, do you also consider the immigrant communities from 100s of cultures to also be disabled?
I think that’s a fair point. This it probably does get fuzzy around the edges. But as far as defining what a disability is, I think it’s fair to point out there’s a difference between something you don’t know how to do and something you’re physically or neurologically unable to learn.
Bolding mine. That’s an interesting choice of words. Does that mean that there’s a different answer for how hearing people should view deafness?
If I can take anything away from this thread, it’s that there are a lot of wrong ways to educate a deaf child. I wonder if refusing to call deafness a disability removes some of its gravitas, and leads people to be less careful when making decisions about deaf education.
Can calling deafness “not a disability” lead (hearing) parents to think, “Give him a cochlear implant and he’ll be fine being mainstreamed.”? If you knew some parents who were planning to put their deaf child into a tried-and-failed style of educational program, would you wonder if they’d put enough thought into that decision? Would you sit them down and make sure they know that deafness is a serious condition and that they need to make sure that their child will be educated effectively?
Hear their child screaming for help if its injured, drowning, burned, or being attacked by an animal outside their visual range.
Hear shouted warnings from others if they venture too close to something or someone dangerous.
Hear the rattle of a rattlesnake as it warns you to back away.
Communicate easily with the verbal world, in a million small or incredibly important ways.
In all likelihood, my sense of hearing once saved my life in New Orleans. I was walking down the street and heard the pounding sound of feet running up behind me. At that sound, I turned around in time to catch a mugger swinging a crowbar at the back of my head. If I had been deaf, I would probably have had the back of my skull caved in, been mugged and/or raped and/or left for dead. As it was, I caught the crowbar in my hands and wrestled it away from him, although I was still beaten, he didn’t have a weapon to kill me with.
It means, in absence of better objective evidence, I am willing to take their word for it because I cannot possibly understand what it is like to develop entirely without the use of one of my senses.
I doubt your scenario would be true no matter what is the best term.
" Deaf People Can Do Anything Except Hear" - I. King Jordan, President of Galludet University 1988- 2007
My brother is deaf (technically, since he has 20% hearing in one ear and wears a hearing aid, he’s hearing impaired). He was born with hearing, but lost it when he was about 6 months old. Luckily, he was able to go to one of the three schools in the USA at the time that taught the deaf to speak, rather than sign.
I would not wish the level of linguistic isolation associated with ASL on anyone. The problems associated with being deaf pale by comparison to the problems that come with being unable to speak and understand the language of your country. That being said, ASL is a true, natural language and it is far better than none at all. But it’s analogous to speaking Laotian in Iowa.
Factor in that native signers have a great deal of difficulty learning to read*, and it just gets worse and worse. A parent who would deny their child a helpful medical procedure like cochlear implants is an abusive parent.
The main difference is that an immigrant can learn the language, and typically will if they desire to venture outside their community. Someone who is completely deaf and communicates through ASL does not really have that option.
So how about the ones that “choose” not to then. Are they disabled?
That’s no different than anyone who chooses to be linguistically isolated.
But just because you sign ASL as a first language does not mean you can’t communicate in English.
You can’t find the studies because you are **wrong.**It has nothing to do with ASL. It has to do with the education you receive and your language environment at home. **Kids who learn ASL the earliest will do the best in a rich language environment because they get language sooner.**I know lots of people who sign, read, and write fluently. No problem.
RE: CI: They do not make children hear and comprehend language like we can. You’re talking about a very expensive and sometimes unnecessary procedure that may or may not help the child involved. It’s really not your place to criticize parents who decide that a life without sound is preferable to a potential life with an implant and shrill sounds, pain, confusion, and endless hours of speech and audio therapy.
edit:
As a tetraplegic I have some standing on speaking about disability. The nicest thing you can do for any disabled person is to treat them as normal.
No one likes to be labeled as handicapped. We’re all disabled in one way or the other. Some have addiction problems, some a dearth of wealth or friends, no need to label.
Nope. That’s just a lifestyle choice. Like choosing to not leave home much. Perfectly reasonable.
True! But it seems unlikely that someone who had not been given the opportunity to learn spoken English (or whatever the languages of their country is/are) at a very early age would be able to develop that later in life. I was only talking about exclusive ASL. Bilingualism is good for anyone.
You won’t find a cite for this. On average, native signers do better academically (including reading) than non-native signers. Not to say that everyone is average of course, or that all native signers do well academically, and that no non-native signers do. (I’d post the cites, but I’m to busy to dig them up right now.)
This is a really interesting post, because it illustrates the other side of the argument. I’m glad your brother had such a good outcome.
Nope. That’s just a lifestyle choice. Like choosing to not leave home much. Perfectly reasonable.
True! But it seems unlikely that someone who had not been given the opportunity to learn spoken English (or whatever the languages of their country is/are) at a very early age would be able to develop that later in life. I was only talking about exclusive ASL. Bilingualism is good for anyone.
First, CitizenPained, thank you for fighting my ignorance. That study you linked was exactly the sort of data I was looking for. It seems I was wrong, and for reasons that seem obvious in retrospect. I was aware of the problems deaf children have in reading and writing, but I had attributed those problems to an incorrect cause.
Also, your point about CI is well taken. I was thinking in terms of getting the implant done as early as possible. Prelingually would be nice. Of course, getting it done on a 13 year old or an adult who had been completely deaf would likely be a waste. The shrill sounds thing is interesting. I had assumed it worked rather like ordinary hearing. My brother has described hearing through a hearing aid as being rather like hearing everything through a hospital loudspeaker, but the technology has improved quite a bit by now.
Fun fact, my ear doctor growing up, was one of the people who was involved in the development of CI. Exactly how involved, I don’t know, but he was in on the ground floor. I recall being disappointed that the procedure would not benefit my brother.
So let me further refine my earlier statement. Assuming that the financial hardship is not too extreme, and that the procedure would lead the child to a happier, more socially integrated life, a parent who withheld that procedure would be doing their child a disservice. I think that holds water.
I don’t know of anyone who only used exclusive ASL…but a lot of deaf children struggle with reading, and it has been attributed to lack of ASL in early childhood + forced use of SEE and English-only methods. If you look at the deaf just a few generations ago, they were so much more successful
I’m sorry if I jumped on you. I should disclose that I dated a guy who happened to be deaf. I also grew up with a deaf friend in earlier childhood and had no idea
all the assumptions I made about the deaf until I dated Matt.
Btw, I have never heard Matt speak. He doesn’t. I mean, he can, but won’t - he doesn’t have to. He manages just fine. He’s also well read, fluent in three signed languages + English, and writes like a charm. He rejects the idea that deaf should endure thousands of hours of speech and language therapy just to please hearing people when in the 21st C., it’s not necessary! He also has a close blind friend. I’m not kidding. Technology rocks.
CI is different than HA, but some of the issues are similar. I think that if parents want to do CI when the kids are very young, it’s their choice and it can be taken out. But if parents reject that idea, I’m OK with that. I mean, if you think about it - if people who could hear just started treating deaf differently, then we wouldn’t be arguing on whether they should be thought of as disabled. The OP says, “best not thought of as…” and I think that the deaf are not best thought of as ‘disabled’.
Yes, and I think these doctors really are trying and doing their jobs. I can see how some people reject that idea. I remember when I was pregnant with my son, I thought, hmm, what if he were deaf? I don’t know why that came to mind, but I suppose I thought of everything. And I thought, oh, I’ll learn ASL.
And that was that.
A couple of months ago I asked him what he would do if he met a deaf kid, and he’s like, “I’d learn sign language.” And I said, “Oh yeah? How do deaf kids learn sign language?” and he’s like, “Their mommies teach them when they’re babies…duh.”
In deaf families + those where hearing parents expose their kids to sign, that is completely true. But somehow my six year old intuitively knew that ASL was a natural language and that children acquired it just like hearing children acquire English (a tad faster because of motor skill development, actually).
I really thought the same thing until I talked to many in the Deaf community. Everyone told me the same thing: Stop trying to make us like we can hear. Even those with CI said that. Most had miserable childhoods and bad educations. So…so while some deaf kids are happily integrated into ‘mainstream’, that’s not the case for most. I read that depression and suicidal thoughts among deaf kids is a high as with gay teens.
A CI is not just a procedure and then you’re done. You’re talking audiologists, speech therapy, refitting, extra sensory needs, etc. I think it’s cool that such a thing can allow kids access to sound, but there’s a price that comes. Also, kids who get CI are less likely to learn ASL. So what happens when you’re two weeks without your CI because it’s getting refitted? You become an island. What happens when you get older and your CI isn’t working for you the way it used to and you don’t know ASL? Who’s going to understand you?
CI is not a cure or a fix. It’s a tool, and I think it’s legit if parents want to leave that one out. I do not agree with keeping your child from ASL. I know a lot of bad literature has been around the last few decades, but in this day and age, man, what’s the excuse?
Who robs a child of language?
Anyway, I’m sorry if I reacted harshly. (:
The view I’ve heard is this: If the rest of the world stopped treating deaf [not late-deafened] as disabled, then they wouldn’t be. And there would be less job discrimination, less stereotyping (“deaf=dumb”), less poverty amongst the deaf.
Deaf can do what I can do except they can’t hear. So friggin’ what?
I never talked about Matt and said, “Yeah, so I’m dating a deaf guy.” Deafness was a linguistic difference between us, and disabled is not how I best think of him.
//end rant sheepish
CitzenPained, I actually know Matt from another messageboard!!! :eek: I will tell him you said Hi!
I don’t even know where to begin with this post. FYI, State Deaf Schools (and dhh regional programs and day schools) have never been some glorious voice off paradise. Virtually all kids at Schools for the Deaf get a very hefty dose of speech and language therapy. It’s just that it’s not an eternal speech therapy session the way it is at Clarke (where deaf kids get speech therapy 3 TIMES a day!), CID and St. Joseph’s. Yes, ASL isn’t a super common language…But voice off ASL only folks are rare even at schools for the Deaf. I think the latest linguistic survey indicated that only 1% of Dhh (b/c some hoh kids are voice off due to other issues) kids are voice off. Adding ASL is about adding another TOOL that might be helpful to a dhh kid. It gives kids access to a community, and the abilty to function both with and without HAs/CIs. The world is not a soundbooth you know.
Oh and at the time your brother was young, there were four oral deaf schools (you missed the one in Pittsburgh)
Second of all, ORAL kids (unless you’re talking about someone who did the P-8 route at the oral schools, which is now very rare, as most oral kids tend to be mainstreamed after kindergarten) ALSO have major difficulties with both receptive and expressing written English. It is not just limited to ASL users.
In addition, the world is not a soundbooth.
Not everyone speaks with a “professional speaker” voice. The problems with CIs are basicly the same issues with hearing aids. Yes, they allow SOME access to the hearing world, but not total and complete unfettered access. Heck, even many dhh as kids, who never learned sign say they don’t feel totally comfortable in the hearing world.
It’s a disabilty rights issue…give the kid as many tools as possible. There’s no debate over giving mobilty/orthapedicly disabled kids the choice to use walkers or wheelchairs, there’s no debate over giving blind/low vision kids O&M training and Braille literacy (well there was, since a lot of kids in the past used books on tape. But they are now pushing Braille) Visual processing is a strengh for most dhh kids…you wouldn’t educate a kid gifted in math but not so good in English by exclusively focusing on their defiency in English, would you? Exactly.