Talk:Audism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deafness and Deaf culture.

For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] NPOV / Colonization

This doesn't really convince me. Sounds more like a martyr complex going on. Colonization sounds like there was some vast land of deaf persons that the hearing persons landed on in 1606 and took their land or some such.

One can hardly compare the potential marginalization of disabled persons within a culture to colonization. In fact, I don't really buy the whole thing that there's a separate culture within a given society for "deaf culture". If we buy that there are differen cultures in a nation based on ethnicity/race/shared social history (German culture, African-American culture, Goth culture, Jewish culture), are we supposed to then buy that there's a separate culture shared by all deaf persons, regardless of their superset of society?

Are all deaf persons in this culture regardless of nationality, ethnicity, etc.?

I'm sorry, but the 'colonization' argument is silly, because to buy that, you have to buy that deaf persons were separate from hearing persons to begin with, and had their own culture somewhere else, before hearing persons came along. That's silly, because deaf persons were not *separate*, they're disabled/sense-impaired individuals who occured within other groups.Taniwha 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)



I'm sorry, but your arguement utilizes some very egocentric views and is obviously based on an ignorance for the subject. First of all, you are assuming that deaf and hearing people inhabit the same social space. For the most part, this is not true.
Hearing people are indeed the majority, with a rough estimate of 5% of the world populace being cosidered deaf or hard of hearing, with a great number of that percentage made up of the elderly who have experienced a degeneration of hearing.
As a result of being the minority, the deaf population is often left without any means of engaging fully in the social experience you and I take for granted (I am hearing but I am fluent in sign language). In most social settings such as the workplace, school, or university, deaf individuals are assisted by an interpreter who is hearing but fluent in sign. They relay the spoken words around them to the deaf person through sign. However, it is impossible to have an interpreter at all times, and it is impossible for the interpreter to interpret everything said in the vicinity of the deaf individual. Think back to any minor social situation you have been in, think to any friend you might have gained through constant, casual, and above all spontaneous social contact. These social settings involve rapid and spontaneous exchanges of verbal information. Deaf people are almost entirely excluded from sharing in this banter with hearing individuals. Because the hearing people often feel that repeating every word said to a deaf colleague or peer is tiresome, and because deaf people are often too self-conscious to ask for constant repitition, the deaf person is left out of social contact with her hearing peers (for the most part).
As a result, the deaf populace develops a tendency of gathering into social groups that allow for the same ease of communication experienced in hearing society. When applied on a larger scale, there is an actual and observable deaf culture. There are numerous deaf events at notable locations, such as Gallaudet university in DC, where conventions are held to discuss changes or important issues for the deaf community. Many of these issues relate to the institution of ASL (American Sign Language) as an L1 (Primary language) for deaf children.
This issue of the ASL L1 relates to the practice of oralism used in mainstream schools a while back. Schools prohibited the use of sign language as a mode of communication, and forced deaf students to speak using their voices, and to lip read. Students were actually punished when attempting to use sign language, and were often encouraged or forced to socialize with hearing students at the expense of spending time with deaf students. This would constitute a form of colonization. Or, as it might be better understood, forced social conformity.
There is a verifiable Deaf Culture generated by the deaf inability to fully join the hearing social group in a satisfying way (no one likes to be the outsider if they're forced to be), and it is often met with Audism, a form of discrimiation based on ability to hear.

Robotichivemind 07:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Unconvincing. Accusing hearing persons of "colonization" does not make sense. Colonization is (from article at colonization) "the act where life forms move into a distant area where their kind is sparse or not yet existing at all and set up new settlements in the area."
Are you saying that hearing folks came in and moved in, took land from the vast nation where deaf folks lived peacefully by themselves before the hearing folk moved in? no?
A disabled or sense-impaired person may be limited by their ability to participate in the culture in which they are raised, but they are not automatically some sort of other "culture". They are affected by the cultural norms of the culture into which they are born. The argument you seem to be making is for deaf separatism.
What you seem to miss is there's not a separate Deaf Nation. "punishing" students for socializing only with other deaf students, "punishing" them for falling back on ASL instead of attempting to communicate with the larger social structure around them? Whether you like it or not, there is a larger culture outside a deaf individual - the society they live in. If that means they need to be able to communicate in some way with the non-signlanguage-speaking hearing oppressor types, so be it.
I'm not arguing the concept of hearing-based discrimination, but this nativist argument about colonization is silly. Do you understand now? If you want to call it "forced social conformity", call it such. Colonization is a stupid term to use, and it's obvious it's only used because of the negative implications. It's loaded, being used inappropriately, inflammatory, and intentionally hostile.
Deaf subculture? Maybe. Unless you can prove that all deaf persons share the same 'deaf culture' regardless of whether they're raised in Europe, Japan, America, Australia, wherever, your argument fails.
I'll put the NPOV back. Taniwha 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


There is a very valid point being discussed here--this "colonization" business borders on the ridiculous. However, it's not only incorrect and naive, but offensive, to imply that American Deaf Culture doesn't exist, especially if you claim that all Deaf cultures must be universally homogenous. Are you arguing that Spanish-speakers all over the world share the same culture? (Even that comparison isn't up to the task, however: American Deaf people speak an entirely different language from Deaf in Britain or Spain or Japan. [British Sign Language and American Sign Language are as mutually exclusive as, say, English and Protugese; interestingly, though, French Sign Language (LSF) and ASL are cousins, much like Portugese and Spanish, for example.])
If you are interested in speaking from an educated perspective on Deaf Culture, might I recommend Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture by Carol Padden and Tom Humphries (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) or A Journey into the Deaf-World by Harlan Lane, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan (San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press, 1996)? Until you have more to bring to the table than a bigoted view of a culture you don't understand, perhaps it would be wiser to keep your opinion to yourself.
Granted, the colonization argument is a flop. But don't go claiming something doesn't exist simply because you know nothing about it. --Cathryn 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We appear to be agreeing more than you think. (Also, I'm neither bigoted nor ignorant of the 'culture' in question.) I'm not arguing that there is not an American Deaf Culture, but that it is a subset of American Culture and cannot be said to be a universal Deaf Culture; that it cannot be said to be universal across borders or larger cultures, as you said. There is not one Deaf Culture that matches up from American Deaf Culture to Japanese Deaf Culture, etc.
Existence of a deaf culture within a culture (i.e., American Deaf Culture), does not prove the 'colonization' argument.
Taniwha 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I just reread that...sorry. A lot. I didn't mean to be so grouchy. Wow. I apologize. --Cathryn 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let us get some things straight. Deaf culture is very distinct from American if you were to look into what forms a culture (Lisa Godfrey and Savita Adams, Deaf Studies Department, Tennessee Temple University; Tennessee Association of the Deaf; Tennessee Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf). Culture is formed by people with at least two of the following things: A common history, language, goal and/or physical trait. Deaf people have all three. Nobody has denied African Americans their own culture, or Chinese Americans their culture. Christians have their own culture. Shoot, even people who are related to victims of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome have their own international culture (Laura Reno, Chairman of the Board, Florida First Candle/SIDS Alliance). Culture is simply:

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture. 6. Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another. (culture. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved December 16, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture)

The group? The Deaf people. The behaviours: well, those take a while to explain, but they are vastly different from American. For one, while hearing people will usually leave a place within 15-20 minutes of the end of the event, Deaf people can often be found there an hour and a half after the end (if you don't believe me, go to Harvest Baptist Church for the Deaf in Ringgold Georgia, or a church for the Deaf. The beliefs? ASL should be the main language of Deaf people in America, Deaf people should be allowed to do anything a hearing person can, etc. Characteristics? Deafness, ASL, etc. This is the DEAF Culture. Let them have something, as if we haven't already oppressed them enough. They don't want to become like us, so why try? Bringing it back full circle to why say we colonized them? We did the same thing to the Deaf that we did to the Indians, only more subtly. We didn't kill them. We quietly put them away as if they had some defect.

Want to know if there is a Deaf culture? Go participate in some Deaf events. Talk to the people at your local RID or NAD branch. THey will be more than happy to let you know of the next upcoming Deaf events.

I also disagree with you saying they are just impaired people. A Deaf person is no more impaired than you or I. An impairment, by definition, would impair their ability to participate in daily life. Their culture is seperate from hearing society. Why are they seperate? WE (the hearing society) seperated them. They do have a seperate culture. Maybe I can get a Deaf person to post the truth in full, until then, do some actual research, please. It is insulting to say that a community and culture that I am connected to is nonexistent. All Deaf people in all nations have the same or similar ideals to the American Deaf community. In fact, the decision to force them to learn orally was decided by all us hearing people in 1917 without consulting the Deaf people and asking how THEY want to learn. Correction, we did so IN SPITE of what they said. The president of the time of Gallaudet University, with the support of the students there, protested it. But we hearing people, who thought they would not understand, chose for them. (The Deaf Tennessean Expo, History workshop, October 14, 2006)

72.154.101.185 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Your local interpreter-in-training, William Sculley.

"Bringing it back full circle to why say we colonized them? We did the same thing to the Deaf that we did to the Indians, only more subtly. We didn't kill them. We quietly put them away as if they had some defect."

Colonialism is the wrong word. And what happened to the Indians was 1)Small Pox & Co-which had their effects long before the blanket incident 2) Genocide in many cases (through armies and sterilization) 3) Reservations and Residential schools. Deaf people may have been ostracized to a certain degree. True. But they were never/have not been colonized. They were never victims of genocide specifically targeting them. They were never sterilized by force. And while your local public school is probably poorly trained to deal with deaf students, the schools for the deaf help them develop sign language and deal with the larger society they live in. And Sign Language has never been the sole province of deaf people. It was developed in conjunction with hearing people, and many hearing people speak it. So no, not quite (in fact not even near) the same experience as Natives put in residential schools where they were sterilized and forbidden to speak their wholly independent language, after centuries of disease and genocide...

There is no doubt that deaf people have their own culture and social experience that those outside cannot comprehend. There is no doubt that because of their differences, they face discrimination.

But that is not colonization. That isn't genocide. That isn't what happened to the First Nations. That isn't what happened to Africans, Arabs or Indians (India). It isn't that it's not in the same ballpark, it's not the same sport.

Use the right word.

William again. I don't know who made that last post, but it looks like somebody made a significant amount of change on the topic that needs now to be re-researched and reposted, because all that we have here is a basic definition and a short blurb of introduction without any supporting evidence. It's saddening to know that an article that has been approved by both the TAD and CCTRID has lost all of what was on here. However, in reply to the above post, there is a distinct difference between genocide and colonialism, at least in my dictionary. Colonialism is where people have their rights, land, or other valuable things taken from them and they are pushed to the side by the new culture, people, or country to come. Genocide, on the other hand, is the complete and total eradication of a people group. In neither of the two cultures did the last one happen. There are still fragments of all the tribes remaining in the reservation camps across the US. The Deaf had their rights to work as equals taken from them. Their rights to have a life of their own or use their own language was taken from them and still today in my generation, parents punished their children for using sign language. When I edit the page, I won't use that, but I will use published and credible sources for BOTH sides of the colonialism section. The section belongs there, as it is one of the main things discussed as part of this subject. With all of the -isms, there is some sort of colonialism going on.
It is seen when a hearing family gives birth to a Deaf child. They are told by the doctor about hearing aids but not ASL, of speech classes but not residential schools, of coping mechanisms but not the Deaf community (Mirrored to us removing African Americans from African communities as slaves prior to the Civil War). That is exhibit one for colonialism, when we cut a person off from their community. Then as young children, Deaf kids develop their own signs for their emotions, a lot of the time getting punished if caught, as has happened to many now college age Deaf people in their lifetimes. There are Deaf kids in my generation (I can't remember if it is X, Y or Z) who were punished for using signs to try to communicate. So now they are not only cut off from their community, they are cut off from communication (mirrored with whites not allowing black to read prior to and shortly after the Civil War. Then they are cut off from money and employment rights after they leave home. It is improved now, but it is still difficult to get a job as a Deaf person anywhere beyond Walmart or burger flipping, because companies don't want to invest the time or money in ASL classes for the workers or an interpreter ($30/hr minimum) to aid in communication. Walmart is one of the few that have interpreters the whole way through the training process. That cuts them off from currency. These three are in common with all three attributes of colonialism.

[edit] Natech's Work-over

Very nice. I like it. Cathryn 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


I just finished re-phrasing some things & shuffling the format some more. How are we doing as far as NPOV goes now, do you think?
Oh, and do we need complete sources for the quotes under "Definitions"? Cathryn 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

--Natech 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You did a great job too. Now it looks really nice and professional. I think NPOV is not necessary anymore because I removed the colonization argument from the contents and clarified Audism more. As for citing complete sources, well, there are sources to the end of paragraphs and I posted links below where I got them from. If you feel we need to cite them more explicitly, feel free to do so. Thanks for your contribution!


Maybe instead of removing something editing it to make it more encompassing of the matter. Get all the views. Now I am going to research both sides using written and spoken authorities to put it in more of a full bodied view and, following the rules of NPOV as I have read them, put both sides of the argument out. If you mind me doing that, maybe you can tell me after I post it what needs to be changed, because as yet, everything about it needs to be added in, and not taken away. Sculleywr 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audism vs Audiphobia

Reality of audism.

Audism seems to be a perceived belief that hearing and non-cultured Deaf people treats cultured Deaf people differently. This describes a person as an audist, one who is perceived as practicing a generalized sense of superiority over cultured Deaf individual. What about a perceived belief by cultured Deaf people toward hearing and non-cultured Deaf people? Audiphobia would be a good description about cultured Deaf people’s perceived attitude and inferiority – a sense of mis-guided fear about hearing and non-cultured Deaf people.

If there is a perception that hearing and non-cultured Deaf exhibits audism does this imply that audiphoia exists? Is a cultured Deaf person audiphobic? If one is audist then the opposing person is audiphobic. --Peter [rebeldevlin@cox.net]

Peter, are you saying that deaf people have been cultured in a Petri dish?
Audismus is not just perception, but reality. I can give you numerous examples, too many to give here. Hartmut, 1.08.2007

What you describe as Audiphobia, I would describe as the results of long term and institutionalized audism. You oppress people long enough, and they get, yeah-- paranoid. I submit that many of the problems of the African American community today could be termed caucasophobia and are the result of long term institutionalized racism. cwterp168.9.24.58 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audist Prejudice

  • "Deaf people who can speak well are more successful or smarter than those who can't or don't speak."

Well, within a very limited context, it is true that Deaf people who can speak are in fact more successful than those who cannot. They are more successful at speaking. (Presuming, of course, that the ones who can't speak have at some point actually tried to do so, which may not be the case. I imagine, though, that most Deaf have tried to speak, though perhaps many couldn't really be bothered and haven't tried very hard.)

The bit about the speaking ones being smarter, though, is of course completely wrong, as the article suggests. TRiG 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Such sentence like the one above has actually been spoken to deaf children. What "more successful" in the sentence always meant is "more successful in life". Implied is here that speaking deaf people will be more respected, so racism is implied here and internalized by deaf people. Audismus is just another form of racism, directed against deaf people. Hartmut, 1.08.2007

[edit] The Alexander Graham Bell Line

If Alexander Grahm Bell wanted to "sterilyze all deaf people" why on earth was he friends with Helen Keller? --The Fading Light 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a rather hyperbolic and indeed, ignorant description of Bell's ideas. From pg. 83 of Richard Winefield's Never The Twain Shall Meet: The Communications Debate (Galluadet University Press, 1996, ISBN 1-56368-056-4):
"Bell saw the encouragement of good marraiges as a positive approach to race improvement, and he contrasted it with the negative approach espoused by some others. He did not generally support enactment of laws prohibiting marrages with or between undesirables. After carefully studying the problem, he had concluded that undesirables were not the products of undesirable parents, but most often were the offspring of normal parents."
--maru (talk) contribs 01:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big D deaf vs. little d deaf

I have a deaf freind who explained this crazy stuff to me. There are deaf people who see being deaf as the centerpiece of their existance. The slang term (used among the deaf themselves) for these folks is Big D deaf, as in 'I am Deaf!' There are other deaf folks who see themselves as being folks who just happen to be deaf. The slang term for these folks (once again, used among the deaf themselves) is little d deaf, as in 'yeah, I'm deaf.'

Members of the first group are into 'deaf culture' for its own sake, usually avoid any unnecessary contact with hearing folks, and have a strong desire to remain deaf (and have their children remain deaf) regardless of any medical break throughs which might prevent, cure, or mitigate deafness. They also are frequently involved in activist politics intended to force society in general to 'recognize' and 'value' deaf culture, and castigate (and if they can, prevent) research into cures for deafness, and the practical implementation of the fruits of such research. They are also the ones who cook up ideas like the 'colonization of deaf space by the hearing', and terms like 'audist', and 'audism'. Members of the second group are not into deaf culture for its own sake, mingle freely with hearing folks, and have no desire to remain deaf if there is a reasonable chance to be able to hear. Virtually all of the first group are people who were born totally deaf. The second group is comprised of people who have lost their hearing, who are partially deaf, and who were born deaf. My deaf friend is an example of someone born deaf who falls into the second group.

It is interesting that there is no corresponding division in the ranks of the blind. I wonder why?


Horatius HoratiusAtTheBridge 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not about centerpiece of one's existence. It's about a culture with its own history, its own customs, its own language, its own community, its own values. If you call yourself British or African-American or Jewish, all these words are capitalized. It's the same concept. They see deafness not as some sort of disease to be cured, but as just the way they are, and they accept themselves as belonging to a culture. They don't want to change and try to be somebody they're not. I think the language issue alone is probably the biggest factor (and why you don't see blind people following this kind of pattern). If English (which btw is capitalized) is a foreign language to you, and ASL (or whatver local signed lagauge) is the dominant language in your community and the language that you are most comfortable in, then that alone is enough to create a sense of culture.--Sonjaaa 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think your capitalisation argument stands up. Each people or language you mention as capitalised is so simply because it derives from a place name (Britain, Africa and America, Judah, England). This is not an attack on your thoughts, but on this specific line of reasoning (which I take to be capitalisation ↔ cultural identification). Great point about the divisiveness of language. Christian Campbell 05:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there are plenty of religions out there that are capitalized yet have no official land of their own and have culture/strong sense of identity. JoeSmack Talk 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Helen Keller once said "Blindness cuts you off from things, Deafness cuts you off from people" (or something close to that...) Deaf people share a language and a culture--- its about identity. Blind people do not share a language, do not share a culture. They are members of the mainstream culture who happen to be sensory impaired. I have a very good friend who is blind. Through her, I know a couple other blind people. They would all be very happy if they became sighted people. I am an interpreter, I know many Deaf people. The vast majority of them are happy with who they are, with their identity as members of the Deaf Community, and would not change it if they could. That is why there is not corresponding division within the ranks of the blind. The big factor in the 'division' among Deaf/deaf is identity. Deaf people do not see themselves as big walking broken ears that need to be fixed, regardless of their level of hearing loss. cwterp168.9.24.58 19:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article seems like it could use some refining to point out the fact that this is a view of those who consider themselves to be part of the american "Deaf culture", and not people who are deaf in general (people who are deaf are a very diverse group, especially most people who become deaf later in life do not view themselves as different from their own ethnic groups and culture). Also this part: "Audism takes another form concerning interactions between the deaf: deaf people who will not use sign language and who will not identify with the Deaf community may consider themselves to be "better" than others who use sign language and are part of Deaf culture." This is not audism. Audism is about discrimination towards any people who have bad hearing. It has nothing to do with the particular views of the targeted deaf indivdual. It's like saying "black men racist towards blacks". In my limited experience it goes the other way around, people who are not born deaf, who seek to improve their hearing, who try to integrate themselves into society and communicate/work with non-deaf people, in effect those who work to overcome the audism stereotype are those mocked and marginilised by those who style themselves "big D Deaf". --Helixdq 16:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheelchair culture

There being a "wheelchair culture", "blind culture", "amputee culture", "asthma culture", "diabetic culture" etc. makes just as much sense as having a "deaf culture". Sign language is just something that was created to adapt to the disability, not something that makes it a culture. Some people are just too (deaf and) dumb to see this. 4.235.120.136 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's just ignore all of the studies proving sign languages to be an actual language! Then let's go even further and ignore the criteria for culture, which Deaf culture clearly has! Also, you know those studies that shows that Deaf culture is an actual culture? Doesn't exist! [/sarcasm]
Seems to me that some people need to do some research before spitting out bs. Or at least become educated. :) (EdwardBlake (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC))


Good response Edward. Notice that the requirements for culture are:

Boundaries, be them physical (Geological) or social (African American or black culture is bounded by skin color within America's geological boundary).

A distinct set of practices that are the norm of the culture (Such as the rushed culture of America regarding time as a limited thing while many Eastern cultures regard time as a fluid thing.

In most cases, either a language or an adaptation of a language that shows off the characteristics of the culture. (Americans regard freedom as fundamental, And English's 1 million plus words with a cornucopia of different ways to say the same thing, whereas Spanish, who regard separation of the male/female important use masculine and feminine forms of words.)

Deaf Culture has all three:

Boundaries social being the separation of the Deaf from the hearing majority, and physical being within American borders

They have many distinct practices you won't find in Americans who are not in the Deaf community. These include that while Hearing Americans are individualistic, Deaf Americans are highly collectivistic in practice. When some project needs to get done, they all band together to do it. There are usually groups of people on any one project, sometimes even on small tasks. This comes from the fact that for the longest time, and still today, hearing people are too engrossed in their lifes to do something with them. Another is that the sharing of information is more important. I don't mean intellectual information. The foremost of the questions in Deaf culture introductions involve your connection to the Deaf community (are you related to a Deaf person?) how you learned ASL if you are not related to any Deaf people, and if you are Deaf or hearing.

And finally, to top the iceberg off is that ASL and English are markedly different in grammar and syntax, as would be reflected if Deaf culture is distinct from hearing culture. The differences could be explained here, but wouldn't it be easier if you just went to the article on wiki?

En el amor interminable de Cristo, Sculleywr (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)