Audism and Deafism

[Grummer]

We tend to see more usage of the word Audism than deafism.
I wonder if the over use of audsim is due to lack of the awareness the word deafism. As an internal form of 'racism' from Deaf towards deaf people would be more appropriately deemed as deafism rather than audism. Is it not?

Please tell me what are the known definitions of these words. I am interested to know the
A) correct,
B) popular,
c) distorted,
D) vague,

and ultimately the could anyone describe the nature of using those words and in what contexts, and how come does these two words overlap ?(where it shouldnt but often it does) and where the lines drawn, and why it is often blurred

thanks in advance

 

[shel90]

I never knew the word "audism" until I joined here on AD. It is interesting and I learned a lot about that word. However, I have never used it in real life or at least I dont think so! LOL! Deafism is a new one to me just now.

 

[ismi]

I think "audism" is still a more proper term for internal (deaf-deaf) or reverse (deaf against hearing) discrimination based on hearing status. Compare with racism or sexism, which are used to mean both "majority against minority" discrimination, "minority against majority", and "minority against minority".

 

[Grummer]

ismi, I'm not sure, but sure it is 'popular' to use audism to mean 'more' but it doesnt mean it is correctly used. Just be because certain reactionary behaviours or response or even 'attracks' occurs in the minority against minority settings, it doesnt mean audism is observed 'correctly'.

I suspect its liken women 20-30 years ago with the word Feminism, and even now the 'more' successful women are not now recognised as *pure* feminist , usually when they do, they are sometimes recognised as *reformed lesbians as well* (women out there please dont bite me , im only illustrating a point if not a generalised one), since they are known to BEHAVE like Men, like at famous politician women like Margaret Thatcher, Condoleezza Rice, even Martha Steward (not in the front but in the background, the adminstrating or petty media politics, in her way she could clout and organise TV shows - that bit takes abit of knowledge of the 'mans' world, so such approaches she might adopt to throw weights around to make it happen.

Sorry for dragging in a 'irrelevant issue' but I am hoping to point out to that there's a suspected immaturity in the 'social consciousness' in the deaf world pertaining to the use of words audism and deafism. Just an analogy to help clarify is all

Being feminist is about dynamic, relationships, politics of pateriarchy , not usually about enfeminity or masculinity. in the same vain audism is about the society's configuration of how it accomodates deaf people, not about (entirely) whether deaf people 'prefers' the hearing way........but yeah it sure does gets very interesting.....

Cheers

 

[R2D2]

We tend to see more usage of the word Audism than deafism.
I wonder if the over use of audsim is due to lack of the awareness the word deafism. As an internal form of 'racism' from Deaf towards deaf people would be more appropriately deemed as deafism rather than audism. Is it not?

Please tell me what are the known definitions of these words. I am interested to know the
A) correct,
B) popular,
c) distorted,
D) vague,

and ultimately the could anyone describe the nature of using those words and in what contexts, and how come does these two words overlap ?(where it shouldnt but often it does) and where the lines drawn, and why it is often blurred

thanks in advance

To be honest, I've no idea. I didn't come across the word "audist" until I came to AD. It's not listed in my thick English dictionary, although I have to say it's over 10 years old. I think that because AD represents only a small subsection of deaf people there hasn't been enough observed use of the word to be able to sort it into your categories as listed above. People are going to dispute the correct meanings depending on their viewpoint.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Honsetly, I has no idea what Audism is about until I learn from AD forum few weeks ago.

Deafism? this is a new to me.

I also learn those word "sexism" is from this AD forum at few months ago as well...

It look like that we still learn something new in everyday...

That's what I learn about Audism...

http://www.alldeaf.com/834337-post102.html

 

[Sunshinelady]

Honsetly, I has no idea what Audism is about until I learn from AD forum few weeks ago.

Deafism? this is a new to me.

I also learn those word "sexism" is from this AD forum at few months ago as well...

It look like that we still learn something new in everyday...

That's what I learn about Audism...

http://www.alldeaf.com/834337-post102.html

I agree.... this Deafism is a new to me too... I never heard about an Idea "Deafism" in the law.
whatever same to stay this word AUDISM, that is all.
when I am visiting in Wiesbaden and they was KUGG "AUDISM and DEAFHOOD" with Christian Rathmann aus Hamburg and Hartmut Teuber aus Boston. I had much fun to watching there, what they said and an Information to us about AUDISM and DEAFHOOD!!!!

 

[Grummer]

Audism is NOT the same as Deafism, just as Marxism is not the same as Communism.
In parrallel, deafism is the distorted version of audism, liken Commmunisim was from the distorted view of Marixsm. That is a type of aftermath resulting from earlier misunderstanding of what is absolutely constitutes as audism. Tom Humperies coined this word way back in 1975, from dabbling with latin words which is often done to conjure up new words.
Audism is about what's criticising the hearist society, whereas Deafism is liken criticising within the deafist society. The latter is not healthy either. There are abundent room for improvisation of these concepts.

 

[jillio]

To be honest, I've no idea. I didn't come across the word "audist" until I came to AD. It's not listed in my thick English dictionary, although I have to say it's over 10 years old. I think that because AD represents only a small subsection of deaf people there hasn't been enough observed use of the word to be able to sort it into your categories as listed above. People are going to dispute the correct meanings depending on their viewpoint.[/QUOT

I would imagine that it is not listed in a dictionary because it is a rather recent, culture specific concept.

 

[R2D2]

Audism is NOT the same as Deafism, just as Marxism is not the same as Communism.
In parrallel, deafism is the distorted version of audism, liken Commmunisim was from the distorted view of Marixsm. That is a type of aftermath resulting from earlier misunderstanding of what is absolutely constitutes as audism. Tom Humperies coined this word way back in 1975, from dabbling with latin words which is often done to conjure up new words.
Audism is about what's criticising the hearist society, whereas Deafism is liken criticising within the deafist society. The latter is not healthy either. There are abundent room for improvisation of these concepts.

Thanks for defining deafist - I've learned something new. Is this concept something that is generally agreed upon?

Maybe you could write a political essay defining and distinguishing all these concepts. I haven't heard the word hearist society either. I've seen people refer more to an audist society. What's the difference between hearist and audist?

 

[R2D2]

I would imagine that it is not listed in a dictionary because it is a rather recent, culture specific concept.

Yes, that's what I thought too.

 

[Grummer]

First of all, my apology, it’s supposed to be hearingist society, not hearist but suppose it could be that. For the etymology may allow this to change.

Ok audism is a relatively new word, sprung up in 1975, and later on about 1992 was used in publication for first time in Harlan Lane’s book (I believe it was “The Mask of Benevolence” )
Audism refers to the notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. Also Humperies observed;” that It appears in the class structure of the deaf culture when those at the top are those whose language is that of the hearing culture or closest to it. It appears when deaf people in positions of power keep that power by oppressing other deaf people.”
I do agree, however not in all cases. But I do see relevance of this thesis. However it doesn’t hold water on all accounts because various specific positions that a ‘deaf person holds’ is not necessarily ‘oppressive to deaf people’ for they may work in an office of a factory, thus earning more income.
Also put other way around It appears in the class structure of the Deaf culture (notice I say Deaf this time not deaf, as this may be used to reflect different views taken from the two different ‘snapshots between 1975 and 2007, for example, the social awareness of deaf people has evolved since this concept had trickled down from the ivory tower to the lays, so it would be different between back then and now, and likely more so in the future)
When those at the top are those whose language is that of the Deaf culture or born into the closest to it (i.e.; Deaf family so they proclaim superiority over less signing deafs. It appears when Deaf people in positions of power keep that power by oppressing other deaf people.
That is Deafism.
Now a Hearingist society is liken when hearing people have no connection what so ever with deaf people, and just carries on their own lives. They have no intention to enforce audism, but perhaps normalcy yes. This is just a more ‘generalised’ description of society, it would be similar to feminists discussing patriarchy, and masculinity, respectively; patriarchy describes the cultural behaviour that follows the male as head of the family or tribe, whereas masculinity describes the persona of male as aggressive or to possess a hunting ability, with intent to dominate. So a Hearingist society is liken patriarchy by ways of describing the configuration of society that is an assumed convenience for hearing people whereas audist is liken to describe an attitude that prejudice of hearing people against deaf people is condoned.

 

[jillio]

First of all, my apology, it’s supposed to be hearingist society, not hearist but suppose it could be that. For the etymology may allow this to change.

Ok audism is a relatively new word, sprung up in 1975, and later on about 1992 was used in publication for first time in Harlan Lane’s book (I believe it was “The Mask of Benevolence” )
Audism refers to the notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. Also Humperies observed;” that It appears in the class structure of the deaf culture when those at the top are those whose language is that of the hearing culture or closest to it. It appears when deaf people in positions of power keep that power by oppressing other deaf people.”
I do agree, however not in all cases. But I do see relevance of this thesis. However it doesn’t hold water on all accounts because various specific positions that a ‘deaf person holds’ is not necessarily ‘oppressive to deaf people’ for they may work in an office of a factory, thus earning more income.
Also put other way around It appears in the class structure of the Deaf culture (notice I say Deaf this time not deaf, as this may be used to reflect different views taken from the two different ‘snapshots between 1975 and 2007, for example, the social awareness of deaf people has evolved since this concept had trickled down from the ivory tower to the lays, so it would be different between back then and now, and likely more so in the future)
When those at the top are those whose language is that of the Deaf culture or born into the closest to it (i.e.; Deaf family so they proclaim superiority over less signing deafs. It appears when Deaf people in positions of power keep that power by oppressing other deaf people.
That is Deafism.
Now a Hearingist society is liken when hearing people have no connection what so ever with deaf people, and just carries on their own lives. They have no intention to enforce audism, but perhaps normalcy yes. This is just a more ‘generalised’ description of society, it would be similar to feminists discussing patriarchy, and masculinity, respectively; patriarchy describes the cultural behaviour that follows the male as head of the family or tribe, whereas masculinity describes the persona of male as aggressive or to possess a hunting ability, with intent to dominate. So a Hearingist society is liken patriarchy by ways of describing the configuration of society that is an assumed convenience for hearing people whereas audist is liken to describe an attitude that prejudice of hearing people against deaf people is condoned.

Exactly, Grummer. Audism is a term developed to describe a social process that occurs with any group falling outside the majority. One who falls closer to the bell curve of "normal" for any given society is perceived as "superior" in both ability and value. Equate it to the mistaken belief that light skinned African Americans are superior to dark skinned African Americans. Despite the progress that we have made in abolishing such stereotypes, the behavior that communicates such a message still exists both within the African American community and outside it. The same with the Deaf community.

 

[shel90]

Exactly, Grummer. Audism is a term developed to describe a social process that occurs with any group falling outside the majority. One who falls closer to the bell curve of "normal" for any given society is perceived as "superior" in both ability and value. Equate it to the mistaken belief that light skinned African Americans are superior to dark skinned African Americans. Despite the progress that we have made in abolishing such stereotypes, the behavior that communicates such a message still exists both within the African American community and outside it. The same with the Deaf community.

I grew up thinking that I was inferior to my hearing peers and that they knew better than I do. Would that be considered audism on their part?

 

[jillio]

I grew up thinking that I was inferior to my hearing peers and that they knew better than I do. Would that be considered audism on their part?

Sort of. It was an attitude of audism that was shown to you by the way you were treated. But it didn't necessarily have to come from your peers. You have posted before about teachers who said you were too samrt toattend a deaf school because you had such good oral skills. That is audism plain and simple. A child will translate things like that to mean, "The better you can hear, and the better you can speak, the smarter you are, and smarter is better."

 

[Grummer]

and Similarly,

It was an attitude of deafism crops up when Deaf clubs or after-hours private deafies social at their home says you are not welcome, because you are too hearie to attend because you had such good oral skills or lack sign fluency. That is deafism plain and simple.

This would make you end up thinking that you are inferior to your deaf/ Deaf peers and that they knew better than you do. That be considered as a distorted audism on their part which is correctly identifed as deafism.

(sorry Jillio and Shel, I spun your words, just wanted to show the opposite)

 

[shel90]

and Similarly,

It was an attitude of deafism crops up when Deaf clubs or after-hours private deafies social at their home says you are not welcome, because you are too hearie to attend because you had such good oral skills or lack sign fluency. That is deafism plain and simple.

This would make you end up thinking that you are inferior to your deaf/ Deaf peers and that they knew better than you do. That be considered as a distorted audism on their part which is correctly identifed as deafism.

(sorry Jillio and Shel, I spun your words, just wanted to show the opposite)

I experienced that when I first attended Gally. That was a shock cuz I thought I would fit in immediately so during that first 6 months or so, I felt so lost and scared that I wouldnt be able to fit in anywhere. There were other things going on in my life that aggravated those feelings anyway. Now, my family (hubby, kids, mom, brother and best friend) are the most important people in my lives.

 

[jillio]

and Similarly,

It was an attitude of deafism crops up when Deaf clubs or after-hours private deafies social at their home says you are not welcome, because you are too hearie to attend because you had such good oral skills or lack sign fluency. That is deafism plain and simple.

This would make you end up thinking that you are inferior to your deaf/ Deaf peers and that they knew better than you do. That be considered as a distorted audism on their part which is correctly identifed as deafism.

(sorry Jillio and Shel, I spun your words, just wanted to show the opposite)

Not a problem, Grummer. You are absolutely right in that it works the other way, as well.

 

[asongofhands]

Reviving an old thread...

I've been doing some reading on the subject, and I came up with a continuum just now. What do you think?


5. Audism - outright discrimination of D/deaf people because of their deafness, lack of English fluency, etc.

4. Phonocentrism - Preference for auditory over visual communication (Hearing society)

3. Equality - Voice and sign treated equally (e.g. Chilmark), balance of auditory and visual communication with interpreters, captions, etc.

2. Ocularcentrism - Visual preferred over auditory communication. (Deaf society)

1. Deafism - outright discrimination of hearing and non-fluent signers because of their hearing status and/or signing level by Deaf/DEAF people.