Audism - The Definition and the Audist View

[dogmom]

 

[MCB]

It's okay to think that ASL is superior to English, but it's obvious that some people mask it with that label "audist". It seems like a few people are combining anything that isn't pro-ASL with audism.

Isn't it difficult to lie when using ASL? I have seen successful liars who use very little body language when talking. To the point that lack of body language is a clue that the person is lying.

 

[jillio]

This is an excellent approach with the general public who are ignorant.

However, you would know well the term 'damage control'. There has been a lot of 'damage' made by professionals in the medical fields and some authority figures that indoctrinate unsuspectabily the public into believing that it is 'for the better good of the minority group'. (This happens all around the world, especially to indigenous peoples who generally get pushed into a 'minority' category.) All options available should be presented in a balanced and unbiased way, making way for a informed choice. Media often swings the public view. The general public are influenced primarily by public view, few go beyond what they hear/see in the news.

This 'damage' can only be corrected by educating, and in its time and place, advocacy. Educating is a more passive approach. Advocacy takes on a stronger approach.

Very true. Education is for the ignorant of deaf culture and issues that are willing to learn. Advocacy is for those that know better, but refuse to learn in a more gentle way.

 

[jillio]

Because they haven't been given proper access to their native language from the beginning.

Exactly. And they haven't been given access as a direct result of audism.

So, there is another one. Believing that giving a deaf child ASL will impede their ability to speak or to use the English language.

 

[jillio]

It is true that we should approach things in the spirit in which they were intended. Yes, actions do 'speak louder than words'. Like I said, there is a time and place for both passive and stronger approaches. We need the balance and the wisdom to discern which is appropriate at the given time to get our message across effectively.

Very true. One can correct and educate in a gentle manner when it fits the situation, and one can advocate in a stronger manner when it fits the situation. But to pass over the opportunity to do one or the other, depending on the situation, allows audism to continue to exist.

 

[jillio]

Jillio, for that clarification. I just now saw your post (It is early morning here, many have posted 'overnight' and I am just catching up). I responded to TXGolfer's post before yours. He picked me up on using the term 'audist' incorrectly. I stand corrected in that post.

NP.

 

[jillio]

If the word "superior" is taken out and "alternate" inserted does "audism" collapsed? Is it reality if the same "words" are spoken VS signed can "classified to show differences"? Isn't it the "belief that ASL et al" is equal to English et al? How can the users of ASL et al believe it is "inferior"?
How was it determined if the underlying supposition is in fact true? Random sample? Google search?
Some thoughts on a snowy night.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

The users of ASL don't believe it is inferior. Those who don't use ASL and hold audist beliefs think it is inferior.

Read Tom Humphries and Carol Padden. They can educate you very well, if your mind is open.

How is it determined. Years and years worth of evidentiary practices.

 

[jillio]

To me, audist view is simply the definition as stated in the OP:

Audism: The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears.

Nothing more, nothing less. I don't really agree with the most of comments made in this thread. A lot of them simply comes from the idea that ASL is superior to English.

Which is fine by me. It's okay to think that ASL is superior to English, but it's obvious that some people mask it with that label "audist". It seems like a few people are combining anything that isn't pro-ASL with audism.

I know virtually no one on this forum or IRL that has ever indicated, in any way, that they believe that ASL is superior to English. It is more appropriate in many situations than is English. Appropriate does not imply superior, however.

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



completely agree.

the idea is that asl is EQUAL to english, not superior. It is perfectly appropriate to value both. It is not audism at all.

When you prioritize English over ASL, it is audism. The very fact that you place the necessity of learning English, and particularly spoken language as a first priority, is a statement of superiority.

 

[jillio]

Isn't it difficult to lie when using ASL? I have seen successful liars who use very little body language when talking. To the point that lack of body language is a clue that the person is lying.

That is an interesting hypothesis. I need to think about that.

 

[Beowulf]

Isn't it difficult to lie when using ASL? I have seen successful liars who use very little body language when talking. To the point that lack of body language is a clue that the person is lying.

Are you a mortician?

 

[jillio]

Are you a mortician?

Boy, are you quick this morning! Looks like I need another cup of coffee to catch up to that wittiness!

 

[Daredevel7]

Isn't it difficult to lie when using ASL? I have seen successful liars who use very little body language when talking. To the point that lack of body language is a clue that the person is lying.

Not what what this has to do with my post. Are you saying that people cannot lie willingly to lump anything that isn't pro-ASL with audism? Simply because they communicate via ASL?

Aren't we all writing here? And in English too....

 

[Daredevel7]

I know virtually no one on this forum or IRL that has ever indicated, in any way, that they believe that ASL is superior to English. It is more appropriate in many situations than is English. Appropriate does not imply superior, however.

When you prioritize English over ASL, it is audism. The very fact that you place the necessity of learning English, and particularly spoken language as a first priority, is a statement of superiority.

Just to clarify, is this what you believe:

Believing that ASL is superior = Virtually does not exist

Believing that ASL, not English, is appropriate for a child = OK

Believing that English is superior = Audism

Believing that English, not ASL, is appropriate for a child = ...?.... (I suspect audism...)

 

[jillio]

Just to clarify, is this what you believe:

Believing that ASL is superior = Virtually does not exist

Believing that ASL, not English, is appropriate for a child = OK

Believing that English is superior = Audism

Believing that English, not ASL, is appropriate for a child = ...?.... (I suspect audism...)

Just change the second one to "believing that ASL as an L1 language is appropriate to teach a deaf child English" and you pretty much have it. It is, you see, virtually impossible for a deaf child not to be exposed to English on a daily basis. It is all around them.

 

[TXgolfer]

It is true that we should approach things in the spirit in which they were intended. Yes, actions do 'speak louder than words'. Like I said, there is a time and place for both passive and stronger approaches. We need the balance and the wisdom to discern which is appropriate at the given time to get our message across effectively.

I agree.

 

[TXgolfer]

To me, audist view is simply the definition as stated in the OP:

Audism: The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears.

Nothing more, nothing less. I don't really agree with the most of comments made in this thread. A lot of them simply comes from the idea that ASL is superior to English.

Which is fine by me. It's okay to think that ASL is superior to English, but it's obvious that some people mask it with that label "audist". It seems like a few people are combining anything that isn't pro-ASL with audism.

 

[Tousi]

I don't know where this "ASL is superior" is coming from. ASL is appropriate, not superior because it is more natural for one to more successfully pick up a language being a visual learner.

 

[drphil]

Where does this "ASL is superior coming from"? Alice in Deaf land-in signs of course.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[Tousi]

Where does this "ASL is superior coming from"? Alice in Deaf land-in signs of course.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

Then I guess you agree that ASL is more appropriate for deaf visual learners.