"Audism: The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears." Tom Humphries (1975)
I've had my eyes opened and mind expanded by this debate on audism, a term I've not heard of until I joined AD. I've also read a number of older threads on this topic (found one from 2005) to increase my understanding. I've found it to be a very empowering concept.
But I see an area of misunderstanding. I shall illustrate it with an example: "I wish I had 100% hearing" - is this an audist statement? My answer is: "It depends".
If my wishing to be fully hearing is because I believe that hearing people are superior, always have better lives & are more valuable than d/Deaf people then this is a 100% audist statement. I confess that this is how I used to say it.
BUT.
What if my wishing is solely from a functional perspective? What if all I'm wishing for is an ability that I currently don't have (or lost), in the same way I may wish for the ability to drive? I know it doesn't make me a superior or better person. And I'm just wishing it for me, not for all d/Deaf people. This is how I say it now.
It is possible to value both hearing and deafness. Coming onto AD and reading peoples' stories has made me realize that I can live a full life without hearing. I no longer curse my hearing loss. I know that sign language is as rich as a spoken language, and have started to learn it. On AD there are strong advocates for ASL who are hearing people. Their ability to hear doesn't make them audists. And my wish to have the same ability to hear doesn't make me audist either.
According to Tom Humpries's definition, audism (like racism) is driven by a superior-inferior belief. It demeans deafness. It's cure is to value deafness without falling into the opposite trap of demeaning hearing.