Hearing Culture

[Grummer]

I have stumbled a very interesting quote which is provocative for it could force us to ponder on the matter the existence of 'hearing culture',
Quote is as below;


I want to put the word ‘hearing’ in front of culture. How much of what you have been putting into the outline [of hearing culture] depends on hearing, and, because culture is expressed through and shaped by language. How much of that fleshing out that you have been making depends on the fact the language of that ‘hearing’ culture is a word form? – spoken or written. We must, if we are to have any perception of hearing culture and its relationship with deaf culture, answer those two questions, first – How much of hearing culture depends on hearing? Second – How much of hearing culture depends on language being in word form?

what do you think?

 

[kyleb]

I have stumbled a very interesting quote which is provocative for it could force us to ponder on the matter the existence of 'hearing culture',
Quote is as below;


I want to put the word ‘hearing’ in front of culture. How much of what you have been putting into the outline [of hearing culture] depends on hearing, and, because culture is expressed through and shaped by language. How much of that fleshing out that you have been making depends on the fact the language of that ‘hearing’ culture is a word form? – spoken or written. We must, if we are to have any perception of hearing culture and its relationship with deaf culture, answer those two questions, first – How much of hearing culture depends on hearing? Second – How much of hearing culture depends on language being in word form?

what do you think?

interesting quote. hearing culture does exist. from my perspective, maybe 99.9 percent of hearing culture depends on hearing and same for words. but i'm biased.

 

[CrzyMeg]

biase too. even though i am not hearing but once was.

 

[Bottesini]

I don't really understand. If it is hearing language specifically "language" and it is "heard" doesn't it have to be a word? Something not language could also be heard.
But "hearing language" means it is a word.

 

[jillio]

Anthropology, and in particualr cultural and linguistic antropology, teaches that language and culture are inexpicably tied together. One cannot separate the two. Language in any form evolves to meet the needs of the members of the culture to which it is specific. ASL evolved to address the needs of the deaf population, thus its spatial, time oriented syntax, vocabulary, and structure that addresses the needs of a population that uses their visual processing capabilities for communication and comprehension of the world around them. Spoken language has evolved to address the needs of a population that uses their auditory processing capabilities for communication and comprehension of the world around them; hence, its linear structure, syntax and vocabulary. Language evolves and changes and the culture evolves and changes to suit the needs of the population that uses it.

So, yes, language and culture are dependent upon each other. This is true if it is divided into hearing and deaf cultures, or if it is broken down further into various hearing cultural groups, and various deaf cultural groups. For instance, Indonesian Sign Language is constructed to address the specific needs of that cultural group: Indonesian deaf, and it's vacabulary, conceptual construction, and syntax reflects the needs of an individual living within Indonesian deaf culture. Russian spoken language reflects the vocabulary, conceptual construction, and syntax that allows for communication and comprehension of the hearing Russian living within that particualr environment.

 

[deafbajagal]

And this is why some hearing people are considered in the deaf community as "culturally deaf" because their native language is ASL. Most of them, but not all, are CODAs (Children of Deaf Adults.).

 

[jillio]

And this is why some hearing people are considered in the deaf community as "culturally deaf" because their native language is ASL. Most of them, but not all, are CODAs (Children of Deaf Adults.).

Precisely.

 

[Grummer]

Anthropology, and in particualr cultural and linguistic antropology, teaches that language and culture are inexpicably tied together. One cannot separate the two. Language in any form evolves to meet the needs of the members of the culture to which it is specific. ASL evolved to address the needs of the deaf population, thus its spatial, time oriented syntax, vocabulary, and structure that addresses the needs of a population that uses their visual processing capabilities for communication and comprehension of the world around them. Spoken language has evolved to address the needs of a population that uses their auditory processing capabilities for communication and comprehension of the world around them; hence, its linear structure, syntax and vocabulary. Language evolves and changes and the culture evolves and changes to suit the needs of the population that uses it.

So, yes, language and culture are dependent upon each other. This is true if it is divided into hearing and deaf cultures, or if it is broken down further into various hearing cultural groups, and various deaf cultural groups. For instance, Indonesian Sign Language is constructed to address the specific needs of that cultural group: Indonesian deaf, and it's vacabulary, conceptual construction, and syntax reflects the needs of an individual living within Indonesian deaf culture. Russian spoken language reflects the vocabulary, conceptual construction, and syntax that allows for communication and comprehension of the hearing Russian living within that particualr environment.

er, ok thanks for the lession in Athropology, but hate to say it, forget Athro for a minute, just read that question, and say ask yourself "How could we pronouce to the hearing majority (or indeed in Deaf politics) that the existence of hearing culture is really there. And where do we start to find that overlap? where can we SHOW ' that is Hearing culture ' in the contrast to Deaf culture...and what about the workplace organisation how much of it its dominated by the hearing culture, its gets very interesting which i think it would entails many implications in what they call "professional developments" and "(now im maknig this up) the intra/inter-workplace communication protocols.
hmmm
but I do appreciate what you're trying to do Jill, its to some get a foothold on the established sustained academia. But in some way i feel its easier just to leave that aside for now because i sometime worry the confounding effects of establish thinking might render this question invalid whereas it is a well founded question.

 

[jillio]

er, ok thanks for the lession in Athropology, but hate to say it, forget Athro for a minute, just read that question, and say ask yourself "How could we pronouce to the hearing majority (or indeed in Deaf politics) that the existence of hearing culture is really there. And where do we start to find that overlap? where can we SHOW ' that is Hearing culture ' in the contrast to Deaf culture...and what about the workplace organisation how much of it its dominated by the hearing culture, its gets very interesting which i think it would entails many implications in what they call "professional developments" and "(now im maknig this up) the intra/inter-workplace communication protocols.
hmmm
but I do appreciate what you're trying to do Jill, its to some get a foothold on the established sustained academia. But in some way i feel its easier just to leave that aside for now because i sometime worry the confounding effects of establish thinking might render this question invalid whereas it is a well founded question.

You can't separate anthropology from any discussion of culture. And there are modern applied anthropologists that study just the concepts you are adresssing here.

Trying to convince hearing individuals that they are a part of "hearing culture" is as difficult as convincing a white man that he indeed enjoys "white priviledge" that the black man doesn't. The majority never want to admit that norms benefit and are geared to, the majority and that it indeed makes for less than a level playingfield.

 

[shel90]

you Can't Separate Anthropology From Any Discussion Of Culture. And There Are Modern Applied Anthropologists That Study Just The Concepts You Are Adresssing Here.

Trying To Convince Hearing Individuals That They Are A Part Of "hearing Culture" Is As Difficult As Convincing A White Man That He Indeed Enjoys "white Priviledge" That The Black Man Doesn't. The Majority Never Want To Admit That Norms Benefit And Are Geared To, The Majority And That It Indeed Makes For Less Than A Level Playingfield.

Yessss!!! Exactly!!!!!

 

[Bebonang]

Yessss!!! Exactly!!!!!

I second the vote as exactly what Jillio said. , Jillio!!!!

 

[jillio]

Bebonang and Shel!

 

[Grummer]

ok , WHO?
who are the academics you speak of? Jillo, i mean as you know , in every feild of study there are always scholars of different opinions and different theoretical base witthin a discipline.

i highly doubt all of anthropology leans towards that very quote i just highlighted.

I dont have anthropolgy ingrained in my thinking , but i had read some materials but geez it was a long time ago, even so i can still recall that anthropolgy is no different to any other 'liberal arts'

 

[Grummer]

You can't separate anthropology from any discussion of culture. And there are modern applied anthropologists that study just the concepts you are adresssing here.

Trying to convince hearing individuals that they are a part of "hearing culture" is as difficult as convincing a white man that he indeed enjoys "white priviledge" that the black man doesn't. The majority never want to admit that norms benefit and are geared to, the majority and that it indeed makes for less than a level playingfield.

not that difficult to convince a white man's luxury. That has been on people's awareness of this obvious material differences for quite some time now, but linguistic privilege is another story, try tell somebody the differences between a privilege of being able to sign is the same or better as to a deaf person being 'able to speak and have conversation with 'more people' from the hearing population is even more bloody difficult., so get closer to this one, you'd see how anthropology itself is not sufficient enough to overcome this difficulity, it is more related to disabilty , and its deep post-structuralist/post modernist thinking.

 

[jillio]

ok , WHO?
who are the academics you speak of? Jillo, i mean as you know , in every feild of study there are always scholars of different opinions and different theoretical base witthin a discipline.

i highly doubt all of anthropology leans towards that very quote i just highlighted.

I dont have anthropolgy ingrained in my thinking , but i had read some materials but geez it was a long time ago, even so i can still recall that anthropolgy is no different to any other 'liberal arts'

Anthroplogy is not an art, it is a science. And the subdisciplines of cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, psychological anthropoplogy, and educational anthropology would agree with the quote.

Yes, there are varying opinions and different theories. However, do not define the phenomenon, they explain the process by which it occurs. With criticl thinking, any theory can be used to explain any phenomenon. As knowledge and sophistication increase, theory becomes more sophisticated and includes variables not previously considered.

Given that you are studying sociology, I would think that you would be including quite a bit of anthropology in your endeavors. The two are very closely connected, in that they both focus their studies on group behavior, and explanations for such. In fact, most sociological theory is identical in concept to modern sociological theory, or modern social psychological theory.
Infact, there is a subdicipline known as sociological anthropology that concerns itself with modern culture and groups.

 

[jillio]

not that difficult to convince a white man's luxury. That has been on people's awareness of this obvious material differences for quite some time now, but linguistic privilege is another story, try tell somebody the differences between a privilege of being able to sign is the same or better as to a deaf person being 'able to speak and have conversation with 'more people' from the hearing population is even more bloody difficult., so get closer to this one, you'd see how anthropology itself is not sufficient enough to overcome this difficulity, it is more related to disabilty , and its deep post-structuralist/post modernist thinking.

Perhpas it isn't that difficult where you are, but it is indeed difficult to get the causcasion in the states to even recognize that a concept such as "white priviledge" exisits in the U.S. The effects of it are so subtle, and it occurs without conscious thought or monitoring of motives or behavior. It is based on the concept of heuristics, and heuristics are mental shortcuts that allow us to act without thought as to why we are behaving in the way we do. The concept of "white priviledge" does not just extend to SES issues or material gains, but to education, social, and occupational arenas, as well.

The way in which a society responds to the needs of its disabled members is indeed an anthroplogical issue. Anthropology is not just concerned with issues of the past, but if very much grounded in the here and now. It is useful to take a cross-disciplinary approach, as no one discipline, including sociology or psychology, is sufficient to completely explain the social condition, or how that social condition affects the individual. When one narrows one's focus to one singular discipline, one tends to obscure answers that are readily available.

 

[thirdgencubfan]

I bring you exhibit one:

The Telephone

-Get a credit card, have to activate it. How do you activate it? Call the phone number on the peel-off sticker on the credit card *AND* you have to call from the home phone number associated with the card. Which means no relay services.

-Order an item using a credit card but use a shipping address that is different than your billing address. What happens? Credit card company calls you on your listed home phone number and you have to call them back to approve the order. They do not send an envelope. I have yet to meet a credit card issued bank that allowed such things over their secure website.

-If you decide not to get a telephone and do all of your communication via the internet, you are not going to get services like banking, utilities, credit cards, library cards, anything that involves requiring your personal information. If you do not have a home phone number, work phone number, fax phone number, cell phone number, or even a phone number for your pet dog, you are a ghost to them. Even if you use your personal relay phone number no one will reach you on that because as soon as they hear its a service they hang up and do not leave a message.

-In order to get home internet, I have to have a regular phone line. I signed up for only the basic plan ($10 a month for local only). I picked up a cheap phone/answering machine off a flea market and plugged the phone line into it. Any messages left on it gets deleted. It has a layer of dust all over it except for the delete button. I think a tiny spider is living in the handset.

When banks, big businesses and utilities were modernizing their customer processes/work flows in the 60's and 70's, the Internet was an military/academic network (called ARPA net, funded by DARPA) and was never envisioned for consumer use. Thus, those corporations/utilities based it all around two crucial pieces of information: your home address and your phone number.

Today, after about 13+ years of popular internet growth, it is starting to break that mold. Until then, the "hearing culture" will continue to worship the phone.

 

[Grummer]

Perhpas it isn't that difficult where you are, but it is indeed difficult to get the causcasion in the states to even recognize that a concept such as "white priviledge" exisits in the U.S.

No surprises. It's more difficult anywhere now, Although Black rights orginated from the States, the melting pot effect has much effect on anywhere as to the US. All the while black people advance their status, the ruling groups in status quo tends to advance their power game even further, making their rationalisation far more layered than before, thus harder to detect.

The effects of it are so subtle, and it occurs without conscious thought or monitoring of motives or behavior. It is based on the concept of heuristics, and heuristics are mental shortcuts that allow us to act without thought as to why we are behaving in the way we do.

heuristics, is this an anthropological concept or is it from psychology?

The concept of "white priviledge" does not just extend to SES issues or material gains, but to education, social, and occupational arenas, as well.

of course, the later three is indeed harder to detect white priviledge. Like 'privilege' is akin to more like scoring social 'points' no matter what creed, race a person is from, however the 'rules' of 'life' in society still pertains to the white's rules [of success]. So in essence nearly everyone is now becoming a 'conformist' is just one slant, if not following then a life of crime, or poverty would tend to be a result.

The way in which a society responds to the needs of its disabled members is indeed an anthroplogical issue. Anthropology is not just concerned with issues of the past, but if very much grounded in the here and now.

yes I am aware anthropology is not just concerned with thrid world countries, or tribal societies. it is study of people, whereas sociology is study of society.

It is useful to take a cross-disciplinary approach, as no one discipline, including sociology or psychology, is sufficient to completely explain the social condition, or how that social condition affects the individual. When one narrows one's focus to one singular discipline, one tends to obscure answers that are readily available.

On the other hand, spreading out too thinly across disciplines can obscure the substatiation as well.

So indeed there is a quality and quanitity issues. It is better to do well in one field to substantiate and then make a connection to another branch of knowledge, that would reap rounded explanations which complements each disciplines in an established way (as you say) can be made.

 

[jillio]

No surprises. It's more difficult anywhere now, Although Black rights orginated from the States, the melting pot effect has much effect on anywhere as to the US. All the while black people advance their status, the ruling groups in status quo tends to advance their power game even further, making their rationalisation far more layered than before, thus harder to detect.



heuristics, is this an anthropological concept or is it from psychology?



of course, the later three is indeed harder to detect white priviledge. Like 'privilege' is akin to more like scoring social 'points' no matter what creed, race a person is from, however the 'rules' of 'life' in society still pertains to the white's rules [of success]. So in essence nearly everyone is now becoming a 'conformist' is just one slant, if not following then a life of crime, or poverty would tend to be a result.



yes I am aware anthropology is not just concerned with thrid world countries, or tribal societies. it is study of people, whereas sociology is study of society.



On the other hand, spreading out too thinly across disciplines can obscure the substatiation as well.

So indeed there is a quality and quanitity issues. It is better to do well in one field to substantiate and then make a connection to another branch of knowledge, that would reap rounded explanations which complements each disciplines in an established way (as you say) can be made.

Heuristics is a concept from cognitive psychology which have been applied extensively to social psychology.

And, good post.

 

[Etoile]

Do I correctly understand that this postulates the presumed hearing culture is based on the act of using language rather than any particular language?

I'm not an anthropology student, just a fan of studying society, but it seems to me that members of a group have to be aware of their membership in a group, don't they? A black person knows they are black every day, a deaf person knows they are deaf every day. But hearing people don't think about their hearing until they meet a deaf person. Most people don't walk around all day aware of the fact that they can hear...it just IS for them. I'm not saying this to disprove the idea of a hearing culture, just throwing it out there to point out hearing people are not usually (proudly) Hearing in the way that people are Black or Deaf. They just don't think about it.