Pros and cons of Oralism??

[deafdyke]

Loml, I am NOT talking about kids who use MCE systems. They use expressive ASL, not nessarily Sign in English word order.
Oh, and Loml and Passcifist, I don't think that it's deafness that's dependant....I think it's more general hearing loss. Yes, if everyone was hoh, Deaf culture would be a little more hearing, but it would still be strongly visual.

 

[Passivist]

I disagree with you entirely. The identifying factor of culture is shared language. It has nothing to do with level of hearing loss. If decibel levels were the only criteron used to identify a member of the Deaf culture, many who affiliate would be excluded because their hearing loss was not profound enough to guarantee membership in the culture. The identity of the Deaf community as a culture is based on the fact that ASL is a separate language, and as such is used to pass cultural values and norms from generation to generation. Any elementary anthropology course will teach you that in order to be identified as a separate culture, a separate language must exist, and that thought processes and cognition of that culture is dependant upon that shared language. If you view deafness as a disability, you have a subgroup within the majority culture, but not a separate culture. A group and a culture are not one and the same. That is the heart of the struggle for the Deaf community to be identified as a cultural and linguistic minority. To use decibel level or disability as the criterion for membership in the Deaf community is equal to telling someone with a moderate loss that they are not deaf enough to qualify for interpreter services through the ADA.

With due respect NO ASL/BSL sign language would exist without the deafness, so I cannot really see where this point is coming from. You are I fear ignoring totally the disability of deafness, which create the circumstances that allow deaf culture to evolve. This is a line many in the deaf cultural area take, i.e. ignoring the deafness/disablement aspect altogether, unfortunately for most this isn't possible or, realistic. The db reference wasn't an 'oralist; inclusion, it is just a recognised cut-off point term/measurement where useful hearing is recognised as not a primary issue. No group, no culture and no sign language without the deafness. I think ignoring hearing loss as an issue is commendable in the scheme of the 'Deaf' rights thing, even a viable means of coping with it, but it is NOT a universally accepted fact, it is a 'VIEW' (Belief even for some), but not the reality.

 

[jillio]

It is not I ignoring the totality of the disability of deafness, it is you. Part of the totality involves language differences, not just differences in db and baseline assessments of hearing loss. No, the culture would not exist without deafness, but simply being deaf is not enough to constitute a separate culture. Separate culture does not exist without separate language. Perhaps you should do some studying in the fields of linguistics and cultural anthropolgy, as well as psyco-linguistics. Values, norms, traditions, and vocabulary are all dependant upon culture, and culture is transmitted through language. Mode of communication, in fact, defines the culture and the cognitive processes determined by language of a given population. The identity of culturally Deaf is not dependant upon level of hearing loss. There are members of the Deaf community that range from mild to profound in their losses. The identity comes from a shared language-ASL in the United States-just as members of the Hispanic community identify as a member of that group based on a shared language whether they are Hispanic through both parents, through one parent, or perhaps only through one grandparent. Membership is not dependant upon the number of genes that can be identified on a racial basis. And membership in the Deaf community is not defined by level of hearing loss.

 

[Passivist]

It is not I ignoring the totality of the disability of deafness, it is you. Part of the totality involves language differences, not just differences in db and baseline assessments of hearing loss. No, the culture would not exist without deafness, but simply being deaf is not enough to constitute a separate culture. Separate culture does not exist without separate language. Perhaps you should do some studying in the fields of linguistics and cultural anthropolgy, as well as psyco-linguistics. Values, norms, traditions, and vocabulary are all dependant upon culture, and culture is transmitted through language. Mode of communication, in fact, defines the culture and the cognitive processes determined by language of a given population. The identity of culturally Deaf is not dependant upon level of hearing loss. There are members of the Deaf community that range from mild to profound in their losses. The identity comes from a shared language-ASL in the United States-just as members of the Hispanic community identify as a member of that group based on a shared language whether they are Hispanic through both parents, through one parent, or perhaps only through one grandparent. Membership is not dependant upon the number of genes that can be identified on a racial basis. And membership in the Deaf community is not defined by level of hearing loss.

I appreciate your viewpoint, but cannot see where this is going. We have both agreed no deafness no deaf culture, and no set up of one. Nothing of which you have stated would EXIST if deafness didn't exist itself, which was an hypothetical viewpoint, deafness does exist, so why the angst ? You are allying 'culture' with others but most others do NOT rely on a disablement, no disablement or increased alleviations of it, would automatically dilute any culture based on it.

Deaf culture is highly vulnerable to.... hearing, and increased alternative means to communicate too. The identity such as it is belongs only to a very few deaf people, as most have border-line useful hearing or have acquired a deafness, these people have no links to 'culture', even using sign language (As they do), has not meant THEY have joined in the cultural ideal, there are a LOT of deaf people who do not identify with deaf culture. Man for Man (Or woman !), in the UK, more HEARING People sign than deaf (A useful fact for you !), another fact you may find of interest is more HEARING people attain higher academic levels of BSL here than the deaf do. Obviously NONE of these individuals are 'cultural Identified'.

Acquired/deafened also do not allude to any cultural identity, since they attack deafness and want more 'hearing' options, a RETURN to their norm. While deaf culture plays down deafness itself (As you did), there would be no 'identity' if they could hear, or had useful hearing. Whether cultural deaf accept it or not, their entire situation revolves aroud being DEAF, there is no getting away from this fact. Since no 'cures' exist you can call it and identify how you choose, but if and when the 'cures' do....... come back and tell you you won't excersize the choice it gives.

 

[deafdyke]

Paccisfist, here in the US we've gotten past that dumb decible loss= "really" deaf, debate. This is not nessarily dependant on deafness....Yes, it's dependant on disabilty...but not nessarily profound and severe amounts.....thre are many hoh folks who ID as Deaf, as well as many people who can't communicate orally. Sign and Deaf culture is not nessarily about lack of hearing.....it's about being more visual then a hearing person.

 

[Passivist]

Paccisfist, here in the US we've gotten past that dumb decible loss= "really" deaf, debate. This is not nessarily dependant on deafness....Yes, it's dependant on disabilty...but not nessarily profound and severe amounts.....thre are many hoh folks who ID as Deaf, as well as many people who can't communicate orally. Sign and Deaf culture is not nessarily about lack of hearing.....it's about being more visual then a hearing person.

Interesting viewpoint ! Your deaf sites suggest otherwise There's a danger of generalising, we all do it, most of it still down to the conflict of idealogy between loss and culture, in all it's many varieties. So long as these differences occur the debate continues to attain some polarisation. These days there should be less of 'Us' and more of 'Me', but the term 'deaf' still drags everything into contention, because the word itself has achieved dual status.

HOH sign, deaf oralise, some speak, some don't, but we cannot 'lump' them altogether as a community or a culture, which is far too often done. There are huge differences and many irreconcilable too. How we address this so movement can be made seems bogged down in dogmas. There seems a reluctance to attribute a personal view, and always the revert to 'We', who ARE these people ? It is a smoke-screen, by attributing via US, and WE, personal responisbility for a viewpoint, isn't really defined, and it papers over the cracks and flaws in the argument. You aren't taking on a personal view, but an entire 'group'. Safety in numbers ? but fear too, the arguments won't hold up ! Being a member of a group/culture doesn't mean you HAVE to toe the line, I'm from Welsh stock and obviously NON-conformist by nature !

 

[loml]

Passivist,

 

[loml]

Loml, I am NOT talking about kids who use MCE systems. They use expressive ASL, not nessarily Sign in English word order.
Oh, and Loml and Passcifist, I don't think that it's deafness that's dependant....I think it's more general hearing loss. Yes, if everyone was hoh, Deaf culture would be a little more hearing, but it would still be strongly visual.

deafdyke,

Using Sign (I am not sure why you choose to capitalize it) and ASL interchagable, imo, only leads to confusion for people who are searching for information. The use of some sign words in English sentence is not and never will be ASL.

Children with trach. etc., non-verbal, rarely if at all, recieve ASL via a native ASL user. Parents need to know that their child is not recieving a language. It is time to see the forest deafdyke.

Being strongly visual does not make a culture.

 

[deafdyke]

Passcifist, here's a question. What percentage of childhood dhh folks would choose oral-only, oral-alone, monolingalism, whatever you want to call it, without influence from the hearing and speaking world? Probaly a very small percentage, and most of THOSE folks would probaly be postie or perilingally (went deaf while learning language) deaf. NOBODY is looking down on oral skills. It's just that we're asking the question WHY a lot of oral-onliests are so high and mighty about their verbal skills and their so-called "better" education? If more oral-onlyists were more openminded, then we wouldn't have a lot of the arguments. Oral skills are great and important and everything.......but I see a lot of oral-onliests being incredibily snobby about their skills. They were taught to be that way by hearing people. They are just SO proud of their one tool......we need to change that.....we need to change education and end goals and attitudes so that the gross majority of dhh kids have a FULL toolbox of communication tools to choose from!

 

[loml]

deafdyke

NOBODY is looking down on oral skills. It's just that we're asking the question WHY a lot of oral-onliests are so high and mighty about their verbal skills and their so-called "better" education? If more oral-onlyists were more openminded, then we wouldn't have a lot of the arguments. Oral skills are great and important and everything.......but I see a lot of oral-onliests being incredibily snobby about their skills. They were taught to be that way by hearing people.

deafdyke,

How can you not be looking down on oral skills when you judge this group of people as harshly as you do?

 

[deafdyke]

The use of some sign words in English sentence is not and never will be ASL.

Children with trach. etc., non-verbal, rarely if at all, recieve ASL via a native ASL user.

Sigh.....Loml.......how do you know that they are not signing in grammarticularly correct ASL? My state actually has a program (EI and educational) where hearing kids with other disabilites, learn ASL as a first language. It's also seen in some other states too. I agree that a nonverbal person using a handful of Signs to communicate, isn't ASL, but do you have any stats on kids with other disabilites who use ASL? Didn't think so!
loml, you're missing something. I am NOT bashing those with oral skills. I'm pretty oral myself. I'm simply bashing those who flaunt their oral skills, and then bitch and moan b/c they don't fit in anywhere. Trust me.....audist oralists can be incredibly snobby. Deaf folks welcome those who can speak, who are open to learning Sign.....I'm still not quite fluent in Sign, although can have conversations in Sign......I've never been treated shabbily.....but that's b/c I'm openminded, and want to learn!

 

[Passivist]

Sigh.....Loml.......how do you know that they are not signing in grammarticularly correct ASL? My state actually has a program (EI and educational) where hearing kids with other disabilites, learn ASL as a first language. It's also seen in some other states too. I agree that a nonverbal person using a handful of Signs to communicate, isn't ASL, but do you have any stats on kids with other disabilites who use ASL? Didn't think so!
loml, you're missing something. I am NOT bashing those with oral skills. I'm pretty oral myself. I'm simply bashing those who flaunt their oral skills, and then bitch and moan b/c they don't fit in anywhere. Trust me.....audist oralists can be incredibly snobby. Deaf folks welcome those who can speak, who are open to learning Sign.....I'm still not quite fluent in Sign, although can have conversations in Sign......I've never been treated shabbily.....but that's b/c I'm openminded, and want to learn!

We are all products of our own experiences deafdyke, it takes a special person to be able to stand back and examine it with some impartiality. To examine sign-language (or oralism), and assess the merits or disadvantages of both, is hard if you feel one mode or another disadvantaged or spoilt your life. Bashing oralists is a fruitless pastime, I suggest the basis of the 'bashing' is more, to cement the links with the signing community, who appear to demand which side of the fence you are sitting on as some 'entrance qualification'.

While you would welcome deaf oralists to the 'community' (so long as they sign, or are willing to), would you attempt the reverse ? to recognize the means they use ? All you are really saying, is that so long as others fall into the cultural signing line all is fine, can you not see this appears a bit one-way too ? Most oralists (what IS an oralist ?), I meet who can speak and are deaf use some sign too, but obviously it is NOT The be-all, and end-all to their communications, they ARE using a fuller 'box' than the singular sign user surely ? They get frustrated too ! and it's true,even oralising is no open door to hearing things, they float between hearing-deaf things, it's not an ideal situation, but there's no real alternative is there ?

Try to see BOTH sides, not ALL oralists throw skills in signers faces, it may just be there is some envy about the oralist communicates easier than the signer does, BUT, the end result is not all that different from the signers, who perhaps feel they KNOW what they are and where they are, we should perhaps cease demonising oralists and see them as just as disadvantaged as another deaf sector, each has it's own strengths and weakness,if they only stopped sniping at each other long enough to see this, they could really enhance things for all.

It's sadly true neither side really respects the other at present, c'mon, isn't there really a method in the signing madness to attack oralism ? it enhances sign doesn't it and unites ? stand back, they are people too.

I should I suppose break into the coca-cola song with "I'd like to teach the world to sing....", but it isn't yet at that stage is it ?

 

[loml]

Sigh.....Loml.......how do you know that they are not signing in grammarticularly correct ASL? My state actually has a program (EI and educational) where hearing kids with other disabilites, learn ASL as a first language. It's also seen in some other states too. I agree that a nonverbal person using a handful of Signs to communicate, isn't ASL, but do you have any stats on kids with other disabilites who use ASL? Didn't think so!
loml, you're missing something. I am NOT bashing those with oral skills. I'm pretty oral myself. I'm simply bashing those who flaunt their oral skills, and then bitch and moan b/c they don't fit in anywhere. Trust me.....audist oralists can be incredibly snobby. Deaf folks welcome those who can speak, who are open to learning Sign.....I'm still not quite fluent in Sign, although can have conversations in Sign......I've never been treated shabbily.....but that's b/c I'm openminded, and want to learn!

deafdyke,

I am not missing anything here.

I am curious as to the name of the EI program in your state. Would you be so kind as to provide me with the name, either here or in pm, if your are more comfortable with that approach.

You ask me about stats. Perhaps you are unaware on how difficult it can be, then again perhaps not.

By your own admission you are

simply bashing those who flaunt their oral skills, and then bitch and moan b/c they don't fit in anywhere.

How's it working for you?

 

[deafdyke]

I suggest the basis of the 'bashing' is more, to cement the links with the signing community, who appear to demand which side of the fence you are sitting on as some 'entrance qualification'.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!! It is NOT about being anti-hearing. Being in solidary with the Deaf community, is not about being anti-hearing. Look, I know there are people out there who think that being pro-Deaf, means being anti-hearing....that however, is not true for the majority of Deaf people. Besides there ARE extremists on the other side of the spectrum, who are dhh, who are VERY audist (in the true meaning of the sense.....not just in a PC...."oh they're being anti-Deaf b/c they don't fit neatly into the Deaf box" sort of thinking.) Those are the people I am talking about. I mean I can see why and how some Deaf folks are anti-speech, after dealing with people like that. Most Deaf people I know, are OPEN to dhh people learning Sign......but the audist "hearing impaired" types can be VERY VERY extreme. They aren't the ones who are working towards a fuller communication toolbox......but rather the ones who really flaunt their oral skills....in a "I'm better then you b/c I can hear and talk, whereas poor little you has to depend on the "crutch" of Sign" way. Trust me.....those folks can be EXTREME. I am not against oral skills......as a matter of fact, I'm OK with hearing parents picking speech as their dhh's kid's first language.....just as long as it's not in an audist way....that is, that they are open to their kids learning Sign later on. I would never snub a dhh kid with oral skills......I know that it's quite rare that an orally trained kid reaps all the benifits of the hearing world, through speech. I went through that myself. It's just that I'm against the EXTREMISTS, who view Sign as a crutch or special needs.
Oh and the programs are: the READS collabrative in Middleborough and TLC in Framingham (Mass) both offer services in ASL to hearing kids who require ASL for whatever reason. Also, the Mass. Association of the Deaf and hoh, offers an EI service where native signers teach kids.....including hearing kids with other disabilites, how to Sign in ASL.......I mean I think that in the past a lot of kids may have gotten minimal instruction b/c they were hooked up with general EI teachers who just knew a handful of signs.......but now, it's different....Many kids are hooked up with a Deaf teacher, so they can learn ASL.

 

[gnulinuxman]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!! It is NOT about being anti-hearing. Being in solidary with the Deaf community, is not about being anti-hearing. Look, I know there are people out there who think that being pro-Deaf, means being anti-hearing....that however, is not true for the majority of Deaf people.

I have yet to meet one deaf person who hated me just because I was hearing.

I totally agree with the rest of your post, too, and because those "hearing impaired" extremists are so extreme, they like to turn any argument about this topic into a flame war.

 

[jillio]

I have yet to meet one deaf person who hated me just because I was hearing.

I totally agree with the rest of your post, too, and because those "hearing impaired" extremists are so extreme, they like to turn any argument about this topic into a flame war.

Nor I gnulinusman! It has been my experience that the Deaf community is very accepting of hearies as long as those hearies don't demonstrate a paternalistic and superior attitude.

 

[loml]

Passivist

I suggest the basis of the 'bashing' is more, to cement the links with the signing community, who appear to demand which side of the fence you are sitting on as some 'entrance qualification'.

deafdyke

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!! It is NOT about being anti-hearing. Being in solidary with the Deaf community, is not about being anti-hearing.

How is it that you interpret the post of Passivist as anti-hearing?

Acceptance in the Deaf community happens when you are willing to run their agenda. The hierarchy within the community is made quite clear to newcomers. You risk banishment and gossip should you not become part of their alliance.

Leave all free will outside the door.

 

[loml]

deafdyke

Oh and the programs are: the READS collabrative in Middleborough and TLC in Framingham (Mass) both offer services in ASL to hearing kids who require ASL for whatever reason. Also, the Mass. Association of the Deaf and hoh, offers an EI service where native signers teach kids.....including hearing kids with other disabilites, how to Sign in ASL.......I mean I think that in the past a lot of kids may have gotten minimal instruction b/c they were hooked up with general EI teachers who just knew a handful of signs.......but now, it's different....Many kids are hooked up with a Deaf teacher, so they can learn ASL.

deafdyke,

An interesting selection of programs, however I do question the effectiveness of the programs . Of course trying to obtain any data or fact regarding the education program would be like getting blood out of a stone.

 

[gnulinuxman]

OK, I am done restraining this ranty post!

I am trying to figure out what hierarchy loml is talking about.

I know deaf extremists exist, but the wrong people are being accused of being that way. The "hearing impaired" snobs say "Oh, they don't accept me because I have the benefit of hearing and speech" HELLO! I CAN HEAR AND SPEAK BETTER THAN THEY CAN!!!! Yet I have not met 1 culturally Deaf person who hated me for it.

Either learn ASL AND drop the attitudes and prejudices, or leave the Deaf community alone because they do NOT need people slandering it.

 

[deafdyke]

post of Passivist as anti-hearing?

Huh? Where did I say that?!?!?

Acceptance in the Deaf community happens when you are willing to run their agenda. The hierarchy within the community is made quite clear to newcomers. You risk banishment and gossip should you not become part of their alliance.

Leave all free will outside the door.

loml, I came to these conclusions MYSELF. They were not born of agenda-setting pressure. I grew up in the oral world. I KNOW all too well the downsides of oralism. You just do NOT get that not ALL Deaf folks are antihearing ASL onliers......and you know, not all of those are lifelong ASL seperatists....some of them are former oralists who Some of them ARE rather libral....some are moderate in their views. There are ALL sorts of theories and views on Deafness. There's no ONE RIGHT VIEW on Deafness.....would you assume that all feminists are bra burning manhating "hetrosexual sex is rape" very stereotypcial manhater types? You'd be wrong......Being a feminist simply means you're against idoitic gender roles that create a patriarchy.
Yes, there are extremists who are very anti-hearing......but being culturally Deaf does not mean that you are anti-hearing. Do you actually even KNOW any real live Deaf people, or are you just looking from an interested observer's POV?