Pros and cons of Oralism??

[gnulinuxman]

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.

That is a good way of putting it, but I would make it more like this:

Sign and Deaf culture is not nessarily about lack of hearing.....it's about being more visual than most hearing people.

 

[Passivist]

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

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?

While the basis of universal love and unity in the deaf worlds depends on the options of a 'full box' and free access to it, there does seem an inbuilt reluctance to really accept it, from both sides of the issue. This is where we are, and what we are discussing. To grasp the nettle this means the respective oral and signing sectors have to drop the angst, and see, that mostly, they agree on fundamental issues,especially of access.

If this was a husband wife squabble, then a mediator would be brought in to try and settle it. Who can 'mediate' here ?

The modes used seem to be the contentious areas, which means basically neither sectors are yet accepting of each other's,which flies in the face of the basic tenet 'we should all accept each other', it doesn't say "We should all accept each other so long as they conform to what each use....", it means give and take, compromise. Lip-service seems to be the real description of much of the rights and access debates. We've two very diverse sectors of loss, that have a lot more in common with each other than they think, or want to believe.

Many oral users sign, and many deaf are able to oralise, so what REALLY is the barrier ? It is the social aspect. This means the access/rights campaigns are being directed at the wrong people ? The oral deaf have an strong leaning to the hearing commmunity, the deaf signers have trouble accessing that hearing community, why else run access campaigns ? Now, who is best placed to bridge that gap ? The oral deaf user does seem ideally placed to do that, with a foot in both camps, if only cultural deaf can see beyond the 'oral' thing and NOT relate it to fellow deaf people, it could really advance the equality of us all.

We are so busy justifying sign or orals to each other, the access campaigns are grinding to a halt, and it really does seem at times, some don't want full access anyway if it means using that 'full box'. I'm appreciative of deafdyke for this debate.

 

[Deaf Images]

Howdy... me back...



Howdy me back.... did I miss anything? probably not just more chit chat.... blah blah blah etc....

now the new issue is "Deafhood" anyone know about it?

 

[loml]

It is not all a bed of roses

deafdyke

There's no ONE RIGHT VIEW on Deafness.....

Agreed.

deafdyke

Do you actually even KNOW any real live Deaf people, or are you just looking from an interested observer's POV?

Indeed I do deafdyke, these very people have lead me to have the views that I have.

Not all Deaf communities are open-minded (as you say). I speak of the reality of the community in my geographic.

The Deaf community does not like to have anyone question the quality of education or literacy levels of dhh children. "They just need ASL - their natural language is being denied". It goes on and on.... as far reaching as the University Deaf Education programs, who are very closely tied to the hierarchial community.

It is apparent that you and I see the community from different perpectives. For myself, I know improvements in education and literacy will be one child at a time, with Cued Speech and ASL. I have not witnessed any Deaf community in Canada open to CS, something I would enjoy being wrong about.

 

[gnulinuxman]

deafdyke

Agreed.

deafdyke

Indeed I do deafdyke, these very people have lead me to have the views that I have.

Not all Deaf communities are open-minded (as you say). I speak of the reality of the community in my geographic.

The Deaf community does not like to have anyone question the quality of education or literacy levels of dhh children. "They just need ASL - their natural language is being denied". It goes on and on.... as far reaching as the University Deaf Education programs, who are very closely tied to the hierarchial community.

It is apparent that you and I see the community from different perpectives. For myself, I know improvements in education and literacy will be one child at a time, with Cued Speech and ASL. I have not witnessed any Deaf community in Canada open to CS, something I would enjoy being wrong about.

Well, then explain why at least 3 HEARING members of this board (xalem, jillio, and I) have never seen any of the acts you describe like they're anti-Hearing. Surely we would have seen it, esp. since it's targeted at hearing people. :roll:

 

[jillio]

Well, then explain why at least 3 HEARING members of this board (xalem, jillio, and I) have never seen any of the acts you describe like they're anti-Hearing. Surely we would have seen it, esp. since it's targeted at hearing people. :roll:

This is true. Being pro Deaf is not the equivilant of being anti hearing.

 

[jillio]

deafdyke

Agreed.

deafdyke

Indeed I do deafdyke, these very people have lead me to have the views that I have.

Not all Deaf communities are open-minded (as you say). I speak of the reality of the community in my geographic.

The Deaf community does not like to have anyone question the quality of education or literacy levels of dhh children. "They just need ASL - their natural language is being denied". It goes on and on.... as far reaching as the University Deaf Education programs, who are very closely tied to the hierarchial community.

It is apparent that you and I see the community from different perpectives. For myself, I know improvements in education and literacy will be one child at a time, with Cued Speech and ASL. I have not witnessed any Deaf community in Canada open to CS, something I would enjoy being wrong about.

It is not the issue of someone questioning the quality of education/literacy levels of Dd/hh kids that creates the problem. It is the assumption that ed levels and literacy are inferior to that of hearing children based on incorrect criteria. It is the use of testing methods that are not valid because the measurements come from verbally based and culturally biased testing procedures. It goes beyond just language differences and encompasses cognitive processes that are strongly influenced by mode of communication. The problem is that the methods used to conduct the research is often inherently flawed. thus leading to skewed results that indicate a correlation where none exists. Then that questionable correlation is interpreted as cause and effect relationship, and policy and procedure are dictated based on those flawed conclusions.

 

[deafdyke]

Many oral users sign, and many deaf are able to oralise,

Passicifst and loml, I'm not talking about the people with a full toolbox. I know many orally skilled people also sign.....God it's actually a common sight to see Sign 'terps at AG BELL conventions! (that's something you would NEVER have seen years ago! AG Bell must be rolling over in his grave, lol) I know many orally skilled folks are openminded to learning sign. Yet, there is a subpopulation of AG Bell types, who can be incredibily snobby about their "supieoror speech and hearing skills." These are the ones who look down on Sign, and are all high and mighty b/c they're supposedly better educated, and b/c they don't have to depend on the "crutch" of Sign. Not all, orally skilled folks are like this, yes, and thank Bob for THAT......but there are a significent subtype of oralists, who can turn Deafies off with their attitude. Yes, there's still a lot of debate on topics like education etc, but all in all the social part of deafhoodism is a lot more openminded then the educational part of it. As a kid who has been through the educational system, maybe the reason they are so hardline on ASL only for education, is b/c in the past too many kids have fallen through the cracks educationally, using a "asl only for oral failures" sort of mentality. I think useage of ASL in the educational setting is a great idear.....that said I also think that CS is a good idear too. From my understanding, it's a great way to teach dhh kids phonetics, which is the foundation for English. I think too that CS suffers from an image problem. Lots of people associate it with oralism. Maybe the Deaf leaders think that you're setting up the foundation for dhh kids to spend the majority of their time, going boo-bee-bah, for hours and hours. Why not suggest a compromise? I know they are setting up to do that in the US.....a program where dhh kids learn CS for part of the day, and then ASL for another part, with speech training for those who can benifit.

 

[Passivist]

<there are a significent subtype of oralists, who can turn Deafies off with their attitude>

Indeed there are, and also a significant number of sign users who do the reverse, if we are fair. We should be condemning both of course, because it is they who are holding everyone else up. They're (Both), very adept and clever subsectors of people, who stand out as rights advocates in part, but whose rhetoric is distinctly pro this, anti, or biased to that, and move around our communities with a clique. They're hard to pin down, in part they advance some access, but the messages behind them often do the opposite and divide us into camps, it's because there is no unified approach, minority 'power' has it's drawbacks, it encourages the more extreme. The moderate doesn't really exist as a force to be reckoned with, they know that too. A silent majority has no 'voice' at all.

 

[deafdyke]

Passcifist, actually I'd have to disagree with ur assertain that there are significent numbers of Deaf seperatists.....Only about 1% of dhh folks (i include hoh here, since there's some hoh folks who have conditions which inhibit speech.) Sign only. And I mean it is very easy to understand where the deaf seperatists are coming from........Even thou I'm only hoh I can totally undy their position. Speech therapy can be frustrating and extremely boring, hearies think we're mr b/c of the quailty of our voices and so on......

 

[jillio]

Good point deafdyke. We're talking about forced assimilation into the majority culture, and then being judged as inferior when the attempt fails or falls short of the cultural ideal.

 

[Passivist]

Good point deafdyke. We're talking about forced assimilation into the majority culture, and then being judged as inferior when the attempt fails or falls short of the cultural ideal.

In the interests of fair play, where is the proof of enforced oralism ? surely enforced/compulsion against a disabled individual's human rights (Especially a child), is illegal in America ? I thought you were AHEAD of the UK, who made this illegal some years ago. I also recall reading of an 'oralist' school set up by parents in America who objected to 'enforced sign usage'. Are there not two sides to the question ? I don't know to what degree you want to put the 'not meeting the requirement' issue, as this is a major area oral users say sign users discriminate against them with, i.e. not signing well enough, or not the same as etc..... Neither side emerges with credit whether having an oral or a deaf culture. Perhaps the 'moderates' will emerge one day and bang their heads together, and declare the war, is over.....

 

[Cousin Vinny]

In the interests of fair play, where is the proof of enforced oralism ? surely enforced/compulsion against a disabled individual's human rights (Especially a child), is illegal in America ?

It's merely a matter of semantics.

The U.S. has the IDEA act, which ensures a level playing field between the education providers and parents, and to a lesser extent, students with disabilities. There is no 'enforced' oralism, per se. Rather, parents and educators get together and decide what is the best course of action for the current school year for their DHH child.

As it turns out, many parents and educators opt for the oral method, and actively exclude and discourage any manual language, resulting in a 'de facto' enforcement of oralism. What may appear to be free choice, is only but merely an illusion, as many parents and educators continue to enforce A/V therapies for DHH children.

While the opposite may be true, that educators and parents do get together and actually advocate the use of ASL, CE, or some other manual language approach for their DHH children, they still invariably include some oral component to their planning. This way, DHH children can access educational resources in ASL or whatever, and still undergo A/V therapy as needed.

In short, the oralism approach is 'exclusive', and the manual language approach is 'inclusive', lending the former approach an aura of negativity and stigma when viewed by its DHH students.

Despite this, I continue to support parental choice, even if they continue to make wrong decisions in complicit with their educational professionals, in educating their DHH children. The alternative, a 'forced' approach, one way or another, is simply unworkable.

 

[jillio]

Many parents opt for the oral method because the so called experts present only one side of the issue, and parents are not fully informed of their choices. School systems (public) are quilty of refusing to consider parental reccommendations re: communication choice. I personally experienced this situation with my son. My son had attended a TC preschool, and had been exposed to sign from the age of 18 moths. When entering a public kindergarten, however, and a sign interpreter was requested, their itinerant "hearing specialist" informed the school system that my son did not need a sign interpreter. Her recommendations were the use of an FM system, speech therapy, and reliance on residual hearing and lip reading. Because the school system's expert had made these recommendation, the system refused to write an interpreter into the IEP. Why? Because the assessment of one individual, who happened to know no sign and subscribed to the oralist perspective decided that this was the communication choice my son should be using. From one limited assessment, it was decided that my profoundly deaf son did not need the use of sign in communication. Any parent who signs off on an IEP under those conditions has been manipulated into a form of forced oralism. Two years later, after due process, an administrative law judge granted my son a sign interpreter. In the meantime, the school system succeeded in forcing him into an oralist approach in the classroom. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean it never occurs. Just because the law affords procedures to correct the violations set forth by IDEA and the ADA dosn't mean that those procedures make the corrections in a timely fashion, nor does it guarantee that all parents have the resources necessary to follow through on the procedural guidelines.

 

[deafdyke]

In the interests of fair play, where is the proof of enforced oralism ? surely enforced/compulsion against a disabled individual's human rights (Especially a child), is illegal in America ? I thought you were AHEAD of the UK, who made this illegal some years ago.

As the other posters have said, there's an attitude that kids who are oral sucesses or orally skilled don't "need" sign language. There's still this huge attidue that ASL or sign of any sort is a "crutch" or special needs! We still have too many people operating under a "healthy normal" mentality is best for EVERYONE! Kids who have oral skills don't need sign. Many oralists are still under a "one tool is best", instead of a full toolbox mentality. We still live in a very audist/ableist culture, which discriminates against people with disablities! Under that thinking it's better to "walk" a few steps with a walker, then to be "wheelchair bound" (boo-hoo-hoo!)....Never mind that a wheelchair can give you tons and tons of options....get around faster and easier, instead of getting tired walking.

I also recall reading of an 'oralist' school set up by parents in America who objected to 'enforced sign usage'.

Oh, I know that type of parent. It's all sematics. Very few kids are forced to Sign, if they don't want to......the trouble is that most schools/educational programs for the Deaf here in the states, are Sign/TC based. If you want oral, usually you have a limited number of schools to choose from.

 

[Passivist]

I've been impressed by this topic and the responses to it, it's been a long time since the emotive aspect was taken out of the debates to examine the issues behind deaf communications, you've done well here, compared with other sites which just deteriorate into 'My mode is best'. Parents seem to have the last word on it in education, so we must respect that right. There does seem so much opposition now to the 'full box' approach, is this down you think to the emancipation of the signing culture ? or, the emergence of an oral (deaf), one ? Both sides now are quite positive about the primary modes they use, is it too late for total communication ? Has rights given both sides the power to go their own way regardless ? The real 'victims' would seem to be those stuck in the middle, those acquiring a deafness or those near enough deaf as dammit, which is the majority if statistics are anything to go by ! There must be a lot of very unhappy people out there.... who fit in nowhere much at all regardless whether they sign or oralise, if they ever gain a real voice..... who are they going to ally with ?

 

[deafdyke]

Parents seem to have the last word on it in education, so we must respect that right.

Well, me, I think that we need to encourage parents to consider a full box approach. We gotta get rid of the myth that we Deafies are totally anti-oral skills. That would help with parental acceptance a lot. Also maybe encourage schools for the Deaf to adopt a variety of teaching methods.

There does seem so much opposition now to the 'full box' approach, is this down you think to the emancipation of the signing culture ? or, the emergence of an oral (deaf), one ? Both sides now are quite positive about the primary modes they use, is it too late for total communication ? Has rights given both sides the power to go their own way regardless ?

Well I think the number one reason to opposition for a full box approach, is b/c our society is so ableist....like it's better to function as a psedo nondisabled person, then to opt for the full box approach. Hey, it wasn't til recently, that my friend who has orthapedic issues accepted that maybe it's better to use a wheelchair sometimes, then to be tired faster fucntioning without a chair. Oh, and there is no such thing as an oral deaf "culture." ....there's nothing "cultureal" about oral deafness...They want to only be a part of hearing society, b/c after all.....that is utopia, and there's nothing that could possibly help them otherwise, b/c after all Sign is a "crutch"

The real 'victims' would seem to be those stuck in the middle, those acquiring a deafness or those near enough deaf as dammit, which is the majority if statistics are anything to go by ! There must be a lot of very unhappy people out there.... who fit in nowhere much at all regardless whether they sign or oralise, if they ever gain a real voice..... who are they going to ally with ?

Well I think it depends on what you mean by aquirred deafness. I know some kids with progressive and postlingal deafness who ID strongly as Deaf. I know kids who went hoh as TEENS who really emphasize with deaf culture!
And besides, most aquirred deaf people, already HAVE a support system and a voice, through organizations like SHHH, and all that Healthy Hearing stuff that's out there.
What do you mean by those near enough deaf as dammit? Possession of residual hearing, doesn't always negate parcipatation in Deaf culture.
I think we need to offer those people a full toolbox as well. It shouldn't be the preogrative of only deaf kids. I mean they may not need it, but on the other hand, isn't it better to offer them a choice in the first place?

 

[Passivist]

there is no such thing as an oral deaf "culture." ....there's nothing "cultureal" about oral deafness...They want to only be a part of hearing society, b/c after all.....that is utopia, and there's nothing that could possibly help them otherwise, b/c after all Sign is a "crutch

Perhaps this is true in America ? it seems a wide sweeping generalisation. People use what ability dictates, if oral usage is better suited to a deaf person they will use it, I don't think they decide 'I will oralise' because they don't want the sign thing. A LOT of lip-readers here are called 'oralists' this is contentious, and very damaging to unity, it invokes a need to justify what they use, the same as signers feel sometimes they have to.

A fair proportion of them are now using sign-language as well, albeit they have no interest really in any cultural aspect, this is not because they are anti so much, as the fact they look at sign/orals as basic communication skills and not part and parcel of a culture, that's the primary difference. Signers in turn look at this sign usage by others as undermining how others see sign, or even see them, which is more to them than just a means of communicating, it binds them together.

They're still basically afraid of wider usage of sign, and whether they will fit in, to the way it is used outside the deaf areas, or how newer people will come into the deaf area and change how things work, which is inevitable, because culture isn't on their agenda. Already, and via classes that teach sign, the old ways of signing are going, as hearing classes teach sign language and want a NORM, something that upsets some signers in the UK at least, because they feel the regional variations is essentially what sign is.

The main problem is cultural deaf seeing oral deaf as undermining the deaf 'image', allit does basically is display to different ways of approaching deafness, neither side has hearing, and a lot are opposingthe full box on the grounds, it doesn't meet the basic criteria of cultural membership.

 

[deafdyke]

People use what ability dictates, if oral usage is better suited to a deaf person they will use it, I don't think they decide 'I will oralise' because they don't want the sign thing. A LOT of lip-readers here are called 'oralists' this is contentious, and very damaging to unity, it invokes a need to justify what they use, the same as signers feel sometimes they have to.

A fair proportion of them are now using sign-language as well, albeit they have no interest really in any cultural aspect, this is not because they are anti so much, as the fact they look at sign/orals as basic communication skills and not part and parcel of a culture, that's the primary difference. Signers in turn look at this sign usage by others as undermining how others see sign, or even see them, which is more to them than just a means of communicating, it binds them together.

On the other hand......how much of this attitude was the result of hearing people encouraging them to totally assimulate into the hearing world? I wonder if kids who got proper nonbiased exposure to all methodolgies, would be like "meh" about Sign and the cultral aspects of it.....I mean a huge part of the reason why you see "oral" kids signing and being interested in Sign, is b/c the Hearing Health approach is really boring!

The main problem is cultural deaf seeing oral deaf as undermining the deaf 'image', allit does basically is display to different ways of approaching deafness, neither side has hearing, and a lot are opposingthe full box on the grounds, it doesn't meet the basic criteria of cultural membership.

I would say that's true for your side of the pond, since if you speak, you're automaticly not deaf.....but not here. Here people are a lot more openminded!

 

[robbielyn]

I guess I am an unusual hearie. After all, I love and I mean love sign language. I loved SEE but now I am learning ASL and really superduper love ASL!! If I could communicate in ASL, and never needed english, I'd gladly switch. It's clear and simple yet grammatically intricate and very beautiful. If hearies could take the time to learn even the basics of ASL, they would then be convinced that ASL is a real language of it's own and not connected to english at all. I think due the fact true deaf have never heard speech, therefore they think in concepts versus words, that ASL should be their first language. Lets fill their basic need to communicate the easiest way they know how. ASL fits conceptual learning which is how deaf think. Ok, now they have hearing friends, and maybe want to be involved in the hearing world, start teaching them spoken language. I think if they have the capacity to learn words vs concepts, then help them. But be patient. Us hearies have a difficult time with ASL vs SEE why? Because we are thinking in words vs concepts so we struggle too with ASL. SEE is still word signs so it is much easier. SEE matches our linear thinking the same way ASL matches true deaf conceptual thinking. But hey Bilingual is a cool thing because in our country so many diffferent languages are spoken. ASL and Spanish should be taught in our schools as mandatory. But same for spanish kids. They should learn english because they live in an english speaking country. Hearing kids think sign language is cool because they can fingerspell secrets during class, so they wouldn't mind learning it. It's the hearing adults who have been prejudiced against ASL.(not all hearies of course). And since deaf live in the hearing world, they should have english as their second language for the chances of interacting with hearing is 100% guaranteed. But if it is too hard for them, then don't make it so demanding of them but encourage them and help them see how it would benefit them. I speak and read fluent english but I have to say I am a very visual and conceptual person. I understand ASL more clear than english. I have ADHD and there are holes in my processing of information that if you don't go from one thought process to another, it goes over my head. I think you can tell by the words I use, that I am not stupid(ie intricate). But I need more details than the average person. ASL is very detailed yet simply oriented. Say for example you are going to put me on a new computer program I have never used before. You know it like the back of your hand. It's so simple to you because you know the in's and outs. Maybe you are quick minded and are able to figure alot of things out, or when it is explained to you it just makes sense. Not me. I need you to take it one thing at a time, connect it to the next thing in relation to one another, and don't expect me to read between the lines. I need hands on training with simple explanations. Now say you are ASL and are explaining to me this new computer program in ASL. I would quickly grasp it so much faster. Because english to me is just words, it's hard for me to take something brand new and visualize what you are telling me. But with asl, the visualization is there for me, therefore I can understand. I know alot of hearing folks out there with the same problem. It's not that they can't learn, they can, but visualizing new things is difficult for them. I guess that is why I love ASL so much. Wow! I think I just made a discovery about the reason I love ASL. I knew I did, just didn't know why. Wow am I longwinded or what? ps. I think I would like to add to a thought at the beginning of my sermon(lol). I learned SEE and interpreted in SEE for a long time. Then the organization I belong to in the 80's switched over to ASL to help the deaf more clearly in their native language. (SEE is the same as spoken English. And true deaf can get very confused with SEE same as learning oralism.)For example if you are true deaf with no spoken language, if I sign SEE I went over to grandma's house, and then later I say. I am over it already, but use the same sign over the context is changed. that would confuse people. Now to someone watching ASL without knowledge, it looks like oversimplified broken english. I thought ASL was that too.) In fact I know a deaf woman who lost her hearing at the age of 22 and refuses to learn ASL. She is in the same organization as me and her husband has to interpret for her because she didn't make the switch. She can lipread good though. But I finally after many years decided I want to get more involved with the deaf I had better learn ASL. Wow I didn't know what I was missing. It's like learning all over again only better. Robbie