Ranting About Overusage of Word: Audism

[rockdrummer]

Do folks at least agree on the definitions below.

Here is the original definition by Tom
http://72.14.203.104/u/Gallaudet?q=...k&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
Here is a revised definition based on how the term is actually used.
http://library.gallaudet.edu/dr/faq-audism.html

 

[Interpretrator]

Do folks at least agree on the definitions below.

First of all, it makes no difference whatsovever what dictionary definitions exist. Words take on connotations of their own that may have nothing to do with the dictionary definitions. It's a good place to start but AD is no real place to have an emotionally detatched linguistic discussion.

Having said that...this part bothers me:

"...like racism or sexism, audism judges, labels, and limits individuals on the basis of whether a person hears and speaks."

The thing is, based on the way the word is put together, "audism" OUGHT to mean simply "discrimination based on one's deafness or hearing status," the way racism means "discrimination based on race" and sexism means "discrimination based on sex."

I think the comparison of "audism" to "racism/sexism" does not work well because the former only goes in one direction (people who are against Deaf culture) whereas the latter go in many directions. Women can be sexist towards men or other women and vice versa; members of any race can be racist towards any race, including their own. A man who is fired from a job or not hired by another man because he is male could legally file suit for sexual discrimination. Going by this, "audism" ought to include Deaf people who discriminate against hearing people.

I'm speaking purely from a linguistic standpoint. I totally understand that culturally there was a desire for a word to define the oppression of the Deaf, or whatever you want to call it, and probably there isn't as much need for a word to define the opposite attitude (although obviously it DOES exist). So overall, I think the word is really problematic and especially the way it's so casually thrown around here.

 

[Boult]

Do folks at least agree on the definitions below.

Here is the original definition by Tom
http://72.14.203.104/u/Gallaudet?q=...k&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
Here is a revised definition based on how the term is actually used.
http://library.gallaudet.edu/dr/faq-audism.html

the first link seems to be messed up.. just "...k" in search result?

Well, I went to your other post which has the complete url. AD truncated the appearance of the url so not good idea to highlight and copy. just right click the link then copy.

 

[ismi]

I think the comparison of "audism" to "racism/sexism" does not work well because the former only goes in one direction (people who are against Deaf culture) whereas the latter go in many directions. Women can be sexist towards men or other women and vice versa; members of any race can be racist towards any race, including their own. A man who is fired from a job or not hired by another man because he is male could legally file suit for sexual discrimination. Going by this, "audism" ought to include Deaf people who discriminate against hearing people.

I'm speaking purely from a linguistic standpoint. I totally understand that culturally there was a desire for a word to define the oppression of the Deaf, or whatever you want to call it, and probably there isn't as much need for a word to define the opposite attitude (although obviously it DOES exist). So overall, I think the word is really problematic and especially the way it's so casually thrown around here.

I think there is definitely a need for a word that defines the "opposite attitude" - not necessarily as a separate word, but recognition that it exists. Plenty of people on this forum have been subject to it, both on this forum and out in the "real world". In fact, there really isn't an analogous word ("one way only") for other forms of bigotry - we generally have to resort to using phrases like "white supremacy" or "male chauvinism" (I suppose androcentrism would be such a word - but it's far less common).

I don't really see a difference in the situation between audism and racism/sexism/ableism and so on. In all of these cases, you have a group that is marginalized and a group that has more power. We tend to focus more on discrimination against the marginalized group - deaf, black/hispanic/asian/ethnic minority, women, disabled - but the truth is, prejudice and discrimination for each of these pairs goes the other way as well.

 

[Passivist]

I'm up to here with 'isms' if truth be told, just call it what it is, discrimination, we don't need another word for that, especially one that apparently operates reverse discrimination against someone hearing (Or with some !). Those discriminated against, now discriminate back ! Ya booo !

 

[rockdrummer]

I'm up to here with 'isms' if truth be told, just call it what it is, discrimination, we don't need another word for that, especially one that apparently operates reverse discrimination against someone hearing (Or with some !). Those discriminated against, now discriminate back ! Ya booo !

I thought the same thing when I created the thread on the making of the word audism. Below is one of my quotes from that thread which echo's your sentimenets.

After I read through the definition of audist, I said to myself, this is nothing new. This form of fear and hatred has been around forever and everone is subject to being exposed to it. Not just women, blacks, whites, the deaf and minorities but EVERYONE. Is there really the need for a new word to describe the hate and fear that manifests itself in the form of existing practices by some people. Those that practice Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotyping, Bigotry, persecution and harrasement. This is really all an audist is. Do we need another word to describe these things?

 

[Boult]

I thought the same thing when I created the thread on the making of the word audism. Below is one of my quotes from that thread which echo's your sentimenets.

very good Passivist and rockdrummer..

 

[Interpretrator]

I don't really see a difference in the situation between audism and racism/sexism/ableism and so on. In all of these cases, you have a group that is marginalized and a group that has more power.

If "audism" is defined (in some of the links provided) as discrimination against Deaf culture or members of it, then it is not like "sexism," which is discrimination against someone based on gender. As I said, a man can be sexist towards other men. A woman can be sexist towards men. Koreans can be racist towards black people (ever live in New York?).

However, these definitions I'm reading say that a Deaf person who hates all hearing people and protests against CIs and oralist methods is not "audist." If the word (not the world, the word ) were fair, the definition would go in that direction as well.

That is the difference. But it's out of my league whether or not it's justifiable to have a word like that. Personally I do think the word "audist" should be applied to the above example but since that's simply not the way it's used in the community, I wouldn't use it that way either. I'd just say "bigoted."

 

[ismi]

That is the difference. But it's out of my league whether or not it's justifiable to have a word like that. Personally I do think the word "audist" should be applied to the above example but since that's simply not the way it's used in the community, I wouldn't use it that way either. I'd just say "bigoted."

I think you're right; certainly I've only seen it used "the other way" a few times, and then usually tongue in cheek. But a lot of people, when they think of racism or sexism, think of the dominant class discriminating against the weaker, while it means both.

I think language is a powerful tool, and giving the one mode of discrimination a label without having a label for the other (even if it's the same label) makes things tricky. But the word is still relatively young, as are the attitudes (recognition of deaf autonomy) that it came from; perhaps it will end up being used to recognize "both lanes of the two-way street" in the future.

 

[VamPyroX]

I never really understood the meaning of "Deaf Pride", "Deaf Culture", "Deaf Seperatist", "Audist", etc.

No matter what I find online, deaf people tell me something different. I've done research on these words online for my major and find that the online terms are not exactly the same as defined/described by the general deaf population around here.

That's why I believe that it's best for me to just avoid labeling people and just consider them all as equals.

One example would be the Gallaudet protests. Seriously, they hate her cuz she's not deaf enough? She doesn't follow their expectations of Deaf Culture? So what. To me, she's someone that was selected by the Board of Trustees to take over next year and people need to learn to accept it and move on. They shouldn't argue over who she is, but what she does. She hasn't done anything as president yet... so it's too soon to complain.

I'm deaf. I don't care about the words Deaf (capital 'D'), hearing impaired, hard of hearing, oral, etc. I'm just plain deaf. Period. I don't need people labeling me because I don't follow Deaf Pride, Deaf Culture, etc.

 

[rockdrummer]

In my view: to have effective communication, the definitions for words have to be constant with only slight variations as defined in the Dictionaries. They can't change on the fly.

If they did, communication would become more difficult. There are many people (including myself) that use words occasionally out of context due to ignorance. Nowadays I refer to the dictionary if I am not sure.

Audism (to my knowledge) is not officially recognized by any of the standard dictionaries, which makes if fair game to have its definition tweaked by those that choose to do so. If you read Tom's definition and combine that with more modern definitions, you start to see a trend. What stands out to me is that this word carries many meanings and is a two way street for the deaf and hearing alike.

It's how bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, arrogance, ignorance and stereotyping apply to the melding of the deaf and hearing cultures. When I look at the meanings, I think, how would one reduce these traits in people. I say reduce because I don't believe you will ever eliminate them. What comes to mind is education and awareness. I know for a fact that where people are educated and aware they will be more sensitive to others. My perception of the deaf has changed as I learn and it's still evolving.

My guess is that until the word is officially recognized and defined, it's definition will float about continuing to be used and abused.

 

[Interpretrator]

But the word is still relatively young, as are the attitudes (recognition of deaf autonomy) that it came from; perhaps it will end up being used to recognize "both lanes of the two-way street" in the future.

Well said. That's exactly my thought but I didn't articulate it as well.

In my view: to have effective communication, the definitions for words have to be constant with only slight variations as defined in the Dictionaries. They can't change on the fly.

But that's just not the way language works. Any language.

 

[sr171soars]

...

But that's just not the way language works. Any language.

I have to agree with you on this point.

Rockdrummer, just think on conversations where a word gets used in a slightly different context not normally used. Sometimes you heard it before and sometimes you haven't but you understood it's meaning. Some people will totally miss it as they probably weren't paying attention or couldn't follow the jump in meaning. What Interpretrator is getting at is that languages are dynamic entities and change happens all the time. Take the word "bad". In today's world there are several different meanings and the dictionary won't give you a positive definition but it has been used that way (I'm a baaaad dude!).

 

[rockdrummer]

I have to agree with you on this point.

Rockdrummer, just think on conversations where a word gets used in a slightly different context not normally used. Sometimes you heard it before and sometimes you haven't but you understood it's meaning. Some people will totally miss it as they probably weren't paying attention or couldn't follow the jump in meaning. What Interpretrator is getting at is that languages are dynamic entities and change happens all the time. Take the word "bad". In today's world there are several different meanings and the dictionary won't give you a positive definition but it has been used that way (I'm a baaaad dude!).

I think I understand what you are saying and it's slang that you speak of I beleive. Most of the time the dictionaries are updated to reflect slang. So lets take the word bad. Below is the definition that does include the slang usage as you mentioned. Note definition 10. I am open to the fact that slang is used but untill it's common knowledge, it is subject to mis-interpretation. I am not saying that my opinion is correct, but it's just how I view effective communication.

Main Entry: 1bad
Pronunciation: 'bad
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): worse /'w&rs/; worst /'w&rst/
Etymology: Middle English
1 a : failing to reach an acceptable standard : POOR b : UNFAVORABLE <make a bad impression> c : not fresh : SPOILED <bad fish> d : not sound : DILAPIDATED <the house was in bad condition>
2 a : morally objectionable b : MISCHIEVOUS, DISOBEDIENT
3 : inadequate or unsuited to a purpose <a bad plan> <bad lighting>
4 : DISAGREEABLE, UNPLEASANT <bad news>
5 a : INJURIOUS, HARMFUL b : SERIOUS, SEVERE <in bad trouble> <a bad cough>
6 : INCORRECT, FAULTY <bad grammar>
7 a : suffering pain or distress <felt generally bad> b : UNHEALTHY, DISEASED <bad teeth>
8 : SORROWFUL, SORRY
9 : INVALID, VOID <a bad check>
10 bad·der bad·dest slang a : GOOD, GREAT b : TOUGH, MEAN
- bad·ness noun

 

[sr171soars]

I think I understand what you are saying and it's slang that you speak of I beleive. Most of the time the dictionaries are updated to reflect slang. So lets take the word bad. Below is the definition that does include the slang usage as you mentioned. Note definition 10. I am open to the fact that slang is used but untill it's common knowledge, it is subject to mis-interpretation. I am not saying that my opinion is correct, but it's just how I view effective communication.

Main Entry: 1bad
Pronunciation: 'bad
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): worse /'w&rs/; worst /'w&rst/
Etymology: Middle English
1 a : failing to reach an acceptable standard : POOR b : UNFAVORABLE <make a bad impression> c : not fresh : SPOILED <bad fish> d : not sound : DILAPIDATED <the house was in bad condition>
2 a : morally objectionable b : MISCHIEVOUS, DISOBEDIENT
3 : inadequate or unsuited to a purpose <a bad plan> <bad lighting>
4 : DISAGREEABLE, UNPLEASANT <bad news>
5 a : INJURIOUS, HARMFUL b : SERIOUS, SEVERE <in bad trouble> <a bad cough>
6 : INCORRECT, FAULTY <bad grammar>
7 a : suffering pain or distress <felt generally bad> b : UNHEALTHY, DISEASED <bad teeth>
8 : SORROWFUL, SORRY
9 : INVALID, VOID <a bad check>
10 bad·der bad·dest slang a : GOOD, GREAT b : TOUGH, MEAN
- bad·ness noun

So, true with what you say and lots of confusion does come up with the way we change meanings at time. Funny though, most misunderstandings come up with not with what one said but how you say it. This especially true when speaking to a person as they hear the tone and body language and if it is hostile, they don't hear the words...

I do stand corrected on the dictionary keeping up with positive note. Had no idea that was the case and again teaches me to be more careful in my assertations...

 

[rockdrummer]

So, true with what you say and lots of confusion does come up with the way we change meanings at time. Funny though, most misunderstandings come up with not with what one said but how you say it. This especially true when speaking to a person as they hear the tone and body language and if it is hostile, they don't hear the words...

I do stand corrected on the dictionary keeping up with positive note. Had no idea that was the case and again teaches me to be more careful in my assertations...

I have read many of your posts and have much respect for you and your obvious knowledge. I have even more respect for someone that can admit when they are incorrect or have overlooked something. I do this constantly as I learn. I am not very educated in terms of schooling but I do hold a PHD in the school of hard knocks.

I think that we may be able to conclude that the word audism is in fact slang as described below. I even learned something new about slang simply by reading this definition. So before when I said communication would be more difficult if the meanings of words change, I now understand that this is the nature of slang. I also see that if a slang word is around long enough, it eventually makes it into the dictionary which in turn helps reduce mis-understandings on it's (slang) meaning.

Main Entry: 1slang
Pronunciation: 'sla[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
1 : language peculiar to a particular group: as a : ARGOT b : JARGON 2
2 : an informal nonstandard vocabulary composed typically of coinages, arbitrarily changed words, and extravagant, forced, or facetious figures of speech

 

[rockdrummer]

Originally Posted by rockdrummer
In my view: to have effective communication, the definitions for words have to be constant with only slight variations as defined in the Dictionaries. They can't change on the fly.

But that's just not the way language works. Any language.

I have much respect for you and your education but I don't understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate on your comment. I can't imagine effective communication without well defined words. The exception is slang but even slang definitions eventually make it into the dictionaries.
Thank you

 

[Interpretrator]

I can't imagine effective communication without well defined words. The exception is slang but even slang definitions eventually make it into the dictionaries.

What I meant:

Words change and adapt over time, not only slang words. Connotations (how the word is used, not necessarily the dictionary definition) come and go. Differences in language users' gender, age, geographical location, and tons of other demographics cause differences in meaning for the same word. If this weren't the case there would be no need for comprehension checks in conversation, and everyone would understand each other all the time!

Two examples: when I say "It was a challenging day," I mean that I had a lot of difficult but interesting things to do and this was ultimately positive. When someone else I know says it, she means it as a euphemism for "This day kicked my butt." Much different sentiments.

Another example: the word "Negro." It used to be a politically correct label; now it's not. I knew an older woman who could never stop using it because it felt wrong to her to say "black."

And these are both taken from American culture; throw different cultural norms into the mix and you get even more changing and adapting of language. There is just more to language than what's in the dictionary, and even good definitions don't make for perfect communication without exception. Both definitions of "challenging" are probably in the dictionary. That is the case in natural languages like English and ASL.

 

[Passivist]

I meet deaf people who use sign language every day, I live with one too ! The majority actually do not follow a lot of terminology or debates that go with it, but are far too busy living and socialising day to day. There does seem a hard-core of deaf activisim driven originally via very poor treatment and access who made great strides, who have been replaced bya younger element copying the trend to use spin, hype, 'sound bites', and political correctness, stating they are martyrs, everyone is against deaf people, if we don't stick together our sign/culture is lost, everyone who disagrees we'll invent a new name for them.

It's actually extremely well thought out, and uses the very latest and most modern means it can to manipulate medias. Deaf people are media savvy, and quite adept at it too ! George Bush should be so lucky to hire these people. The part I don't agree with, is it works pretty much only if the deaf remain isolated and apart, you can't be 'left out' if you're not there in the first place, or display a preference to stay out anyway. Many deaf aspire to 'make it' in mainstream, do the same jobs, excel at them, make their mark, they are well aware the deaf 'community' (Such as it is, it isn't really defined properly), cannot self-sustain, even IF it could there would still be many deaf who would use choice to be part of mainstream.

'Out there' is the world and many exciting things take place, they want into. They also need skills mainstream can help them with to improve their own culture and lot too. Where else, can they raise awareness ? In the deaf world you are preaching to the converted, but you can't stand behind a wall shouting 'I am here ! I need this, you should be providing it... you are audist if ypou don't listen.." It presents an image of a sector who really don't want to be 'out there' nor want you 'In there'.

 

[Liza]

I thought the word "deafism" was interesting. Could it be used as audism is used? I've always thought "militant" label divided people, too. Then again, Passivit has a point about labels.

Passivit, how did you overcome the need for labels in uk? I am sure you can give us tips here.

I'd like to introduce another line of thought.. something I'm pondering on - Sooner we stop looking to others to decide for us (to avoid being a "failure" if it "didn't" work out), the better we can do to look at ourselves. Leaders are built on a pedestal. But pedestals can be knocked down and the fallen leaders can be made scrapegoats for failures. When we do this to others, we are avoiding self-accountability, IMO. Are we not equals? How do we act like equals? Do others have to give us permission to be equals?