The Making of a Word: Audism ...And More

[Interpretrator]

Please don't stereotype me.

Um...relax. I was making some educated guesses about a word based on its etymology of a word and the use of it that I've seen in two different cultures. Nowhere did I make any reference to you personally and I think most people around here will realize that you don't represent the whole of hearing culture.

If folks choose to use the word to only mean discrimination against the deaf from the hearing world, then they choose to use it out of context. This happens all of the time when people use words they dont really know the definition of.

The denotative definition of audism is "discrimination based on hearing status" (or, again, however you want to put it..."non-hearing status," "non-deaf status," whatever). The connotative definition doesn't seem to include discrimination of hearing people by deaf people. (And no matter what one person's experiences among his or her circle of friends may be, it does occur.) I'm not making any judgment about how one community or the other chooses to use this word because I'm not qualified to determine that. I'm just pointing out that prescriptively the word means one thing; descriptively it's used another way.

 

[rockdrummer]

Um...relax. I was making some educated guesses about a word based on its etymology of a word and the use of it that I've seen in two different cultures. Nowhere did I make any reference to you personally and I think most people around here will realize that you don't represent the whole of hearing culture..

Interpretrator, I have seen the word used in both worlds as well. I have seen comments and treatment from hearing people to deaf people, deaf people to deaf people and deaf to hearing that I would call audist attitudes (per the definition). Just because the word wasn't used doesn’t mean the behavior doesn’t exist. It exists in all of the combinations I described. All you have to do is read through some of the threads on this site to see examples of audism from all sides.

I never said you referenced me personally. I said, "Please don’t stereotype me." The problem that I see in the comments made by some folks is that they tend to generalize. I am not saying you did this intentionally to suggest anything. I will try to explain my position.

You said "My guess is that the deaf community wanted a word to describe how they have been treated by the hearing community " If we are referring to the word Audist, then what you are saying is; the deaf community needed a word to describe the negative treatment they have received from the hearing community. Therein lies the problem. I am part of the hearing community and to me, that comment stereotypes the hearing community as audists. Had you said; " My guess is that the deaf community wanted a word to describe how they have been treated by some in the hearing community " I would not have even made a comment. It's funny how adding two words changes the meaning of a comment. I hope you can understand my viewpoint on this. If not then lets agree to disagree.

Either way I do appreciate your comments and insight.

Thank you

 

[Interpretrator]

Just because the word wasn't used doesn’t mean the behavior doesn’t exist. It exists in all of the combinations I described.

Right. And I said:

...discrimination of hearing people by deaf people. (And no matter what one person's experiences among his or her circle of friends may be, it does occur.)

So I am not in need of instruction on this point, but thank you.

All you have to do is read through some of the threads on this site to see examples of audism from all sides.

Right. I've been here for two years. But thanks again for the suggestion.

I would suggest attending a workshop or lecture, or watching a DVD by MJ Bienvenu (I don't know if she has written anything on the subject) if you wish to become educated about the history of the word "audism" and why it has acquired the meaning of "discrimination by hearing against deaf."

For the record: I am an (accidental) audist. Yes, I'm an interpreter and am involved with Deaf culture and I don't stereotype people based on whether they're deaf or hearing and I advocate for deaf rights as much as I can in an interpreter position (which often has to be subtle) and all those other things. But Deaf culture is not my native culture and I often catch myself behaving in an audist fashion.

For example, one time at the drugstore I was in line behind an older deaf gentleman. He was writing notes back and forth with the pharmacist. He and I struck up a conversation and at one point I asked "NEED INTERPRETER?" The instant the signs were off my hand I realized I should have asked "WANT INTERPRETER?" That one little sign, "NEED," can change a simple offer of help to an assumption that help is required. That is an audist way to ask the question. I should have asked whether the pharmacist needed an interpreter, or whether the deaf man WANTed an interpreter.

Nitpicking, you say? Sure...maybe. Again: ask MJ Bienvenu. I point to her because she has an extreme view on the subject (and I'm not necessarily saying she's 100% right), but extreme views are often good for pointing out situations you wouldn't normally think of.

So personally I would never put myself on a high horse and say "I NEVER have audist attitudes or behave in an audist manner." I CAN say "I never KNOWINGLY have audist attitudes or behave in an audist manner." But I'd be kidding myself if I thought I was perfect in this regard. I'm always trying to improve. Hence, I include myself in the "hearing community" that has been known to oppress deaf people. If you don't, well, more power to you.

 

[rockdrummer]

Interpretrator. Please accept my apologies. I seem to be putting you on the defensive which is not my intent. I am not trying to instruct anyone here. I'm just sharing my experiences and opinions. I am here to learn so that I may make educated decisions regarding my deaf child. I admire your work and obvious commitment with the deaf community. And I totally agree with you on the whole unintentional audist thing. I'm sure I am guilty of that as well. I am by no means a perfect human being just as none of us are. What is important to me is to learn and not repeat my mistakes.

As I am trying to learn about deaf culture, I kept seeing this word Audist, and Audist attitude being thrown around. I saw it in the context it was used in and thought I understood the meaning. Then someone else uses it in a completely different context which confused me. What I usually do at that point is simply look up the meaning of the word to get the correct definition. Unfortunately, I was not able to find audist in the hearing or deaf dictionaries so I started asking what this word means and got several different answers. I then searched the web and found the paper written by Tom which not only describes the etymology but also defines audism. After reading Tom's paper I drew the conclusion that some people are simply using this word incorrectly and that perhaps they really didn't know the definition. My conclusion gets re-enforced when I read the following post;

Originally Posted by Eve
That's because those OVERUSING the term "audist", sling the term around indiscriminantly at anyone who disagrees with their personal philosophies. Therefore, those individuals tend to be recipients of the term "militants" instead. I have nothing against anyone having and sharing their own POV's, as long as they don't expect the rest of us to abide by their terms.

I agree with this post and I also see this in practice. Then I read other postings that suggest the definition has been modified a bit. That is something I have a difficult time understanding. Is it conventional to re-define words so they fit into the context we wish to use them in? I really don’t know. Personally, I would not do that. This is my first experience with such a concept. What I can tell you is that it is a learning experience. Even if I don’t agree with the re-definition of a word, it doesn’t mean that I can’t accept it... And is it really a re-definition. The word audism is not officially recognized in any dictionaries that I have come across. So maybe it is fair game to have its definition tweaked. Perhaps it’s me that is applying convention where it shouldn’t be.

You have far more experience that I on the subject of the deaf community/culture. I respect your comments and insights and I hope that I don’t come across as second guessing your opinions. My true agenda here is to learn...

 

[Interpretrator]

Thanks for your post, rockdrummer; sometimes what we're trying to say doesn't quite come across in the medium of a message board. (I'm including myself in that statement of course!)

 

[rockdrummer]

Thanks for your post, rockdrummer; sometimes what we're trying to say doesn't quite come across in the medium of a message board. (I'm including myself in that statement of course!)

Very well said. Nothing beats face-to-face communication. There is one thing that I love about this medium though. I am able to communicate with deaf people at a level that will take me years to achieve through personal (face to face) communication. I have learned so much here by having the ability to communicate with deafies despite the gray areas. I thank the creators of this and other sites focused on deaf issues.

 

[deafdyke]

Teresh, great definition! In addition a Deaf person who insists that a hoh person really isn't Deaf b/c of hearing abilty is also audist! My definition of audist would probloy include those people who are VERY anti-Sign and who yap on and on about how wonderful and utopian the Hearing world is, and who are active members in organizations like Auditory-Verbal Inc.

What sane responsible parent would let others choose what is best for their children? Would you want me or anyone else deciding what is best for your child? We don't always make the right choices but nobody is perfect and this is not a perfect world. As long as you educate yourself on the options and base your decision from what you have learned, and what you feel is in the best interest of your child, then you have done your best.

No, I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that although there are some openminded parents out there, there are a lot of parents who really buy into the rhetoric that audist oralism (being negative about ASL, preventing exposure to ASL etc) will make their dhh kids be more a part of the hearing world. Personally, I think that parents themselves have ONE right.....and that is to equipt their child with AS MANY tools as possible. It shouldn't be the parent's choice as to what tools the child has access to.....it's the parents' job to facillate access to those tools.

 

[rockdrummer]

No, I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that although there are some openminded parents out there, there are a lot of parents who really buy into the rhetoric that audist oralism (being negative about ASL, preventing exposure to ASL etc) will make their dhh kids be more a part of the hearing world. Personally, I think that parents themselves have ONE right.....and that is to equipt their child with AS MANY tools as possible. It shouldn't be the parent's choice as to what tools the child has access to.....it's the parents' job to facillate access to those tools.

deafdyke, I understand your meaning. Thank you for clarifying this.

 

[rockdrummer]

The definition by the creator says that deaf people can be Audist's too. Do you think folks in the deaf community would agree?

 

[Deaf Images]

AUDISM IS FOR HEARING - DUTs IS FOR DEAF

Since I am a newcomer to AD, I noticed discussions about audism. It is my favorite topic for many years. I believe that audism only applies to hearing people....and DUT is for Deaf - Deaf Uncle Tom... a deaf person who does not accept deaf culture and only sides with hearing people...thus not accepting his/her own deafness.....it is similar to blacks when someone of that race does not accept his own race, then he is called Uncle Tom...

That is my opinion and I have been saying it for years and years... so audism applies ONLY to hearing!

 

[rockdrummer]

Since I am a newcomer to AD, I noticed discussions about audism. It is my favorite topic for many years. I believe that audism only applies to hearing people....and DUT is for Deaf - Deaf Uncle Tom... a deaf person who does not accept deaf culture and only sides with hearing people...thus not accepting his/her own deafness.....it is similar to blacks when someone of that race does not accept his own race, then he is called Uncle Tom...That is my opinion and I have been saying it for years and years... so audism applies ONLY to hearing!

Thanks, So you dont' agree with the definition from the creator where he says deaf people can be audist's too. Read the begining of the thread and go to the link I provided or read the definintion in my posts here. I understand that the word is used out of context by the deaf community and that is ok. I also understand what you mean by a DUT. Having said that, what would you call a deaf person that does to the hearing community the things that an audist does to the deaf community? What is the word for that?

 

[Cheri]

Deaf Images,


I don't think it is nice to label people, Let's be nice. All hearies aren't that bad like the ones we experience in our path of life, But, give the rest of the hearies who aren't like the other hearies a break.

 

[Mookie]

Deaf Images,


I don't think it is nice to label people, Let's be nice. All hearies aren't that bad like the ones we experience in our path of life, But, give the rest of the hearies who aren't like the other hearies a break.

How do you know? I just chatted with my friend who workst at Gally a moment ago. Gally students refuse to leave after final exam period. They must stay until the Galladuet Univeristy Board of Trusts announces. Most of Gally students and some of Gally staff may protest if they select Jane Fernandes who is raised in oral enivirnment until she learned basic sign language at her late twenty years old. She also gives cold shoulder everyone on Gally campus....

Deaf Images is right. She may be Deaf Uncle Tom's sister...

 

[Cheri]

Mookie,

I'm afraid to say what does it have to do with this thread to begin with? I'm totally lost here, We are not talking about Galladuet Univeristy nor are we talking about a certain someone. We are discussing about the word "audism", I don't see why we have to label someone just because those of you describe "audism" as being discriminating against the deaf by those hearing. Let's not forget that hearings felt discriminating against us too when we don't give hearing a chance to understand us, believe me I've seen enough of those deaf who prefer to be in their little world away from hearing people. How do you feel when some hearing labeled deaf people "deaf and dumb" You wouldn't even like it, so would those oral method people like being called "audism"?

If you want mock people giving a certain name calling, then maybe you should take a good look at yourself, because you no better than anyone in the society either.

 

[Deaf Images]

What do you do? rapist?

Deaf Images,


I don't think it is nice to label people, Let's be nice. All hearies aren't that bad like the ones we experience in our path of life, But, give the rest of the hearies who aren't like the other hearies a break.

I am not labeling. It is fact of life. Would you call that guy who raped you "rapist"? or what?

 

[Deaf Images]

See Jane? Boot Jane out!

Deaf Images is right. She may be Deaf Uncle Tom's sister...

LOL!!! Jane needs to go... she is hindering the real goals of Gally....not worth keeping her.

 

[Cheri]

I am not labeling. It is fact of life. Would you call that guy who raped you "rapist"? or what?

You don't compare "rapist" to "audism"

 

[Deaf Images]

Yep!

You don't compare "rapist" to "audism"

Yeah, hearing people abuse Deaf so be it... it is similar.......

 

[rockdrummer]

Deaf Images. could you please answer my question to you in my post above?
Thank you.

 

[Mookie]

Mookie,

I'm afraid to say what does it have to do with this thread to begin with? I'm totally lost here, We are not talking about Galladuet Univeristy nor are we talking about a certain someone. We are discussing about the word "audism", I don't see why we have to label someone just because those of you describe "audism" as being discriminating against the deaf by those hearing. Let's not forget that hearings felt discriminating against us too when we don't give hearing a chance to understand us, believe me I've seen enough of those deaf who prefer to be in their little world away from hearing people. How do you feel when some hearing labeled deaf people "deaf and dumb" You wouldn't even like it, so would those oral method people like being called "audism"?

If you want mock people giving a certain name calling, then maybe you should take a good look at yourself, because you no better than anyone in the society either.

Lady,

Would you accept the date with the wealth deaf oralist who is against ASL? Methinks that you would be in excellent relationship with him since you can still speak and lip-read….

Be careful what you reply since you do not want to label a bad name to a handsome gentleman for asserting opinion against sign language methods.