what is this phenonmena is called? Regarding the overuse of audism

[Grummer]

I have come across a very interesting expression from a hearing person explicated the problem on excess over use of term - audism.

I have copy/paste it here below;

Audism is being used too loosely for anyones liking.
Just because I'm hearing and have an opinion (which often is assumed to be uneducated just because I'm hearing) does not make it audism.

People use the term as I already said and plenty of others have said for everything, and there isn't one clean term on it.
Do some use it as an anti hearing term...yes
Are some people anti hearing.. yes

Lasty on the comment of me being hearing explaining alot..don't talk tosh..most of you knew full well I was hearing...what do you expect me to do..put hearing in my name...I don't think so.

I don't know if anyone of you notice it..but whenever a comment is usually made with regards to hearing.. it concerns oppression of deafness. I'm not oppressing anyone.

This is what does happen though...
a deaf person makes an argument against a Deaf person..they debate..
a hearing person or me makes the same argument against a Deaf person..it's seens as audism or discrimination!

How I am wondering here is and hoping to receive your opinions or even 'expert' help on to define (if you are an expert in this) what exactly is this situation, I mean is there a parrellel? the closest 'parrallel' I can think of is when [amercan] blacks are allowed to call each other ******s/ niggas as a mark of brotherhood but when a white person joins in, to exchange 'niggas' it is considered bad, (ok because of the history of whites calling black ******s, but even that I hardly know about this long history)

what is this phenomena known as? i dont know what it is called?

reverse audism? I am not sure about that so what it might be ?
really hoping for some succient, pithy replies , even an in-depth discussion say on a web-link would be good!

Any clues?


Thanks in advance

Grum

 

[jillio]

I have come across a very interesting expression from a hearing person explicated the problem on excess over use of term - audism.

I have copy/paste it here below;

Audism is being used too loosely for anyones liking.
Just because I'm hearing and have an opinion (which often is assumed to be uneducated just because I'm hearing) does not make it audism.

People use the term as I already said and plenty of others have said for everything, and there isn't one clean term on it.
Do some use it as an anti hearing term...yes
Are some people anti hearing.. yes

Lasty on the comment of me being hearing explaining alot..don't talk tosh..most of you knew full well I was hearing...what do you expect me to do..put hearing in my name...I don't think so.

I don't know if anyone of you notice it..but whenever a comment is usually made with regards to hearing.. it concerns oppression of deafness. I'm not oppressing anyone.

This is what does happen though...
a deaf person makes an argument against a Deaf person..they debate..
a hearing person or me makes the same argument against a Deaf person..it's seens as audism or discrimination!

How I am wondering here is and hoping to receive your opinions or even 'expert' help on to define (if you are an expert in this) what exactly is this situation, I mean is there a parrellel? the closest 'parrallel' I can think of is when [amercan] blacks are allowed to call each other ******s/ niggas as a mark of brotherhood but when a white person joins in, to exchange 'niggas' it is considered bad, (ok because of the history of whites calling black ******s, but even that I hardly know about this long history)

what is this phenomena known as? i dont know what it is called?

reverse audism? I am not sure about that so what it might be ?
really hoping for some succient, pithy replies , even an in-depth discussion say on a web-link would be good!

Any clues?


Thanks in advance

Grum

Since you are well learned regarding the Symbolic Interaction Theory, you understand that the intent behind the word, and the connotative or contextual meaning is far more important than the word itself. The word "audism" arose out of a history of oppression of the Deaf byt he hearing and the numerous attempts to force Deaf, as individuals and groups, to conform to hearing values and norms. Therefore, an opinion being expressed by a hearing person that is derogatory toward Deaf cultural values and norms is perceived as audist and based on a internally held belief that the hearing way is preferable and superior to the Deaf way. When a deaf person expresses the same opinion, it is not always perceived audist simply because by virtue of sharing the characteristic of deafness, and having experienced it in every day life, their perspective is more closely related to the Deaf perspective than the hearing.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

This is what does happen though...
a deaf person makes an argument against a Deaf person..they debate..
a hearing person or me makes the same argument against a Deaf person..it's seens as audism or discrimination!

Absolutely, I have and am experiencing it on a daily basis here.

Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

Absolutely, I have and am experiencing it on a daily basis here.

Fuzzy

We are discussing the Theory of Symbolic Interactionism, and sociological implications, not your experiences. And quite obviously, you don't understand the meaning of the word "audism".

 

[Kaitin]

How I am wondering here is and hoping to receive your opinions or even 'expert' help on to define (if you are an expert in this) what exactly is this situation, I mean is there a parrellel? the closest 'parrallel' I can think of is when [amercan] blacks are allowed to call each other ******s/ niggas as a mark of brotherhood but when a white person joins in, to exchange 'niggas' it is considered bad, (ok because of the history of whites calling black ******s, but even that I hardly know about this long history)

what is this phenomena known as? i dont know what it is called?

reverse audism? I am not sure about that so what it might be ?
really hoping for some succient, pithy replies , even an in-depth discussion say on a web-link would be good!

Any clues?

Thanks in advance

Grum

I used Google and found a Wikipedia article with good links.

From Wikipedia: Cultural appropriation

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It denotes acculturation or assimilation, but often connotes a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture.[1][2] It can include the introduction of forms of dress or personal adornment, music and art, religion, language, or social behavior. These elements, once removed from their indigenous cultural contexts, may take on meanings that are significantly divergent from, or merely less nuanced than, those they originally held. Or, they may be stripped of meaning altogether.
-
Cultural and racial theorist, George Lipsitz, outlined this concept of cultural appropriation in his seminal term "strategic anti-essentialism". Strategic anti-essentialism is defined as the calculated use of a cultural form, outside of your own, to define yourself or your group. Strategic anti-essentialism can be seen both in minority cultures and majority cultures, and are not confined to only the appropriation of the other. For example, the American band Redbone, comprised of founding members of Mexican heritage, essentialized their group as belonging to the Native American tradition, and are known for their famous songs in support of the American Indian Movement "We Were All Wounded at Wounded Knee" and "Custer Had It Coming". However, as Lipsitz argues, when the majority culture attempts to strategically anti-essentialize themselves by appropriating a minority culture, they must take great care to recognize the specific socio-historical circumstances and significance of these cultural forms so as not the perpetuate the already existing, majority vs. minority, unequal power relations.


Maybe blacks using "N_____" is strategic anti-essentialism? They take the word from white against them - now for some the word is acceptable from blacks but not whites. But I don't know - I never say the word "anti-essentialism" before. I used "strategic anti-essentialism" in Google and found like this.

ALso I found this:
- From M/C Journal: Appropriating a Slur
Semantic Looping in the African-American Usage of N-----

The word 'n----r' is arguably the most charged epithet in American English; thus it is surprising that this word has been appropriated by some African Americans to refer to themselves. To be precise, the African-American version of this term is not 'n----r' but 'n---a', a word that has, as Geneva Smitherman notes, "a variety of meanings ranging from positive to negative to neutral" (Black Talk 167). Henry Louis Gates, Jr., in his study of African-American literature, provides a theoretical foundation for understanding why some African Americans use this word and how it operates rhetorically. Building on Gates's work, I will argue that the co-optation of the slur often involves a complex of three rhetorical devices that fall under the rubric of an African-American rhetorical strategy called Signifyin(g)—a term that will be discussed at length later. The first of these devices is agnominatio, defined as "the repetition of a word with an alteration of both one letter and a sound" (Gates 46). The second, semantic inversion, is the reversal of the meaning of a term (Holt qtd. in Smitherman, "Chain"). Chiastic slaying, the third rhetorical strategy, is a critique that transforms the status of a group or individual.1 Through these three modes of rhetorical transfiguration, the slur 'n----r' becomes 'n---a' a positive term that carries with it a critique of racism. I will further argue that all of these rhetorical devices operate through a principle I term "semantic looping" in which a new term derives meaning by continual reference to an older, existing term. This principle is a key to understanding how Signifyin(g) works in the appropriation of 'n----r' and helps to reveal how, in the words of Michel Foucault, the appropriation is a culturally rooted form of "reverse discourse" (101). Ultimately, this rhetorical analysis reveals that the African-American usage of 'n---a' is a strategy for asserting the humanity of black people in the face of continuing racism, a strategy that celebrates an anti-assimilationist vision of African-American identity.

Foucault has argued that while the naming of oppressed groups by those in power serves as an instrument for oppression, such naming can also engender group identification and resistance to oppression (101). The coining of the word 'homosexual', for example, allowed for the repression of gay people but also allowed homosexuals to organise a gay rights movement using the very terminology utilized to oppress them (Foucault 101). One strategy for resisting hostile slurs like 'queer' or '******' is for the oppressed group to appropriate the name and transform it into a rallying cry or "reverse discourse". An understanding of how 'n---a' operates as a reverse discourse requires a culturally rooted rhetorical analysis of the term.

Co-optation? Semnatic inversion? Chiastic slaying? Semantic looping? Reverse discourse? Honest, I need to reread more and think - this is confusing to me.

Also: Interesting article about history of the word "audism":
- Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression

 

[fredfam1]

This has occured in all cultural exchanges where one group
tries to become dominant over the other. People in general
fear change. It makes them uncomfortable. As a result they
try to force others to conform to what they are used to
and what makes them comfortable. IE oralisem. The hearing
culture does not want to experiance discomfort at not
hearing ideas expressed. So they pretend to try and "help"
the deaf by forcing what is comfortable for them onto the deaf.

Note that the dominant group deludes itself into thinking that
they are coming to the "rescue" of the non dominant group.

The same has happend in other cross cultural interactions.

Time and birth of subsequent generations helps ease the
tensions but change is slow. Each generation should
feel a little less tension about the other after the emotions
have reached a peak. I don't know where that point is on
the graph right now. But I am hoping that as more Deaf are
educated and they in turn are able to train other Deaf on
the value of their own culture and their pride in it, that
tensions between the cultures will cease to exist.

 

[fredfam1]

The second, semantic inversion, is the reversal of the meaning of a term (Holt qtd. in Smitherman, "Chain"). Chiastic slaying, the third rhetorical strategy, is a critique that transforms the status of a group or individual.1 Through these three modes of rhetorical transfiguration, the slur 'n----r' becomes 'n---a' a positive term that carries with it a critique of racism. I will further argue that all of these rhetorical devices operate through a principle I term

He's just using ten dollar words here when dollar ones would do.
or Expensive signs use he when cheap signs work same.( btw would this be a correct way to sign the above?)

semantic inversion - "Gay" used to mean happy, now it means "homosexual"
Chiastic slaying - "Gay Pride" - now has been elevated to a status symbol of
"being Gay" ("Your just a Heterosexual, how boring is that?
I would rather talk to someone more intresting
than you!")
Change the meaning of the word.
Change the cultural status on the word
That manipulates the culture into altering their view.
For good or bad, is called social engineering.
People can be sheep.

 

[Kaitin]

He's just using ten dollar words here when dollar ones would do.
or Expensive signs use he when cheap signs work same.( btw would this be a correct way to sign the above?)

Ten dollar? Hundred dollar I think. To expensive for my understanding.

 

[fredfam1]

Yeah with these kind of folks, you always have
to be careful to count your change!

 

[Kaitin]

Yeah with these kind of folks, you always have
to be careful to count your change!

No change - I want the refund!!

 

[Ariakkas]

Expensive signs use he when cheap signs work same.( btw would this be a correct way to sign the above?)

do the signs themselves have a monetary value? if not, then that is not a conceptually accurate way to sign that.

idioms in general dont interpret well, you would have to explain the idea behind it.


regarding the original topic, i dont think its any different than and black person calling anyone white a rascist for the same things. the things that white people do, they do because thats the way we've been taught, we function and think a certain way based on the culture we are raised in, just like anyone else. I would say most of the things white people get blamed for being rascist, they do unintentionally, and not nessecarily out of ignorance, they just don't view the situation the same way a black person would, because we do not have shared expierences that make us think the same way.
same with Deaf/hearing. these two groups both have very different expierences growing up, that formulate our opinions and beliefs. A black person is not inherintly right simply because he is black, and a hearing person is not inherintly wrong because his ears function.
the balance is struck when people stop using labels to seperate themselves, and sit down and have an open-minded discussion and learn about something other than what they are comfortable with. This includes Deaf people too. playing the victim only makes people think you need to be saved.

 

[fredfam1]

Ok so there is the 10 dollar sign and the 1 dollar sign.

Lets see, "That sign use he value 10 dollar , need only 1 dollar sign, give idea same"
How's that? Contextually I would have to express a groan face while signing the above.
Or roll eyes?

 

[Kaitin]

He's just using ten dollar words here when dollar ones would do.
or Expensive signs use he when cheap signs work same.( btw would this be a correct way to sign the above?)

Sorry, FredFam, I didn't realize you were asking a question. But my answer is lame I think. I would never sign to mean exactly "using ten dollar words here when dollar ones would do". Maybe a interpreter better with English idiom knows more. I would indicate his signing big, too long, too showy, using my hands with "sign" sign (I make no sense ) and like <--- facial expression. Maybe with "complicated" sign or "iiiii" on chest as little joke. Then indicate I am signing myself, with normal size, inflection, face and not so showy.......I give up. Sorry, my answer is too lame. Halloween party was too late (costume contest not until midnight - I lost) :fruit:

A old post was mad because someone said........:roll: I forget exact words, just not my English day.....maybe "approximate" ASL into English, not "translate" ASL into English. But "approximate" is more ASL and SEE is more "translate". SEE is so hard, harder than ASL I think, because SEE stuff sign into English and sign breaks. (Successful metaphor I think! My brain is not all dead!). Two separate languages. The "ten dollar word" is a metaphor, right? Or something like metaphor? Simile? "A word like worth ten dollars" or something? I don't use much metaphors like this is ASL. You can show all with face and changes to signs I think.

Now, honest, I give up. I know others explain better. I need a nap.

 

[fredfam1]

No NO you did great in your explination. I understand but I am
still having trouble doing it. I am supposed to sign "meaning for meaning"
not word for word. The trouble is I think word for word! I would so
love it if I could express English poetry into ASL. sigh
Maybe if I try thinking what a whole sentence means and try to
interpret that. But when I was watching some of the ASL comedy
things, I could tell the ones that were voiced were missing something
because when the audiance was laughing so hard, the vocal stuff
just wasn't said in as funny a manner. Its like ASL is a layered language
with several messages riding piggy back on each other all at the same
time. Sure makes a hearing person feel left out. I'm glad my Deaf friends
are so patient with me.

 

[Kaitin]

No NO you did great in your explination. I understand but I am
still having trouble doing it. I am supposed to sign "meaning for meaning"
not word for word. The trouble is I think word for word! I would so
love it if I could express English poetry into ASL. sigh
Maybe if I try thinking what a whole sentence means and try to
interpret that. But when I was watching some of the ASL comedy
things, I could tell the ones that were voiced were missing something
because when the audiance was laughing so hard, the vocal stuff
just wasn't said in as funny a manner. Its like ASL is a layered language
with several messages riding piggy back on each other all at the same
time. Sure makes a hearing person feel left out. I'm glad my Deaf friends
are so patient with me.

All my hearing friends have the problem of wanting word=sign, word=sign, word=sign. So much harder than ASL I think.

We have a white board in our living room with "OR SOMETHING" written on top. I try to explain you don't just word=sign, word=sign, word=sign. My roommate asks "What is sign for ". (I don't know and can't remember example because the expression is so different always) I try to explain and often give up and say "I would do the sign and expression in this manner or do other sign in this manner or....." And then write "Or something" on white board with frustration and give up. And opposite also - I can't think of the word with speech or writing and say/write: "_____.....or something." End of sentence. :P Probably a bad habit. Now we just point at "OR SOMETHING" when anyone (hearing also) can't explain or think of the word.

I can't do SEE really. I will understand most SEE I hope and had family and interpretors do PSE (not true SEE I think - no "the" "I" "he" etc - in past post I wrote "SEE" but now I think more PSE. The topic makes me ), but I don't. SEE is exhausting to my brain. I don't know how interpretors do SEE always.

Edited to add: From a Google search to explain better:

From Deafness and Literacy: A Two-Sided Debate

ASL is preferred by a majority of deaf people for several reasons. Signed Exact English and Pidgin Sign English are more complicated and difficult to understand than ASL, which emphasizes the important parts of the sentence and ignores the extraneous words such as the and am. SEE cannot be mastered without prior working knowledge of English grammar, which deaf children lack (Moore & Levitan 100). PSE relies upon the common understanding of hand and body gestures. For example, the gesture of holding one's stomach to indicate a stomachache might appear to another person as an indication of "having a full stomach." In addition, ASL is visually easier because it stresses the main objects in the sentence, which are generally brief and very concise. Facial expressions allow the user to express emotions more clearly, and essential to the grammar of the language. For example, the speed at which signs are shown can emphasize the thought being presented. Therefore, a deaf person can better express his or her emotions and thoughts more directly and clearly with ASL.

 

[fredfam1]

I think and think about doing ASL and what actually happens
must be confusing for my Deaf friends! Because not only do
I go back and forth between ASL and probably PSE (but
really its more something I've invented myself..lol!) Who
knows what it really looks like!?, but add to that I am
dsylexic too. So if I get really nervous, I will think a sign
and sign the next one after it or reverse signs and do
the opposite sign of what I intended to do. And then
if I recognize I just made a error, my brain goes into
slow motion and then I space out and thats when I
wish I had an "or something" board like yours! Sometimes
I just stop and... hold my hands. sigh
I will keep trying though! Watching the comedy ASL vids
are really helping. I notice when I am laughing a new sign
sinks into my memory. Today I learned the sign for honesty,
(coda brothers)and "who else is in here?" Thats the one
where you drag your little pinky finger in front of you like
you are saying come here with it! I liked that one! At least
I think thats what it meant(coda brothers again, I like those
guys) Thanks for whoever suggested them. I really liked the
um... deffication story. haha Believe it or not I've had two
full years of ASL. ASL 1, 2, 3, and 4,(I took ASL 1 and 2 twice)
and even though I got an A in my last class
I still feel like I did when I was in my first semester when I
try to use my receptive skills. Oh well! I guess Dory would say,
"Just keep signing...Just keep signing....ladeedade...lol

 

[Kaitin]

And then
if I recognize I just made a error, my brain goes into
slow motion and then I space out and thats when I
wish I had an "or something" board like yours! Sometimes
I just stop and... hold my hands. sigh

My roommate does the same!! She holds hand up out in front, palms in, and then.......stops. Nothing. Just hands stopped. And then slowly fall down.....And stopped again. Then held together like "pray" with hands moving slow back and forth because her brain stops.

Often I have no attention span and worse because she slows.so.much. to think of "perfect sign". So then I see stopped falling hands to "pray" and her face all or . Then my face is:

We have many funny misunderstanding. Before my male roommate knew anything, he wants to know "go" sign. I show him - "go". Then he wants to know "come" sign. I show him - "come". No, he wants "come", not "go". I said "Yes. Sign for "go". Sign for "come"". He doesn't see different signs and thinks different word=different handshape I think. Then I think he understands, but he asks "How do you know a person means "go" or "come"?" My other (hearing) roommate who knows ASL some helped out - I gave up. "Direction makes signs different! Different direction so different sign different word....different........or something!"

FredFam - great thread. Glad we have good discussion about "semantic inversion"

 

[fredfam1]

Me too!

 

[Grummer]

Bump!,
sorry been a while since in this thread
I have and still am right under piles of snow (essay writing)

would like to a big thanks to kaitin, and fredfam, and eveyone else in this thread
Ive downloaded one pdf, will read that tonight, as well as hunting for another website, book I flipping forgot what it was, but had to do with not only deaf people get cut from from abled-bodied people in society, as Im trying to find the source to back up my writing.

Im not well versed in linguistics , so - semantics, Id wait till next week when I got this stupid monster of an assignment out of the way

peace out

 

[Kaitin]

YW Grummer and no problem. FredFam and me had a great discussion, just not all about "semantic inversion" really. :P