Is Deaf Culture still High Context?

[Berry]

Ok, I am barely getting what you are saying, but would like to know more about this low and high context stuff. That's why I also added the "may be wrong".

Do you know of some good sources about this, books or/and internet, and also if it's scholary sources explaining this related to deafness?

I don't think it's related to deafness. Just to a certain poster on AllDeaf.

Ok, that could explain. Hope Berry can clear this out.

Me thinks this requires a new thread.

First please remember when I first stumbled across Deaf World in the early to mid 1950's few hearing Americans had a clue such a thing existed. Once in a while they would come across a deaf peddler selling alphabet cards. Most people through them away as soon as the bought one for ten or twenty-five cents.

It was common for Deaf people to all live in one house -- I mean crowded. No one ever signed in public. Deaf culture was unheard of and "talking with your hands" was not considered a language. Interpreters were unheard of. ADA wasn't even a fantasy. If you didn't have a friend or family member who was hearing who could communicate for you you could get into some real trouble quickly.

Mainstream? Forget it. Gallaudet was Mecca and any form of sign language was forbidden in the public schools. In those days you could quickly spot where a person had gone to school by the way they signed.

Deaf people were a closed community. Few knew they existed and they did not advertise themselves. They were an extremely High Context society. From some of the comments on AllDeaf I suspect Deaf Culture as I knew it has been diluted.

The best place I could find that would authoritatively and categorically state that Deaf Culture is still High Context is here -- Are a set of flashcards I found to help people prepare for NIC.

Flashcards about Culture for NIC

[Edit -- Scroll down so you don't have to go though the cards, you can just read the questions / answers. ]

The best description I found about the difference between a High Context Society and a Low Context society is here... But it is not about Deaf Culture, it is about Amish.

It is still the best I could find: Go to page 18 where is says, "A High-Context Culture. Makes for good reading.

Amish society - Google Books

Now it is late and I must sleep.

 

[dogmom]

Berry for that info/links and also the other thread where this started was so intriguing, too. I am glad to learn about this...as I consider it I wonder if "high context" also applies to many Native cultures. I wonder about this based on my experiences....
and to some Jewish....

thinking....

 

[Bottesini]

High context culture and low context culture, is just sociology.

You seemed to be talking about individual thinking before.

Deaf culture depending on how you look at it does not qualify for high context designation because it is very divided. It is not all for one and one for all, and all for the common good.

Before you seemed to be talking about concrete and abstract thinkers.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

High context culture and low context culture, is just sociology.

You seemed to be talking about individual thinking before.

Deaf culture depending on how you look at it does not qualify for high context designation because it is very divided. It is not all for one and one for all, and all for the common good.

Before you seemed to be talking about concrete and abstract thinkers.

I understood what he meant. In my circle, we just called it elitism-- not by the dictionary meaning, but by the Internet culture definition. And the Deaf is definitely high-context, division or no division. Actually, the divisions in itself create a need for such thinking.

It would be more fair to say immersion in the mainstream via technology is reverting the D/deaf people back to low context since there's less need to associate with their own people.

 

[jillio]

My assessment would be that Deaf Culture is very much high context.

 

[Berry]

Berry for that info/links and also the other thread where this started was so intriguing, too. I am glad to learn about this...as I consider it I wonder if "high context" also applies to many Native cultures. I wonder about this based on my experiences....
and to some Jewish....

thinking....

In fact my ability to quickly assimilate quickly into High Context culture, thinking, and values, comes from the fact I started out my life surrounded by a bunch of radical thinking non reservation Native American Indians whose assimilation into Standard White Hearing Culture was somewhat less than perfect.

I believe Edward T. Hall who first came up with the High Context, Low Context description started his journey with Navajo's and Hopi's.

You only need to know one fact about the Navajo's to realize they have a High Context Culture: It is considered and embarrassment for a Navajo to be richer than their relatives.

 

[Berry]

High context culture and low context culture, is just sociology.

You seemed to be talking about individual thinking before.

Deaf culture depending on how you look at it does not qualify for high context designation because it is very divided. It is not all for one and one for all, and all for the common good.

Before you seemed to be talking about concrete and abstract thinkers.

People raised in Low Context Cultures have a habit of thinking one way, people raised in High Context Cultures have a habit of thinking another.

Concrete thinking is not exactly the same as Low Context thinking and abstract thinking is not exactly the same as High Context thinking.

In some ways High Context thinking is more concrete than Low Context thinking.

 

[Bottesini]

People raised in Low Context Cultures have a habit of thinking one way, people raised in High Context Cultures have a habit of thinking another.

Concrete thinking is not exactly the same as Low Context thinking and abstract thinking is not exactly the same as High Context thinking.

In some ways High Context thinking is more concrete than Low Context thinking.

Now I am even more confused... But that is nothing new.

 

[Berry]

I understood what he meant. In my circle, we just called it elitism-- not by the dictionary meaning, but by the Internet culture definition. And the Deaf is definitely high-context, division or no division. Actually, the divisions in itself create a need for such thinking.

It would be more fair to say immersion in the mainstream via technology is reverting the D/deaf people back to low context since there's less need to associate with their own people.

I believe mainstreaming is a two edged sword:

On the plus side is the fact that a lot of D/deaf children who would not have had an education before because they could not have an all deaf school available to them are getting an education.

On the negative side is that D/deaf children are often so imbued with Low Context Hearing Culture they cannot assimilate into mainstream Deaf Culture.

 

[jillio]

I believe mainstreaming is a two edged sword:

On the plus side is the fact that a lot of D/deaf children who would not have had an education before because they could not have an all deaf school available to them are getting an education.

On the negative side is that D/deaf children are often so imbued with Low Context Hearing Culture they cannot assimilate into mainstream Deaf Culture.

That is an excellent point, and one I will add to my repertoire of what is wrong with the mainstream.:P

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I believe mainstreaming is a two edged sword:

On the plus side is the fact that a lot of D/deaf children who would not have had an education before because they could not have an all deaf school available to them are getting an education.

On the negative side is that D/deaf children are often so imbued with Low Context Hearing Culture they cannot assimilate into mainstream Deaf Culture.

Sorry, I should had been more clear. I wasn't thinking of the education system at all.

I was thinking more along the line of how some of the culturally Deaf seems to "disappear" from the culture altogether once certain technology become available (ie. IP relay, smartphones). I am starting to see that with some of my old friends. The way they think is changing too-- more "hearing-minded" now.

Mind you, I am guilty of shying away from the circles I used to be in as well.

 

[deafdyke]

On the negative side is that D/deaf children are often so imbued with Low Context Hearing Culture they cannot assimilate into mainstream Deaf Culture.

In other words, just b/c they ride the same bus, it doesn't mean that they don't get sent to the back of the bus.
We can experiance hearing culture, but not wholely or fully.....

 

[Berry]

Logic and Reason -- Or is it?

A Concrete thinker's High Context view of basic logic.

A Concrete thinker is basically someone who wants to see, taste, touch, smell, and / or hear. If it can't be seen, felt, tasted, touched, or heard, a concrete thinker has a problem accepting its existence.

Whenever discussion of High Context versus Low Context Cultures comes up Logic and reasoning is mentioned. Low Context Cultures treat logic as though it is the one, the true, the only, way to achieve reason. Often Low Context thinkers will dismiss High Contextual arguments saying, "That is only semantics."

The truth is semantics is the study of meaning -- And it has become a tortuous subject to navigate -- But fortunately you do not need to know a lot about it in order to use it. It comes more or less naturally to High Context thinkers.

Let us look at the syllogism, pride and joy of the Low Context world.

All men are mortal​

John is a man​

Therefore John is mortal​

This is a person's first introduction to logic and it makes complete sense to all Low Context thinkers. They somehow believe intelligence has been popped out of a magic hat in three short sentences.

Next the neophyte to logic is introduced to a faulty syllogism -- Something on this order:

No cat has five legs​

A cat has four more legs than no cat​

Therefore a cat has nine legs​

A laugh is enjoyed, and the student is then introduced to lengthy and complex rules on how to avoid such errors. The odd part of this exercise to me is that Low Context thinkers will never actively challenge either syllogism. They accept them both, just as they are and go on from there.

Now let us see how a High Context thinker will look at these syllogisms.

The High Context thinker will first try to understand what it is they are presented with in light of everything they already know.

There at least a couple of ways to do this. One is to do a simple semantic search for meaning; look at the presupposition. A presupposition is assumed to be true but is not stated in the sentence.

So you ask, "What has to be true for this sentence to be true?"

All men are mortal​

In order for this to be true someone somewhere must know all about all men, past, present, and future. My experience would tell me this is highly unlikely therefore I am doubtful about the "truth" of this sentence. It may be true, but it lacks concrete evidence.

John is a man​

In order for this sentence to be true someone somewhere must know John and be able to verify John is a man. A professor who taught logic informed me that this is a hypothetical man in a hypothetical situation.

I'll grant that -- but how does two hypothetical sentences about things no one knows about produce truth?

Therefore John is mortal​

I'm sorry but the High Context Concrete thinker wants to know how you can rely on this sentence to be correct when there is no real evidence the first two sentences have any validity.

And I agree.

 

[Berry]

What about the cat?

It is interesting to see how a High Context Concrete thinker will look at the "Cat Fallacy Syllogism." In truth the concrete thinker and the abstract thinker will look at it pretty much the same.

No cat has five legs​

A cat has four more legs than no cat​

Therefore a cat has nine legs​

What must be true for the first sentence to be true is that no cat ever born has ever had five legs.

I personally have never seen a cat with more or less than four legs but I DO know it is a well documented fact that people and other animals have been born with no legs, one leg, two legs, three legs, and four legs. I've seen documentation that a cow was born with six legs.

Okay the first sentence is not true. There is no concrete or abstract reason for a High Context thinker to accept it.

Next:

A cat has four more legs than no cat​

We just went through this. We know for a concrete fact an animal can be born with zero legs up to six legs. We cannot state categorically how many legs a specific cat may have.

Therefore a cat has nine legs​

How are we going to come up with a valid conclusion when we start out with a major premise and a minor premise -- Neither of which makes any sense to begin with?

 

[Berry]

An abstract thinker's High Context look at "The Mortal Man"

If you have stayed with me so far....

An High Context abstract thinker will look at the following and respond:

All men are mortal​

John is a man​

Therefore John is mortal​

One of the primary contexts of any statement is TIME and PLACE. Thus the abstract thinker who is High Context will automatically restate the syllogism into more meaningful form.

All male human beings we have a record of up to this date have died​

Please note we do not have a record of all men who ever lived or died prior to today. And we probably won't have in the foreseeable future. Millions of men have lived and we have no record of either their birth or their death. For some of those we have all that exists to prove they ever were is a headstone -- Which is no proof. Some Johnny Headstone maker may have run around planting headstones of people who never lived for all we know.

This only holds for the past. What about the future? WE cannot know that ALL men are mortal until the very last human male has died.

So we have to reject the first premise. While it may seem unlikely that any man has, or will, be immortal, we simply cannot know this.

John is a man​

Once again, time and place. Please note that as few as thirty years ago I was laughed at for this one. It PROVED to all low context thinkers I was on the lunatic fringe and that I should probably be committed if the world were just.

As of this day John is a man. We do not know that he always has been one and we do not know that he always will be one. When I was young this comment of mine was used to "prove" that science fiction should be banned. It was poisoning the youth of the world and rotting their minds.

Today on this very forum we have individuals who either once were men or who once were not men. Thus fantasy and science fiction doth catch up with us in our own lifetimes.

Therefore John is mortal​

Maybe he is. The probability says he is. But as proof?

Give me a break.

Low context logic just does not cut the mustard in a High Context world.

 

[Berry]

That is an excellent point, and one I will add to my repertoire of what is wrong with the mainstream.:P

I added to your repertoire?

Now I AM complimented.

 

[Berry]

In other words, just b/c they ride the same bus, it doesn't mean that they don't get sent to the back of the bus.
We can experiance hearing culture, but not wholely or fully.....

The truth is that standard American hearing culture is both very low context, highly compartmentalized, and toxic. Not all hearing cultures are low context. Not all hearing cultures are ultra compartmentalized. Not all hearing cultures are toxic.

I like the back of the bus. I get to watch the fools pretend they are special.

 

[flip]

Sorry, I should had been more clear. I wasn't thinking of the education system at all.

I was thinking more along the line of how some of the culturally Deaf seems to "disappear" from the culture altogether once certain technology become available (ie. IP relay, smartphones). I am starting to see that with some of my old friends. The way they think is changing too-- more "hearing-minded" now.

Mind you, I am guilty of shying away from the circles I used to be in as well.

I agree that the deaf world is more apart now, caused by communication technology and cheap transport, but I also see an increase in deaf social activities in europe, based on various interests, thanks to facebook and communication technology. Deaf clubs have been dying for two decades, but it appears it's not the end of the deaf culture, it's just changing. The way this resemble hearing people, is that the different deaf groups sharing the same interests, also gang up at larger event, or met other deaf strangers, in a more low context way, if I got Berry right. We still share the deaf way, and the tendency to gang up with other deaf people, makes the deaf population at the grand scale, more high context than the majority.

Me think.

 

[flip]

The truth is that standard American hearing culture is both very low context, highly compartmentalized, and toxic. Not all hearing cultures are low context. Not all hearing cultures are ultra compartmentalized. Not all hearing cultures are toxic.

I like the back of the bus. I get to watch the fools pretend they are special.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

I don't know much about hearing people nor am I a scholar in hearing people thinking, so if you don't mind,I have a question.

Don't hearing people gang up in high context groups to escape the limits of the low context culture? Or are the culture in different interest groups hearing people socialize into, also low context in thinking?

I am also curious if it's only downsides with low context thinking, no upsides.

Is there something like a balance between high context thinking and low context thinking, where the majority of americans are unablanced?

A reason this topic is interesting to me, is because I once watched a vlog by Carl Schroeder, where he talked about training the minds of deaf kids. He used your three logic sentences as a way to play with language. My question is if he is aware of this kind of logic as a part of low context thinking, failing to notice the healty signs of a kid who rejects the low context logic.

Will for sure do some reading on this.

 

[dogmom]

I understand Berry

ponderings.....
- knowledge is not absolute

- wisdom resides in stillness and observation

- break it down, question

- whose knowing do we deem important?