In the past few weeks I've been receiving answers on why I just don't get along with Deafhood, Deaf Bilingual Coalition, Audism Free America and their so-called big "D" status. The answer is quite simple. Closed society. That's what these people are.
I went to a Cowboy gathering with my daughter few weeks and enjoyed the experience immensely. It was when I ran into an article containing an interview with world renowned poet, musician and story teller known as Baxter Black. Some of you may know his trademarked face and name since he's very popular in the western culture. I came across an interesting part of the article where the interviewer asked if he favored the idea of licensing a poet to perform poetry at gatherings and if he liked the idea of providing awards for winning poetry, music and stories. Baxter Black said he disliked the idea and do not favor such trends because it represented the 'closed society'. Baxter went on to say that he favored an open society whereas everybody would be welcomed regardless of their background, culture, or skills. The point was to have fun and have a good life.
The term 'closed society' never crossed my mind until Baxter Black said it so I did some research on the subject. Needless to say that I learned immensely. I learned the very reason why I just could not get along with these deafhoodized and big "D" deaf people. I've read numerous articles written on this article and learned that 'closed society' will always fail simply because freedom of information will always defeat a closed society. Some of the things I've read are listed below for your review.
-------------------------quoted articles-------------------------------
- Closed society - claims to certain knowledge and ultimate truth lead to the attempted imposition of one version of reality. Such a society is closed to freedom of thought.
- Open society - each citizen needs to engage in critical thinking, which requires freedom of thought and expression and the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this.
- Authoritarianism, totalitarian, dictatorship, theocracy and autocratic monarchies are examples of the "closed society".
-Democracies are examples of the "open society".
- Closed Society – authoritarianism - political parties, are often allowed to exist, although under tight control. They were closed to normal processes of change. It’s not possible to remove from office rulers who fail to respond to justified criticism. Leave little freedom or tolerance of belief.
- Open societies are based on activity, creativity, and innovations. Humanitarianism, equality and political freedom are characteristics of an “open society”.
- Closed Society - Organic society presents some very attractive features to the observer: a concrete social unity, an unquestioned belonging, an identification of each member with the collective. Members of an organic society would hardly consider this an advantage, ignorant as they are that the relationship could be any different; only those who are aware of a conflict between the individual and the social Whole in their own society are likely to regard organic unity as a desirable goal. In other words, the attractions of organic society are best appreciated when the conditions required for its existence no longer prevail.
But innocence, once lost, cannot be regained - except perhaps by forgetting every experience. In any attempt to recreate artificially the conditions of an organic society, it is precisely the unquestioning and unquestionable identification of all members with the society to which they belong that is the most difficult to achieve
If it is entrusted to a closed society institution, it is likely to be performed with inflexible and ultimately ineffective manner. The institution will seek to prevent changes, but in the long run it cannot succeed.
In ‘Open Societies’ the government is responsive and tolerant and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The State keeps no secrets from itself, in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedom and human rights are the foundation of an open society.
"Open Society" ensures that political leaders can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed while "closed society" will likely result in a bloody revolution, is needed to change the leaders. Open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society".
Popper argues that the ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism cannot be suppressed once people become aware of them, and therefore that it is impossible to return to the closed society.
Totalitarianism forced knowledge to become political, which made critical thinking impossible and led to the destruction of knowledge in closed societies.
Popper's theory that knowledge is provisional and fallible implies that society must be open to alternative points of view. An open society is associated with cultural and religious Pluralism . Open society is always open to improvement because knowledge is never completed but always ongoing.
----------------------end quotes----------------------------
As a bonus of this article I decided to cover a related topic on 'hood'. Few months ago I ran into an interesting article on 'personhood' and thought it'd shed a great example on deafhood. Here goes...
Judge throws out Nevada ‘personhood’ initiative
Friday, January 8, 2010 9:32 PM PST
CARSON CITY (AP) — A state judge in Carson City threw out a proposed ballot initiative Friday that sought to define a person as “everyone possessing a human genome,” saying the language was too vague and violated state law that limits questions to one subject.
The Nevada Personhood initiative proposed to amend the state Constitution by defining a person and extending due process rights from the beginning of biological development through end of life. The petition does not specifically mention abortion, but says its intent is to codify “the inalienable right to life for everyone, young or old, healthy or ill, conscious or unconscious, born or unborn.”
Carson City District Court Judge James Russell said the measure was too broad and general in nature to be put before voters in November. “The issue to me is, are we adequately informing voters on what they’re voting on,” Russell said in a ruling from the bench after listening to about two hours of arguments.
-------------------------------end quote------------------------
Interesting post. Thanks, look forward to reading more.
ReplyDelete(e
I think the only healthy approach is to avoid and oppose all aspects of hoods and isms, which if I had my way would be toasted slowly over hot fires. Sadly the nature of deafness makes a closed shop and Isolation a breeding ground for these insidious things, that make no-one happy in the end. Most deaf fear an open society, it's pretty basic, the feel they won't cope with it.
ReplyDeleteOh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above,
Don't fence me in.
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love,
Don't fence me in.
Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze, And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees,
Send me off forever but I ask you please,
Don't fence me in.
Funny you should write this piece, B. I just completed my blog Why the word 'audism' ought to be banned.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your article which probably explains why I am the way I am as well. And, oh, I do know who Baxter Black is, too. Love the way he recites his cowboy poetry in such a humorous way.
Maybe you can be the Deaf "Baxter Black"? LOL
Barry,
ReplyDeleteGood blog.
I believe it is more of the cultures' or/and any organizations need to survive, so they either become "closed" or "open". Really, the cultures have varying degrees of closedness and openness, depending on how they perceive the "outsiders."
;o)
MM~
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ with your statement:
"The nature of deafness makes a closed shop and isolation a breeding ground for these insidious things, that make no-one happy in the end. Most deaf fear an open society,...the feel they won't cope with it."
The nature of deafness isolates one from the open society. That is a fact and you can not dispute it. It is up to the deaf person to decide how to handle the isolation. Some choose to live in the Deaf world to avoid experiencing isolation. The hearing world thinks the people in the Deaf community are isolating themselves from society. I know of so many hard of hearing individuals who learned sign language much later in age who chose to abandon the hearing world as they finally found freedom in the Deaf world.
MM, you know that living in an open society can be difficult for many deaf individuals and it would require some coping strategies. I have my own strategies in order to take advantage of the wealth that the open society has to offer me.
Unfortunately there are some people who are ultra-radicalized that would not approve flexibility of perspectives among their own kind. I do not dispute that. Barry was focusing on the Deafhood-ized few, not the general ASL signing population. The Deafhood promoters clearly weren't pleased with my preference to live in hearing world and expressed disappointment that my child has a CI despite the fact that I sign ASL and come from Deaf parents. They ignored the fact that I have always fought to get recognition and equal rights for deaf children and adults. The radical few can blur the good efforts to share the majority of their culture's uniqueness, richness, and beauty.
MM, hope you do not mind my critiques of some comments that you made.
Interesting comment, Ojala.
ReplyDelete"The Deafhood promoters clearly weren't pleased with my preference to live in hearing world and expressed disappointment that my child has a CI despite the fact that I sign ASL and come from Deaf parents."
The irony I see in this is that they are always preaching how we should try and educate the public about hearing loss, deafness, the community, communication access, etc....yet in their own warped sense of humor and twist of logic look down on you solely because you got your child a CI?
You know how absurd that is?
Ojala/MM...
ReplyDeleteOjala is correct about deafness isolating us from the hearing population. Hence, we built a culture around it, so that we'd "enjoy" or "celebrate" our difference.
Hm. Some people would get more involved and appear as "activists" or as a few people would call, "extremists". Yeah, they shake things up, make us think, etc. It still all comes down to respect and I sense that is where the issue lies... respect. Maybe some wants more than just respect, something that many of us are not committed to give more than just respect. And then there are many lines that are overstepped and character slandering occur. I don't know, I have learned to steer clear of certain organizations, after witnessing and being a victim of some targeting and making examples of certain people and being made an example of.
I hate to say this, but we do need some activists to keep us on our toes once a while ;o)
Karen,
ReplyDeleteWell-pointed!
And while I have a certain respect for some people who believe in the concept of Deafhood, I don't appreciate the general level of maturity that has been consistently exhibited by them. Also, I have been labelled as a "traitor" to the deaf community by one of the founders of Deafhood Foundation, all because I have my own opinions. So, I am like...hmmm... what happened to the respect? I am still listening, but I reserve the right to judge, as always. Closed groups. Open groups. Families are often as "closed" groups...
ReplyDeleteWell, Barry, you brought up a really good topic for us to discuss and to think. I am sensing that it is OK to have open and closed groups; it's how we deal with them that reflects our inner beings, I guess.
Well said Karen. However I never said closed society was bad or wrong. I only said that it'd never last long. A closed society does not begin to rot until after they try to impose and enforce their belief / practices upon others. Big difference between that and those who keep it to themselves.
ReplyDeleteBarry
This discussion reminds me of the ongoing struggle in the software industry - closed vs open source. Closed source applications are programs that has "recipes" that aren't shared to the world (i.e. Windows 7, Safari) whereas open source (i.e. Linux, Firefox) openly share their source code that are free to be examined/copied/modified.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a value in both groups - they keep in each other in check. For example, the growth of Firefox (open system) had kept Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser (closed system) in check - it encouraged them to innovate further. Google's Android (open system) kept Apple iPhone (closed system) in check because software developers doesn't want to go through the hoops to have their apps approved by Apple. At the same time, I think that the motivation in openness/closeness is entirely different. Closed software runs on $$/profit whereas opened software gets their fuel from crowd sourced creativity/passion...
There's also a parallelism of closeness/openness characteristics in Jewish movements - Orthodox, Reform, Reconstructionism, and Chasidism. They are a spectrum in how closeness or openness in their relationship between their Torah interpretations and the society. I don't think closed society are bound to evolve non-existence - the Orthodox Jewish communities are around for YEARS and that goes the same for closed source software.
I find it very interesting about the timing of the evolution and formation of more closed approach as a response to the need in technology/business. The debut of iPad by Apple "hardens" the closed source approach, to the point where users are willing to be "locked in" to Apple products in lieu of better usability. More auto drivers are willing to buy cars with engines that has microchip embedded that are can be repaired by authorized dealers.
Could the formation of "closed Deaf groups" be a response to provide a fertile ground for identity development - an ecosystem that is sorely needed for lost souls that searches their belonging in an Hearing/Spoken English majority world? Could it be that deaf community have been shifted more toward "open" due to trying to fit/survive in the spoken English world? I would hate to see the Deaf closed system to go away because there needs to be a catalysts where principles and empowerments produced from recent findings/researches...
I think the polarity between open/closed d/Deaf group is much needed - it adds a balance to the dialogues. The evolution of DBC/DeafHood and the like groups add a collective perspective in the course of the political discussions. While I don't agree with any group or individuals (either open or closed) that express destructive approach, there is a value of the open/closed systems and both will continue to coexist.
-Mark
I disagree that the nature of Deafness is isolating. I think we see more, and more easily, than hearing people do. I think we express ourselves more truly too, and this makes hearing people uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteBarry is totally right about the closed group issue, however. I liked the D concept because I thought it was an umbrella all of us could fit under. Other writers think it should mean a narrower group, but I think deaf, hard of hearing, CI, anyone touched by deafness could be collected under the Deaf umbrella, the way people of many nations are called Black, or Hispanic, or Native American. Those groups aren't all the same - far from it. And there's a lot of infighting too. And yes, they argue over the meaning of those meaningless names... if nothing else, this argument PROVES that our differences mean we are the same. ;)
Ojala, I could not help it but took note of what you wrote, 'the nature of deafness'. Exactly what is the nature of deafness? I don't think anybody could put their finger on it. I know some deaf people who just don't see their deafness as an issue. They just don't see it as a barrier. They don't feel that it impairs them any way, shape or form. Heck, several of my deaf uncles are like this and I think I learned from them when I grew up. And yet I do know some deaf people who think they are the victim of deafness and they literally believe that they are cursed for life.
ReplyDeleteFor example, few weeks ago I went to this Cowboy Poetry and Gathering. Did I ask for an interpreter? No. I even told my daughter to NOT interpret for me because it was her special night out event and I wanted her to soak herself into this gathering. Told her not to worry about me because I'd be perfectly at home among in this crowd. We went and we had a wonderful time. While people told stories I read some articles that were provided by the gathering and visited numerous booths, met with many wonderful people and exchanged contact information. When the music was on I went in to listen and joined in the rhythm movement and danced my leg away. I have so much music in me so I'm able to enjoy it, without words. I'm like this at home too whereas I'd create music with different things I touch in the house. So much music in me. For me, words do not define a song the way it does for some people. Anyway, at this gathering I took photos of some really interesting looking people. I kept myself entertained and had a blast, without an interpreter because I knew how to utilize 'fun' and 'pleasure' without spoken words. People over there accepted me for who I was and really admired me for the energy I contribute into the gathering. Now it'd be a completely different story if I felt isolated and acted that way. People would leave me alone and felt sorry for me only because I believe I was isolated.
Bottom line is, we do have a choice. It's up to us on how we want to live our lives. I just wish we'd quit blaming our sufferings on our deafness.
Barry
HI Mark,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your contribution to this thread. I found it rather funny to use software analogy. I became lost in your comment but can still appreciate the point you were trying to make.
Take note of this. I never said that closed society was a bad thing or a wrong choice. I only stated some of the indicators of a closed society gone awry, in which they'd begin to make efforts to impose and enforce their values / belief upon others. Now I don't see how it relates to softwares because people do have choice on which software they'd want to use. I think you are referring to monopoly practices but I won't go there because it's a completely different issue.
A closed society will remain, provided they do not attempt to impose and enforce their belief / values upon others. And yet many closed society do not realize this until they cross the line.
Regards,
Barry
Hi JR. I never said that the nature of deafness is isolating. Take note of my comment to Ojala and you'll understand my thoughts on this matter.
ReplyDeleteAs for seeing things more easily than hearing people, no question about it but it does not make us any better than them simply because they hear things more easily than deaf people. It's a trade off and each way offer benefits if they were utilized properly. For that reason I never saw the need to say which one was better than the other.
The way we (deaf people) express ourselves is not in tune with the way hearing people express themselves. For that reason it may make them uncomfortable but it's no different the other way around. The way hearing people express themselves also made deaf people uncomfortable. We're in no position to say that our form of expression is better than theirs nor shall they think that theirs are better than ours.
I also appreciate your thoughts on D as an umbrella for all to 'feel' part of. I can see your point and will credit it with a nod of approval but then do I want to be seen as 'D' when I walk about doing things I love to do in this life. No. I want to be seen as 'H' as in human being. You see, I do have a choice and I'm making decisions for myself, giving myself the liberty to choose. This should be true for everybody. The key word here is respect for others choice. Just don't assume what's good or appropriate for me because I like to think for myself and make my own decisions. This is where many "D" don't understand. They think we're obligated to fall into the same umbrella. Otherwise they see us as traitors. Such notions only come from narrow minded society, especially closed society. It's okay provided they don't try to impose and enforce their belied upon me.
Regards,
Barry
Agreed that we have a choice to think and decide. I think another element in our free will is how we approach in sending/receiving our messages of our thoughts/actions - this is probably the most challenging in the process - even for the most skilled orators and listeners!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your effort in producing an insightful, educational vLog (sharing your struggles, telling an event about Personhood , and outlining the some of the differences between the societies). Thanks for following up with a clarification "not saying that closed group is not bad...."
I'm concerned the above vLog's initial approach that is currently broadcasting. The advantages of an open society were stated, however there is no information on disadvantages of an open society. The disadvantage of a closed society was listed, but none for the advantages. The imbalanced information invites the intent of the message that is being shared.
In the above vLog, the "History shows that 'Closed System' always Fail" statement is associated to the big 'D'eaf movements/organizations, implying that they are likely to fail, thus likely could be interpreted as bad/wrong as I originally thought. I wondered if you were aware that this choice of approach is bound to evoke strong reactions, misunderstandings, and bridge burnings?
-Mark
Nota bene:
ReplyDeleteI was in responce to Karen Mayes's comment __specifically__ on "March 1, 2010 1:12 PM "
Merci beaucoup.
--Jean Boutcher
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your insightful tips. You are correct in stating that my vlog may have been seen as unbalanced. However you will understand that I only had 10 minutes to work with, due to youtube policy and I only spoke of what I just discovered / learned. I did not speak of what I already knew, that of nature of 'open society'. To me, the open society was the norm so I felt a sense of delight when I learned about the traits and characters of a closed society. Therefore I wanted to talk about closed society since I already knew about the open society. End result? People in the closed society learned something about 'open society' and now want to learn more about it. One don't talk about what they already know but about what they just learned and that's what happened with my vlog.
Funny because people from the closed society are now intrigued by the open society just as I'm learning about the opposite. If you know the downfall of open society then feel free and v/blog about it.
Bridge burning? It's already been burned as far as I'm concerned. Can't burn the bridge twice, can I?
Barry
-Mark
Will the deaf cultural area always be a closed society anyway ? If not by virtue of deafness, by want to preserve the cultural status quo. Hence we saw all these attempts to have 'Deaf' this, 'Deaf' that and everything else like a proposed 'Deaf' town, 'Deaf' elderly homes, and even a 'Deaf' university that has terrific issues still, based on who is deaf enough etc...
ReplyDeleteIt has to be noted none have the backing of the majority of the deaf community, so most want the freedom of an open society, it's just finding the access to do that,and preventing the hard core from insisting isolating deaf people is the only protection culture has that works.
Hi everybody. This morning I received an email from an individual who had question about personhood and how it relates to deafhood. Out of respect I will not post his question here but will post what I wrote.
ReplyDelete*************quote***************
Received your message this morning and enjoyed them. Thank you for that.
I also appreciate your thoughts on personhood. As I explained to Ben Watts known as BBF I was not aware of personhood initiative so I had no idea what it was all about. Just came across the article on why the Judge threw the case out of the court / ballot. I did not have the privilege of reading the definition of personhood in the court documents so I do not know exactly how they tried to define deafhood.
But what was clear was the Judge threw out a proposed ballot that SOUGHT to DEFINE a person as "everyone possessing a human genome". It is the same thing that deafhood attempted to do... DEFINE a deaf person processing deaf culture and language.
Based on the Judge's view on personhood he felt that the language was too vague and it violated state law that limits questions to one subject. Now this is exactly what Deafhood has done in CAD's by laws. It was vague at best and when I posed a challenge for them they could not answer it. CAD even acknowledged in public that their definition on deafhood was vague and will begin to correct the problem immediately. They are scheduled to have a meeting on the 12th of this month and will work on removal of deahood from their by-laws.
Secondly, it violated State of Nevada law when personhood tried to limit questions to ONE subject. The "One" subject is a reflection of a closed society. Google up 'closed society' and you will see numerous definition comparing 'one to closed society' and 'pluralism to open society'. It's not based on my own opinion or observation but based on research that I've done prior to creating the vlog.
According to the Judge, the measure on personhood was too broad and general in nature to be put before voters in November. The issue to the Judge was adequately informing the voters on what they're voting on. I see so much parallel here with deafhood. They rushed the term into CAD's by-laws without really helping deaf Californians understand the true and full definition. My point was not so much on benefits and thereof of personhood but how personhood was rushed into the ballot without appropriate review just as deafhood was rushed into CAD by-laws. Mind you, I'm not making any reference to the contents but how such term were rushed into ballot / by-laws. The vlog on personhood was a friendly reminder for CAD based on previous vlog I did.
Needless to say that several people from CAD contacted me afterwards and told me they appreciated my vlog and that they were working on corrective actions. In short, the vlog accomplished the very goal I wanted to accomplish. End result, I confused some people during the process and that is why I appreciate your email and video comments coming from others. It gives me the opportunity to respond.
You see, as unpopular I may be with some people I'm more focused on how we're able to influence the leaders around the country. They're listening to us through v/ blogs so it's important for us to stay focused on the bigger picture and let the small bickering pass.
Regards,
Barry
***************end quote**************
Thank you,
Barry
Cool mustache/beard, by the way.
ReplyDelete(e