This 'captioned' open letter video is in response to NAD's Bobbie Beth Scoggin's v/blog on definition of audism, seen at DeafRead.com and DeafVideo.tv. We encourage you to participate and provide input(s), if any, provided they contain healthy comments.
I personally would like to thank Bobbie Beth for her patience and willingness to address numerous video comments I generated under her vlog. Her effort is appreciated by many. Thank you Bobbie.
The video was captioned because hard copies are being prepared and mailed to dictionary companies, which also received NAD's letter on 'audism'.
And thank you viewers / fans for watching.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Open Letter to NAD and the Community
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent video response and breakdown analysis!
ReplyDeleteThe points you make are worthwhile considering, but to dismiss the intent of the word "audism" is not helping the situation that NAD is trying to correct.
ReplyDeleteWe need a word that describes the unfair treatment that d/Deaf people receive simply because of their hearing status. A general word like "discrimination" or "oppression" does not do this.
When something is named, then there will be incentive to do something about it. If you are not satisfied with how NAD defines audism, please come up with a better set of definitions.
Dianrez, thank you for acknowledging these valid points that were raised in the open letter.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the open letter is not to dismiss the intention of the word. It was done to identify weakness that I've identified in NAD's endorsed definition. According to Bobbie Beth Scoggin, NAD worked with panels of scholars on the definitions therefore they should be able to back this up and answer the questions I just raised.
Some people respectfully disagree on the need for such word so we can't dismiss their thoughts just because some of you really feel the need for it.
If you paid attention to my vlog you will see that I said I created this video because there were some answers that could not be answered. In lay man's term, I am not here to provide answers but ask questions of these so-called 'scholars' that NAD claimed to have worked with. The effort here is to put their 'scholars' to test because it will be tested by scholars at these dictionary companies. Common sense tells me if they could not pass my 'lowly' test then surely it won't pass else where.
I'm one of those who feels there is no need for a special new word for discrimination or oppression against people based on their hearing and speaking ability, or lack thereof. I too would like to see that panel of scholars defend their statements in a public forum. We are well aware that the dominant culture hears and speaks, but it does not necessarily follow that they automatically assume all deaf people are inferior beings. Similarly, because a d/hh person has some speech or hearing ability, it does not automatically follow that that person thinks s/he is superior to a d/hh person who uses ASL. Because a d/hh person chooses to speak and listen does not automatically follow that s/he rejects ASL and the deaf community. And because a "D"eaf person uses ASL and associates with the Deaf community, it does not automatically follow that s/he rejects the oral deaf community. There is way too much black-and-white, either/or thinking, and way too much emotionality in proportion to rationality around the audism/Deafhood debate. Instead of wasting time and energy fussing over this word audism, that the diverse d/hh groups band together on our common grounds, which are to increase our access to community, employment, and communication.
ReplyDeleteExcellent vlog and thanks for taking the trouble to caption it.
ReplyDeleteThe one question that stopped me in my tracks was this one:
How can we stereotype against those who can hear if we don't like it when they stereotype against us for our deafness?
That's what the word "audist" does, stereotype hearing people without any regard for the fact that they don't think of themselves as 'hearing' as opposed to 'deaf'. Just because most ppl go around in their daily lives hearing without giving it any thought doesn't make them "audists". It's better to give ppl the benefit of the doubt and refrain from perpetuating stereotypes to begin with.
Interesting point about "many categories of ppl who can hear"...blurs that black-and-white assumption of hearing vs. deaf.
Ann_C
They fail to define who the deaf are, either because they don''t know, or it doesn't suit their view of discrimination, they want their own word for it. The NAD seems clearly hostile to anything that isn't 'deaf' as they see it, I'm struggling to see where these deaf actually came FROM. To justify their terminology they are desperate to suggest hearing are out to get them, and any deaf that want to use what they still might have or enhance are in collusion with the hearing discriminators, I don't know what Americans call it, it looks like paranoia to me, at best a very confused attempt to protect a culture they still cannot define or really identify. They're grabbing at deafhood to get some anchor somewhere....
ReplyDeleteIt's 19thc thinking in the 21st. At least IN the 19thc there were some grounds for thinking like they do... now ? Don't buy it... However a word change is a critical stage.... look what happened when mainstream bought the D/d thing, war ever since !
I agree with the flaw with the unintentional part. I think the definition mostly needs aim at discrimination that is being intended, pre-mediated, and consciously willed to do away with person or group to avoid inconvenience of time and costs. I think it is more effective to keep definition narrow like this to just assert protection that we need in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI still support to keep this word because the term discrimination appears overused and becoming ineffective nowadays.
Hi ASL HeartandSoul,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts with us. They were very important. Really appreciate them. I do not see the real need for a special new word for discrimination / oppression against those who can not hear. I really don't simply because our deafness is only half of the problem. It's the inability to speak that's also half of the problem.
You see, audism does not cover deaf people's speech issues. Therefore it's lame for anybody to think or believe that deaf people are being looked down solely because they can not hear. Most people in this world cares more about whether one's able to speak than to hear.
According to Bobbie Beth Scoggin, NAD worked with panel of scholars when they put this definitions together. Therefore I don't see why they are not going to try and defend the definitions.
And lastly I want to echo something important that you just said....
"Instead of wasting time and energy fussing over this word audism, that the diverse d/hh groups band together on our common grounds, which are to increase our access to community, employment, and communication".
Beautiful.
Hi Ann C,
ReplyDeleteThank you for dropping by with your thoughts.
I agree with you about it's better to give people the benefit of the doubt and refrain from perpetuating stereotypes to begin with.
Very true. Thanks again.
Hi MM
ReplyDeleteI agree, whole heartily. They failed to define 'deaf' in their definitions.
You're also right on possible reasons for it. They either don''t know or it doesn't suit their view of discrimination. Therefore they created their own word for it.
I think we can identify and trace the 'hostile' attitude in NAD all the way to deafhoodized leaders. They have been working on infiltrating NAD for few years now because they see NAD as a tool to radicalize the deaf community. It became all too evident when David Reynolds announced his candidacy for a position in NAD.
You said it. 19th century thinking in the 21st. Simply amazing.
Hi Anne Marie,
ReplyDeleteSomeone under my vlog at deafread made a similar recommendation. She said she thought we should keep it simple by defining audism as 'prejudice and / or discrimination against one's ability to hear.
Unfortunately one's hearing ability is only half of the problem. The other half has to do with our speech skills. Now what is the most appropriate word when a problem contains two factors / causes, that of hearing ability and speech ability? Audism certainly does not fit the bill.
We certainly could learn from the term 'discrimination' and understand why it's over-used so that the history does not repeat itself. I made the same argument earlier, asking if audism was facing the same fate as racism. Audism isn't going to be immune from such abuse so it's better for us to figure it out rather than later, as in early intervention.
Your thoughts?
I think the term auditory does have room for semantic definition for speech as well, that is where everything is conveyed. Despite imperfections you pointed out, this term will stay. No matter it will. Many individuals including me had been brushed away from opportunities and we certainly are holding on this though definition DOES clearly need revision.
ReplyDeleteLike I said I would take this term for discrimination and prejudice to avoid nuisance of inconveniences simple as this. If we try to go into further dimensions, they start to blur..
Hi Anne Marie. I've always enjoyed and appreciated your input. Thank you for that.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand your underlying points and point of view. However the boiling question here is do we settle for second best or do we aim for the very best for ourselves? I sincerely believe and feel that we deserve the very best. The attitude I see every where is we're very tolerable when it comes down to using secondary terms. This in itself often does more harm than good, especially when English language is not native to many deaf people.
I have searched every nook and cranny in my entire repertoire, I have not fathom any better term. Hand extended to you, ??? : )
ReplyDeleteHow about ableism? Its' definition is already clear and it applies to our situation. Here goes; 'Discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities, especially physical disabilities'.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand deaf people's view on disability and know that they do not view themselves as disabled but we're not here to convince deaf people about the problem. We are here to convince the world therefore we have no choice but to be mindful of their first definition on deaf. It's a form of disability no matter what we think.
I can guarantee you one thing. Spell ableism and they will understand it better than they would on 'audism'.
Hmmm..I can see in that word. One concern is, if we come up with this term instead, people with disabilities will want to use this term and that would put us all in the same category like what word discrimination does. I rather to come up with a term that will isolate to our specific issues that would be more discernable to legal standpoint and even for social awareness as well.
ReplyDeleteAnne Marie.... your concern is valid and shared by many including myself. However the real question is this.... who is our real audience? I mean, who are we trying to educate here? Ourselves or the general public?
ReplyDeleteIf we're doing this to educate ourselves then I could understand why 'audism' is the preferred choice. But if we're here to educate the public then we need to understand their point of view.
It'd appear that we're trying to educate the public based on our point of view. It is as if we're desperately trying to separate ourselves from the 'disability' category, something we can not accomplish simply because of the world's view and usage on the term 'deaf'. We are disabled in world's view no matter how we paint the picture.
In order to come up with a term that will narrow things down and help people focus on our specific issues for legal and social awareness, we need to identify all three underlying issues, prejudice and discrimination based on 1) one's ability to hear. 2) one's ability to speak. (speech) 3) One's ability to communicate in English language.
I say this we all know that we're being prejudiced and discriminated for three reasons, not just the inability to hear. There is a term for prejudice against one's language and I believe it is called linguicism. And it's still only there for 1/3 of our problem. Audism is only there for 1/3 of our problem. Now sure what we'd use for prejudice against our inability to speak but common sense tells me something here... we need one word to describe the entire issue. Ableism is about the closest thing I can think of because my focus here is to help the public understand our underlying issues. I am not here to help deaf people understand the issue because they do understand. They really do. Therefore why use terms that make sense to deaf people rather than focus on finding a term that would make sense to the public?
You know, if many people agree with your proposal, I will be for it with clear definition pointing out our issues. It depends on how many would agree however I think it is bit too late. We had came a long way with this term audism already.
ReplyDeleteBut again, yes I would be really happy to do away with this term audism now already witch hunting down everyone lately.
Too late? There might be some truth in that if you're talking about deaf people as the targeted 'audience'. Their knees are deep in the mud on the term, I agree. But again my focus is not over there. It's over there at the public forum. Most of them still have not heard of audism therefore I don't think it's too late.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. It begins with you and I. We either feed off on this term 'audism' and allow our own people to walk deeper into this mud pit or we pull them out while they are still standing and show them a way out of this destructive pit. Don't know about you but I'm not going to sit back and say to my people, oh okay, go ahead and do whatever pleases you. I'd never forgive myself if I did.
At least mention it. Let others think about it.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting point about 'ableism'. From the public's point of view, a deaf person is not-able to hear, or not-able to speak, or not-able to understand English. That is the view of hearing-speaking-majority language ableism.
ReplyDeleteBefore ppl start to get their dander up, realize that the public's point of view of a person in a wheelchair is one who is not-able to walk. Same ableism for a blind person who uses a cane or seeing-eye dog, this person would be viewed as not-able to see. That is the view of ambulatory or eyesight ableism.
Ableism is discrimination against the not-able? What about terms like dis-ableism or disabled? The disability community has had many heated discussions over ableism vs. dis-ableism, lol. It too is struggling to come up with a term that gives disability a positive meaning rather than a negative one.
Ann_C
Wow... thanks Ann C for shedding some more lights on ableism. Did not know the disabled community's heated discussion on the topic. I think we'd learn much from them if we really want to learn how to help ourselves. Thanks again.
ReplyDelete