I thought I would share this news with you.
Last night, I watched Dr. Jane K. Fernandes' presentation at NTID (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) on the topic of inclusive Deaf Studies. A little bit after she was introduced, she mentioned about the past ICED and how it recognized that the Milan resolution was in error. Then, she mentioned about respecting all languages and forms of communication. She mentioned that she was giving her presentation in honor of that respect for all forms of communication. The main thrust of her presentation was that the discipline of Deaf Studies should be broadened to include the diverse deaf people outside of the standard ASL deaf signers in the Deaf culture. I am sure that this is familiar to all of you.
I thought that it was neat and nice that she remembered and recognized the importance of the respect for all languages and forms of communication that she decided to honor it with her presentation. Given that this happened in close proximity with Mr. Mike McConnell's and Candy's blog, I wanted to share this news.
(She and other co-author wrote two articles whose web links are shown at the bottom of the webpage at http://www.rit.edu/ntid/lyon/speakers/jane-k-fernandes-phd ).
Joseph Pietro Riolo
Interesting development. I wrote my blog on April 4, 2011 and she gave her speech on April 7, 2011 on basically about diversity and respect for all communications and languages per the ICED recommendations.
Thank you for the heads up, JPR.
16 comments:
Within that link are brilliant articles about Inclusive Deaf Studies, why is deaf studies limited to ASL?
Deaf Studies should be inclusive and include ALL languages and ALL forms of communication.
Selective group of deaf/hh within deaf studies is exclusion and exclusion equals view of ASL looking down on all other deaf/hh category. That's oppression wouldn't you think?
I finally got the chance to read the article and thought it was very well through research based on what had occurred in the past few years with the dynamics of the Deafhood and DBC issues along with the majority of the deaf/Deaf/HOH/CI societies. It does shed a lot of light of many events occurring among us. I do agree with Mrs. Fenendes and her associates' analysis of their research documents. I hope we will be able to clarify and to develop better models to demonstrate of who and what we represent ourselves. Thank you very much Mike and Joseph. I appreciate this.
WisDeaf
The two articles in question place a serious question mark on the direction that the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education has taken. The authors uncritically subscribe to Davis' postdeaf. On page 34 they write, "what intellectual benefit can be gained by Deaf Studies' continuing to perpetuate the notion that its mission is to counter this almost vanished view of deaf people as sub-human?" Well -- not so fast! Stern et al (2002) in Journal of Medical Genetics examine the views of anti abortionists concerning the idea of aborting Deaf unborns. The results are sickening. Myers and Fernandes clung to a theory of incoherence (postdeafness) and then attempt to act as if Deaf are seldom considered sub-human.
Some people are truly dense out there. I just simply noted the close proximity of time when I did my blog on ICED and a few days later JKF mentioned the same thing. Just a coincidental thing there folks and not saying I influenced her to say that about ICED. Good lord, people, stop being so naive.
Anony,
"...the views of anti-abortionists"? Are you sure you said that right?
It would be helpful if you can provide a link to the excerpt of the Stern et al article you're referring to and credit the source.
I'm familiar with Davis' postdeaf theory but there are readers here who may not. Enlighten them.
Thanks,
Ann_C
heh silly minds results in silly notions.
Mike, what I read, you were pointing out to the coincidence of the time-line and nothing more.
I think Deaf Studies is not going to be worthwhile to be part of a university's department (any university) if it only limits itself to deaf centric studies and they will find their department in danger of being eliminated easily. My opinion, of course as to the elimination portion.
Also, you'd think Deaf Studies would be based on what is actually out there as versus their attempt to turn it into something they want it to be. Isn't that re-writing history with lies?
I want to make a quick response to Ann_C's inquiry. I believe that the article that the anonymous person referred to is at http://jmg.bmj.com/content/39/6/449.extract . The full article is available for anyone only after the free registration is completed.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Thanks for the link to the Stern et al article, JPR.
To the anony who referred to the article, you said:
"Genetics examine the views of anti abortionists concerning the idea of aborting Deaf unborns."
"Anti-abortionists" is not what the Stern article discussed. This is what that article discussed:
"Participants were asked their opinion of aborting a Deaf or HOH baby when a hearing baby was preferred. As shown in fig 5, the cultural groups displayed significant differences in their opinions (χ2=38.6, 4 df, p=0.001). The majority of all respondents felt that aborting a Deaf or HOH baby should be illegal, but 42% of respondents in the hearing cultural group indicated that while they would not personally consider this option, it should not be forbidden for others. This is in contrast to only 15% and 18% of respondents in the Deaf and equal involvement groups, respectively. In addition, 8% of respondents in the hearing group indicated that they would consider an abortion of a Deaf or HOH baby, while only 2% of respondents in the equal involvement group indicated that they would consider this, and none of the Deaf respondents indicated that they would."
The participants were not "anti-abortionists"...or pro-abortionists, for that matter.
Here's another excerpt from that article that's interesting:
"During the past 200 years, the social, economic, and educational circumstances of the Deaf have improved dramatically, as has their fertility.18 There is a growing recognition that the existence of genetic causes of deafness, in conjunction with relaxed selection and a tradition of intermarriage among the Deaf, may have increased the incidence of deafness in many countries, with selective amplification of connexin 26 deafness, the most common form of recessive deafness.19 Genotypic, rather than phenotypic, marital selection (that is, the selection of a mate based on the results of a genetic test for connexin 26) would further accelerate this process and represents yet another ethical dilemma posed by these new technologies. By seeking an appropriate partner, some people with specific forms of recessive deafness, such as that caused by connexin 26 mutations, could either avoid or ensure the birth of a deaf child. Those who might be troubled by the eugenic effects of genotypic mate selection should consider the consequences that other forms of non-random mating have had in maintaining the frequencies of traits, such as sickle cell anaemia and Tay-Sachs disease.20 While we would neither advocate nor discourage mate selection based on the results of a genetic test, it is clearly an example of one way in which genetic knowledge can empower the Deaf community, among whom the birth of a Deaf child is highly valued."
"Sub-human"? ...um.
Genotypic marital selection, is that not a form of pre-meditated eugenics? Or a form of cultural "Aryanism"?
Ann_C
It just amazes me that some people are so engulfed in defending their views that they selectively omit key details. Look at the figures in Stern et al again. This time compare the numbers of those who think the abortion of hearing baby is wrong with those who think the abortion of a Deaf or HoH baby is wrong. M&F claim that Deaf are seldom viewed as sub-human simply does not match up with the differences that exist in that article. M&F articles are hardly brilliant. Not sure why anyone who read them would think so.
Ann_C... you said:
"Genotypic marital selection, is that not a form of pre-meditated eugenics? Or a form of cultural "Aryanism"?"
To mate wisely so that a couple would have deaf offsprings? Is that what you're referring to as pre-meditated eugenics? or cultural "Aryanism"?
Either way, it sure can be looked at as such, because that is what it appears to be.
Now that the deaf community is aware of what genes are needed in order to produce deaf children, we can be sure that many with genetic deafness in their family line will make an extra effort to screen their potential mate.
Not much difference compared to arranged marriage. ;o)
I know, I know, pre-meditated eugenics or cultural Aryanism seems contradictory, considering the history of eugenics and Aryanism. But such questions raise the troubling ethics of genetic screening.
Yes, anony, I did look at the numbers. There is always going to be in any study involving genetics a small percentage of ppl who would abort based on their PREFERENCES, not because they consider a deaf or hearing baby as "sub-human".
Fernandes and Myers steered clear of this genetics issue in their articles, probably because of the very ethics its raises. The context of their references to "sub-human" was society's perception of deaf ppl in the past as sub-human, who were more often than not institutionalized or left to fend for themselves. They were seen as not fit to marry, to hold property, to be educated, to vote, etc. A smaller number were sterilized or killed thru eugenics programs. The last 50 years have seen many advances in the understanding of deafness, Deaf culture, and sign language. Today D/deaf ppl are not generally treated inhumanely and are regarded as human as the hearing.
"Brillance" of the articles is besides the point. It is Fernandes and Myers' view that deaf Studies need to embrace the diversity of deafness in order to retain its relevance in academic research. The ICED statement so happens to be inclusive of all languages and modes of communication, including ASL. Deaf Studies depts would do well to heed the ICED statement for what it states, not what some ppl want it to be interpreted.
Ann_C
The Stern et al article figures 5 and 6 on page 252 are key to understanding that Deaf continue to be considered sub-human. This is contrary to M&F claims. Compare figure 5 with figure 6. Deaf views of whether a baby should be aborted do not change much between the two, though slight increase in willingness to consider abortion of hearing baby. But if you look at hearing respondents views. Look at the jump in the number who think aborting a hearing baby should be illegal. There is a difference between those who say it should be illegal if the baby is hearing with those who say it should be illegal if baby is Deaf. Not sure why that is difficult to comprehend.
The F&M articles are not brilliant by any measure of the imagination. They made a claim that Deaf are seldom conisered sub-human. That simply is not true. What they are attempting to do is discredit the core of metaphysical audism, but in so doing they exhibit the characterists of laissez faire audism, a phenomena that parallels laissez faire racism. Look up Lawrence Bobo and you will figure out that laissez faire audism has to do with the claim that a population is no longer treated sub human but then the audists end up perpetuating the same old stereotypes. Eckert formally defines laissez faire audism in Fall 2010 issue of JDSDE.
Candy, Deaf are already marrying Deaf 90% of the time -- or more. Have you read Arnos (2002) article in Sign Language Studies "Genetics and Deafness: Impacts on the Deaf Community"? Or Nance and Kearsey (2004) on "Relevance of Connexin Deafness (DFNB1) to Human Evolution" in American Journal of Human Genetics? or Burton et al 920060 in Genetics in Medicine - "A focus group study of consumer attitudes toward genetic testing and newborn screen for deafness"?
For those who do not have the access to the article, here is where laissez faire audism is mentioned:
[start of quotation]
Laissez faire racism is "a view that African Americans are responsible for their own economic predicament and therefore not worthy of special government support" (Wilson, 2009, pp. 153–154). [fn] 30 Laissez faire audism may be defined as a postmodern perspective, where the human identity of the Deaf is acknowledged, but autonomy is denied or denigrated. Laissez faire audism is an attempt to extricate the dominant hearing majority of guilt. Postdeafness is a postguilt perspective. Deaf autonomy is supposedly recognized, but heteronomy continues to be imposed by the dominant hearing majority. This represents a shift away from audism based on physicality or metaphysical perceptions as less human (see Bauman, 2004) to audism based on a perception of cultural deficiency.
[end of quotation]
Source: "Toward a Theory of Deaf Ethnos: Deafnicity ≈ D/deaf (Hómaemon • Homóglosson • Homóthreskon)" by Richard Clark Eckert as published in Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Eduation, Volume 15, Number 4, Fall 2010 on page 329.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
JPR,
Extricating guilt? Kind of like demanding reparations for abuse of deaf people everywhere in past history?
What is exactly Eckert mumbling about anyhow? Hearing people now view them as culturally deficient in terms of what hearing people expect of them? (i.e. unable to be a part of the hearing people's cultural world).
Make things up as we go along, huh?
I don't think anybody is saying that deaf and hard of hearing people are being told to stop "complaining" about discrimination against them based on hearing loss. No. But it seems like that is what Eckert is attempting to say in that manner and in so many scholarly words, that is.
The problem here is the portrayal as being perennial victims. The "Oh Woe is Me" syndrome. And that deaf people are being taught that every hearing person in America are against deaf people and how they are perennial victims of their oppression. And that they have no control over their lives and destiny. And the only way deaf people can achieve anything is to prey upon hearing guilt, seek special privileges, monetary handouts, and perhaps with the right guilt played you'd have demands for reparations and apologies.
Seeking special status isn't the answer. Doing so will simply create more problems. And inflate egos.
It's better to recognize them as human beings and do the best we can to help them for their unrealized potential, just like anybody else.
Post a Comment