Johnson wrote:
>The titles escape me at 7:30 am, but it occurs to me that queer theory
>might be of use here-- how prevention or curing of the illness AIDS and all
>complications that arise from it, --does not also mean the erasure of queer
>identity or of advocating for gay rights. Now before someone gets all
>huffy about sexuality itself (those who've been on the list for a while
>will remember contentious debates there), I am merely suggesting that one
>could look at queer theory for how it has dealt with a similar issue, at
>least in theory. Marian, anything from the Deaf/deaf perspective which
>might be of use here?
OK I'll try but it's not easy after SDS! It seems to me that 'Deafness' is
commonly described in terms of a socio-cultural, linguistic condition -
that is Deaf people are a distinct linguistic minority - in order to
distinguish it from 'deafness', which is a biological difference. Indeed
Deaf and deaf are commonly dichotomised. Harlan Lane et.al. advise us that
if we wish to know more about deaf people we should look to clinical
textbooks which suggests that deafness is (a) not socially constructed, (b)
an acultural condition and (c) is not linked to the formation of linguistic
minorities.
This interests me because a lot of Deaf people (if not most) are also deaf.
I prefer to take the view that 'deaf' is a biological foundation for
'Deaf', though it is an unexamined foundation (and yes, queer theory as
opposed to gay and lesbian theory has been helpful in understanding this).
The argument for this is that hearing people do not form the CORE of the
Deaf community and many of those in the community regard hearing people who
want to be part of the community with suspicion, even if they have grown up
steeped in the Deaf-Way (Paul Preston's work on CODAs is invaluable here).
The argument for keeping 'deaf' and 'Deaf' separate is turned on its head
when one considers the issue of prevention (or cure). The adult Deaf
community is allegedly opposed to any bio-medical intervention which
removes deafness. But if Deafness is a socio-cultural construction, then
surely any biological intervention will not influence the existence of that
community, especially not when one thinks that Deafness is a truly global,
if diasporic phenomenon. This is highlighted by the fact that in the BSL
petition that is circulating internationally, FDP, in their call for
recognition of BSL, refer to both first and second language users of BSL
and also to 'over a million' people who have 'mastered a basic level of
proficiency' in BSL. Many of these people are biologically HEARING and/or
will not choose to be Deaf. At the same time Deaf adults who opt for
cochlear implantation (and sometimes even hearing aids) in the search for a
semblance the biological condition of 'hearing' tell how they have been
ostracised by the Deaf community since they are seen as 'traitors' in spite
of their wish to continue to identify as Deaf. These issues impact upon
concepts of inclusion because they re-produce a continuum of social
practices related to inclusion/exclusion, even though Deaf people
apparently reject the principle of inclusion in their emphasis on continued
institutionalisation of deaf children and social co-existence. This
confusion perhaps reinforces the diasporic nature of a Deaf identity which
is not as strong as it maintains. But it also seems to show up some of the
inconsistencies in theorising about prevention and inclusion.
To this, we must add that social constructionist and social creationist
approaches are also commonly produced as a dichotomy, but this is of more
relevance when we come to look at disability because I can see a situation
where it might produce a further dichotomy between prevention (biological
manipulation) and (social) inclusion. In this context, can David Pfeiffer
enlighten me with respect to the existence of a nation or community where
there is no social (apart from the apparent example of 'silent' religious
orders where communication may simply be shifted to another plane). Surely
the point is that disability is not constructed in the same way from nation
to nation or that whatever is constructed is not disability as we
understand it in the Western world, rather than there are some places where
it is not constructed at all. I rather think that social constructionist
approaches can help us understand this better than social creationist
approaches, but that no ONE approach can ever tell us everything about
disability.
Best wishes
Mairian
P.S. I would be very interested in gathering comments, of whatever kind,
relating to Lois Bragg's plenary at SDS. I did have some brief
communication with some people but as there were only ASL interpreters
present, I want to be sure that I understood you correctly. Please reply to
me off-list. Many thanks
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Postal Address:
111 Balfour Road
Highbury
London N5 2HE
U.K.
Minicom/TTY +44 [0]171 359 8085
Fax +44 [0]870 0553967
Typetalk (voice) +44 [0]800 515152 (and ask for minicom/TTY number)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|