Phyllis wrote:
>Thanks for responding so quickly! Perhaps I need to be certain that I know
>the difference bet. "deaf" and "Deaf". I think I may be confusing the two.
>Yes, I was at Lois's keynote and disagreed with her on many points-I agree
>with your assessment re. how issues about deafness doesn't seem to create
>much discussion. Would like to discuss this issue with you and the
>"entire" list serve. The other day a friend and I were discussing
>the increased appearance of segregation among ourselves-not
>only bet. diff. same disability groups but also within the same
>impairment groups-born disabled v. acquiring
>a disability as a young adult. This subject is hardly ever discussed
>but when it is it usually is raised by those born with an impairment or
>acquires it before the age of 7. It is comparable be. those born deaf and
>those who become deaf as adults. Your thinking?????
Hello Phyllis - good to hear from you. Although I also disagreed with much
of what Lois said, she did give an accurate representation of how many Deaf
people think both about their own social identity and about politics and
culture. I think it must be possible to view the Deafness in the same way
that we view feminism and ethnicity whilst not allowing it to take over the
disability agenda. I was personally very worried about the idea that Deaf
Studies was being considered as a 'precursor' of disability studies and
that links in to your other questions.
I think that sometimes we adults, when considering disabled children and
youth, forget that they are children and youth. None of the social models
emanating from the thinking of disabled people to my knowledge consulted
with or included the voices of disabled children and young people.
Therefore we have to consider that these models may be flawed in that
respect. It seems to me that the observations that you make about
segregation and fragmentation are a result of a struggle between three
processes
- oppression by non-disabled people
- a disability movement agenda that is too restrictive both in terms of
theory and practice
- the adolescent and late-adolescent process of social identification i.e.
"finding out who is 'like' and 'not like' me and what I feel comfortable
with in terms of beliefs and values."
It doesn't surpise me then that groups and identifications form around
particular impairments. In the 'Life as a Disabled Child' project, I think
there was evidence of this and also of its hierarchical organisation. But
these are social groups and their formation is not necessarily inconsistent
with a collective disability movement and shared political goals with
people with different impairments. The problem is that the public face of
the Deaf community seem to take this to extremes, and I'm not convinced
that the views expressed publicly represent anything other than those of
the Deaf élite and their allies. The 'core' of cultural life in the UK Deaf
community consists of Deaf people who were born into Deaf families.
However, it is my impression that the leadership of the community and the
political/public wing consists more often of Deaf people who acquired
deafness, some of whom went through mainstream education and hated it, and,
in particular, who are bilingual. Of course it also goes without saying
that people who acquire deafness are in the huge majority over people who
are born deaf and Deaf people who are born to Deaf families are a tiny
minority.
In the UK the British Deaf Organisation (in its Education Policy) demands
the retention of special schools i.e. segregation. It seems to me that this
kind of segregation leads to Deaf people being oppressed as a minority
group instead of as isolated individuals. In other words, oppression is not
removed by the practice of segregation, it simply changes into a different
form of oppression.
So, does that justify the segregation agenda? The answer to this comes down
to values. What Deaf people prize about all is social interaction with each
other and the 'right to co-exist as a minority group'. The fact that this
may mean continued dependency on hearing people for education, access and
so on (and not all of these hearing people will have honourable
motivations) OR the development of a Deaf sector of industry which allows
the community to be self-sufficient isn't always addressed. The Deaf élite
promote the segregation agenda at the expense of disabled people who, if
you look at 'core' Deaf' texts, become the targets of Deaf people's
oppressive tendencies. In other words (Vic Finkelstein's) 'WE are not
disabled, YOU are.'
Where I find Wrigley's book useful is that it doesn't take this approach.
It considers the idea that Deaf 'culture' is a direct result of the policy
of institutionalisation and that there is a possibility that it is in the
interests of hearing powerholders to maintain this situation. That being
said, whether you get to go to a special school or not in the UK also
depends on hearing powerholders and the policy of the local authority where
you live. And to answer Alexa's question, whether you get support,
resources and benefits is still organised on the basis of whether you are
'deaf with speech' or 'deaf without speech' - you are 'more disabled' if
you fall into the latter category. This of course ignores the fact that
many deaf with speech cannot hear, and many deaf without speech choose to
sign in preference to speaking (in other words they CAN speak, but won't).
I don't mean this to sound judgmental - I just find it very difficult to
feel comfortable with the competitive notion at the heart of the idea that
anybody's rights are more important or more urgent than everyone else's.
That seems to me to have nothing to do with social justice or need or
tacking institutionalised oppression. But it does lend support to Mike
Oliver's insistence that we need to reform the Welfare State - I would
argue around social justice and rights, rather than on arbitrary needs.
Sorry to go on
Best wishes
Mairian
Mairian Corker
Senior Research Fellow in Deaf and Disability Studies
Department of Education Studies
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
Address for correspondence:
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)
*********
"To understand what I am doing, you need a third eye"
*********
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|