Deaf Village = Diversity?
This post is not about the Deaf Read (DR)/Deaf Village (DV) controversy regarding captioning. I understand DV’s viewpoint regarding those who don’t understand ASL, and I understand the DR membership’s viewpoint about individual rights, the labor and difficulty of inserting captions, etc. I’ve been captioning my vlogs since the beginning for reasons I outlined in my first vlog “Introduction to Deafhood Discourses“.Instead, this is about DV’s commitment to diversity. Tony Nicholas’ recent post, “Deaf Read – Deaf Village & Aggregators, Pt. II” in which he described having his blog rejected by Deaf Village made me wonder about Deaf Village’s commitment to diversity, which they say they have. I decided that with the creation of my ABC Story, “The Cochlear Slayer“, I would test Deaf Village’s commitment to diversity. So, like Tony, I made a request to submit the vlog to their site, stating that it was captioned and fits with their general theme. Rachel responded that I would have to submit my whole website to DV for their consideration. Ugh. I really never intended for that. But I played along. My suspicion was that they would reject it, since the strong anti-Cochlear Implant viewpoint presented in the story would be considered a violation of their Guideline #3, which states “Deaf Village operates on a basis of respect for individuals’ choices and respects each person’s individual “deaf experience.”Within an hour or two after making the submission request, I checked back into DV. Lo and behold, “The Cochlear Slayer” was up there. So, even though I have never been pro-implant, oralism, AVT, AGB, etc., they accepted my website. They’re not just paying “lip service” to diversity, I’ll give them that. So, does that mean I’m going to start checking in with DV’s contributions? Nah. Even though they accepted my vlog, DV is still by and large, overwhelmingly pro-implant, oralism, AVT, AGB, Audism, etc. I have enough to do to wade through similar content on DR. (I don’t “hide” blogs on DR, since maybe, just maybe, once in a very long while, something may catch my eye enough to pique my curiosity, and I occasionally like to see what “they” are saying so I can think of ways to confront their discourse. Personally, I’d prefer to see a truly Deaf-centered aggregator (I’d develop one myself, but I don’t have the technical skills for that — if any of you do, and are willing to help me, I’d welcome your help!). DR is far from perfect, but they at least have more of a Deaf center than DV does. DR, even with all the defections to DV, still represents more of the diversity inherent in the Deaf community than DV does. DV, while they have shown they will allow for diversity, still doesn’t truly represent it.
Tony Nicholas said,
June 19, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
I am still researching the software to do an aggregator. But if u get there first, let me know, I will be in!
Richard Roehm said,
June 19, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
It seems they’re having ‘technical issues’ that could be overshadowing a new form of
hypocrisy. I wouldnt call them inclusive at this time or give them a diversity badge until
they fix those technical issues.
Richard
MM said,
June 20, 2008 @ 12:54 am
Any true aggregator that includes a wide variety of different deaf and HoH people is eventually going to ask the other for access. There is no rational argument against access provision, any of us can accept, except, where there is a total inability to do so. If we don’t try to enable each other, or allow others to do it for us, then there is no point in deaf.read, and there is no example for anyone else to follow.
There are ASL and textural blogs that comment on each other, it seems stupid that neither actually knows about it because of a right to not provide the means to follow ! This is ‘anti-access’. It is brave of DV to try and insist on that access, albeit the arguent will again be about ‘rights’, but the various deaf sectors, should never should have accepted the right to opt out of access in the first place.
DV’s guideline has allowed the access debate to take on the rights one, it was long overdue, becuase the rights message has been for too long, been distorted and abused.
Bill said,
June 20, 2008 @ 2:28 am
building the aggregator is not so tough –
moderating it is. that’s where the controversies – the differences of opinion – are divisive.
and of course, building the audience is tough.
valerie said,
June 20, 2008 @ 4:46 am
I took my blog off of DeafRead after they removed Cochlear Implant Online. I did for a few reasons, the overload of negative comments on my blog, the lack of diversity, the hiding blogs with custom, and lack of respect from some Human Editors.
Even though you are against Cochlear Implants and I sit here wearing two, I respect your opinion. I also respect your choice to blog. If you want to be on DeafVillage, I support that. Now do you support my views to have cochlear implants?
Also this back and forth with DV/DR policies and judgement, it just beyond me. My view why does it matter? If you support the policies at DR stay there. If you support the policies at DV stay there. It should not be a race or an invasion, both are just aggregator. Treat them as that, not holy places.
I am not blogging to change the world. I am just a deaf woman who wears cochlear implalnts.
DrDonG said,
June 20, 2008 @ 7:57 am
Bill — can you point me to a source that can explain how to build an aggregator in layman’s terms? I’d be wwilling to moderate — that’s not an issue for me in my visualization.
Valerie — I can support your right to make a decision as an adult to get implants. However, the problem becomes the general public seeing them and thinking then it is an ok option for young children. Children should have the right to have a say in what happens to their bodies in a non-medically/life threatening situation. And, I do question WHY Deaf people are seeing the need to make themselves “Hearing”. This to me, and most other Deaf adults, represents a colonization of the mind — Deaf people have become “conditioned” to think that it is important to live with hearing, because it is a “Hearing” world, etc., and therefore accepting a risk to their physical well-being in pursuit of that, and accepting a substandard version of “hearing” to achieve that “parity” with the “Hearing” world.
MM said,
June 20, 2008 @ 9:45 am
‘Moderation’ entails defending bloggers from abuse, it doesn’t mean toting a political or cultural viewpoint under threat. We are all deaf to varying degrees, neither a CI wearer nor a cultist of the ‘Deaf’ variety has a right to dictate who contributes. There are areas besides direct personal abuse that require moderation, there are sex, gender, religion and political viewpoints that is best channeled toward only the moderate view of this.
OK it bans some of it, that’s the price to pay. I don’t want extremists, or voyeurs either no matter what they believe in.
Ensuring they deaf sites don’t deteriorate into areas where advertisers target us, is also welcome, as is deaf.extra that puts what is by and larg non-relevant and personal stuff of non-deaf interests.
I don’t want to know about someone’s dog/car etc, even IF the owner is deaf thanks. There is a place somewhere else for this. I am not convinced that Rachel was treated that fairly, it was borderline, but the deaf.read moderation blew it, thus allowing WW3 to start, empowering the militant extremists of BOTH sides who went to town. Will no-one speak up for those stuck in the middle of this circus ?
I hope for DV sake, it doesn’t end up as CI online, the sequel… or it will all have been a waste of time, and the deaf.read contributors will say, we told you so…..
valerie said,
June 20, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
“And, I do question WHY Deaf people are seeing the need to make themselves “Hearing”.
I am a deaf person and I find this statement wrong. You stated you respect me because I made the choice as an adult. The second part of your statement is in conflict with the first. It is an if but statement. I don’t view myself as hearing, this statement is from you. You view me as hearing. This is my concern, when I put on hearing aids, I was hard of hearing. How do you view hearing aids? When I put on cochlear implants, I am “hearing.” To me I am deaf, always have been and always will be. It is my lifestyle choice.
DrDonG said,
June 20, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Valerie,
I guess the difference for me is, hearing aids only amplify sound. When one puts on a hearing aid, their own ability to perceive sound is unchanged, the hearing aids only amplify the sound to a level where you might perceive it. But with cochelar implants, you are theoretically attempting to change yourself (or the person you are implanting in the case of children) by changing your ability to hear. While implants currently do not make one “Hearing” yet, that is ultimately the goal of the implant developers, and therefore when Deaf people choose to get implants, they are “buying” into this ideology, figuratively and literally.
valerie said,
June 20, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
I believe you are misinformed and if you ever want to really understand cochlear implants, just e-mail me. I will be more than happy to really explain it to you.
Abbie said,
June 20, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
You say it is changing oneself. I say it is giving me a choice to utilize my brain that has been wired for sound. Just because the parts in the ear does not work does not mean I am going to just give up on using the natural capabilities of my brain to make sense of the cochlear implant.
DrDonG said,
June 20, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Abbie,
And what’s so wrong with developing those parts of the brain that are wired for vision? The scientific research with CAT scans shows that Deaf people who use ASL have more development in the visual areas, plus they utilize more of their brains overall than people who rely on sound only.
Rachel said,
June 20, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
DrDonG,
As someone who received a CI at the age of two and a half years old, I personally don’t see the way you view about people choosing to get an implant or to implant children. The way I see it is that cochlear implant is an alternative option for people who cannot benefit from hearing aids. I had ZERO benefits from hearing aids as I am COMPLETELY deaf. Thus, hearing aid was not an option for me. I disagree with the statement “While implants currently do not make one “Hearing” yet, that is ultimately the goal of the implant developers, and therefore when Deaf people choose to get implants, they are “buying” into this ideology, figuratively and literally.” Many patients are aware that they will never hear like a person who hears normally as they have to attend audiology appointments to maintain their ability to hear and they have to take their CIs off for showering, swimming, and sleeping. Having cochlear implants just gives deaf people the option to choose to hear when they want to hear. People can always choose to be deaf whenever they choose to by removing their external part of the CI. So, all in all, I see cochlear implant as an alternative option for people who cannot benefit from hearing aids well.
DrDonG said,
June 20, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Rachel,
You said “Many patients are aware that they will never hear like a person who hears normally….” True enough. But, can you deny that the goal of the CI developers is to reach a point where a CI wearer will hear “normally”? Plus, look at all the newspaper articles that have headlines like “gift of sound”, “miracle of hearing”, “cure for deafness”. That perception is out there, whether it is true or not. And, I suspect, that perception subtly influences many people to choose an implant, Deaf or Hearing.
Abbie said,
June 20, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
And Dr. DonG, what is wrong about utilizing both senses? We were born wired for both.
If you are going to believe everything that the media says, I think I would have been in the ER for swallowing gum quite some time ago. *WE* that have a CI are the ones that trying to get the truth across. It is not a miracle and to some it might seem like one. It is simply a tool.
DrDonG said,
June 20, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Abbie,
I think the problem is, that both sides have a different “truth”. For Hearing people and Deaf people, their respective “truths” are equally valid. However, the problem is that Deaf people have been subjected to the Hearing “truth” for so long that many have taken this “truth” to be THE truth. The Deaf who are against the CI are trying to educate those Deaf with the CI (as well as Hearing people) about the validity of our “truth”. And for us, our “truth” is that there is nothing wrong with living as a Deaf person, that one does not need sound to have a viable and valid life, and for some, being Deaf is not a loss — their wiring was never really for sound.
AS for CI being a tool, a tool is something that you pick up and use, and then stop using it when you don’t need it. But when you substantially alter your physiology to utilize it, and rely on it for substantial portions of one’s life, it seems to me that it stops being a “tool” and instead becomes a integral component of one’s self. And that, is what we mean by “changing one’s self” when choosing to become implanted.
Rachel said,
June 20, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Yes, it’s true that the media do spread information that CI is a miracle or sound is a gift and etc. That is because there are some deaf people who have CIs do personally feel this way. I personally feel that having the opportunity to hear sounds is a gift because I enjoy listening to music and hearing the sound effects of movies which I would not be able to do if I didn’t have CIs. Some deaf people personally feel that they’d like to live with sounds and there are some who feel that they don’t need to hear the sounds like you. It’s a personal choice, and there’s nothing wrong with choosing either one. Just as long as we feel happy about who we are. I respect your choice of choosing to live without sounds because I see that you’re happy and perfectly fine to live without sounds. I prefer to live with sounds and that’s just a personal choice of mine.
“But, can you deny that the goal of the CI developers is to reach a point where a CI wearer will hear “normally”?”
I don’t see that there is an issue for researchers choosing to continue to improve the the technology. There are many deaf people who grew up with normal hearing and then became deaf later in life who would like to have a technology that gives them the sounds that sounds as close as or the same as normal hearing. I’d personally like to continue to get improved technologies as I enjoy the benefits of continuing to improve my ability to hear. Again, these are personal choices.