An Open SignMail to the ASL-CI Community
In light of my recent vlog “Post-CI Language Change: “Child-driven”?, I am here expressing my concerns about the impact of Cochlear Implants on the Deaf Community.
In light of my recent vlog “Post-CI Language Change: “Child-driven”?, I am here expressing my concerns about the impact of Cochlear Implants on the Deaf Community.
native asl/ci parent and child said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Smiling. I’m gonna chew on it overnight and might respond to you tomorrow.
But let me briefly state something what my mother told me. When she grew up in a residential school, she had exactly the same views as yours towards her Deaf peers who chose to wear hearing aids. I will hope to save this vlog and show it to you 40 years from now (if you or I would still be around, ha ha).
Be back in touch with you after I digest this a little bit. Maybe I’ll alert the ASLCI group for their feedback.
Thanks for the thought provoking vlog.
DrDonG said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
N.A./c.i.p&c:
Yes, please do chew on it, and alert the ASL/CI group. That is all I’m asking here. Discuss among yourselves, if you want.
Paul said,
July 11, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
DrDonG-
You are on the right track! I fully agree about what is going on and what those audists’ agenda is all about.
=)
Paul
David Ennis said,
July 12, 2008 @ 1:05 am
Oh yes, I agreed with you. I often wonder if it is a possibility that the Second Dark Age of our Deaf History will be coming back in 2020′s as in 1920′s, many Deaf activists vigorously fought to save their culture and ASL during the Dark Age of the Pure Oralism movement.
I always believe that either Hearing or Deaf history will always be repeated.
native asl/ci parent and child said,
July 12, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Still waiting on the others . . . Maybe some of them are not comfortable coming out as they’ll be in the spotlight.
Let me share with you what I have discovered from my recent interactions with hearing parents of oral CI kids while I have some time this morning.
The ongoing dialogues with them seem to help them see the bigger picture as to why my child and I continue to keep ASL in our lives even though we have cochlear implants. They see that my son is doing well in oral education (like I said in my previous comments in your vlogs, he is ahead of all other oral kids in that school academically, socially, and emotionally). They acknowledge that my son has good speech (do not cringe, readers, as I know you would roll your eyes. I know, I know, but let me just talk.). I repeatingly tell them that theres no way I am removing ASL/CASE from his environment as he does miss information in regular ed classroom even with FM and preferential seating. I am preaching to the choir, readers, but it is the parents who often do not realize that.
My experience with the parents and educators of oral education has been positive thus far, which is the total opposite from what you have proposed in this vlog. They realize that even with cochlear implants, it is still better to keep sign language (whether it is ASL or a signed system) in the deaf children’s lives.
Some of the children I have known in the recent past have graduated from their oral school and are now at a regular ed school that has a mixture of signing and oral deaf kids. I conclude this with saying we as culturally Deaf with “ASL/oral” CI children have changed some of the hearing families’ perception that ASL does more good than harm in their CI chldren’s lives.
The parents of CI children are more inclined to listen to us than the deaf people who are anti-CI and into Deafhood. That is my hunch based on my experience. So, you Deafhood proponents should appreciate us more, ha ha.
Definition: “ASL/Oral” is my term to define a deaf child who signs and understands ASL and also is oral in a non-signing hearing environment such as in an oral educational establishment, in a total communication setting, or in a regular ed with an interpreter.
Hey, readers, no tomatoes, please. Wink.
native asl/ci parent and child said,
July 12, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Oh, one more thing… have you seen Drmzz’s latest vlog, Close Proximity?
We, Deaf parents with CI children are in closer proximity with hearing parents/educators of CI children. This has generated positive results.
P. Alan Drome said,
July 12, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Hello Don,
I am Deaf of Deaf and I am also a CI user.
I value and appreciate your goal in ensuring the betterment of the experiences of deaf children of hearing families! It also concerns me that some–some–may perceive my use of a CI as condoning their use for ALL deaf people–which I do not. I frequently dissuade hearing parents from implanting their children when it seems their family dynamics are not such that they could responsibly educate–communicate with–their deaf child once he/she obtains his/her CI.
That having been said, it may be true, perhaps, that there will be some parents turned on to CI’s by people like the person above, or myself. . . but in my experience teaching at a residential school, there are MORE people turned OFF to ASL because of the aggression with which many well-meaning ASL users oppose their parental choices.
I have seen formerly ASL using hearing parents tell me directly:
“I do not want my child growing up to hate my culture and language, so we are opting for [SEE, Oralism, etc] and leaving MSD.” In this case, was it a CI that took ASL from this Deaf child, or was it the Deaf Community?
I have seen hearing parents say:
“Deaf ASL users have protested my child’s TC/SEE program and I am now frustrated with how to think about the Deaf Community.” Was it a CI that took ASL from this student?
Conversely, like the commenter above, I have also had the experience of having staunch oral advocates, and in fact one thirty-year oral teacher, tell me they now see the value of ASL and Deaf Community.
One Deaf Ed. student who did not sign at all and who focused on oral education came to one of my lectures on Deaf Culture and the Deaf experience. I was signing in ASL and through an interpreter she listened to my lecture. I received a letter about two months later stating that she had enrolled in ASL 1 and wanted to thank me for opening her eyes to ASL. Now, I did not need to CLOSE her eyes to CI’s and oralism! There is a big difference!
I know that there will be some negative comments back to me about this. I know it looks as if I am blaming us in the minority culture here, but I am only saying that we can catch more flies with honey than we can with vinegar. Let’s ensure that we continue to talk about these issues here and with the kind of respect, Don, that you have always shown us who are in a different place than you—I mean that—it has always been apparent that you may disagree with our choices, but are not against us as Deaf people who choose differently.
But we can no longer afford to treat this as a kind of war with sides to choose. . . we are talking about people. . . human lives. . . children. . . yes, there are MANY sad stories out there about failed CI kids who were denied ASL, and it breaks my heart. But it is time to WELCOME them into the fold, not blame their families or punish them for it. I continue to fight for ASL access for all, but not at the expense of others.
When we start broadening our definition of Deaf Community, we will grow and thrive. As of now, we are narrowing it, and we are hurting ourselves as a result.
Thanks again, Don, and sorry this is so long.
P.A.D.
DrDonG said,
July 12, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
P.A.D. –
Thank you for your comments. I agree that some people are a bit too “aggressive” in pushing their views (it cuts both ways on both sides), but you’re right. We do mean well, either way. I’m glad to hear you do at least try to dissuade parents from C.I. when you feel they might not make it truly work, but I still have the concerns that too many are seeing it as a cure when it is not and I am pretty sure that many, if not most on the oralist/audist side don’t try to disabuse them of that notion. I hope that we can enter into a productive dialogue. I too do fear for our Deaf community — it is becoming more and more acrimonious on too many fronts.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
July 12, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Your vlog strongly reminds me of the book “Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” by Neil Postman that I read many years ago.
It is without question that the technology of cochlear implant does have great impact on the Deaf culture. How the culture adapts or reacts to it remains to be seen. The history gives us two lessons to ponder. One lesson is that the very large majority of people are willing users of many technologies. Second lesson is that there is always a very small minority of people that do not see the technologies as benign. Amish people are a very familiar and famous example of the second lesson. Some science fiction stories (novels, books and movies) expound the relationships between technologies and human beings.
It seems that you are in the minority in respect to the technology of cochlear implant but it seems that you are in the majority in respect to many other technologies. Do you see videophone as a good thing for the Deaf culture? Why or why not? Do you see Internet as a good thing for the Deaf culture? Why or Why not? You don’t have to answer the questions. I bring up the questions to show that your expression of your concern on the technology of cochlear implant but total silence on other technologies gives the impression that you are being selective. I am not surprised about this. But, the users of cochlear implant undoubtedly will notice this and will wonder if your concern about the technology of cochlear implant is being driven by your anger against oralism and/or obsession with preserving ASL or whatever reason that is still not being explicit.
Perhaps, the technology of cochlear implant will have no impact on the usage of signing among the members of the deaf community. Perhaps, it will have impact. Perhaps, it will diminish or eliminate the Deaf culture. Perhaps, it will not. History is full of examples of how technologies can go either way.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
drmzz said,
July 12, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Hi Don, I’ve seen u around the Bay Area before, welcome to vlogging world. Ya an actual Dr?
Like you, I share concerns of the aggressive ci model as a necessity to all things that are Deaf but, people will do what they want to do any way. I prefer to conform to an organic process of language access – ASL instead.
native asl/ci parent and child, thanks for mentioning my vlog. I wonder would you think of non-ci ASL people any differently? I’m also suggesting in my vlog that various groups can learn from each other despite differences. Respect should be a two way street, not one way. Signers would like support from non-signers and so on in return.
DrDonG said,
July 12, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
Joseph,
I’m not sure I am in the minority with respect to C.I. — I think MOST Deaf people feel the same way, but if you mean “minority” in relation to the world over, then yes, you would be right.
Technology isn’t all bad. Depends on the purposes and goals of technology. People accept technologies depending on whether it suits their purposes or not. Do you support genetically modified food technology? What about technology to embed a chip inside all of us containing our vital info (SSN, medical data, residence, financial info, etc. etc.?
As for the CI’s impact on the prevalence of signing and the sustainability of the Deaf Culture, we won’t know for a while yet. That research study I cited suggests that it definitely will.
DrDonG said,
July 12, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Hi Drmzz — I noticed you were from the Bay area. Next time we’re together at an event we should meet in person.
I am a real Dr. – Ph.D., University of Arizona. I do have a “pet peeve” about people using the “Dr.” title when they don’t really deserve it, unless they’re using it as a joke. I worked hard to get it…
Yes, people will do what they want. I am hoping that Deaf from our Deaf Culture, who know us, will understand and realize the potential impacts of their choices on their own culture. That’s what I’m trying to do with this vlog.
drmzz said,
July 12, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Oh ok, that’s settled then. I’m still going for my masters at SFSU. My screen name, drmzz stands for “deaf read mike” along w/ my middle and last names’ initials ‘ss’ replaced to ‘zz’ for effect so there, I’m no doctor, grin. I’m sure we’ll bump in person once in a while in the community. Cheers.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
July 13, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I am trying to understand why you become concerned about some members of the Deaf culture seeing the technology of cochlear implant merely as a tool.
Each individual is endowed with the freedom of choice to use or not to use different technologies. Very large majority decide whether to use technologies based solely on whether the technologies do what they want. If some deaf people want to use cochlear implant so that they can hear, what is wrong with that? If some members of the Deaf culture want to use cochlear implant so that they can hear, what is wrong with that? If some parents of deaf children want them to use cochlear implant, what is wrong with that? If some parents of deaf children with cochlear implant want them to go through the oral route rather than the signing route, what is wrong with that? And so on.
On the other hand, very small minority applies critical analysis on technologies and evaluates the consequences of the technologies before deciding whether to use (or continue using) or not to use the technologies. I wrote that you are in the minority even in the Deaf culture because not too many members of the culture apply the critical analysis on the technology of cochlear implant.
It seems that you want the technology of cochlear implant to be banned (so to deprive parents and deaf people of the choice to hear with cochlear implant) and it seems that you want the members of the Deaf culture not to use the technology. Correct me if I am wrong in understanding your position. I may be guilty of reading between your lines (or signs). Then, I am trying to understand the reasons behind your position. Is it because you do not want the Deaf culture to disappear so to fulfill the prophecy of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell? And/or, is it because you do not want to see the usage of signing to diminish in the future as per your observation from the report in the journal? And/or, is it because you do not want to see the Deaf culture change so much that it becomes more like hearing world?
Even if your concerns are valid, I have to state that the history is working against you. All through the history, we see the cultures appear, change and disappear. What makes some cultures last long is the steady adherence to the core principles in spite of technologies that have impact on the principles. But, there are not that many cultures that last long time. It could be that the Deaf culture would disappear when it could not withstand the influences of the technologies (not only cochlear implant but also new future technologies). It could be that the Deaf culture changes so much that it is not like the current or old times. Or, a new culture could emerge that is different from the Deaf culture and they would co-exist or the former would supplant the latter.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.