Degrees of Deafhood
In the Jewish religion and culture, there are many degrees of involvement with and adherence to the religious aspect of Judaism, as well as interpretations of what it means to be a Jew. Drawing from the Jewish model, I discuss how it is possible to have different degrees of Deafhood and interpretations of what it means to have Deafhood.
Karen Mayes said,
August 17, 2008 @ 5:14 am
I did live with a Conservative/Orthodox Jewish family (New Hampshire) who followed kosher dietary rules (chicken not touching any dairy products; no pork; buy grocery items with “U” or “K”; electricity not used on Saturdays; two sets of silverware/dishware; you name it. I learned a lot.) A few times I was told to sleep at a nearby motel when their Hasidic relatives visited. I also worked in Woodridge, NY (that is where I met the family who later invited me to live with them in NH), in the Catskill Mountains where there were vacation spots for Hasidic Jews and I’d drive by their vacation spots, seeing a circle of men bending over books (Torah?), discussing/debating.
My brother spent 6 months at a kibbitz in Israel… my family lived in a town where Judaism was thriving, in a suburban town in St. Louis, MO, so we were often exposed to the culture, as well as to the black culture.
From the family, I learned about Zionsim (the father’s father was active in leading in the establishment of Israel, in United Nations, right after WWII) and that the Hasidic group strongly disagreed with it…. until after the birth of Israel. I am just sharing my personal experiences with you, of what I learned from my encounters with the Jews.
MM said,
August 17, 2008 @ 5:36 am
You are losing your point Don and reverting to the old status quo before deafhood again. Deafhood is a singular and one way street, it hasn’t the ability to encompass. Now you are finding this out, as you accept the D.d thing is a major contributor to dissent.. It just doesn’t add up. You’ve gone from the ‘Deaf’ world, back to the deaf and Deaf ones again.
‘Deaf’ couldn’t diversify prior to this outbreak of deafhoodism, that was the main topic here. It also wasn’t a community of deaf people, which is all I am pretty confident, is what most would want to see…. many of us are simply tired of these divisions, wherever they come from, be they D,d or plain old deafhood. It was never about culture or linguistic minority status, it was about the inability to be all inclusive and accept the real diversity that exists… that’s the real journey, and deafness is a minor part of life struggle, not an excuse.
Amy Cohen Efron said,
August 17, 2008 @ 5:52 am
Don,
I rarely make comments on your blog/vlogsite and because are many things what
we think, there’s more to it than meets the eye. Simply said, I disagree to what
you said.
Right now, I am shaking my head with disbelief that you would use this vlog titled “Degrees of Deafhood” by comparing with religion, Judiasm. Breaking away from silent disagreement, I have to make this comment.
I am surprised that you would ‘draw’ examples of Jewish denominations (based on
what principles of belief a Jew should hold – especially their practice and observance in
Judaism), and compare them with degrees of deafhood.
Your vlog discreetly implied that you confirmed one thing about deafhood.
Deafhood is a form of doctrine.
It saddened me that you used Judaism as an example, and went ahead making
illogical connections with a specific religion (Judaism) with each individual’s self-actualization processes. That will cause a lot of misunderstanding and intolerance of Judiasm.
Every human being on the earth always have an experience with self-actualization process. No matter what kind of religion or belief system they have.
There is a book written by Walter Kaufmann, titled “Existentialism from Dostoevsky to
Sarte” – and that book says the heart of existentialism is the refusal to belong to any school of thought (religion), the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever (anxiety), and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with
traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life.
Now, you have discreetly confirmed another thing about deafhood.
Deafhood is similar to existentialism.
To sum it all, you are discreetly implying that deafhood, which was supposed to be a
self-actualization process for each individual who are deaf, but confirming how that is similar to “religious” existentialism, therefore deafhood is a form of doctrine.
So, my question is for you, Don… is that what Paddy believed while writing this book?
Or is it you, as a self-acclaimed expert of deafhood in your blog, Dr. DonG.’s Deafhood Discourses who believed this while making this vlog?
Amy Cohen Efron
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 6:47 am
Hi Karen,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I went to the Catskills once, and once worked at a Jewish summer camp that followed Kosher rules. It is definitely a very different way of life!
The men were probably part of a morning “Minyan” doing their prayers. The books were probably their Bibles (which are the same as the Torah, but just not in scroll format).
Interesting your brother stayed at a Kibbutz (BTW, “kibbitz” means “to criticize or find fault). I’ve never had that experience. Curious why he as a non-Jew(?) did that?
I find it a VERY interesting point that the Hasidim disagreed with the establishment of Israel until AFTER it was created. I see a parallel with Deafhood here… If those who support the idea of Deafhood are able to start making those changes in society that we would like to see, will those people who are currently against it start supporting it?
Again, thanks for sharing.
MM–
The point of my vlog is that even though the Jews have all these different degrees of adherence to the principles of Judaism, they all still hold that Paternity of being Jewish, and to some extent or another, the Patrimony of it as well (the more religious have a high degree of Patrimony), the less religiousmay have less of it but will still hold a sense of themselves as Jewish. There are some Jews who do not practice at all but still have an identity as Jewish nonetheless. This is the same for Deafhood. People can have a high sense of Deafhood or a low sense of Deafhood, but all are still “deaf” as you would put it.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
August 17, 2008 @ 6:54 am
I am fine with your perspective but it seems that you won’t recognize that there are deaf people who don’t need Deafhood or are not participating in Deafhood, just like there are people who are not Jewish or are not participating in anything relating to Judaism. If I were at liberty to coin a new word, I would say that some deaf people are doing anti-Deafhood, non-Deafhood or unDeafhood.
Of course, I can’t and will not force you to agree to my position as you would not force me to agree with your position. It is just annoying that you are persistent that every deaf person goes through Deafhood. But then, I have to learn how to get along with people who have different perspectives (“agree to disagree”).
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 7:15 am
Hi Amy,
As a fellow Jew, I am sure that you are aware that we Jews all have our own interpretations and senses of what it means to be Jewish, as individuals and as a community. We all undergo our own processes of examining our Judaism and have that internal and external “dialogue” about what Judaism means for ourselves and each other. None of us is ever “finished” with this process. Even the Rabbis acknowledge that they are not “finished” examining with us and with each other what it means to be Jewish as individuals and as a community. That is why they spend so much time studying and writing the Mishnah and the Talmud (supplementary texts explaining points in the Torah which are used to apply to daily lives).
As I told MM above, Jews as a community are widely diverse, but we all share that common heritage (patrimony and paternity). We have our “strong Jews” and our “weak Jews”. People can become Jewish or they can decide to not be Jewish anymore. As you know to be Jewish does not just consist of adherence to the religion; there is a cultural aspect to it as well — the jokes, the language, the speech patterns, the ways of thinking (OY! So many ways!) So the parallel between the Jewish community and the Deaf community is quite apt (although of course there are certain differences, namely that religious aspect which does not hold for the Deaf).
So to address your first point — Judaism as a religion is a doctrine. Deafhood is not. While I did not make it clear in the vlog, I was referring to the aspects of how different Jewish people undergo their own “process” and understanding of what it means to be Jewish, as well as to the cultural aspects of being Jewish — Some Jews will only follow Kosher while others don’t, some Jews speak Yiddish while others don’t, Some marry Jews while others don’t, some think in highly Jewish ways while others don’t, and so on. But they are all still Jewish, if only by blood. Some people will incorporate Deafhood in their lives to a high degree while others may not. Some may use ASL while others don’t. But we are all Deaf.
“Every human being on the earth always have an experience with self-actualization process. No matter what kind of religion or belief system they have.” Right. Deafhood is attempting to delineate a process of self-actualization for ourselves as Deaf people.
“There is a book written by Walter Kaufmann, titled “Existentialism from Dostoevsky to
Sarte” – and that book says the heart of existentialism is the refusal to belong to any school of
thought (religion), the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever (anxiety), and
especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial,
academic, and remote from life.
Deafhood is similar to existentialism.”
In all honesty, I do not really know that much about what “existentialism” really means. But if the definition given above is correct, then Deafhood is NOT similar to existentialism.
First, Deafhood itself can be viewed as a “school of thought” (not religious, but a philosophy, nonetheless).
Second, Deafhood holds a certain body of beliefs about our adequacy as Deaf people, in comparison to those who believe that Deaf people are not “adequate” for one reason or another.
Third, Deafhood expresses a philosophy and suggestions for practical applications to our daily lives.
The sense of existentialism that I get from your excerpt is that it is something of a negativistic philosophy. Deafhood, on the other hand, is very positivistic (if that’s really a word…?)
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 7:22 am
Au Contraire, Joseph — I stated specifically in my vlog that there are some Deaf who may decide that they don’t want it in their lives. But that still doesn’t change the fact that they are Deaf, just as there are Jews who decide they don’t want Judaism in their lives, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have that paternity of being Jewish.
Deafhood is basically saying that we have that paternity of being Deaf, and this makes us think and behave in certain ways that we all share, whether we use sign language or not or believe in Deafhood or not. As David Kerr (DeafChipmunk) said “you can’t escape it”. By being Deaf or HH, we all have that Paternity of Deafhood, although some may not have the Patrimony.
A Deaf Pundit said,
August 17, 2008 @ 7:25 am
I don’t understand. If Deafhood is a school of thought then it is also somewhat of a doctrine.
For instance, I’m studying Buddhism right now, and Buddhists do not believe in a god. They view it as a way of life, and in fact, they call it “The Middle Way”. It’s a doctrine designed to guide you through life and to reach self-actualization.
For that reason, many do consider Buddhism as a religion, whereas Buddhists themselves do not consider it a religion. Just as a way of life. So what you’re saying about Deafhood does indicate that it is a doctrine, and an approach in how Deaf individuals should be dealing with their self-actualization process.
And I think that’s where the vehement disagreements come in. Who are you people to tell me that I’m not even on the path, just because I don’t like your ideology?
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 7:38 am
Pundit –
I guess from your description that Buddhism and Deafhood could be seen as a Way of Life, or as a “doctrine” (although there really is no “doctrine” within Deafhood telling you which exact way to go) designed to guide you through life and to reach self-actualization. We who support the concept of Deafhood do not consider it a religion, but as a philosophy. But if you want to consider it as something of a religion because of its philosophical aspect, I guess we can’t stop you, just as Buddhists can’t stop non-Buddhists from viewing it as a religion.
But, if you have been watching, you have seen us say again and again, we are ALL on the path, whether we recognize the path is there under our feet or not. None of us have been saying that if you don’t like our ideology, then you are not on the path.
A Deaf Pundit said,
August 17, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Yes, I’ve been watching, Don. Let’s see if you find this analogy clear.
What would you do if a Jehovah Witnesses went up to your house and said, “You’re a Jehovah Witness, but you just don’t know it. Acknowledge it now. Practice it now. Those who don’t accept and acknowledge that they are Jehovah Witnesses, are deficit in their thinking.”
I would imagine you would be extremely offended and tell them to get the hell out. I know I would be… and that is exactly how I feel about the Deafhood debate.
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 7:45 am
Poor analogy, Pundit. Or are you denying that you’re Deaf? I don’t think so, or you wouldn’t be calling yourself “Deaf Pundit” now, would you?
Anon said,
August 17, 2008 @ 8:16 am
“kibbitz” means “to criticize or find fault”.
No, it doesn’t. Kibitz means to chat or to make small talk, there is nothing at all in its usage that is negative, as you suggest.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
August 17, 2008 @ 9:26 am
What I am trying to say is that deaf people can escape from Deafhood. They can declare that they don’t have paternity of Deafhood.
Deafhood is merely a social construction (or terminological construction as Dr. Paddy Ladd wrote) that some people try to apply to (or impose on) all deaf people. Because it is merely a social construction, deaf people are not bound to accept it. This is unlike the biological reproductive mechanism where people cannot escape from their biological parents.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
MM said,
August 17, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Don you are back peddling so fast…. we are diverse as deaf people, but we are NOT a diverse community or culture of deaf people, the only link is hearing loss, and that has been rejected….. I don’t know much about Judaism, I do know many religions have their extreme and secualr core, the deaf has half a dozen…
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Anon,
I’m pretty sure “kibitz” means to criticize or find fault. I usually see it in a sentence like, “I don’t mean to kibitz, but do you really think that is the right color of paint?”. I see from Wikipedia (I know, I know!) that it means “to offer unwanted advice”, which fits with what I was thinking. Maybe you’re thinking of “schmooze”? In any case, “kibitz” and “kibbutz” are definitely two different words!
Joseph P.R.,
Deafhood may be a social construction, but in reality, aren’t all cultures just social constructions? They are all based on paternity and patrimony — biology and cultural heritage. We all have the biology of being Deaf. There is no escaping that! At least not until the day the Audio-Industrial Complex invents the “miracle pill” that will make Deaf people into truly Hearing people!
MM –
We are a diverse community of Deaf people (and remember I am including culturally with non-culturally Deaf in that usage of the capital D), and we are diverse as Deaf people. I know you think otherwise, but we’re going to have to disagree on that point.
As for extremism, sure, any group is going to have its extremists. You can have the extreme PRO and the extreme ANTI.
Joseph Pietro Riolo said,
August 17, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Many, if not all, identifications of cultures are social constructions. For example, it is possible for people who live on a large island and who come from same ancestor to have two or more distinct cultures (i.e. Northern Islanders and Southern Islanders). This just supports my position that Deafhood is merely a social construction and that it is possible to have several social constructions for deaf people. In other words, Deafhood is not the one and only one social construction available for the deaf people.
I am wondering about this. If a child is born hearing and becomes deaf 18 years later, does his paternity changes when he becomes deaf? That is, when he is born, his paternity is Hearing. When he becomes deaf, does it means that his paternity of Hearing ceases and that his new paternity is now Deaf? If your answer is yes, this will strike me as very odd and strange and I will find it untenable. But, that’s your perspective.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.
Karen Mayes said,
August 17, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Kibbutz… not kibbitz. My apologies. I was not sure of the spelling of the word, the community center that my brother lived in for 6 months in Israel, working on the farm, learning Hebrew, etc.
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
JPR -
Is Deafhood the one and only one social construction available for Deaf? Of course not? There is the social construction of helpless invalid that needs to be “cured”, the construction of Deaf as “inferior” to Hearing, etc. etc. What I am saying is Deafhood is a social construction that can encompass the variety of Deaf people’s individual constructions of their Deaf/HH identity. Remember, Paddy summarizes Deafhood as “the total sum of all POSITIVE meanings of ‘Deaf,’ past, present and future” and “all the largest meanings of what Deaf people have been, are and can be.”
As for a Hearing person that becomes Deaf as an adult, yes, I am saying exactly that — that his paternity changes when he becomes Deaf, because from this point on, this person is going to have to live life as a Deaf person in one way or another. Remember, this person has acquired the Paternity, but certainly at this point, he has not acquired the patrimony.
Now, if you want to argue that this person now has a “hybrid” paternity of Hearing and Deaf, I’m amenable to that. Indeed, I’ve made this same argument for HH people as well — since they can hear to some degree, they have some of the Hearing paternity, but since they can’t hear to some degree, they definitely have inherited some of the Deaf paternity as well. Like a person born to a White mother and a Black father. That person has the paternity of both White and Black people. You can’t take the White paternity out, or the Black paternity. That person has both.
DrDonG said,
August 17, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Karen –
No problem about the misspelling. OY! Such tsouris, trying to spell Yiddish gives us!
Elena said,
August 17, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
I feel like some people are losing sight of the CULTURAL aspects of Jewish culture– the Jewish people aren’t limited to religious identity, but crosses into ethnic and cultural identity as well. I feel like it is appropriate to use other ethnic cultures’ experiences to parallel with Deafhood, particularly those of *oppressed* ethnic cultures, where the parallels become clear with analyzing the historical elements and the formation of the group identity. That’s why paralleling the Deaf experience to the African-American, Native American, etc. experiences are valuable to many of us with giving us moments of clarity about the experience of being part of an oppressed, marginalized minority.
It seems like some people are so intent to distort Deafhood into being a crazed radical movement with an agenda to convert and conform people… Like the commenters before me have attempted to declare. I’m not quite sure why some people are reacting like this, but it just pretty much boils down to probably each individual’s own neurosis with his/her own struggling identity as a d/Deaf person. If you’re not down with Deafhood, that’s fine… but at least go educate yourself holistically about Deafhood itself and also about cultural groups in general before the accusations come throwing out. Deafhood really exists to give us understanding and peace about our history, our struggles, and our missions in our lives as members of an important community that should continue to thrive in our cultural uniqueness.
Margaret said,
August 18, 2008 @ 9:37 am
DrDonG, what gives you the right to teach us Deafhood Discourses? You are not an expert in this matter, nor are you authorized to teach us about Deafhood.
Deafhood! Deafhood! Deafhood! Enough! I have had it with Deafhood. You are so anal about Deafhood! Seeing the word, Deafhood, makes my blood boil I decided I am going to click “Hide this” your blog/vlog.
Thank God for “Hide This!” Ta da!
DrDonG said,
August 18, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Margaret,
Am I an expert? Probably not. I’ve read the book, taken a course from one of the Deafhood presenters, thought about the issues. I want to educate others about how I see and understand Deafhood. If I’m wrong on something, I’m sure others will let me know.
But do I need any sort of authorization to do so? No. There is no copyright or patent on Deafhood. Anybody can teach about it if they want, although I would hope that they teach it in the right way.
But if you want to go hide your head in the sand, I’m sorry to see you go. Your loss. I hope someday you will understand Deafhood is not the evil thing you seem to think it is.
Ann_C said,
August 18, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
That’s the troubling part about Deafhood– that “anybody can teach it if they want, although I would hope that they teach it the right way.”
Several deaf leaders have taken Ladd’s book and run with it here in the USA to mean other things. It’s their interpretation of Ladd’s words, not the author’s words himself, and add to that their strong stance against CI’s (yes, they keep their opinions out of their presentations but their opinions are well-known in the deaf community and online) that creates some distrust among some members of the deaf community.
Then add on top of all that, other so-called “deaf experts” latch onto certain words or phrases, such as “colonialized” and “deficit thinker” for examples, and abuse these words to keep other people who are dissenters, or skeptical, or even neutral about Deafhood, in line. Hardly the way to impress people, especially hearing parents of deaf babies reading online.
The deafhood concept has been interpreted so many ways like Chinese whispers online, that it’s not a wonder that many readers remain confused.
DrDonG said,
August 18, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Ann —
I really think you’ve been lied to that there is a different “way” that Deafhood has been presented here in the U.S. as compared to what Paddy wrote. I’ve read the book, and I’ve seen at least one of the presenters discuss it, and I do not see much, if any, difference in the two. People are confused because they have been fed misinformation by people who haven’t read the book.
Bug said,
August 18, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
That’s your opinion, Mr DonG. The same thing happens when we label others and ourselves. Another word for it is judgment. And when we affix the judgment with super glue — what a mess.
I am a White guy but I don’t tell the world that I have Whitehood, why should I? Same thing with ” Deafhood”, I am Deaf all my life but I don’t need to label myself as “Deafhood” or “Deafmute”.
The next time you are about to cast a quick judgment, ask yourself the following questions: Is it true? Is it useful? Is it necessary?
-Bug
DT said,
August 18, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
I don’t know if there are really two distinct presentations of Deafhood but I do sense a distinction in the Americanized version and I’m not sure that bodes well because, after all, since Deafhood is not about a collective. It is about each individual’s journey through life. Who needs a workshop on that?
DrDonG said,
August 18, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
DT –
No, Deafhood is not about a collective. What you’re thinking about is how Deaf culture tends to be collectivist — we work together to help each other (like when a kid in class doesn’t understand the teacher’s speech or signs, the others will “interpret” what was said) and will tend to seek a shared consensus rather than leaving it to one person to make a decision. Deaf culture contrasts in this way from general Hearing (American) culture which is individualistic — everyone is left to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps”.
DT said,
August 18, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Sure, Don but, again, who needs a workshop on that?
Ann_C said,
August 18, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
How telling, that a Deafhood workshop is required to understand Deafhood? The book itself isn’t sufficient?
DrDonG said,
August 18, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
DT and Ann –
I’ve never been to a workshop (taken a full semester class but not workshop), but as I understand it the workshop provides the framework for understanding the theory behind Deafhood as Paddy has conceptualized it. You could just read the book, but for many people (even with high reading ability), it’s a tough read. Think of it this way — it’s like going to a seminar on how to get rich by buying and selling real estate. You know the basic idea yourself, you could read a book on the topic, but when you go to the seminar you get more insights, from the speaker and other attendees and there may be new information or new ways of presenting the ideas that you hadn’t thought of or were in the book.
Does that help?
Ann_C said,
August 19, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Yes, Don, I get your point about seminars.
My hubby and I attended a paid real estate seminar once and we walked out when we realized we saw all the hype onstage and were getting hustled to buy their “program” of CD’s, books, and telephone advice. It was another scam as obvious as day.
If one has the time and the inclination, he can glean just as much info on real estate acquisition by going to the library and online, thereby saving money where it will count in tapping the market at the right time, obtaining favorable terms for a mortgage, and getting legal/tax advice in acquiring real estate.
In this day and age unfortunately, nobody wants to STUDY anything worthwhile, so they take the shortcut via seminars. It amazes me that people pay a lot of money to go to these seminars because there are many seminars that are more hype than truth.
I’ve read some long and very dry excerpts of Paddy Ladd’s book. I can’t afford his damn book, and from reading the excerpts available online, I’m not inclined to buy the book. Nevertheless, I’d rather go by what the author has written than go by what other people interpret same author’s words, period. And some people have taken more liberties with what Ladd has written than what has been acknowledged. This is the part that disturbs me because some individuals have twisted Ladd’s words to mean something else just to squash dissent among those who may disagree or are skeptical, Don.
You can’t blame some people for being wary about so-called seminars (the presenters are the ones making money off other people’s backs) and for being skeptical about yet another philosophy. Philosophy is oh, so trendy these days.