Ok.. let's get a few things straight.
My previous post on Audism was made in the heat of the moment, what I should have done was to do a little research about the topic itself then make a post about it. Then I realised that I was writing something about my own personal experience not a frickin' research paper.
So.. here I am again.. part two.
Audism is derived from the Latin word audire meaning to hear, and -ism, meaning system of practice, behaviour, belief, or attitude.
First stop was the Audism.org website to find out what really constitutes Audism.
The website states the following...
The only part of this definition I believe that really nails it is "The notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear." I do not like the first point because it implies that only Hearing people are capable of Audism. It also fails to recognise that some Deaf/Hearing Impaired people do discriminate against hearing people.
I do not like the "behave in the manner of one who hears" bit either, since I behave like a hearing person in many ways it implies that I'm a walking example of Audism itself!!!
This definition needs to be clarified
Tony's right, this is a difficult topic to understand and articulate it on paper.
As I was wading through a mountain of reading material on this topic here my some of my observations..
I've given up on this topic for now, one reason is that I do not know much about Deaf history. I believe knowing more about Deaf history will give me a better perspective on Audism itself.
In the mean time here are some links on the topic for you to read and decide for yourself what it means.
Stay tuned for part three...
http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/05/06/audists-and-audism/
http://znuage.blogspot.com/2006/11/originally-posted-in-personal-journal_05.html
http://library.gallaudet.edu/dr/faq-audism.html
http://www.meryl.net/ci/archives/004508.html
An interesting story about Gallaudet University, who do you think is the Audist and who is on the receiving end of it ? These links made me realise that I need to read more about Deaf history, so I encourage you to seek this information out yourself.
http://www.audism.org/Ryan/plealetter.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/opinion/main2125873.shtml
http://www.audism.org/gallaudetfacts.html
My previous post on Audism was made in the heat of the moment, what I should have done was to do a little research about the topic itself then make a post about it. Then I realised that I was writing something about my own personal experience not a frickin' research paper.
So.. here I am again.. part two.
Audism is derived from the Latin word audire meaning to hear, and -ism, meaning system of practice, behaviour, belief, or attitude.
First stop was the Audism.org website to find out what really constitutes Audism.
The website states the following...
- Audism is the word that specifies the discrimination on the inability of hearing.
- The notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. (Zak 1996)
The only part of this definition I believe that really nails it is "The notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear." I do not like the first point because it implies that only Hearing people are capable of Audism. It also fails to recognise that some Deaf/Hearing Impaired people do discriminate against hearing people.
I do not like the "behave in the manner of one who hears" bit either, since I behave like a hearing person in many ways it implies that I'm a walking example of Audism itself!!!
This definition needs to be clarified
Tony's right, this is a difficult topic to understand and articulate it on paper.
As I was wading through a mountain of reading material on this topic here my some of my observations..
- There is clear evidence of discrimination against Deaf people in the job market.
- Majority of causes of Audism can be traced to communication breakdown.
- Lack of representive Deaf people in executive positions on Deaf organisations and/or Deaf educational institutions kind of speaks for itself.
I've given up on this topic for now, one reason is that I do not know much about Deaf history. I believe knowing more about Deaf history will give me a better perspective on Audism itself.
In the mean time here are some links on the topic for you to read and decide for yourself what it means.
Stay tuned for part three...
http://urbansemiotic.com/2006/05/06/audists-and-audism/
http://znuage.blogspot.com/2006/11/originally-posted-in-personal-journal_05.html
http://library.gallaudet.edu/dr/faq-audism.html
http://www.meryl.net/ci/archives/004508.html
An interesting story about Gallaudet University, who do you think is the Audist and who is on the receiving end of it ? These links made me realise that I need to read more about Deaf history, so I encourage you to seek this information out yourself.
http://www.audism.org/Ryan/plealetter.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/opinion/main2125873.shtml
http://www.audism.org/gallaudetfacts.html
Powered by ScribeFire.
2 comments:
M8, the two part definition is apt. Deafies do not practice audism. They do not discriminate on the basis of Hearing.
The so called prejudice that people observe, is actually a reaction against the crap put on them by the Hearing
Quote: "Deafies do not practice audism. They do not discriminate on the basis of Hearing."
I disagree, I have personally witnessed discrimination against hearing people by deafies in the past at public deaf community events in Australia.
Yes, some of it may well be just a reaction to the way some Deaf people have been treated in the past. However that doesn't give deafies an automatic right to dish out crap on hearing people either.
I have also witnessed personal conversations by Deaf people discriminating against hearing impaired people (AKA Oral deafies).
Can you now honestly say Deafies do not discriminate against people on the basis of Hearing ?
On a final note, josh, I'd be interested in reading your blog if you have one. Can you please provide a link to your blog ?
Post a Comment