Deaf Fiction?
Alex Buell
Cheers,
Alex
--
Legalise cannabis today! Got GnuPG? Ask me for public key.
http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - updated!
Eric P Metzger
alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Are there really any fiction that's specifically about deaf people?
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
Yes, there are. In fact, there is a series by a deaf writer, A.C.
Crispin. They are all Science Fiction titles.
Starbridge
Starbridge 2: Silent Dances with Kathleen O'Malley
Starbridge 3: Shadow World with Jannean Elliott
Starbridge 4: Serpent's Gift with Deborah Marshall
Starbridge 5: Silent songs with Kathleen O'Malley
-eric-
Stuart Baldwin
<alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Are there really any fiction that's specifically about deaf people?
Deafness is part of the plot of at least one of the Inspector Morse
books by Colin Dexter (who I believe is deafened himself). One of his
books is called The Silent World of Nicholas Quinn, which seems a likely
candidate, although I don't have a copy to hand to confirm that this is
the one. Maybe there's a bookseller around who could provide more
information on this topic...
--
Stuart Baldwin
uk.people.deaf FAQ etc.: http://www.boxatrix.demon.co.uk/upd/
"We apologise for the lack of subtitles for this program"
Alison Bryan
Eric P Metzger wrote in message ...
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.20.99111...@tahallah.demon.co.uk>,
>alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Are there really any fiction that's specifically about deaf people?
>>
>> Alex
Yes ...... think you'll find lists at www.forestbooks.com
Alison
P.S. Doug how much do I get for advertising you?! ;-)
Alex Buell
> Yes ...... think you'll find lists at www.forestbooks.com
> P.S. Doug how much do I get for advertising you?! ;-)
You're biased because he's been bribing you. I will have to disregard
this.. :o)
Alex Buell
> Yes, there are. In fact, there is a series by a deaf writer, A.C.
> Crispin. They are all Science Fiction titles.
That name rings a bell. Didn't he write the Visitors ('V') series? I
remember watching all the TV episodes many moons ago - wasn't there a deaf
person on that doing signing language? Who could forget Robert
Englund? Fantastic in his role!
Whilst we're on the subject, who the heck thought up such a ridiculous
ending for Independence Day? Inserting a virus into the aliens'
computers... now that's just too silly for words! Should have been shot at
dawn for such unimaginative scripting.
Babylon 5 was the best by far.
Doug McLean
<alison...@clara.co.uk> writes>Alison
>
>P.S. Doug how much do I get for advertising you?! ;-)
Same as usual Alison
Doug
--
Doug McLean.
The Forest Bookshop (Specialist in books and other media on Deafness and Deaf
Issues). 8 St John Street, Coleford, Gloucestershire, England, GL16 8AR.
Tel: +44[0]1594 833858 TDD/Voice Fax: +44[0]1594 833446
Videophone(isdn) +44[0]1594 810637 Web Pages http://www.forestbooks.com
Doug McLean
>, Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Alison Bryan wrote:
>
>
>this.. :o)
Careful...if I am capable of bribing...I am capable of other mean
activities..and I know where you live! ;->
Doug McLean
, Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Cheers,
>Alex
our catalogue for 'Fiction With Deaf Characters' Also, Catty is
something of an expert in this area and has reviewed several in British
Deaf News
Alex Buell
> Careful...if I am capable of bribing...I am capable of other mean
> activities..and I know where you live! ;->
Ha.
Editorial
----------
>From: Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: uk.people.deaf
>Subject: Re: Deaf Fiction?
>Date: Sun, Nov 14, 1999, 11:23 am
>
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Eric P Metzger wrote:
>
>> Yes, there are. In fact, there is a series by a deaf writer, A.C.
>> Crispin. They are all Science Fiction titles.
>
>That name rings a bell. Didn't he write the Visitors ('V') series?
It's a 'she', actually. <g>
I first heard of her when I picked up the first of Han Solo (pre-Star Wars)
trilogy series (I have a thing for Han, the rascal), and someone on the
American mailing list named her as one of the most successful HOH Americans.
AFAIK, she wrote quite a few Star Trek novels as well.
>I
>remember watching all the TV episodes many moons ago - wasn't there a deaf
>person on that doing signing language? Who could forget Robert
>Englund? Fantastic in his role!
Yeah! I think it was a bloke on the run, trying to find his way home to the
'ghetto' where all deaf people are - and he asked Marc (the one with flared
nose) for help. Somewhere along the line, RE's character (what was the
name?) fell for a deaf woman. Naturally, the woman got killed - did you
notice that RE's character tend to fall for doomed women? As soon as his
eyes lit up, we just KNEW that poor woman was doomed to die. It's a bit like
what Mark said about Voyager the other night - if you see an unknown crew
member tagging a group of regular crew members (7 of 9, Spock clone,
Janeway, Paris, etc.) on an investigative task - you just know that that
unknown crew member will be killed.
>Whilst we're on the subject, who the heck thought up such a ridiculous
>ending for Independence Day? Inserting a virus into the aliens'
>computers... now that's just too silly for words! Should have been shot at
>dawn for such unimaginative scripting.
Unimaginative? How can you say that? The writer was imaginative enough to
dream up something so stupid.
>
>Babylon 5 was the best by far.
It's funny you should mentioned B5 - one of the guest writers (I'm still
trying to find out) is a deaf ASL user. Any chance you know anything about
this?
Catty
Editorial
----------
In article <Pine.LNX.4.20.99111...@tahallah.demon.co.uk>,
Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Are there really any fiction that's specifically about deaf people?
Which genre are you interested in? Mainstream, romance, western, mystery,
women's fiction, detective, science fiction, black writing, fantasy, horror,
gay/lesbian fiction, or surreal? But I can only count four - of all
deaf-related novels I read - that didn't make deaf characters mute/stupid/
retarded/unrealistically naive/100% lipreader/uncontrollable animal.
But I don't think I have ever read a novel that are about deaf people
themselves, though. As in all-deaf version of - say - 'Moby Dick'. Now,
that would be cool. It'd certainly make people realise that deaf people do
go through the same as others do - e.g. a man wages a war against a beast,
nature, another man or their own emotions. Rather than trying to make his
deafness the focus of the story. I mean, I just don't see how deafness can
be the spine of a *plot*, for god's sake. One can make it his companion or
burden in other way - e.g. imagine a deaf man who's trapped in a haunted
house. He can't pinpoint the direction of a sound he thought he heard. He's
not sure if he imagined it or he did hear it. And imagine that the hearing
battery is running low. The night is falling, so light is fading away, no
longer his helpful friend. And so on. I just wish the writers could be more
imaginative, rather than using that same old 'Oh, poor Johnny is deaf, and
he's so scared, angry, and lonely. We must help him to overcome his dreadful
disability - and he'll then leave his dark, silent world..." route.
And btw, can anyone identify a futuristic novel where it has a deaf heroine
who is a police detective - in 2058 (or something), all people have the
right to apply to join the police forces where only their intelligence will
be judged, regardless everything else (e.g. deafness, blindness, etc.)
Apparently, she's a sign language user, and have a handheld 'interpreting'
device which enables her to communicate with anybody, including non-English
speakers. She is so tough that she had no problem in tackling a dangerous
villian. Not only that, she's witty, intelligent and well respected.
Unfortunately, Kate forgot the details of this book. So, if anyone can ID
this book, let me know, please!
Catty
Alex Buell
> It's a 'she', actually. <g>
Ooh. I hadn't the faintest idea!
> I first heard of her when I picked up the first of Han Solo (pre-Star
> Wars) trilogy series (I have a thing for Han, the rascal), and someone
> on the American mailing list named her as one of the most successful
> HOH Americans. AFAIK, she wrote quite a few Star Trek novels as well.
I think I've got one of these upstairs, sadly I thought it wasn't a patch
on some of the better sci-fi writers. Books by Larry Pornelle
("Footfall") and the ilk are way better.
> Yeah! I think it was a bloke on the run, trying to find his way home
> to the 'ghetto' where all deaf people are - and he asked Marc (the one
> with flared nose) for help. Somewhere along the line, RE's character
> (what was the name?) fell for a deaf woman. Naturally, the woman got
> killed - did you notice that RE's character tend to fall for doomed
> women? As soon as his eyes lit up, we just KNEW that poor woman was
> doomed to die. It's a bit like what Mark said about Voyager the other
> night - if you see an unknown crew member tagging a group of regular
> crew members (7 of 9, Spock clone, Janeway, Paris, etc.) on an
> investigative task - you just know that that unknown crew member will
> be killed.
Bloody scriptwriters, how dare they imply we live in ghettos. What you
have observed with doomed love affairs, I shall call Catty's Law from now
on ;o)
> Unimaginative? How can you say that? The writer was imaginative enough
> to dream up something so stupid.
It is! A better ending would have to have another bunch of aliens come
along and beat them up!
> It's funny you should mentioned B5 - one of the guest writers (I'm
> still trying to find out) is a deaf ASL user. Any chance you know
> anything about this?
This is the first I've heard - try asking on one of the Babylon 5
newsgroups, I bet they're sad enough to know every minutae! All I know is
that I've got the hots for that lovely Resistance woman on Mars where
Garibaldi and Marcus meets them - she thinks that Garibaldi is a traitor
for giving up Sheridan to EarthGov. She reminds me of someone I used to
know a long time ago.
Alex Buell
> Which genre are you interested in? Mainstream, romance, western,
> mystery, women's fiction, detective, science fiction, black writing,
> fantasy, horror, gay/lesbian fiction, or surreal? But I can only count
> four - of all deaf-related novels I read - that didn't make deaf
> characters mute/stupid/ retarded/unrealistically naive/100%
> lipreader/uncontrollable animal.
Actually, anything that's a good read. Any books that makes me fall asleep
gets chucked into the bin. I demand high quality fiction, not that
American garbage full of lurid sex.
> But I don't think I have ever read a novel that are about deaf people
[ snip ]
> his dreadful disability - and he'll then leave his dark, silent
> world..." route.
These books really get on my wick! Burn them I say.
> And btw, can anyone identify a futuristic novel where it has a deaf
> heroine who is a police detective - in 2058 (or something), all people
> have the right to apply to join the police forces where only their
> intelligence will be judged, regardless everything else (e.g.
> deafness, blindness, etc.) Apparently, she's a sign language user,
> and have a handheld 'interpreting' device which enables her to
> communicate with anybody, including non-English speakers. She is so
> tough that she had no problem in tackling a dangerous villian. Not
> only that, she's witty, intelligent and well respected. Unfortunately,
> Kate forgot the details of this book. So, if anyone can ID this book,
> let me know, please!
I have never come across a novel like that, anyone who knows the answer to
this, please tell us! I would love to read it.
John Fred Connors
Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Editorial wrote:
>
>> But I don't think I have ever read a novel that are about deaf people
>[ snip ]
>> his dreadful disability - and he'll then leave his dark, silent
>> world..." route.
>
>These books really get on my wick! Burn them I say.
>
Alex Buell
> Ah, you mean things like "Heart is a Lonley Hunter" by Carson
> McCullers?
You mean bonk-busters.
John Fred Connors
Alex Buell <alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk> spake thus unto the void:
>On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, John Fred Connors wrote:
>
>> Ah, you mean things like "Heart is a Lonley Hunter" by Carson
>> McCullers?
>
>You mean bonk-busters.
>
Nope. "Heart is a Lonely Hunter" is set in the 1930's in the South
of the Untied States of Arse. It portrays a deaf - mute guy. The
portrayal isn't particularly realistic, but also, the deafness of
the protaganist isn't central either. It was talking about the
human condition, not the deaf one. He wasn't exactly an object
of pity and the ones who pitied him were pitiful in turn, so
I'm not sure quite what to make of it.
>Cheers,
>Alex
>--
>
>Legalise cannabis today! Got GnuPG? Ask me for public key.
>
>http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - updated!
>
--
love, n.:
When you like to think of someone on days that begin with a morning.
----
John Fred
http://www.yagc.demon.co.uk
Alex Buell
> Nope. "Heart is a Lonely Hunter" is set in the 1930's in the South of
> the Untied States of Arse. It portrays a deaf - mute guy. The
> portrayal isn't particularly realistic, but also, the deafness of the
> protaganist isn't central either. It was talking about the human
> condition, not the deaf one. He wasn't exactly an object of pity and
> the ones who pitied him were pitiful in turn, so I'm not sure quite
> what to make of it.
It's crap then.
joco...@my-deja.com
100...@tahallah.demon.co.uk>,
alex....@tahallah.demon.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, John Fred Connors wrote:
>
> > Nope. "Heart is a Lonely Hunter" is set in the 1930's in the South
of
> > the Untied States of Arse. It portrays a deaf - mute guy. The
> > portrayal isn't particularly realistic, but also, the deafness of
the
> > protaganist isn't central either. It was talking about the human
> > condition, not the deaf one. He wasn't exactly an object of pity and
> > the ones who pitied him were pitiful in turn, so I'm not sure quite
> > what to make of it.
>
> It's crap then.
>
book is about lonliness, so everyone in it is) he is independent and
capable of earning a decent living as a watchmaker and has impeceppable
English. I don't think it's a portray of deafness as pitiful but
lonliness. There's another deaf character in and he, unlike the
protagonist is a complete tosser, so I'm convinced the author can
see past stereotypes. I'd read it before forming opinions, (c.f. The
Mary Whitehouse trap - "I don't have to read it to know it's disgusting
and depraved").
However, my personal favourite book with a disabled protagonist isn't
one with a deaf person it. It's "The Child Garden" by Geoff Ryman. It's
just gutter top!
> Cheers,
> Alex
> --
>
> Legalise cannabis today! Got GnuPG? Ask me for public key.
>
> http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - updated!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matthew Duncan
I am a film student at the Surrey Institute of Design in Farnham. I am
currently writing a script for an independent project . Very briefly the
film is set in the 1950's. The script involves a young boy of sixteen who
has an extraordinary gift with a piano ( a prodigy if you will ). He
tragically looses his hearing and is sent to a school for the deaf and blind
where the staff keep him from playing his piano for various misguided
educational reasons. He meets a young girl of around the same age who has
lost her site. They form a relationship and find a form of happiness
together. He plays, she listens and he survives off her happiness.
Apologies for being so brief but I'm hoping your attention has not already
been lost.
I would be eternally grateful if anyone in this group could give me any
information on how they were educated and whether the methods employed were
satisfactory.
Any information relevant to the basic story line would be extremely welcome
A full credit under 'research' will be given. ( not much I know, but its the
best I can do )
I will be happy to send a full treatment of the script to anyone interested.
Email: c...@mailcity.com
rel
Matthew Duncan wrote in message <821h2g$gie$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> *tragically* looses his hearing
oh gawd, not another misguided tragic but brave story... why not write
something positive. Deaf people do lead interesting and worthwhile lives.
Hearing people can't seem to appreciate that.
and is sent to a school for the deaf and blind
why?? He has only lost his hearing.....
>where the staff (snip) for various misguided
>educational reasons..
this is about the most believable thing in this sorry story ...
He meets a young girl of around the same age who has
>lost her site. (sic)
They form a relationship and find a form of happiness
>together.
What do you mean *a form of* happiness - please don't impose hearing values
on deaf people.
>He plays, she listens and he survives off her happiness.
This is truly tragic, that he can only survive off another person's
happiness - get away! If the hearing world could learn to accept, value and
try to communicate effectively with deaf people there would be no tragedy in
losing one's hearing. Take it from someone who became deaf at a similar age
as the young person in the story.
>Apologies for being so brief but I'm hoping your attention has not already
>been lost.
Actually I'm riveted. Please forget this script. It's a terrible idea,
insulting to deaf people and feeding the popular imagination that there is
something terrible and fearful about being deaf. Go away and talk to some
positive Deaf role models and come back with something where a Deaf person
is an integral part of the story without their deafness being an issue -
ie - they are normal but different and might I say it, happy and fulfilled..
>
>
I would be eternally grateful if anyone in this group could give me any
>information on how they were educated (1) and whether the methods employed
(2) were
>satisfactory.
(1) Oral /Aural
(2) No, they were oppressive, particularly towards people whose first
language is BSL. I was forced to wear a hearing aid which did not
help
me at all, and was more trouble than it was worth. I junked it the
day I left
school and despite advances in technology have never wanted to
touch
one since.
>I will be happy to send a full treatment of the script to anyone
interested.
Not in this treatment, but a revised one possibly.... let us know how you
get on.
Cheers,
pauline
Cormac Leonard
Pauline is a basic oralist mindset - deafness as tragedy - versus a portrayl
of deafness as fulfilling and proud in all its forms.
Personally (and i should mention i'm hearing), i think the script's basic
idea is a little flawed too, but not beyond redemption as pauline implies.
I think Matthew was mistaken in posting here, though - this seems like a NG
for Deaf, more than deaf, people - although maybe i'm wrong; there's always
loads of posts regarding hearing aids, etc.
> > *tragically* looses his hearing>
> oh gawd, not another misguided tragic but brave story... why not write
> something positive. Deaf people do lead interesting and worthwhile lives.
> Hearing people can't seem to appreciate that.
I agree that Matthew's statement that his hearing loss is 'tragic' is
misleading - we all know that deaf people lead full and happy lives, are
proud of their deaf identity, and seethe when they hear such statements.
But who's to say that for the little boy in question, it wasn't tragic? He
was sixteen and had been used to hearing. Pauline, i don't know your age,
but lets say your about sixteen; if you lost your *sight* now, wouldn't that
be pretty tragic for *you*? It would mean an end to BSL for you and the
learning of deaf-blind communicatiojn; no more newsgroups or Internet, at
least in the form you know and love them; the loss of sunsets, newborn
babies, rolling meadows, natural vistas, the wonders of the world.
In a similar vein - because i love music - if i lost my hearing, i'd
consider it pretty tragic for myself. (i'm 22, b.t.w.)
And a boy with an extraordinary gift for the piano obviously has built up
quite a large part of his identity and perhaps his self esteem in relation
to his gift. It would be the same if a talented artist , in love with the
visual aesthetic, went blind overnight.
Let's get real - do we really expect this musically brilliant boy to go deaf
and then to shrug his shoulders, and say, "Well, time to hit those BSL
classes?" No. For a hearing person, such total hearing loss can be a
tragedy. In a sense, this script is not even about Deaf people or culture at
all but disability. Of course, there is a distinction; please don't jump
down my throat at that - give me a little credit.
Obviously if the boy had lost his hearing at a very early age / at birth /
before birth, had learned sign language and grown up proud of his Deaf
identity, the story would *not* be tragic. It would indeed be a story of
courage in the face of the adversity of hearing adversity, and of pride in
one's cultural identity.
But, dare i say it, then it might not be a terribly *interesting* film,
would it? Let's face it - a bit of tragedy is pretty much standard in a good
piece of fiction!
> He meets a young girl of around the same age who has
> >lost her site. (sic)
> They form a relationship and find a form of happiness
> >together.
> What do you mean *a form of* happiness - please don't impose hearing
values
> on deaf people.
Dare i say it- you seem to be imposing _your_ values on others, when you
imply the blanket statement that sudden deafness is NEVER a tragedy. Just
because you have always been comfortable with your deafness, doesn't mean
everyone else who is deaf - for whatever reason - is.
Mind you, why can't the blind girl + the deafened boy find *true* happiness?
Probably because they have lost an immensely important part of their lives
and their identities ... What you seem to be saying to that is 'well here's
another identity - grab it, get in it and SHUT UP. Now be HAPPY.'
In fact, it seems perfectly natural that two people who have undergone the
same type of loss would cling to each other, understand each other. Random
Hearts, anyone?
> >He plays, she listens and he survives off her happiness.
>
> This is truly tragic, that he can only survive off another person's
> happiness - get away! If the hearing world could learn to accept, value
and
> try to communicate effectively with deaf people there would be no tragedy
in
> losing one's hearing. Take it from someone who became deaf at a similar
age
> as the young person in the story.
No argument about this in a sense - hearing people are for the most part,
bloody stupid and ignorant about deaf people and sign language, but you seem
to have difficulty in believing that anyone could have different attitudes
to you when they became deaf. Obviously, yours is the better attitude.
That's no reason to sneer, however.
> I would be eternally grateful if anyone in this group could give me any
> >information on how they were educated (1) and whether the methods
employed
> (2) were satisfactory.
>
> (1) Oral /Aural
> (2) No, they were oppressive, particularly towards people whose first
> language is BSL. I was forced to wear a hearing aid which did not
help
> me at all, and was more trouble than it was worth. I junked it
the day I left
> school and despite advances in technology have never wanted to
touch
> one since.
A question - if you became deaf at a similar age as the hero of this script,
as you say, then how come you have experience of this oppressive school
environment? If you became deaf at the age of 16 - even 14 - then surely you
would have been old enough to have escaped the full brunt of oralist
education. Also, your first language would have not been BSL, unless you had
deaf parents / relatives - it would have been English as with all
hearing-born British children. Would you care to enlighten us?
> Actually I'm riveted. Please forget this script. It's a terrible idea,
> insulting to deaf people and feeding the popular imagination that there is
> something terrible and fearful about being deaf. Go away and talk to some
> positive Deaf role models and come back with something where a Deaf
person
> is an integral part of the story without their deafness being an issue -
> ie - they are normal but different and might I say it, happy and fulfilled
I don't want to pour water on this, coz obviously the world needs far more
of the type of productions *you* describe (though it has to be said that as
a hearing person, it often appears to me that some Deaf people are never
happy with how they are portrayed - Children Of A Lesser God, for instance -
what is the fuss about?). BUT, isn't it a reality that many many deaf
people - particulalry those who become deaf later in life, those who can
truly be said to have 'lost' their hearing - will NEVER accept a Deaf
identity and will continue to view their own deafness as a tragedy? Isn't
this the truth?
So obviously Matthew should take all your points into consideration, but to
me, it's not immediately apparent that he *doesn't* know all that you tell
him. Loss is tragedy, and some people lose their hearing and all that goes
with it, so what makes it so intrinsically *wrong* to write this type of
tragedy?
Actually the end fault here would not be with Matthew, as far as i can see,
but with stupid hearing people that will look on such a script and assume
that ALL deaf people are 'afflicted' or victims of such a 'tragedy'. As far
as i can see, deafness as tragedy is dependent on the attitude of the person
in question, no? It all comes down to the individual. And i see no reason to
slag off and downgrade a script about individuals, merely because it bruises
the feelings of some larger group. Or seems to.
Each to their own.
--
Cormac Leonard
ICQ - 33697118
AOL-IM - mythyka
=============================
Try to save a place from the cuts and the scratches
Try to overcome the complications and the catches
Nothing ever grows and the sun doesn't shine all day
Try to save myself but myself keeps slipping away
- Nine Inch Nails, "Into The Void"
rel
-----Original Message-----
From: Cormac Leonard <myt...@indigo.ie>
To: rel <r...@easynet.co.uk>
Date: 03 December 1999 21:27
Subject: Re: Deaf Fiction? nearly! with a little help from you
Thank you for your posting, Cormac - I appreciate you taking the time to
respond to a lot of the points I made. This is a very long response - I
hope you will feel able to read it all.
My main objection to Matthew's script is that it serves fix in the public
mind that Deafness (or disability) is always a tragedy and that Deaf people
should be pitied. It serves only to reinforce the 'can't do' mindset,
rather than looking at the positives and what people can do.
I agree that to lose something one has always valued is very painful - I've
been there myself. But whilst music may enhance our experience of life,
it's not actually essential for survival. And there are other ways we can
feed our souls if we only look to them - I adore visual things, and yes, I
would miss them if my vision deteriorated - but I would hope to still be
able to experience the world through touch, taste and smell. This would
only be possible if the world was built in a way to allow me to take part,
and I had supportive friends and family prepared to spend time with me, or a
personal assistant who would accompany me out so that I could experience the
world around me.
The trouble is, there are too few people out there with a positive mindset
which allows this to happen. Disability is invariably seen as an
individual's problem - ' they are disabled, therefore they can't do things,
poor things' , rather than a social one - 'this person can't see / hear /
walk, therefore what changes do I or society need to make to ensure they
have every opportunity to be involved and live life to the full?'
An example of this is the Sociology tutor I had at college - he always
gave me copies of his lecture notes and hit on the brilliant idea of using
an OHP in seminars - he would write down what people were saying, then every
now and again say, 'and what do you think, Pauline?' ensuring I always had
an opportunity to be involved. I did not ask for this - he just worked it
out himself. This was before the days when CSW's or interpreters were heard
of or accepted in college, in fact it was before I myself even had BSL
skills or the confidence to demand access. This man inspired me and gave me
the confidence to go on when things felt very bleak indeed. I have never
forgotten his positive and completely unpatronising attitude - a model for
us all.
Disabled people who speak out , trying to change attitudes and the
environment are always seen as having a chip on their shoulder. But it is
only by speaking out and trying to change other people's attitudes that
society will change. If we put up and shut up, people will think we are
happy and everything is rosy and nothing will get done. I think Therese
Shellaberger - Roving Reporter - mentioned this, that little ripples
cumulatively have a big effect. But it's certainly not easy, and sometimes
I long for a quiet life. Unfortunately I also want to be involved and
sometimes the only way for this to happen is to make a lot of noise. I
don't deliberately set out to stir things up - only if there is no access.
I feel angry when people suggest that people who become disabled later in
life are somehow more deserving than people who are born disabled. The very
idea disgusts me. It suggests that disabled people's lives are neither
valid nor valued, only able bodied people are valid. As I said before, if
society valued and respected disabled people and strove to make the
environment accessible, communicate effectively and involve disabled people
equally at all levels of society, there would be no tragedy in becoming
disabled in later life.
If it is a tragedy to become disabled, it is only because society does not
value disabled people in the first place.
I was 11 when I became deaf and I adored music. Yes, that loss was painful,
and there are times even now, 33 years later, when I still miss it terribly.
However, I still have my memories of music, both classical and the defining
days of popular music in the early 60's - Beatles, Stones, Phil Spector,
Motown - which are sustaining. Thirty years ago there was no counselling,
no support. I could have chosen to be devastated - but I feel life is for
living, so I just got on as best I could, despite terrible balance problems
and tinnitus. I was not helped by hearing people who re-inforced the idea
that my hearing loss was a tragedy and my life wasted, making me feel
worthless and severely depressed as a result. One day, I suddenly
realised that I didn't actually mind being deaf, what bothered me was
hearing people's negative attitudes and the fact that people always saw it
as being my problem and my responsibility - if I could not understand
something, it was my problem, so I just had to put up with it and withdraw
if it all became too much.
I was 28 before I discovered what tinnitus is and 35 before I learned that
this was a normal side effect of the meningitis which had caused my
deafness. This was a real revelation - before that had truly thought I was
going mad. Counselling helped me to accept my deafness and value myself as
an individual. Learning BSL in my 30's was fantastic - it opened up the
hearing world to me, and I was enabled late in my life to get the sort of
job I had always wanted. But perhaps if I had been allowed to do this when
I first became deaf, I might have progressed further and faster. I'm not
bitter about this - I used to feel angry that I was held back for so long,
but now I'm happy and fulfilled and feel incredibly lucky to have been given
these opportunities.
But because society does not recognise BSL as a language, we still have to
fight to get the support we need. I am lucky to have the confidence to
argue for full BSL support in training or meetings - but Deaf people who are
less confident may not be able to argue for the support they need, or may
give up quickly. As a result they don't get the same opportunities to
progress. This angers me. Why are Deaf people held back by forced oralism
which limits the extent of their education, rather than be taught in BSL and
progress at the same rate as their hearing peers?
At school I was not allowed to learn BSL - I was taught that it was an
inferior form of communication, only used by stupid and uneducable deaf
people. Having excellent written and spoken English I was held up as a
model for other deaf children. I feel ashamed that my natural (hearing)
abilities were used in this way - it did not help other Deaf people - only
served to reinforce the barriers and make them feel inferior.
I believe that if we start with BSL, it is simple to introduce English on
top of that. I do believe and emphasise that Deaf people need English
skills - they need to read and write well, but this should not be at the
expense of acquiring a language. And note I say language - not a limited
form of spoken communication. I've said this elsewhere on these pages
before - it's one thing to be able to recite a poem to impress the school
inspectors, it's quite another to be able to communicate effectively in the
real world. And if Deaf children are spending all their time trying to
learn to speak under an oral system they are losing valuable time for
developing their minds and concepts.
>Let's get real - do we really expect this musically brilliant boy to go
deaf
>and then to shrug his shoulders, and say, "Well, time to hit those BSL
>classes?" No. For a hearing person, such total hearing loss can be a
>tragedy. In a sense, this script is not even about Deaf people or culture
at
>all but disability. Of course, there is a distinction; please don't jump
>down my throat at that - give me a little credit.
I don't want to jump down your throat, Cormac - I am sorry if I seem to come
across as aggressive - I don't mean to - but I do believe and argue
passionately that until we as individuals and as a society, learn to value,
accept and get involved with disabled people nothing will change, and
disability will always be seen as a tragedy. So this script just serves to
reinforce people's negative perceptions of disability and as a result they
collude (whether consciously or not) in holding disabled people back from
participating equally in society and fulfilling their potential.
And I do believe people need appropriate counselling and support if they
suddenly become disabled. They need time to mourn, to address feelings of
anger and loss, and time to adjust to this new experience.
>Dare i say it- you seem to be imposing _your_ values on others, when you
>imply the blanket statement that sudden deafness is NEVER a tragedy. Just
>because you have always been comfortable with your deafness, doesn't mean
>everyone else who is deaf - for whatever reason - is.
I haven't always been comfortable with my deafness, Cormac - but this was
because of all the negative shit I was getting from hearing people. And
still do, may I add! I just feel it would all have been so much easier if
society valued disabled people. My mental health was severely shaken for
many years - as a disabled person you come to believe everything people say
and feel you really are totally worthless. Now do you not think it would be
better if we all accepted responsibility for involving disabled people and
worked/fought together to make the world an accessible and welcoming place?
Mental health problems would be less likely to occur, and adjustment to an
acquired disability would be so much easier.
>Obviously, yours is the better attitude.
That's no reason to sneer, however.
I did not intend to sound sneering - I apologise profusely. But it would be
good if scriptwriters could write stories which included disabled people
naturally, without their disability being the issue. We need positive
images of disabled people, both to encourage and inspire other young
disabled people to grow and strive, and to educate the public that we are
not a tragic waste of space..
>
>A question - if you became deaf at a similar age as the hero of this
script,
>as you say, then how come you have experience of this oppressive school
>environment? If you became deaf at the age of 16 - even 14 - then surely
you
>would have been old enough to have escaped the full brunt of oralist
>education. Also, your first language would have not been BSL, unless you
had
>deaf parents / relatives - it would have been English as with all
>hearing-born British children. Would you care to enlighten us?
I was actually 11 when I became deaf - sorry if it sounded misleading - and
I was at an oral deaf school for five years. It was an excellent school -
I just think the methods used and the overall attitude was oppressive to
Deaf people. I wish all Deaf children could have a high quality education -
but I don't think that forced oralism is the right answer. It sets people
up to fail, and can have knock-on effects for much of their lives. Why do
you think some Deaf people completely retreat into the Deaf world - it is
because they are not valued in the hearing world, and because communication
is not an issue in the Deaf Community. Socially, deaf people, however
skilled at communication are still marginalised or excluded in the hearing
world because people will not make any concessions to deafness. And some
people feel lost between worlds or even in limbo (as I did for many years)
because they cannot fit into either pattern of communication. Learning BSL
gave me access to both the Deaf community and to the hearing world via
interpreters.
>Actually the end fault here would not be with Matthew, as far as i can see,
>but with stupid hearing people that will look on such a script and assume
>that ALL deaf people are 'afflicted' or victims of such a 'tragedy'.
I think I have made that point aove.
>As far as i can see, deafness as tragedy is dependent on the attitude of
the person in question, no? It all comes down to the individual. >
Yes. I do know that some people will never able to make the adjustment to
acquired disability. This is the real tragedy. I just feel that it doesn't
have to be that way, that's all. But that depends on society and
non-disabled individuals taking some responsibility. Matthew's script
therefore seems to me to be socially irresponsible, which is why I responded
so heatedly.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and again, thank you for such a
detailed response to my posting. I value and respect your view, though I
might not share all of it.
Best wishes,
pauline
John Fred Connors
Matthew Duncan <C...@thecottage20.fsnet.co.uk> spake thus unto the void:
>
>I am a film student at the Surrey Institute of Design in Farnham. I am
Ah, a film sutdent! I've known a few...
>currently writing a script for an independent project . Very briefly the
>film is set in the 1950's. The script involves a young boy of sixteen who
>has an extraordinary gift with a piano ( a prodigy if you will ). He
>tragically looses his hearing and is sent to a school for the deaf and blind
>where the staff keep him from playing his piano for various misguided
>educational reasons. He meets a young girl of around the same age who has
>lost her site. They form a relationship and find a form of happiness
>together. He plays, she listens and he survives off her happiness.
>Apologies for being so brief but I'm hoping your attention has not already
>been lost.
>
>I would be eternally grateful if anyone in this group could give me any
>information on how they were educated and whether the methods employed were
>satisfactory.
Well, given the ferocity of the oralist vs. manualist vs. biligualist vs. GOK
what else debate I think you are stepping into a minefield you'd be better
out of, armed only with ignorance. Good art usually comes from artists
talking about direct experience. This does't sound like a good foundation
for you.
>Any information relevant to the basic story line would be extremely welcome
>
Why don't you research Beethoven, or Goya, or other artists who were deafened?
Then you may get more insight into your subject and what assumptions you
are making (I shall not comment on them, Pauline already has at great
length and she speaks for me 100%) are valid or not. The obstacle for
presenting a narrative and protagonist that fits in with Paulines world
view is, alas, getting audiences to empathise with the character. If
someone could achieve this, I'd be truly impressed.
>A full credit under 'research' will be given. ( not much I know, but its the
>best I can do )
>
>I will be happy to send a full treatment of the script to anyone interested.
>
It's a formulaic approach. "Edward Scissorhands" , anybody?
>Email: c...@mailcity.com
--
Hacker's Law:
The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir
a nation to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions.
Cormac Leonard
> Well, given the ferocity of the oralist vs. manualist vs. biligualist vs.
GOK
> what else debate I think you are stepping into a minefield you'd be better
> out of, armed only with ignorance. Good art usually comes from artists
> talking about direct experience. This does't sound like a good foundation
> for you.
Yes, the oralist / 'manualist' argument is fierce and perhaps not easily
entered into by someone who doesn't really know a lot about it. I also agree
that the best art is directly drawn from experience. Not always, however. I
do think that is extremely *rude* of you to dismiss this person as
'ignorant'.
In my understanding, ignorance and plain not-knowing-something are separated
by one thing; willingness to learn. The ignorant person knows nothing, not
does he *want* to know anything. Others may not know, but they, as with most
members of the human race, seek knowledge - they are willing to learn.
Matthew is obviously willing to learn, if he exhorts people on this NG to
share their experiences of deaf education, and asks deaf people what they
think of any idea. Matthew's attitude may be uninformed, as he seems to
admit, but good-intentioned and curious. He is *not* ignorant, and i would
find it very insulting if i were him to be told that he was 'armed only with
ignorance'. What Matthew, and hearing people who don't know much about Deaf
people, need is not this kind of snottiness, but gentle advice and hints as
to where to look for guidance on his script.
Ignorance is wilful. Someone asking earnest questions is not ignorant, and
not malicious, and personally, i get tired of this kind of attitude that
says a person is prejudiced and stupid just because he hasn't much
experience with deaf people.
> Why don't you research Beethoven, or Goya, or other artists who were
deafened?
> Then you may get more insight into your subject and what assumptions you
> are making (I shall not comment on them, Pauline already has at great
> length and she speaks for me 100%) are valid or not. The obstacle for
> presenting a narrative and protagonist that fits in with Paulines world
> view is, alas, getting audiences to empathise with the character. If
> someone could achieve this, I'd be truly impressed.
Why don't you tell him your insights, John, rather than palm him off with
glib little tirades about 'ignorance'? Surely a positive attitude is all
about helping people to understand, rather than almost sniggering at someone
if they don't.
Personally I'd see the obstacle in the way of Pauline's vision of films
about deaf people as being simply this: they must create and demand a
respect for a tradition that is opposite, in any senses, to the one hearing
people possess. Furthermore, film may not even be the best medium for this
type of venture - or even literature, seeing as how they both these days
rely on English to be truly effective (not to mention popular). It's a tough
proposition and of course Matthew's script won't help it in its present
form. What to do? How to do it? And is it right to demand a type of 'art'
drawn from personal experience, yes, but so obviously serving a political
agenda?
Cormac Leonard
Thanks for the reply, i appreciate your honesty and willingness to discuss
this.
> I feel angry when people suggest that people who become disabled later in
> life are somehow more deserving than people who are born disabled. The
very
> idea disgusts me. It suggests that disabled people's lives are neither
> valid nor valued, only able bodied people are valid. As I said before, if
> society valued and respected disabled people and strove to make the
> environment accessible, communicate effectively and involve disabled
people
> equally at all levels of society, there would be no tragedy in becoming
> disabled in later life. If it is a tragedy to become disabled, it is only
because society does not
> value disabled people in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree, though obviously this is coloured by the fact that i
am not disabled in the widely-accepted sense of the word. I disagree with
the whole concept that society in some deliberate way creates disability. My
original point in my mail to you was that loss was tragedy, and the loss of
a sense, or an ability, is a tragedy to some degree to most people -
especially if that person has built up his or her life around that ability.
And i don't accept that one can, if bereft of this sense lost, just easily
turn to their remaining abilities and gifts. Eventuially, yes, but not
immediately - and the intervening period will be a period of pain and
hardship, loss, and yes, tragedy. As you say, the person involved will need
counselling, and such counselling should be available.
Also, merely because it was a tragedy, does not imply that the life is
wasted - which is what such people, like yourself, i presume, come to
accept - and that is an uncommon bravery. You suddenly realised you didn't
mind being deaf, and therefore, your tragedy - if there was any - was over.
Even if it continued apace in the minds of others. Life was for living, as
you say. But it did take a long time for you to accept this and to become
comfortable with your deafness (sorry if i assumed you had *always* been).
Can you imagine how much harder it would be for a boy, trained all his life
to be a classical pianist, to lose his hearing? And - in response to John's
reply here - i don't think vague references to Beethoven etc. will always be
helpful here. Imagine David Helfgott in 'Shine' - the boy trained brutally
by his father through his early life to be almost a piano-playing machine,
to be the best. Now picture him going deaf - what more can his life hold for
him? Perhaps much, but what a titanic loss, what fearsome consequences for
his family. A recipe for a true *tragedy*.
Let's say in the script, the boy doesn't receive counselling, and he does
get put in the wrong school for him by mistake - the tragedy, if maybe not
originally one, surely develops into one now. A tragic comedy almost - put
into the wrong disabled school!
He meets a girl who has undergone a similar loss, and they click like this.
I honestly don't see, unless one possesses a dogmatically political approach
to cinema, why such a production can be as dangerous as you make out it to
be, although there of course are more angles to the story that can be added.
Let's say the boy discovers sign language, and quickly develops a love for
this musical language of the hands, graceful and flowing like the musical
scores that he eventually leaves behind him ... would that be OK?
My point here is that art like novels, film etc. cannot serve an 'interest'.
I honestly believe that one can't deliberately set out to change 'society's'
opinion through films and the like - because these films more often than not
turn out to be mere 'positive propaganda', if you like - and as i said
before, not terribly interesting to watch. I do see that certain films, if
they perpetuate a stereotype, can basically reinforce it, but i also believe
that people do not simply swallow everything the media tells them, good and
bad.
I fully accept all your ideas about changing the education system for deaf
children - oralism is a system that is way past its sell-by date - if it
ever had one.
> The trouble is, there are too few people out there with a positive mindset
> which allows this to happen. Disability is invariably seen as an
> individual's problem - ' they are disabled, therefore they can't do
things,
> poor things' , rather than a social one - 'this person can't see / hear /
> walk, therefore what changes do I or society need to make to ensure they
> have every opportunity to be involved and live life to the full?'
But can this attitude be so simply put in place? Let's say someone is born
with a syndrome so rare, that he is the first person ever to be born to it
... does 'society' then need to change itself in perhaps radical ways, just
so that one person can live life to his full potential? Isn't it rather more
practical - and practical, if change is to be made, is the only way we can
discuss these things - to just simply go on with society as it is, and try
and do the best for that one person that we can?
What if the changes that we make for one sector or minority actually clash
with another's? I can't believe that every single little group's needs and
desires will slot neatly against all the others.
> I don't want to jump down your throat, Cormac - but I do believe and argue
> passionately that until we as individuals and as a society, learn to
value,
> accept and get involved with disabled people nothing will change, and
> disability will always be seen as a tragedy. So this script just serves
to
> reinforce people's negative perceptions of disability and as a result they
> collude (whether consciously or not) in holding disabled people back from
> participating equally in society and fulfilling their potential.
If there is collusion here, it is most certainly unconscious - no one sets
out to exclude deaf people in these types of projects. I also think you
overestimate the effect that films like this can have on mass audiences.
Having the wider society accept disability is obviously a noble goal; should
we give disabiity an inherent value? Hmmmm ... tricky one.
Also , the reason i asked no one to jump down my throat, is because i was
expecting a barrage of 'the Deaf aren't disabled!!!' type responses - and i
would have had to spend a lot of time patiently explaining that i didn't
necessarily think that. That's another thing i believe is dependent on the
individual's perception - i honestly think disability only exists where it
is accepted. If you don't accept yourself as disabled, then you're not.
Although, when people start talking about society 'creating' disability, it
gets more awkward because such remarks seem to be targeted rather blindly at
*our* type of society.
> I haven't always been comfortable with my deafness, Cormac - but this was
> because of all the negative shit I was getting from hearing people. And
> still do, may I add! I just feel it would all have been so much easier if
> society valued disabled people. My mental health was severely shaken for
> many years - as a disabled person you come to believe everything people
say
> and feel you really are totally worthless. Now do you not think it would
be
> better if we all accepted responsibility for involving disabled people and
> worked/fought together to make the world an accessible and welcoming
place?
> Mental health problems would be less likely to occur, and adjustment to an
> acquired disability would be so much easier.
Well, of course it would be - we should work towards such a noble goal - but
if you sit down and think, well, how are we going to change this society's
attitudes and practises to conform to our perceptions, then it becames
*fantastically* hard to put into practise. For instance what do you mean
when you say we should "all accept responsibility for involving disabled
people and work/fight together to make the world an accessible and welcoming
place"? How do i, for instance, go about that? Do we put sign language on
the school curriculum as a compulsory subject, despite the fact that it is
only used by about .2% of the population? Do we ensure that every possible
single type of information become available through BSL / ISL / whatever,
and also subtitles if necessary?
How would you *pay* for all this, for one thing! The electorate is never
crazy about taxes in the first place....
I just find there is often a hazy yet comfortable fog in that zone between
desire and action in areas like this, and the only real action that is
attempted can often be as bad as the problem - positive discrimination in
the workplace, for instance; giving people jobs *because* they are disabled.
I think we should educate, not pontificate; influence, because it is
impossible to merely change.
Above all we should never stop looking for ways to change things - and never
settle on inferior ways of going about things.
> it would be
> good if scriptwriters could write stories which included disabled people
> naturally, without their disability being the issue. We need positive
> images of disabled people, both to encourage and inspire other young
> disabled people to grow and strive, and to educate the public that we are
> not a tragic waste of space..
Sure, i fully agree. But it is a complex evolution between 'should' and
'have'. The world is not run on the basis of 'should's. Our world and our
societies _should_ nothing, _should not_ anything; they just ARE. I suppose
this depends on your opinion of how much we can actually influence and shape
the society we live in, but i hold a pretty poor opinion of it - look at
Soviet Russia, where the government actively tried to shape society - and
failed - after leaving millions dead. I know also that this is a standard
conservative response to pleas for controls and checks in our society, so
i'll qualify. I fully feel that as much as we can, there should be positive
deaf role models - but how to enforce this? WOULD it be enforced? Would
works be banned because a certain minority was presented in an unfavourable
light?
I do agree that there should be media deaf role models who are accepted as
equal to their hearing counterparts, but i also fully believe that any image
of deaf people as incomplete, afflicted, handicapped, pitiful etc. do not
arise from the minds of some evil conspiracy of television / film producers,
but directly from the beliefs and stereotypes of the common man. And not
only do i think that any attempt to change this by simply reversing the
polarity of such images, if you like, would be not only ineffective - for
people are active receivers of media images and their impressions of deaf
people probably not changeable by seeing a few deaf heroes - but in a sense,
wrong and misguided. There has to be better and more effective ways to
promote deaf identity than imposing images on people. Not to say of course,
that people cannot be educated about deaf people in many ways - but
censorship and positive discrimination aren't the ways to do it. Which are
what come about when people start to transform 'should' into 'Now', in my
humble opinion.
> I was actually 11 when I became deaf and
> I was at an oral deaf school for five years. It was an excellent
chool -
> I just think the methods used and the overall attitude was oppressive to
> Deaf people. I wish all Deaf children could have a high quality
education -
> but I don't think that forced oralism is the right answer. It sets people
> up to fail, and can have knock-on effects for much of their lives. Why do
> you think some Deaf people completely retreat into the Deaf world - it is
> because they are not valued in the hearing world, and because
communication
> is not an issue in the Deaf Community. Socially, deaf people, however
> skilled at communication are still marginalised or excluded in the hearing
> world because people will not make any concessions to deafness. And some
> people feel lost between worlds or even in limbo (as I did for many years)
> because they cannot fit into either pattern of communication. Learning
BSL
> gave me access to both the Deaf community and to the hearing world via
> interpreters.
Totally agree, and i think the educational system is the area where we can
most make a differenceto the quality of life of deaf people - with sign
language being taught as the first language in a bilingual environment with
spoken language(s). It is one area where we can actively lobby - and show
evidence that it works - for instance in Scandinavia. What a pity that
evidence is so often ignored by the 'experts' in the area.
> Yes. I do know that some people will never able to make the adjustment to
> acquired disability. This is the real tragedy. I just feel that it
doesn't
> have to be that way, that's all. But that depends on society and
> non-disabled individuals taking some responsibility. Matthew's script
> therefore seems to me to be socially irresponsible, which is why I
responded
> so heatedly.
Well, this is my point; how can 'society' take a more responsible attitude?
Especially today when our society is so fragmented and diverse, composed
itself of smaller communities - mini-societies? Individuals like myself can
take some responsibility ... but that only goes so far. It is not *my* fault
that anyone is deaf, nor anyone else who is hearing - why should i take
'responsibility'? I do my best as an individual to try and include disabled
people in my limited capacity - so i learn ISL and learn about deaf issues
and Deaf Studies. But what about those who will not learn out if ignorance -
really crabby people who simply don't want to learn sign language?
The thread that seems to run through this kind of thinking is that society
deliberately tries to exclude the disabled and the Deaf. And that simply
isn't true, because Society never sat down and said, right, forget the
cripples and the deaf-and-dumb, they're not gonna be part of this nice
little plan. It appears to be simply an accumulation of old prejudices,
ignorance in some cases, not-knowing in most others. Do you really, really
believe that an architect who designs a building with no wheelchair access
made a conscious decision at the start to keep wheelchair users out? That
modern cinemas are specifically designed so that deaf people can't use them
effectively?
Maybe they just didn't think. The question is - how to *get* them to think.
Maybe Society isn't an active body at all, and so trying to affect its
perceptions is futile.
I honestly do take your points, but i think what is so often not noticed is
the inherent difficulty (impossibility?) in trying to consciously steer a
whole society, accidentally set on one course, onto the reverse track. It's
not easy, and blaming the difficulty on some phantom 'hearing society' not
only doesn't help, but also alienates any hearing people who find themselves
unjustly accused of being oppressive, ignorant and part of a problem. Like
Matthew, for instance.
> Thanks for taking the time to read this, and again, thank you for such a
> detailed response to my posting. I value and respect your view, though I
> might not share all of it.
And thank you for reading my rambling and disjointed post! Your view is also
well appreciated. And i'd like to hear more of it.
Cormac Leonard
Thanks for the reply, i appreciate your honesty and willingness to discuss
this.
> I feel angry when people suggest that people who become disabled later in
> life are somehow more deserving than people who are born disabled. The
very
> idea disgusts me. It suggests that disabled people's lives are neither
> valid nor valued, only able bodied people are valid. As I said before, if
> society valued and respected disabled people and strove to make the
> environment accessible, communicate effectively and involve disabled
people
> equally at all levels of society, there would be no tragedy in becoming
> disabled in later life. If it is a tragedy to become disabled, it is only
because society does not
> value disabled people in the first place.
I'm not sure I agree, though obviously this is coloured by the fact that i
> The trouble is, there are too few people out there with a positive mindset
> which allows this to happen. Disability is invariably seen as an
> individual's problem - ' they are disabled, therefore they can't do
things,
> poor things' , rather than a social one - 'this person can't see / hear /
> walk, therefore what changes do I or society need to make to ensure they
> have every opportunity to be involved and live life to the full?'
But can this attitude be so simply put in place? Let's say someone is born
with a syndrome so rare, that he is the first person ever to be born to it
... does 'society' then need to change itself in perhaps radical ways, just
so that one person can live life to his full potential? Isn't it rather more
practical - and practical, if change is to be made, is the only way we can
discuss these things - to just simply go on with society as it is, and try
and do the best for that one person that we can?
What if the changes that we make for one sector or minority actually clash
with another's? I can't believe that every single little group's needs and
desires will slot neatly against all the others.
> I don't want to jump down your throat, Cormac - but I do believe and argue
> passionately that until we as individuals and as a society, learn to
value,
> accept and get involved with disabled people nothing will change, and
> disability will always be seen as a tragedy. So this script just serves
to
> reinforce people's negative perceptions of disability and as a result they
> collude (whether consciously or not) in holding disabled people back from
> participating equally in society and fulfilling their potential.
If there is collusion here, it is most certainly unconscious - no one sets
out to exclude deaf people in these types of projects. I also think you
overestimate the effect that films like this can have on mass audiences.
Having the wider society accept disability is obviously a noble goal; should
we give disabiity an inherent value? Hmmmm ... tricky one.
Also , the reason i asked no one to jump down my throat, is because i was
expecting a barrage of 'the Deaf aren't disabled!!!' type responses - and i
would have had to spend a lot of time patiently explaining that i didn't
necessarily think that. That's another thing i believe is dependent on the
individual's perception - i honestly think disability only exists where it
is accepted. If you don't accept yourself as disabled, then you're not.
Although, when people start talking about society 'creating' disability, it
gets more awkward because such remarks seem to be targeted rather blindly at
*our* type of society.
> I haven't always been comfortable with my deafness, Cormac - but this was
> because of all the negative shit I was getting from hearing people. And
> still do, may I add! I just feel it would all have been so much easier if
> society valued disabled people. My mental health was severely shaken for
> many years - as a disabled person you come to believe everything people
say
> and feel you really are totally worthless. Now do you not think it would
be
> better if we all accepted responsibility for involving disabled people and
> worked/fought together to make the world an accessible and welcoming
place?
> Mental health problems would be less likely to occur, and adjustment to an
> acquired disability would be so much easier.
Well, of course it would be - we should work towards such a noble goal - but
if you sit down and think, well, how are we going to change this society's
attitudes and practises to conform to our perceptions, then it becames
*fantastically* hard to put into practise. For instance what do you mean
when you say we should "all accept responsibility for involving disabled
people and work/fight together to make the world an accessible and welcoming
place"? How do i, for instance, go about that? Do we put sign language on
the school curriculum as a compulsory subject, despite the fact that it is
only used by about .2% of the population? Do we ensure that every possible
single type of information become available through BSL / ISL / whatever,
and also subtitles if necessary?
How would you *pay* for all this, for one thing! The electorate is never
crazy about taxes in the first place....
I just find there is often a hazy yet comfortable fog in that zone between
desire and action in areas like this, and the only real action that is
attempted can often be as bad as the problem - positive discrimination in
the workplace, for instance; giving people jobs *because* they are disabled.
I think we should educate, not pontificate; influence, because it is
impossible to merely change.
Above all we should never stop looking for ways to change things - and never
settle on inferior ways of going about things.
> it would be
> good if scriptwriters could write stories which included disabled people
> naturally, without their disability being the issue. We need positive
> images of disabled people, both to encourage and inspire other young
> disabled people to grow and strive, and to educate the public that we are
> not a tragic waste of space..
Sure, i fully agree. But it is a complex evolution between 'should' and
> I was actually 11 when I became deaf and
> I was at an oral deaf school for five years. It was an excellent
chool -
> I just think the methods used and the overall attitude was oppressive to
> Deaf people. I wish all Deaf children could have a high quality
education -
> but I don't think that forced oralism is the right answer. It sets people
> up to fail, and can have knock-on effects for much of their lives. Why do
> you think some Deaf people completely retreat into the Deaf world - it is
> because they are not valued in the hearing world, and because
communication
> is not an issue in the Deaf Community. Socially, deaf people, however
> skilled at communication are still marginalised or excluded in the hearing
> world because people will not make any concessions to deafness. And some
> people feel lost between worlds or even in limbo (as I did for many years)
> because they cannot fit into either pattern of communication. Learning
BSL
> gave me access to both the Deaf community and to the hearing world via
> interpreters.
Totally agree, and i think the educational system is the area where we can
most make a differenceto the quality of life of deaf people - with sign
language being taught as the first language in a bilingual environment with
spoken language(s). It is one area where we can actively lobby - and show
evidence that it works - for instance in Scandinavia. What a pity that
evidence is so often ignored by the 'experts' in the area.
> Yes. I do know that some people will never able to make the adjustment to
> acquired disability. This is the real tragedy. I just feel that it
doesn't
> have to be that way, that's all. But that depends on society and
> non-disabled individuals taking some responsibility. Matthew's script
> therefore seems to me to be socially irresponsible, which is why I
responded
> so heatedly.
Well, this is my point; how can 'society' take a more responsible attitude?
> Thanks for taking the time to read this, and again, thank you for such a
> detailed response to my posting. I value and respect your view, though I
> might not share all of it.
And thank you for reading my rambling and disjointed post! Your view is also
well appreciated. And i'd like to hear more of it.
Cormac Leonard
John Fred Connors
Cormac Leonard <myt...@indigo.ie> spake thus unto the void:
> John - just a few comments about your post.
>
>
> > Well, given the ferocity of the oralist vs. manualist vs. biligualist
> > vs.
> GOK
> > what else debate I think you are stepping into a minefield you'd be
> > better out of, armed only with ignorance. Good art usually comes from
> > artists talking about direct experience. This does't sound like a good
> > foundation for you.
>
> Yes, the oralist / 'manualist' argument is fierce and perhaps not easily
> entered into by someone who doesn't really know a lot about it. I also
> agree that the best art is directly drawn from experience. Not always,
> however. I do think that is extremely *rude* of you to dismiss this
> person as 'ignorant'.
He's ignorant, self - confessedly ignorant and he's entering an area of
intense controversy. Whatever stance he takes, he's going to take flak. I
mean what I say, at face value. Am I not supposed to warn him? How can he
create something with any meaning or integrity if he addresses himself to
something completely outside his experience? If he wants to preservere,
good luck to him. If he doesn't that shows his interest was too shallow to
sustain him in the conflict he is about to enter.
> In my understanding, ignorance and plain not-knowing-something are
> separated by one thing; willingness to learn. The ignorant person knows
> nothing, not does he *want* to know anything. Others may not know, but
> they, as with most members of the human race, seek knowledge - they are
> willing to learn.
>
> Matthew is obviously willing to learn, if he exhorts people on this NG
> to share their experiences of deaf education, and asks deaf people what
> they think of any idea. Matthew's attitude may be uninformed, as he
> seems to admit, but good-intentioned and curious.
He is not good intentioned. He is a student with a project to
complete and he seems to want to exploit the perception of
average people that disabled people are, and can only be victims.
> He is *not* ignorant, and i would
> find it very insulting if i were him to be told that he was 'armed only
> with ignorance'. What Matthew, and hearing people who don't know much
> about Deaf people, need is not this kind of snottiness, but gentle
> advice and hints as to where to look for guidance on his script.
>
How can not be ignorant? The history of the deaf is the history of
the education of the deaf. His question betrays the fact that he has
done sod all in the way of basic research into his topic, and just
addressed the issues in a completely facile and insulting manner.
> Ignorance is wilful. Someone asking earnest questions is not ignorant,
> and not malicious, and personally, i get tired of this kind of attitude
> that says a person is prejudiced and stupid just because he hasn't much
> experience with deaf people.
>
No, if he addmitted he didn't have much experience with deaf people and
was asking just out of curiosity, I'd be happy to enlighten him. If it
wasn't for the fact he'd written a script that he intended to be taken
seriously as a film, based on almost zero knowldege, and that I find the
end result distinctly insulting I'd be happy to co-operate. Perhaps if he
approaches his subject with a bit more humility...actually observing and
researching his topic before he writes about it.
>
> > Why don't you research Beethoven, or Goya, or other artists who were
> deafened?
> > Then you may get more insight into your subject and what assumptions
> > you are making (I shall not comment on them, Pauline already has at
> > great length and she speaks for me 100%) are valid or not. The
> > obstacle for presenting a narrative and protagonist that fits in with
> > Paulines world view is, alas, getting audiences to empathise with the
> > character. If someone could achieve this, I'd be truly impressed.
>
> Why don't you tell him your insights, John, rather than palm him off
> with glib little tirades about 'ignorance'? Surely a positive attitude
> is all about helping people to understand, rather than almost sniggering
> at someone if they don't.
>
It's not glib, and it's not a tirade. It's just the truth. Read it again.
I'm not sniggering. I'm retaliating against a percieved insult. It's
typical of the well - meaning approach, made in total ignorance "oh I want
to help/film/stage these, poor brave disabled people" that gets rejected
with anger, because it's so partonising and ends in a vicious backlash
against the disabled people for being 'ungrateful', ;unhelpful' or just
plain bolshy, as you are indulging in now. It's easier to blame the victim
than take a positive approach, which if you suffer it fot the nth time
tends to get in the way of being charitable to people like Matthew. You
get cynical about people's willingness to accept your explanations and
think you will just give them more ammunition when they want to blame you
for problems which they create - "blaming the victim" - the classic
phsycological ploy to let the yourself off the hook.
> Personally I'd see the obstacle in the way of Pauline's vision of films
> about deaf people as being simply this: they must create and demand a
> respect for a tradition that is opposite, in any senses, to the one
> hearing people possess.
Exactly : that's the problem - how can average people identify with
something so far removed from their assumptions and experience?
> Furthermore, film may not even be the best medium for this
> type of venture - or even literature, seeing as how they both these days
> rely on English to be truly effective (not to mention popular). It's a
> tough proposition and of course Matthew's script won't help it in its
> present form. What to do? How to do it? And is it right to demand a type
> of 'art' drawn from personal experience, yes, but so obviously serving a
> political agenda?
>
It's right to demand emotional and intellectual integrity of art, and the
surest way of doing it is to draw it honestly from your own personal
experience. Matthews approach does indicate he has some of these qualities
and that's why I have made the suggestion that he research deafened
artists and try to understand and empathise with these people - how he
would be in their situation. He has to do this before he can accept or
understand further explanation in my opinion.
> Cormac Leonard
> ICQ - 33697118
> AOL-IM - mythyka
> =============================
> Try to save a place from the cuts and the scratches
> Try to overcome the complications and the catches
> Nothing ever grows and the sun doesn't shine all day
> Try to save myself but myself keeps slipping away
>
> - Nine Inch Nails, "Into The Void"
>
>
--
An INK-LING? Sure -- TAKE one!! Did you BUY any COMMUNIST UNIFORMS??
Cormac Leonard
Hi, John.
> Let's talk about Goya, first. Of all of this bunch, he's the only one
> you could rightly claim as tragic. 'El loco sordo', he was called and
> he could rightly be held up as an example of deafness undermining mental
> stability. Have you ever looked at the faces in his paintings? Yet there
> is another side to this. Goya became deaf as a result of a prolonged
> illness in 1792-93. He became director of Spain's Royal Academy in 1799.
> No problem there, then :-). Goya was a champion of the rational
> ideals of the Enlightement (c.f. "The sleep of reason breeds
> monsters") that also informed the education of the deaf and
> the rise of manualism in France, and was somewhat out of place in
> a corrupt monarchy in a "Catholic" country. So his career is split
> in two : the bread and butter commisions that keep any artist alive,
> and, of course, the famous "black paintings". Those faces again -
> they are faces lit up, in the large, full of animated expressions
> (usually horror and fear). They are faces as a deaf person observes
> them, as a form of communication. I'm sure Goya suffered alienation
> because of his deafness and views - he didn't sell well, but he
> channeled the attendant emotions of alienation, and frustration
> with hearing idiots into something that exposed the rotteness of
> his society and championed his ideals, by helping to expose the
> hollwness of his opponents.
Very interesting and points well taken. Not entirely sure if Goya went
around cursing 'hearing idiots' however. You kind of like that phrase, don't
you? You know that kind of thing can be considered a bit prejudiced. rather
like if i lived in Africa, if the locals didn't accept me, and i went around
talking about all these 'black bastards'.
> Beethoven is not a facile example. He is a good example of the
> initial "tragic" reactions to deafness - despair, in complentating
> suicide, anger in social situations in which he was excluded, and
> the resulting social isolation and reclusion. Yet he continued
> to produce work that stands. Why, if he displayed all the sympthoms
> of deafness as tragedy? Why didn't he simply give up? The reculsion
> is a two way thing - it could be societies rejection of a Beethoven
> as an individual, or it could just as well be Beethoven's rejection
> of society as a load of air - headed pig's bladders. Which, frankly,
> I wouldn't blame him for.
Society as a load of air - headed pig's bladders... ;) Nice one. And not a
blanket statement at all, ooooh no.Seems to me you're judgin people because
they are members of a certain group, in this case, 'society'. Funny, because
i always assumed deaf people (and other minorities) hated that kind of thing
when applied to themselves. Deaf people as 'a load of dummy idiots who are
subnormal', for instance, wouldn't be on, would it? Pot / Kettle / Black.
I am in total agreement that society is full of air - headed pig's bladders,
but certainly not composed of such. That would be a bit of a blanket
statement, and most unfair. As well as simply untrue.
> It also occurs to me that the original script of the
> proposed movie is open to a more creative intrepretation: deafness
> doesn't prevent the boy from playing or composing. The hearing
> idiots who discourage him are preventing him from doing that
> The response to that is anger and rejection and withdrawal.
You know, no one has actually said that the boy in the script has been
prevented or discouraged from playing. In fact, he plays for his new
partner, so it's safe to assume that no 'hearing idiots ' have interfered in
this regard. Not to say that they wouldn't, but you're attacking imaginary
demons.
As i said also - there are things that can be done with this script to make
it more interesting. Your suggestion is as good as any. I do take the point
that deafened people can still compose music, as Ms Glennie does, but it
would still remain a tragedy (for a time?) for the hero of this script -
because he cannot hear what he plays.
When i said references to Beethoven etc. were not always useful, what i
meant was this: historical examples can be useful, but not a sure-fire cure.
When something like sudden deafness occurs, we don't just go, "Look at
Beethoven - he dealt with it; you can too." We SYMPATHISE first, and hope
that eventually the person does accept, as Beethoven did, his deafness. And
Goya's example proves that deafness can be a tragedy. Cases in point exist
to support both points of view.
> The kind of anger you so love to slap back in our faces and blame us
> for.
Er, could you take me out of this little pigeonhole? It's kind of cramped,
and i don't think i quite belong here.
I think the coupling of educational theories to this is a red
> herring and widens up the context to all kinds of issues that would
> cloud the script. In my experience a flat refusal to believe in the
> possibility of a deafened person who could develop musical talent would
> be sufficent without some half - assed 'educational theory' to justify it.
Granted, but i'm not sure if this is directed towards me - i don't mention
any 'half-assed' educational theory. And i certainly don't flat refuse to
believe that deafened / deaf people can write music. Evidence to the
contrary is right in front of my face, after all.
> Disability is created by society by using reinforcing standards and
> attitudes that exclude disabled people. Your own are a case in
> point. It's as simple as that.
Mate, you'll have to do better than that, cause merely stating that
'disability is created by society' does not make me see, any more than
glib - yes, glib - little statements like 'it's as simple as that' do, your
point of view. What you've just said appears more like dogma than your last
post. Tell me WHY my attitudes 'reinforce' standards, prove to me -
scientifically - that they do. It also takes some stretch of imagination to
assume that my attitudes are those of 'society', seeing as how i fully
accept deaf people's right to use sign language in schols as a first
language, etc, etc
Let's just make my attitude perfectly clear. Of course i support the right
of deaf children to be educated through sign language and i also support the
recognition of sign language by national governments. I have indeed been
working on a project over the last year that i hope will help that in some
way. I too am disgusted by the attitudes of many hearing people who believe
that to be deaf is to be incomplete or tragic or incompetent. Deaf people
are capable of doing anything hearing people can do, with a few exceptions.
Similalrly there are things that deaf people can do that hearing people
can't. To all intents and purposes, they are equal. But i'm sure you already
knew that.
However, i am also a realist. I know that such things as education policy
and language policy of the state are far easier to change than the attitudes
that have built up over the centuries towards deaf people. And i simply
don't believe it is feasible to undertake any national project to change
people's attitudes on this score. Because it won't work. That's the bottom
line.
And i do not buy the concept that society acts as one mind, acts as one
entity, and consciously excludes deaf people and other minorities. If you
want me to see your point of view, you'll have to explain yourself better.
Outline your concept of what society is, for a start. Explain why my
attitudes - which i know to be untypical - reinforces standards & attitudes
that exclude deaf people. I've never excluded a deaf person in my life,
unless you include the period of my life before i learned ISL, in which
case, it was hardly my fault.
> He's ignorant, self - confessedly ignorant and he's entering an area of
> intense controversy. Whatever stance he takes, he's going to take flak. I
> mean what I say, at face value. Am I not supposed to warn him? How can he
> create something with any meaning or integrity if he addresses himself to
> something completely outside his experience? If he wants to preservere,
> good luck to him. If he doesn't that shows his interest was too shallow to
> sustain him in the conflict he is about to enter.
That wasn't a warning, mate, it was an insult that you threw back in the
face of a *perceived* insult, which was not meant as such whatsoever. And
you can't just ignore the fact that 'ignorant' has definite connotations
that imply stupidity and wilfulness. If you don't believe me, check out a
dictionary. Connotations that aren't really present in Matthew's pretty
inocuous email.
> He is not good intentioned. He is a student with a project to
> complete and he seems to want to exploit the perception of
> average people that disabled people are, and can only be victims.
(Hmmm .... i like that ... 'average people'. ;)
You know, just because a person writes such a piece, does not necessarily
mean that they want to exploit anything. I don't believe he mentioned the
word 'exploit'. true, his question says that he wasnts to know deaf people's
educational background - and not specifically their opinions of the basic
idea, but since he offers to explain himself fully to anyone (and
presumably, to take on board their input) it kind of rules out exploitatoin,
or at least conscious exploitation.
Actually, i take it back - he has no intentions, good or bad. He does have
a project to complete. True. Mind you, yu're supplying him with a pretty
cold motive from up there on your soapbox, a motive which he so obviously
does not have, and i honestly wouldn't blame him at this stage if he turned
tail and ran.
> How can not be ignorant? The history of the deaf is the history of
> the education of the deaf. His question betrays the fact that he has
> done sod all in the way of basic research into his topic, and just
> addressed the issues in a completely facile and insulting manner.
Facile? Maybe. Insulting? well, it certainly was not intended as such, so it
is pretty much your problem if you are insulted or not on this one. Come
on -
we are all mature adults here, and the thought that someone can be
'insulted' by an inquiry about a *unfinished* project seems hard to believe.
You're judging this guy for writing an unfinished work. If you feel he has
done 'sod all' basic research (which may be true or false) then tell him
where to look. Don't just hurl down all this abuse from the pulpit, mate.
At least Pauline had the decency to give him some real information rather
than a whole lot of attitude.
> No, if he addmitted he didn't have much experience with deaf people and
> was asking just out of curiosity, I'd be happy to enlighten him. If it
> wasn't for the fact he'd written a script that he intended to be taken
> seriously as a film, based on almost zero knowldege, and that I find the
> end result distinctly insulting I'd be happy to co-operate. Perhaps if he
> approaches his subject with a bit more humility...actually observing and
> researching his topic before he writes about it.
It seems implicit in his post that he has zero experience with deaf people -
otherwise, why ask for help and input? And since he hasn't made the film -
or even fully written the script yet - there isn't an 'end result' to
actually be insulted *by*. It seems to me that now is the time to give your
input. The info on Goya and Beethoven , for instance, would be extremely
useful to Matthew.
Look, Matthew has stated that he would give a full summary of the whole
script to anyone who wanted it - why all this hassle then when people
haven't even seen the finished version?
> It's not glib, and it's not a tirade. It's just the truth. Read it again.
> I'm not sniggering. I'm retaliating against a percieved insult. It's
> typical of the well - meaning approach, made in total ignorance "oh I want
> to help/film/stage these, poor brave disabled people" that gets rejected
> with anger, because it's so partonising and ends in a vicious backlash
> against the disabled people for being 'ungrateful', ;unhelpful' or just
> plain bolshy, as you are indulging in now. It's easier to blame the victim
> than take a positive approach, which if you suffer it fot the nth time
> tends to get in the way of being charitable to people like Matthew. You
> get cynical about people's willingness to accept your explanations and
> think you will just give them more ammunition when they want to blame you
> for problems which they create - "blaming the victim" - the classic
> phsycological ploy to let the yourself off the hook.
That's funny, because if it is so typical of the 'well-meaning' approach,
then why is it not good-intentioned, as you state above? If he merely seeks
to exploit hearing people's perceptions of disabled people, then why would
he say "oh I want to help/film/stage these, poor brave disabled people" ?
Hmmm ... i am certainly not accusing anyone of being 'bolshy'. I would have
hoped that an intelligent person would not jump to those kind of easy
conclusions and schemas. I certainly haven't about you, Pauline, or Matthew.
And the idea that i am 'blaming the victim' is pretty ridiculous, because
i'm not blaming anyone. NO one's done anything wrong. The only people to
blame, i guess, are the dumb ass hearing people (not all of them, mind -
just some) who do exclude deaf people from fulfilling their full potential.
I just have a disagreement with some of your points, mate. Not throwing
blame around in the way you are throwing insults around.
I'm also certainly not suggesting that deaf people be 'grateful' for this
kind of work - merely saying that we can't really put nationewide policies
into effect that would censor them, or not commission them, in favour of
other more positive portrayals. I'm also saying that even if the film script
was altered along your lines to promote a more positive perception of
deafness (which, frankly, it *does* need), it wouldn't have the immediate
effect on hearing people that you seem to assume. Because even 'hearing
idiots' are more than just coma victims drip-fed with a TV diet, swallowing
every fact. They have come to their conclusions from sources other than TV,
and it will take more than TV to change these attitudes.
Also, i see your attitude as not positive, but distinctly unhelpful. So is
my approach, come to that - but i think it's a realistic one. What a pity
you seem to be ignoring the points of what i say in favour of making me a
case study in a no doubt robust model of 'blaming the victim'. No argument
here that deaf people have been victims of a terrible history, that they
seek to throw off their status as victims and stand on their own 2 feet.,
Hey to be honest, to me, that has been bloody obvious from the start. Any
anger deaf people feel is more than justified, as is any minority group's.
The thing is, i believe there are ways to go about righting wrongs that
work. And others that don't.
> It's right to demand emotional and intellectual integrity of art, and the
> surest way of doing it is to draw it honestly from your own personal
> experience. Matthews approach does indicate he has some of these qualities
> and that's why I have made the suggestion that he research deafened
> artists and try to understand and empathise with these people - how he
> would be in their situation. He has to do this before he can accept or
> understand further explanation in my opinion.
>
I actually think this conversation has gone way off base as regards 'art'.
Not to denigrate Matthew's skill as a scriptwriter - I haven't seen his as
yet unfinished script, though he has said he will explain / show it to
whoever wants it - but it is a student assignment, isn't it? And it will
become a fillm. And to tell you the truth, modern cinema, in most its forms,
can be described as only bad art, if art at all.
But even if we take films that are upheld as great works:
Reservoir Dogs - Great film, widely hailed as a classic. Do you think
Tarantino dressed up in a tux and went around pulling jewel heists, then
killed his buddies by shooting them in the head? No, but is his 'art'
rendered invalid because he did not write from personal experience? Same
with 2001:A Space Oddysey, Braveheart, and pretty much all works of fantasy,
or historical / futuristic works. That also touches a vast pool of
literature. Orwell's 1984 and Animal farm, for instance.
Now obviously there are going to be elements in those works of personal
experience, but based around a main suppositoin that is not part of the
creator's experience.
Other wise, it appears to me, all works of true art would be
autobiographical.
Matthew does need to empathise and understand deafness and deaf people, but
you are being singulalry unhelpful to him - except to show him the kind of
dogmatic attitude present in some groups in society (because society *is*
made of subgroups and is not an oppressive whole) who take the very real
suffering and wrongs suffered by their group and from it , draw untenable
theories that simply do not stand up to examination. A flaw which is tiny in
comparison to the flaw in our society regarding attitudes to disability and
access, which are Neanderthal and hurtful in the extreme - and i know just
how bad those attitudes can be, believe me, almost as much as deaf people
themselves, i dare say. But nevertheless this is a flaw.
I'd appreciate a reply, but not one that tries to accuse me of anything,
please. I'm only having a chat here. ;)
John Fred Connors
come to expect prejudice from them as a matter of routine and am
therefore have a prejudice that all hearing people are prejudiced.
I pre-judge that they are prejudiced, in other words. Since you
ask me to, (although not entirely nicely, I note), I shall suspend this
pre - judgement in my reply. Actually, I think you have demonstrated
a considerably lack of prejudice and deserve to be treated decently
in most respects. However, see below..
>
>> Beethoven is not a facile example. He is a good example of the
>> initial "tragic" reactions to deafness - despair, in complentating
>> suicide, anger in social situations in which he was excluded, and
>> the resulting social isolation and reclusion. Yet he continued
>> to produce work that stands. Why, if he displayed all the sympthoms
>> of deafness as tragedy? Why didn't he simply give up? The reculsion
>> is a two way thing - it could be societies rejection of a Beethoven
>> as an individual, or it could just as well be Beethoven's rejection
>> of society as a load of air - headed pig's bladders. Which, frankly,
>> I wouldn't blame him for.
>
>Society as a load of air - headed pig's bladders... ;) Nice one. And not a
Actually, more like water - filled gas sacs, speaking from a strictly
biological point of view :-)
>blanket statement at all, ooooh no.Seems to me you're judgin people because
>they are members of a certain group, in this case, 'society'. Funny, because
>i always assumed deaf people (and other minorities) hated that kind of thing
>when applied to themselves. Deaf people as 'a load of dummy idiots who are
>subnormal', for instance, wouldn't be on, would it? Pot / Kettle / Black.
>I am in total agreement that society is full of air - headed pig's bladders,
>but certainly not composed of such. That would be a bit of a blanket
>statement, and most unfair. As well as simply untrue.
>
Well, I'm sorry, but I have to differ. By and large, the human race are
sophisticated monkeys. I'm willing to bet a lot of social patterns
and behavior map directly onto simian ones, particularly as regards
inclusion / exclusion and social pecking order and conformity. I'll
get back to you on this one, as I'm not au fait with the current research
in the field, and can't fully cite my sources.
>
>> It also occurs to me that the original script of the
>> proposed movie is open to a more creative intrepretation: deafness
>> doesn't prevent the boy from playing or composing. The hearing
>> idiots who discourage him are preventing him from doing that
>> The response to that is anger and rejection and withdrawal.
>
>You know, no one has actually said that the boy in the script has been
>prevented or discouraged from playing. In fact, he plays for his new
>partner, so it's safe to assume that no 'hearing idiots ' have interfered in
>this regard. Not to say that they wouldn't, but you're attacking imaginary
>demons.
>
I quote from Matthew's original post :
"He tragically loses his hearing and goes to a school for the deaf and
blind where staff keep him from playing the piano for various misguided
educational resons".
Imaginary demons, eh? Dearie me, what could you be accusing me of?
There are some pretty unsavory implications here...
Matthew specifically uses the words "TRAGICALLY" and "KEEPS HIM FROM".
Very clear, I'd have thought.
>As i said also - there are things that can be done with this script to make
>it more interesting. Your suggestion is as good as any. I do take the point
>that deafened people can still compose music, as Ms Glennie does, but it
>would still remain a tragedy (for a time?) for the hero of this script -
>because he cannot hear what he plays.
I don't think Ms. Glennie sees herself as a tragedy. Nor do Pauline or I.
Of which, more anon.
>When i said references to Beethoven etc. were not always useful, what i
>meant was this: historical examples can be useful, but not a sure-fire cure.
>When something like sudden deafness occurs, we don't just go, "Look at
>Beethoven - he dealt with it; you can too." We SYMPATHISE first, and hope
>that eventually the person does accept, as Beethoven did, his deafness. And
>Goya's example proves that deafness can be a tragedy. Cases in point exist
>to support both points of view.
>
Why does Goya's example show that deafness can be a tragedy? It probably
informed his work in ways that it would not have otherwise and gave
him a powerful means of dramatizing his ideals and beleifs. If he
had problems, they were social. He is in a society that does not
subscribe to his ideals and is corrupt, yet he is embedded in it
in the Royal Acadmey and court. Even without deafness he would have
had enourmous problems. His deafness may even have protected him.
Ok, that's a valid point. When I cited Beethoven and Goya, I was not thinking
in terms of a 'cure' - i.e. the medical model, but in terms of the social
model of disability. Beethoven and Goya went through classic emotional
responses to deafness and dealt with them as artists, channeling their
fulfilment into their artistic activity to compensate for what they lost
in social activity. Human beings seek fulfilment in different ways.
A loss of a facility, be it a sense or a bodily function may force
re-evaluation of the ways you are fulfiled. The process involves a
lot of anger and frustration when fulfilment is denied, perhaps indirectly.
>
>> The kind of anger you so love to slap back in our faces and blame us
>> for.
>
>Er, could you take me out of this little pigeonhole? It's kind of cramped,
>and i don't think i quite belong here.
>
:-)
Perhaps, when you stop lambasting me. You were the one who took
exception to my post in response to Matthew. From where I am
standing you read a lot of ill - will into my post that I didn't
intend. I don't mean to insult Matthew but to warn him that
he is entering a contentious area, and it's something he
couldn't have known about. I didn't add anything of my personal
experience because Paulines experience mirrors my own
and I couldn't add much to her excellent post.
>
>I think the coupling of educational theories to this is a red
>> herring and widens up the context to all kinds of issues that would
>> cloud the script. In my experience a flat refusal to believe in the
>> possibility of a deafened person who could develop musical talent would
>> be sufficent without some half - assed 'educational theory' to justify it.
>
>Granted, but i'm not sure if this is directed towards me - i don't mention
>any 'half-assed' educational theory. And i certainly don't flat refuse to
>believe that deafened / deaf people can write music. Evidence to the
>contrary is right in front of my face, after all.
>
Ok, no, it's not aimed at you: that Expository Lump was aimed at
Matthew. Ok, I should have put that in a seperate post. Mea Culpa.
Don't bite my face off, please.
>
>> Disability is created by society by using reinforcing standards and
>> attitudes that exclude disabled people. Your own are a case in
>> point. It's as simple as that.
>
>Mate, you'll have to do better than that, cause merely stating that
>'disability is created by society' does not make me see, any more than
>glib - yes, glib - little statements like 'it's as simple as that' do, your
>point of view. What you've just said appears more like dogma than your last
>post. Tell me WHY my attitudes 'reinforce' standards, prove to me -
>scientifically - that they do. It also takes some stretch of imagination to
>assume that my attitudes are those of 'society', seeing as how i fully
>accept deaf people's right to use sign language in schols as a first
>language, etc, etc
>
Ok fair point. Let's lay down the grouund rules here, before we
start this debate so that the goal posts don't shift as they do
on the ever changing tides of UseNet. I made the assumption that
you were just a better class of troller. I welcome and am
gladdened by your views as it means we have some common ground.
You have to tell me first, what you will accept as "scientific"
proof. If you mean an independent, verifiable experiement with a
single variable and a control, it might be difficult to arrange.
But that doesn't stop sociologists :-)
><Common ground about deafness, equality, etc. snipped>
>However, i am also a realist. I know that such things as education policy
>and language policy of the state are far easier to change than the attitudes
>that have built up over the centuries towards deaf people. And i simply
>don't believe it is feasible to undertake any national project to change
>people's attitudes on this score. Because it won't work. That's the bottom
>line.
Once upon a time, it wasn't realistic for slaves to be freed,
women to have the vote or race equality to be recognised in law.
Social progress depends on people being willing to take up
'unrealistic' positions and defend them. If deaf awareness and
disability awareness were taught at primary school and reinforced,
then I am sure there would be a shift in perceptions. It takes
time, as you say, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
I suspect that most of the exclusion problem is mechanincal,
hearies not having the confidence in their communication skills
to communicate with deafies and so exclude / ignore them as
a solution to the problem of communication. This might be
why I find I am less socially exclued in a culture like
California, where people are encouraged to communicate
spontaneously in their educational setting and take this
attitude along with them in adult life, as opposed to England
where people are relativel withdrawn, communicate less, and
have communication orchestrated by central control of the
educator in an eduactional setting. "Don't speak unless
you are spoken to." I also notice that hearies who are
comfortable in communicating with deaf people in cultures
like this are from larger families. I admit this is
a generalisation from personal experience and would welcome
other people's views. I'm convinced that ultimately the problem
is *one* of education. People have to be taught *how* to
faciliate communication whith skills that can be reasonably
asked of them and have comminication implications in communicating
with other heating people, too - clear speech, lighting, cuing by
fingerspelling, etc. I'd base this belief on the observation that
lip - reading in a group of hearing people becomes much easier when
I enter an environment with a high level of noise and they,
also lose the sense of hearing, more or less. Hearing
people *can* do it (communicate with deafies), it's just
they lack the confidence and concious knolwdege of how
to do it and end up freezing the deafie out. Sometimes
intentionally, sometimes not.
>And i do not buy the concept that society acts as one mind, acts as one
>entity, and consciously excludes deaf people and other minorities.i
Neither do I. But I do buy the concept of a 'social consensus' - that
some actions are socially acceptable and others are not. At the moment
for example, laughing out at a deaf person and making cruel jokes *is*
socially acceptable, by and large in a way that similar jokes about
sex and race are not. Unless you are a Bernard Manning fan, I suppose.
I don't think you are :-)
>If you
>want me to see your point of view, you'll have to explain yourself better.
>Outline your concept of what society is, for a start. Explain why my
>attitudes - which i know to be untypical - reinforces standards & attitudes
>that exclude deaf people. I've never excluded a deaf person in my life,
>unless you include the period of my life before i learned ISL, in which
>case, it was hardly my fault.
>
>
>> He's ignorant, self - confessedly ignorant and he's entering an area of
>> intense controversy. Whatever stance he takes, he's going to take flak. I
>> mean what I say, at face value. Am I not supposed to warn him? How can he
>> create something with any meaning or integrity if he addresses himself to
>> something completely outside his experience? If he wants to preservere,
>> good luck to him. If he doesn't that shows his interest was too shallow to
>> sustain him in the conflict he is about to enter.
>
>That wasn't a warning, mate, it was an insult that you threw back in the
>face of a *perceived* insult, which was not meant as such whatsoever. And
>you can't just ignore the fact that 'ignorant' has definite connotations
>that imply stupidity and wilfulness. If you don't believe me, check out a
>dictionary. Connotations that aren't really present in Matthew's pretty
>inocuous email.
>
Ok, you are right - "Ignorant" is too strong. "Unaware", would perhaps
have been a better choice. I plead guilty to bad use of language.
>
>> He is not good intentioned. He is a student with a project to
>> complete and he seems to want to exploit the perception of
>> average people that disabled people are, and can only be victims.
>
>(Hmmm .... i like that ... 'average people'. ;)
>
Average height, Average weight, Average stupidity.
>You know, just because a person writes such a piece, does not necessarily
>mean that they want to exploit anything. I don't believe he mentioned the
>word 'exploit'. true, his question says that he wasnts to know deaf people's
>educational background - and not specifically their opinions of the basic
>idea, but since he offers to explain himself fully to anyone (and
>presumably, to take on board their input) it kind of rules out exploitatoin,
>or at least conscious exploitation.
"At least concious exploitation". Your phrase appears to undermine your
own argument :-) In not conciously examining his material (ie. doing
research) Matthew is, ulitmiately exploiting perceptions of disabled
people as 'tragic'.
>Actually, i take it back - he has no intentions, good or bad. He does have
>a project to complete. True. Mind you, yu're supplying him with a pretty
>cold motive from up there on your soapbox, a motive which he so obviously
>does not have, and i honestly wouldn't blame him at this stage if he turned
>tail and ran.
>
He is probably safer that way, than entering the minefield unless he has
a sincere desire to understand and grapple with the subject, in which
case my warning will not scare him off and I will respect it.
>
>> How can not be ignorant? The history of the deaf is the history of
>> the education of the deaf. His question betrays the fact that he has
>> done sod all in the way of basic research into his topic, and just
>> addressed the issues in a completely facile and insulting manner.
>
>Facile? Maybe. Insulting? well, it certainly was not intended as such, so it
>is pretty much your problem if you are insulted or not on this one. Come
>on -
>we are all mature adults here, and the thought that someone can be
>'insulted' by an inquiry about a *unfinished* project seems hard to believe.
>You're judging this guy for writing an unfinished work. If you feel he has
>done 'sod all' basic research (which may be true or false) then tell him
>where to look.
I did so in pointing out that deafened artists were a good starting
point for understanding his dramatic material.
Ok, some basic texts I would reccomend to him
"When The Mind Hears", by Harlan Lane - very pro - manualist history
of the education of the Deaf.
"I See a Voice", by Jonathon Ree - a very good text on the nature
of perception, language and deafness. A bit dry and philosophical.
"Deafness - A Personal Account" by David Wright which is much more
insightful and autobographical. From these two, he should get a
picture of "the deafened condition".
Also Ms. Glennies bio might help, as being directly related
to his subject and much more contemporary. However, Ms
Glennie was educated in the mainstream. Which is interesting
in itself.
I can't give him simple, easy answers in a newsgroup - it's a big
subject - look at the length of this post! So accusing me of
glibness, well, it's only the medium. If I want to answer
that kind of stuff I'll go write a biography.
>Don't just hurl down all this abuse from the pulpit, mate.
>At least Pauline had the decency to give him some real information rather
>than a whole lot of attitude.
>
Again, I say, the contents of any post by me on the subject would mostly
reflect that of Pauline's apart from a whole load of baggage about
the Catholic Church that I don't want to go into, and isn't really
relevant to deafness in any case. She has spoken for me AFAIK. It's
true that the expereience of the onset of deafness is a self - shaking
expereience and despair and anger is a common reaction along with the
plummeting of self - worth. The point Pauline and I would like to
make is that Deaf (and I use the capital 'd') people come out of the
other side and reject the consensual notious and actively use their
deafness to enhance their search for the fulfiment of their lives. For
myself I have explored dance and theatre and language in a way I never
would have if I had not been deafened, and also my education actually
benefited from my deafness in terms of the individual attention I
recieved from my teachers (much smaller class sizes) and the fact I
was removed from a mainstream school where I was being bullied
mercilessly for my (up until then) slight deafness.
However, many of my contemporaries did not benefit. I, like, Pauline
was the 'star' pupil and I did not realise what was going on until much
later in life, when I left University and the fact haunts me somewhat.
>
>> No, if he addmitted he didn't have much experience with deaf people and
>> was asking just out of curiosity, I'd be happy to enlighten him. If it
>> wasn't for the fact he'd written a script that he intended to be taken
>> seriously as a film, based on almost zero knowldege, and that I find the
>> end result distinctly insulting I'd be happy to co-operate. Perhaps if he
>> approaches his subject with a bit more humility...actually observing and
>> researching his topic before he writes about it.
>
>It seems implicit in his post that he has zero experience with deaf people -
>otherwise, why ask for help and input? And since he hasn't made the film -
>or even fully written the script yet - there isn't an 'end result' to
>actually be insulted *by*. It seems to me that now is the time to give your
>input. The info on Goya and Beethoven , for instance, would be extremely
>useful to Matthew.
There is a thing called the World Wide Web. If he wants to do reasearch
it's as simple as keying a name and a keyword into a search engine.
That would give him some starting points.
>Look, Matthew has stated that he would give a full summary of the whole
>script to anyone who wanted it - why all this hassle then when people
>haven't even seen the finished version?
>
Because what he's said about the script so far is based on a premise
- that disabled people are 'tragic'- specifically using that word,
remember - that I find personally insulting.
>
>> It's not glib, and it's not a tirade. It's just the truth. Read it again.
>> I'm not sniggering. I'm retaliating against a percieved insult. It's
>> typical of the well - meaning approach, made in total ignorance "oh I want
>> to help/film/stage these, poor brave disabled people" that gets rejected
>> with anger, because it's so partonising and ends in a vicious backlash
>> against the disabled people for being 'ungrateful', ;unhelpful' or just
>> plain bolshy, as you are indulging in now. It's easier to blame the victim
>> than take a positive approach, which if you suffer it fot the nth time
>> tends to get in the way of being charitable to people like Matthew. You
>> get cynical about people's willingness to accept your explanations and
>> think you will just give them more ammunition when they want to blame you
>> for problems which they create - "blaming the victim" - the classic
>> phsycological ploy to let the yourself off the hook.
>
>That's funny, because if it is so typical of the 'well-meaning' approach,
>then why is it not good-intentioned, as you state above?
Possibly because the 'well-meaning' apprach is only a vehicle for a desire
for paternalistic control, or is too superfical to provide the motive
to power the drive to make a real difference. Unlike your good self,
I would infer from your posting.
>If he merely seeks
>to exploit hearing people's perceptions of disabled people, then why would
>he say "oh I want to help/film/stage these, poor brave disabled people" ?
>
>Hmmm ... i am certainly not accusing anyone of being 'bolshy'. I would have
>hoped that an intelligent person would not jump to those kind of easy
>conclusions and schemas. I certainly haven't about you, Pauline, or Matthew.
>And the idea that i am 'blaming the victim' is pretty ridiculous, because
>i'm not blaming anyone. NO one's done anything wrong. The only people to
>blame, i guess, are the dumb ass hearing people (not all of them, mind -
>just some) who do exclude deaf people from fulfilling their full potential.
>I just have a disagreement with some of your points, mate. Not throwing
>blame around in the way you are throwing insults around.
>
You used the word 'tirade'. Does this not have connotations of
ill - temper? Why are you allowed to cite 'connotations' and I not?
Double mouldy custard to you and no returns!
>I'm also certainly not suggesting that deaf people be 'grateful' for this
>kind of work - merely saying that we can't really put nationewide policies
>into effect that would censor them, or not commission them, in favour of
>other more positive portrayals. I'm also saying that even if the film script
>was altered along your lines to promote a more positive perception of
>deafness (which, frankly, it *does* need), it wouldn't have the immediate
>effect on hearing people that you seem to assume. Because even 'hearing
>idiots' are more than just coma victims drip-fed with a TV diet, swallowing
>every fact. They have come to their conclusions from sources other than TV,
>and it will take more than TV to change these attitudes.
>Also, i see your attitude as not positive, but distinctly unhelpful. So is
You are probably right, but its a result of exasperation.
>my approach, come to that - but i think it's a realistic one. What a pity
>you seem to be ignoring the points of what i say in favour of making me a
>case study in a no doubt robust model of 'blaming the victim'. No argument
>here that deaf people have been victims of a terrible history, that they
>seek to throw off their status as victims and stand on their own 2 feet.,
>Hey to be honest, to me, that has been bloody obvious from the start. Any
>anger deaf people feel is more than justified, as is any minority group's.
Thank you for allowing me a right to my anger. Generous of you.
>The thing is, i believe there are ways to go about righting wrongs that
>work. And others that don't.
>
For example?
>
>> It's right to demand emotional and intellectual integrity of art, and the
>> surest way of doing it is to draw it honestly from your own personal
>> experience. Matthews approach does indicate he has some of these qualities
>> and that's why I have made the suggestion that he research deafened
>> artists and try to understand and empathise with these people - how he
>> would be in their situation. He has to do this before he can accept or
>> understand further explanation in my opinion.
>>
>
>I actually think this conversation has gone way off base as regards 'art'.
>Not to denigrate Matthew's skill as a scriptwriter - I haven't seen his as
>yet unfinished script, though he has said he will explain / show it to
>whoever wants it - but it is a student assignment, isn't it? And it will
>become a fillm. And to tell you the truth, modern cinema, in most its forms,
>can be described as only bad art, if art at all.
>But even if we take films that are upheld as great works:
>Reservoir Dogs - Great film, widely hailed as a classic. Do you think
>Tarantino dressed up in a tux and went around pulling jewel heists, then
>killed his buddies by shooting them in the head?
No, but Tarrantino's 'Reserviour Dogs' isn't about jewel heists or
shooting people. The central premise is a group of people in a room
with lethal weapons who don't trust each other. In writing the
script Tarantino will have applied his own experience of the
way human beings trust each other and signal trust socially
and come to distrust one another. It was specifically to debunk
the notion of 'honour among theives', which he knew from personal
knowldege, to be a canard. It reflects his honest observation
and belief, I should hope. The jewel heist and guns are a way
of dramatizing the issue he is dealing with. I can only guess
why Matthew is choosing to use disability to dramatize the
issues he wants to deal with. I'm just warning him he's doing it
badly and opening himself to a whole load of flak he can have no
conception of. The last thing I want to see, along with Pauline,
is another 'tragic but brave' story. I can't speak for anyone
else here but they make me feel physically ill.
Braveheart isn't art. It's entertainment and a dramatization
of history. It's a good story but who is going to watch it in
50 years time except mad Scottish Nationalists?
As for 2001:A Space Oddesy, Clarke, the writer of the book,
who worked in parallel with Kubrick has a great deal of
knowldege that allows him to extarpolate himself into
situations that no human being has (yet) experienced.
I respect that. Matthew has appears to have no knowldege
of deafness or blindness or experience of it, yet he
presumes to extrapolate himself into the position of
a deafened person and his blind(ed?) sweetheart. Tch.
Orwell's 1984 is a political allegory. It isn't about
personal experience unless you consider his personal
experience of revulsion at events in his recent history.
If this film is meant as an allegory then I'm willing to
be more receptive. It's fair use of material. Consider
H.G.Wells and his land of the blind.
>No, but is his 'art'
>rendered invalid because he did not write from personal experience? Same
>with 2001:A Space Oddysey, Braveheart, and pretty much all works of fantasy,
>or historical / futuristic works. That also touches a vast pool of
>literature. Orwell's 1984 and Animal farm, for instance.
>Now obviously there are going to be elements in those works of personal
>experience, but based around a main suppositoin that is not part of the
>creator's experience.
>Other wise, it appears to me, all works of true art would be
>autobiographical.
>
By and large, I beleive the above statement to be true at some level.
We know things either by discorse or by experience. I belive, although
I have no proof, that all art is informed at some level by experience.
This is a personal belief, and I am quite willing to accept that it
may not be true, as the quickest way to look like a complete
pratt in public is to be dogmatic about the nature of Art,
but for now it's my rule of thumb in dividng art from "mere"
entertainment.
>Matthew does need to empathise and understand deafness and deaf people, but
>you are being singulalry unhelpful to him - except to show him the kind of
>dogmatic attitude present in some groups in society (because society *is*
>made of subgroups and is not an oppressive whole) who take the very real
>suffering and wrongs suffered by their group and from it , draw untenable
>theories that simply do not stand up to examination.
Ok, you have a fair point there.
> A flaw which is tiny in
>comparison to the flaw in our society regarding attitudes to disability and
>access, which are Neanderthal and hurtful in the extreme - and i know just
>how bad those attitudes can be, believe me, almost as much as deaf people
>themselves, i dare say. But nevertheless this is a flaw.
>
Try having facial eczma if you really want to plumb the depths. It's not
contigatious, just unasthetic, causes great suffering and gets you
shunned socially. Great fun.
>I'd appreciate a reply, but not one that tries to accuse me of anything,
>please. I'm only having a chat here. ;)
>
Ok. Here you are. I think I just broke some kind of record.
--
"The Mets were great in 'sixty eight,
The Cards were fine in 'sixty nine,
But the Cubs will be heavenly in nineteen and seventy."
-- Ernie Banks
rel
John Fred Connors wrote in message ...
>Once upon a time, it wasn't realistic for slaves to be freed,
>women to have the vote or race equality to be recognised in law.
>Social progress depends on people being willing to take up
>'unrealistic' positions and defend them. If deaf awareness and
>disability awareness were taught at primary school and reinforced,
>then I am sure there would be a shift in perceptions. It takes
>time, as you say, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
My point exactly - we have to start somewhere. Big waves start out as
little ripples.
Legal recognition of BSL would also eventually have a tremendous impact.
Deaf kids could go mainstream and learn and play naturally with hearing
peers. They would have equal access to higher education and to real career
opportunities. Hearing children with BSL as a second language who went on
to study as lawyers, doctors, teachers, would thus be able to communicate
both socially and professionally with deaf people, and there would also be
natural career development for interpreters. And those people who became
deafened or lose their hearing gradually in later life would no longer be so
isolated and disadvantaged.
An impossible dream? Unrealistic? Unworkable? Too expensive to implement?
Well, how many young people who are forced to study French actually get to
use it in real life? Yet no-one suggests it should not be on the National
Curriculum. Why should sign Language not be similarly regarded as a
compulsory subject? What's more, most children actually love learning BSL
and many adults are fascinated by it.
There will always be people with negative attitudes, but as John Fred said -
we're not expecting overnight miracles - social change takes time. But there
is no reason why we should not strive towards it.
>Ok, some basic texts I would reccomend to him
>
>"When The Mind Hears", by Harlan Lane - very pro - manualist history
>of the education of the Deaf.
And don't forget 'The Mask of Benevolence' ................
best wishes
pauline
rel
Cormac Leonard wrote in message ...
>What if the changes that we make for one sector or minority actually clash
with another's? I can't believe that every single little group's needs and
desires will slot neatly against all the others.
It's true that sometimes there is conflict of interests, but that's no
reason not to try and meet people's needs. I work for an organisation where
deaf people, physically disabled people, blind people and people with
learning disabilites all work together. Sometimes there are
misunderstandings, but we always try to learn from each other and we work
together brilliantly.
>If there is collusion here, it is most certainly unconscious - no one sets
out to exclude deaf people in these types of projects.
NO - they just don't *think.* And they continue to design the world in a
way that excludes people. Which is why we need Disability Equality
training rather than disabiltiy awareness training. It's one thing to be
aware of the needs of different disabled people. It's quite another to
accept them as equals in this world and do something about it.
>I also think you overestimate the effect that films like this can have on
mass audiences.
Have you never heard of subliminal advertising?
>Having the wider society accept disability is obviously a noble goal;
Martin Luther King, the suffragettes, Nelson Mandela and all the poll tax
activists had noble goals - they were passionate and consistent, and they
succeeded in changing society.
>should we give disabiity an inherent value? Hmmmm ... tricky one.
I'm not asking anyone to give disability an inherent value. I'm asking that
they should accept disabled people as equal, but different, just like
society is expected to accept women or Black people as equal. DDA has been
introduced to go some way towards achieving this, but we really need,
expect and continue to fight for full civil rights legislation.
>That's another thing i believe is dependent on the
individual's perception - i honestly think disability only exists where it
is accepted. If you don't accept yourself as disabled, then you're not.
I'll try telling myself that next time I am stranded on the platform cos I
didn't hear the announcer informing that my train had been switched to
another platform and the hearing commuters were all too busy rushing off to
have time to explain to me what's happening. I could follow them like a
stray sheep, but I can't be certain we're all going in the same direction.
I tried it once and ended up going in the wrong direction.
Or the next time I get a barrage of abuse or a sharp poke from someone who
thinks I am ignoring them when I've got my nose deep in a book.
Or when I turn up at a meeting or debate and there's no BSL interpreter,
despite having been told there would be one.
Or when a programme advertised as having subtitles doesn't, and I either sit
and watch my hearing family enjoying it, or go and read a book in another
room.
Or when some idiot presenter switches off all the lights to give an OHP
presentation, and I can't see the interpreter.
Or when someone rolls their eyes, laughs hysterically, recoils in
horror/alarm or simply turns away and ignores me when I say I'm deaf.
Shall I go on? At least I can't hear it if someone verbally abuses me in
the street - unlike some of my friends who get called the most horrible and
disgusting things, simply because of their difference.
>Well, of course it would be - we should work towards such a noble goal -
but
if you sit down and think, well, how are we going to change this society's
attitudes and practises to conform to our perceptions, then it becames
*fantastically* hard to put into practise. For instance what do you mean
when you say we should "all accept responsibility for involving disabled
people and work/fight together to make the world an accessible and welcoming
place"?
Don't exclude them - consciously or otherwise. If you're not part of the
solution you are part of the problem.
>How do i, for instance, go about that? Do we put sign language on
the school curriculum as a compulsory subject,
Yes! Yes! Yes! Why not? How many young people forced to learn French
actually put it into practice.
I have an O level in French - I loved studying it and would have loved to
take it to A level, but I can't speak it to save my life - I can't get the
accent. But I don't regret learning it, the experience was life enhancing
and I have used it in France on my occasional visits. But how much more I
would have benefited if I'd been allowed to study BSL as a schoolchild.
>despite the fact that it is
only used by about .2% of the population?
It's the fourth most common indigenous language in Great Britain, the first
or preferred language of 65,000 people and the second language of countless
others.
Besides which, people who are born deaf do not have the option of easily &
quickly mastering spoken language. They are foreigners not only in their
birth country, but also usually in their birth families - 90% of deaf
children are born to hearing parents. When I became deaf I was cut off from
communication within my own family. I couldn't change my situation - they
could have made some effort to try to ease the situation. For years my
brothers and sister simply did not speak to me even though I was able to
speak to them.
>Do we ensure that every possible
single type of information become available through BSL / ISL / whatever,
and also subtitles if necessary?
Subtitles yes. Health information and important issues should be available
in plain English with pictures, & BSL videos, but it is unrealistic and
uneconomical to expect all information, particularly on obscure topics to be
available in BSL format. Such information can be interpreted as and when
necessary and requested - if a BSL information video is made about a less
popular subject this should be centrally available for copying or borrowing.
>I just find there is often a hazy yet comfortable fog in that zone between
desire and action in areas like this, and the only real action that is
attempted can often be as bad as the problem - positive discrimination in
the workplace, for instance; giving people jobs *because* they are disabled.
I do not believe in giving people jobs simply because they are disabled -
that is patronising in the extreme. I believe in giving the job to the best
person suited for it. But I also think we need a level playing field, which
is why if someone fulfils the criteria for a post and is disabled, they
should automatically be granted an interview. Without that concession, many
disabled people would not even get past the waste bin.
There is also the issue that due to discriminatory practice, negative
attitudes, poor educational opportunities and lack of basic access such as
ramps or lifts or BSL interpreters, disabled people, including deaf people
don't even get a chance to get the basic qualifications needed to progress.
>I think we should educate, not pontificate; influence, because it is
impossible to merely change. Above all we should never stop looking for
ways to change things - and never settle on inferior ways of going about
things.
Absolutely. This is what I try to do - get people to think about the
issues, show by example and constantly strive for better ways.
>And not
only do i think that any attempt to change this by simply reversing the
polarity of such images, if you like, would be not only ineffective - for
people are active receivers of media images and their impressions of deaf
people probably not changeable by seeing a few deaf heroes - but in a sense,
wrong and misguided.
I'm not saying reverse the polarity and I'm not advocating films showing
deaf or disabled heroes - that's just as bad as the tragic model.
What I want to see are deaf and disabled people incorporated without their
disability being an issue, ordinary people leading ordinary lives - cf the
wonderful Maud in Coronation Street (where is she now?) in comparison to the
rather unbelievable Jim MacDonald. We can all feel cosy knowing if we ever
break our spine it will only be temporary...
>Totally agree, and i think the educational system is the area where we can
most make a differenceto the quality of life of deaf people - with sign
language being taught as the first language in a bilingual environment with
spoken language(s). It is one area where we can actively lobby - and show
evidence that it works - for instance in Scandinavia. What a pity that
evidence is so often ignored by the 'experts' in the area.
Well here's something we're agreed on. And it's heartening to know others
are actively lobbying :0))
>Well, this is my point; how can 'society' take a more responsible attitude?
Especially today when our society is so fragmented and diverse, composed
itself of smaller communities - mini-societies? Individuals like myself can
take some responsibility ... but that only goes so far. It is not *my* fault
that anyone is deaf, nor anyone else who is hearing - why should i take
'responsibility'?
Why should you not accept disabled people as equals and treat them as such.
If people don't know BSL (or ISL, which you do, apparently) they can still
ensure that deaf people have access by giving them the opportunity to say
what they need in order to take part equally and then meeting those access
needs. In a civilised society there should be no reason for anyone to be
excluded through physical, attitudinal or communication barriers.
>I do my best as an individual to try and include disabled
people in my limited capacity - so i learn ISL and learn about deaf issues
and Deaf Studies.
Therefore you must believe Deaf people have a right to be equal - so do I,
so why do we seem to be at odds? I assume you are actively encouraging
other people to think about these issues - sharing your knowledge and power.
Deaf people welcome hearing comrades in the struggle for equality. But we
are understandably wary of people who learn our language in order to
exercise power and control. Of course, you would not dream of doing that,
but there are people who do.
Similarly, disabled people welcome able bodied support in the cause for
equality. There's strength in unity and commonality of purpose.
>But what about those who will not learn out if ignorance -
really crabby people who simply don't want to learn sign language?
There will always be people like that - and a simple solution. Sign
Language Interpreters. And legislation to ensure that one is provided if
we request it. I'm not talking about everyday social conversation, but for
access to education, training, meetings, debates, the arts and all things
that make life interesting and worthwhile. I've got enough friends not to
worry unduly about the sort of people who like pulling wings off flies.
No-one should be forced to use BSL against their will, but a basic awareness
can go a long way to breaking down barriers and promoting equality.
>........Society never sat down and said, right, forget the
cripples and the deaf-and-dumb, they're not gonna be part of this nice
little plan.
Not at all - they just didn't think
>Do you really, really believe that an architect who designs a building with
no wheelchair access made a conscious decision at the start to keep
wheelchair users out? That modern cinemas are specifically designed so that
deaf people can't use them effectively?
Ditto, or they got carried away by the aesthetics of their design.
There's a hotel in Birmingham which has done a lot to incorporate full
access in their design. But there's a tree planted in a bed in front of the
ramp which could cause a wheelchair to tip, and there are steps up to the
reception desk, but no ramp. Staff will come down if you call, but it's
hardly being independent is it, if people have to make a special effort to
come down to you? And what if you can't call...?
It only takes a bit of forethought and sensitive planning to make new
buildings fully accessible, and much more economical to incorporate access
at the design stage. Which is why disabled people need to say what we want
and expect without being told we are being unreasonable.
Yours,
Pauline
Cormac Leonard
> Yes, I am freely admit I am prejudiced against hearing people. I have
> come to expect prejudice from them as a matter of routine and am
> therefore have a prejudice that all hearing people are prejudiced.
> I pre-judge that they are prejudiced, in other words. Since you
> ask me to, (although not entirely nicely, I note), I shall suspend this
> pre - judgement in my reply. Actually, I think you have demonstrated
> a considerably lack of prejudice and deserve to be treated decently
> in most respects. However, see below..
Thanks for that. I think. ;) You shouldn't be so prejudiced you know. Some
of us are quite nice. We just don't always know how to express it.
> Well, I'm sorry, but I have to differ. By and large, the human race are
> sophisticated monkeys. I'm willing to bet a lot of social patterns
> and behavior map directly onto simian ones, particularly as regards
> inclusion / exclusion and social pecking order and conformity. I'll
> get back to you on this one, as I'm not au fait with the current research
> in the field, and can't fully cite my sources.
Yes, but we have the potential, if nothing more, to become more. Actually, i
agree with you. Humanity to me doesn't seem to have advanced an awful lot,
despite technological and social advances - your articles from the BBC
website (gratefully appreciated, BTW) testify to that. BUT, i think that we
should never give up hope that we can raise the level of people's horizons
and intellects. At the same time, we should be wise enough to realise that
it can't be rushed.
> I quote from Matthew's original post :
> "He tragically loses his hearing and goes to a school for the deaf and
> blind where staff keep him from playing the piano for various misguided
> educational resons".
> Imaginary demons, eh? Dearie me, what could you be accusing me of?
> There are some pretty unsavory implications here...>
> Matthew specifically uses the words "TRAGICALLY" and "KEEPS HIM FROM".
> Very clear, I'd have thought.
Emmmm ... doh. Sorry. My fault entirely. Missed that.
>I do take the point
> >that deafened people can still compose music, as Ms Glennie does, but it
> >would still remain a tragedy (for a time?) for the hero of this script -
> >because he cannot hear what he plays.
> I don't think Ms. Glennie sees herself as a tragedy. Nor do Pauline or I.
That's why i said tragedy *for a time* because onviously, if he accepts his
deafness - as you, Pauline and Ms Glennie have - then the tragedy ceases to
be so. Or maybe i'm mistaken in my belief that something can be a tragedy
for merely a short term? I'd consider it a tragedy if i lost, say, my arms -
but when (if?) i accept that fact, then it is no longer a tragedy for me. I
just imagine that someone in Matthew's script would certainly see it as
tragedy at the beginning - but later on he might say it was the best thing
that could have happened. Never meant to insinuate that you, Pauline or
Glennine thought of yourselves as tragedies - again, evidence to the
contrary is standing in front of me and tapping me on the forehead. ;)
> Why does Goya's example show that deafness can be a tragedy? It probably
> informed his work in ways that it would not have otherwise and gave
> him a powerful means of dramatizing his ideals and beleifs. If he
> had problems, they were social. He is in a society that does not
> subscribe to his ideals and is corrupt, yet he is embedded in it
> in the Royal Acadmey and court. Even without deafness he would have
> had enourmous problems. His deafness may even have protected him.
Ok fair point, but i stick by my original contention that all the famous
examples in the world won't change the fact that when people lose their
hearing suddenly, they often view it as a tragedy. And i argue that -
questions of long term acceptance aside - at the time, it can rightly be
described as tragic.
Anyone like to give a dictionary definition of 'tragedy'? it might help!
> Ok, that's a valid point. When I cited Beethoven and Goya, I was not
thinking
> in terms of a 'cure' - i.e. the medical model, but in terms of the social
> model of disability. Beethoven and Goya went through classic emotional
> responses to deafness and dealt with them as artists, channeling their
> fulfilment into their artistic activity to compensate for what they lost
> in social activity. Human beings seek fulfilment in different ways.
> A loss of a facility, be it a sense or a bodily function may force
> re-evaluation of the ways you are fulfiled. The process involves a
> lot of anger and frustration when fulfilment is denied, perhaps
indirectly.
All accepted. My point is though that short term, it's a pretty harrowing
experience. Hmm, if you've given ground on 'ignorant', maybe i should cry
uncle on 'tragedy'...;)
> >Er, could you take me out of this little pigeonhole? It's kind of
cramped, and i don't think i quite belong here.
> Perhaps, when you stop lambasting me. You were the one who took
> exception to my post in response to Matthew. From where I am
> standing you read a lot of ill - will into my post that I didn't
> intend. I don't mean to insult Matthew but to warn him that
> he is entering a contentious area, and it's something he
> couldn't have known about. I didn't add anything of my personal
> experience because Paulines experience mirrors my own
> and I couldn't add much to her excellent post.
OK - i just have a lot of problems with the way your advice was given -
indeed with the way that Pauline gave it too.
> Ok fair point. Let's lay down the grouund rules here, before we
> start this debate so that the goal posts don't shift as they do
> on the ever changing tides of UseNet. I made the assumption that
> you were just a better class of troller.
Whats a troller? Pardon my ignorance - oops, my not knowing the term. ;)
I welcome and am
> gladdened by your views as it means we have some common ground.
> You have to tell me first, what you will accept as "scientific"
> proof. If you mean an independent, verifiable experiement with a
> single variable and a control, it might be difficult to arrange.
> But that doesn't stop sociologists :-)
Ah but is sociology a true science? (i don't know meself.) Thing is, we had
common ground all along. I would have thought that was implicit - after all
i have the fortune to be posting to a group set up by and contributed to
mainly by deaf people. I agree with 90% of what you were saying all along -
i just feel (and this, in the grand scheme of things, may be only a small
problem) that there is often a hostility or suspicion of hearing people
entering into the area, because of attitudes that they are *expected* to
have. I am just arguing that Matthew may not have these attitudes.
As to the society & disability thing - thanks for those BBC articles again.
Harrowing stuff, but i am still not sure if it proves that society acts as
one and deliberately creates exclusion of disabled people. The articels show
the horrible symptoms, not any kind of cause. I'm a great fan of Hayek's
model of society, if not his political theories - society as a confused,
haphazard mish-mash of traditions, outgrowths, changes-in-progress and
oddities in human interaction and existence. hayek argues that such a system
was never planned in the first place; we are therefore mistaken to assume it
*can* be changed to suit us, if not wrong - because the will to change it
(usually) springs from good intentions. Now Hayek of course was using this
as a reason to reject socialism, but i think it is possible to positively
*influence* society to try and change things - as people to today with Deaf
Awareness classes, sign language tuition, and just plain spreading-the-word
(as i try to do in my own small way.)
The articles show that society has been fraught with horrible, horrible
attitudes to disabled people, the Deaf, blacks, gays, women etc. etc. for
centuries and in many ways not much has changed. But we just can't say that
these atitudes were somehow set in motion. true, you can say 'oh, the Bible
has much to do with the dominance of the aural rather than the visual
tradition in religion, which dominated society for centuries", and you could
be right, but somehow I don't think all the various people involved in the
Bible's creation intended it that way - it just happened. Ao as much
statistics as there are to show that deaf people are excluded, this
'excluded' can only be in an _active_ sense if one accepts that there is no
master plan - that there is no conspiracy afoot to exclude - that these
attitudes are the nasty residue of history. How to get rid of them? Well,
influence can be the only way forward - or intelligent lobbying and
campaigning, because i feel there are limits on how much focus groups and
awareness classes can achieve; and even if legislation is passed from above
(a possibility that seems to fluctuate between 'lookin' good' and 'pretty
damn bleak'), that doesn't always mean it will change attitudes. It may well
harden them. Look at the furore over positive discrimination in the US for
example - and preferential treatment is just one of the nooses that
movements like the Deaf lobby can step into.
In essence, the way forward - in my opinion - is as Pauuline suggests;
little ripples. Anything bigger than that might be counterproductive. Though
at the end of the day i am an observer rather than a participant and deaf
people will lobby the way they bloody want to lobby ... and more power to
'em. ;)
>
> Once upon a time, it wasn't realistic for slaves to be freed,
> women to have the vote or race equality to be recognised in law.
> Social progress depends on people being willing to take up
> 'unrealistic' positions and defend them. If deaf awareness and
> disability awareness were taught at primary school and reinforced,
> then I am sure there would be a shift in perceptions. It takes
> time, as you say, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Damn right. I agree 100%. Time will tell - and i really do think it will -
if technology doesn't sneak in and try to erode the Deaf community - i think
that's a scary and very real possibility. I don't think i meant that it was
unrealistic to effect *any* change in society - just that it was damn damn
hard in the past and the process is still incomplete, though starts have
been made.
> Hearing
> people *can* do it (communicate with deafies), it's just
> they lack the confidence and concious knolwdege of how
> to do it and end up freezing the deafie out. Sometimes
> intentionally, sometimes not.
I agree ... and they should be given that knowledge. As an option.
> >And i do not buy the concept that society acts as one mind, acts as one
> >entity, and consciously excludes deaf people and other minorities.i
> Neither do I. But I do buy the concept of a 'social consensus' - that
> some actions are socially acceptable and others are not. At the moment
> for example, laughing out at a deaf person and making cruel jokes *is*
> socially acceptable, by and large in a way that similar jokes about
> sex and race are not. Unless you are a Bernard Manning fan, I suppose.
> I don't think you are :-)
Nope. Though i am a fan of other comedians who do poke fun at minorities, or
at least, the stereotypes. Howard Stern for instance, Adam Sandler, etc -
although i should qualify that; since taking up deaf studies i find that
portrayals of deaf people in comedy are so wayyyyy off base that they are
utterly unbelievable, and so, unfunny.
Yes, making cruel jokes about minorities of all kinds *is* still socially
acceptable - i notice even many deaf people tell black jokes - and vice
versa! Personally, i find that that is one of the features of our society
that will be least possible to change, like that language we use. I mean,
let's face it, some ethnic humour is pretty damn funny. Some is downright
offensive. It's important to tell teh difference, and also that *good*
ethnic humour depends a lot on whether a member of the group itself will
find it funny. Paddy jokes, for example - i do not get offended by. Cause
most of tehm are downright stupid jokes. This is a complicated area - like
political correctness and our everyday language - involving far more
discussion than i'll put into this post, though i'm happy to elaborate.
> Ok, you are right - "Ignorant" is too strong. "Unaware", would perhaps
> have been a better choice. I plead guilty to bad use of language.
Actually, i get the feeling that in Irish-English, 'ignorant' has a far
deeper shade of meaning - it really does have very negative undertones in
Ireland. So maybe there was confusion on both our parts. Intersting though?
> I don't believe he mentioned the
> >word 'exploit'. true, his question says that he wasnts to know
deafpeople's
> >educational background - and not specifically their opinions of the basic
> >idea, but since he offers to explain himself fully to anyone (and
> >presumably, to take on board their input) it kind of rules out
exploitatoin,
> >or at least conscious exploitation.
>
> "At least concious exploitation". Your phrase appears to undermine your
> own argument :-) In not conciously examining his material (ie. doing
> research) Matthew is, ulitmiately exploiting perceptions of disabled
> people as 'tragic'.
Yes, but the point is, he hasn't finished the script; and this seems to be
part of his research, so he *is* doing research, don't you think? And i
think the difference is that exploitation is 99.9% of the time, conscious.
Again, anyone got a dictionary? ;)
> He is probably safer that way, than entering the minefield unless he has
> a sincere desire to understand and grapple with the subject, in which
> case my warning will not scare him off and I will respect it.
Hmmm. He hasn't responded to any of these posts, and even though i mailed
him and told him he should - no response. So i guess we can draw our own
conclusions ...
> I can't give him simple, easy answers in a newsgroup - it's a big
> subject - look at the length of this post! So accusing me of
> glibness, well, it's only the medium. If I want to answer
> that kind of stuff I'll go write a biography.
Actually, you may have a point there - damn, it is tough enough for me to
respond to these posts myself ... and he hasn't asked for any specific info
himself from you so .. Still, i think the pieces about Goya and Beeethoven
should have been in your first email to him.
> my education actually
> benefited from my deafness in terms of the individual attention I
> recieved from my teachers (much smaller class sizes) and the fact I
> was removed from a mainstream school where I was being bullied
> mercilessly for my (up until then) slight deafness.
> However, many of my contemporaries did not benefit. I, like, Pauline
> was the 'star' pupil and I did not realise what was going on until much
> later in life, when I left University and the fact haunts me somewhat.
John - if it is OK with you - do you mind telling me a bit about your
educational experiences? If it is not too much trouble. Even though i
recently finished my own piece of research into Irish deaf education (and
therefore i have a pretty good idea of what you're talking about), it's
always good to get personal accounts of this. Up to you, if you want, email
me at myt...@indigo.ie .
>
>
> There is a thing called the World Wide Web. If he wants to do reasearch
> it's as simple as keying a name and a keyword into a search engine.
> That would give him some starting points.
Good point - and the more i think of it the more annoyed i am that the guy i
was defending hasn't responded = and actually seems to have fled.
> >That's funny, because if it is so typical of the 'well-meaning' approach,
> >then why is it not good-intentioned, as you state above?
>
> Possibly because the 'well-meaning' apprach is only a vehicle for a desire
> for paternalistic control, or is too superfical to provide the motive
> to power the drive to make a real difference. Unlike your good self,
> I would infer from your posting.
Ta. Although i hav heard many examples of the well-meaning-but-seeks-control
approach before. Sometimes - as i found out when i studied irish
organisations for the deaf - it's not quite that simple. Have you any
examples? I have heard the RNID exemplifies this attitude ...
> You used the word 'tirade'. Does this not have connotations of
> ill - temper? Why are you allowed to cite 'connotations' and I not?
>
> Double mouldy custard to you and no returns!
:OP !!!!
>No
argument
> >here that deaf people have been victims of a terrible history, that they
> >seek to throw off their status as victims and stand on their own 2 feet.,
> >Hey to be honest, to me, that has been bloody obvious from the start. Any
> >anger deaf people feel is more than justified, as is any minority
group's.
>
> Thank you for allowing me a right to my anger. Generous of you.
Ah for God's sake. See, that is why i was dodgy about even mentioning my
stance about ISL and deaf education - in case i got it thrown back in my
face, like you just did there. I'm not asking for compliments or respect
when i say something like that - it's simply the truth. You disagree?
> >The thing is, i believe there are ways to go about righting wrongs that
> >work. And others that don't.
> >
> For example?
As i've said - positive discrimination. Forcing people to learn sign
language that don't want to. Trying to forcefully impose attitudes on people
that they simply may not be ready for. In short, trying to unduly hurry a
process that takes time and time and more time. And YES, i admit that no one
has ever tried to 'force' Sign language on people, or inclusive attitudes to
deaf people - but sometimes, when i read the more militant 'deaf power'
literature, that is often what is called for. Sorry, that is just my
interpretation.
I think we should pursue policies that will *both* try to begin a process of
levelling the playing field, and also effect a gentle and effective change
in attitudes. But i have seen so many examples where this has not worked -
racism in the US and UK, anti-traveller and anti-refugee hatred in Ireland,
etc, etc.
What kind of policies?
a) It's not for me to say.
B) I dunno.
> The last thing I want to see, along with Pauline,
> is another 'tragic but brave' story. I can't speak for anyone
> else here but they make me feel physically ill.
Hmmm - me too, i suppose.
>
> Braveheart isn't art. It's entertainment and a dramatization
> of history. It's a good story but who is going to watch it in
> 50 years time except mad Scottish Nationalists?
Hey !!! LAY OFF BRAVEHEART!!!!
>
> As for 2001:A Space Oddesy, Clarke, the writer of the book,
> who worked in parallel with Kubrick has a great deal of
> knowldege that allows him to extarpolate himself into
> situations that no human being has (yet) experienced.
> I respect that. Matthew has appears to have no knowldege
> of deafness or blindness or experience of it, yet he
> presumes to extrapolate himself into the position of
> a deafened person and his blind(ed?) sweetheart. Tch.
> If this film is meant as an allegory then I'm willing to
> be more receptive. It's fair use of material. Consider
> H.G.Wells and his land of the blind.
Perhaps Matthew *has* had a roughly similar experience and wishes to treat
it in an allegorical form. It's not impossible.
> By and large, I beleive the above statement to be true at some level.
> We know things either by discorse or by experience. I belive, although
> I have no proof, that all art is informed at some level by experience.
> This is a personal belief, and I am quite willing to accept that it
> may not be true, as the quickest way to look like a complete
> pratt in public is to be dogmatic about the nature of Art,
> but for now it's my rule of thumb in dividng art from "mere"
> entertainment.
I broadly agree, but my head hurts, so i won't elaborate ;) (sorry - i'm not
as much of an art critic as your good self, it appears!)
> Try having facial eczma if you really want to plumb the depths. It's not
> contigatious, just unasthetic, causes great suffering and gets you
> shunned socially. Great fun.
OOooohhhhh, caustic. Think i should explain that remark - what i mean is
that i hear the comments and bigotry of hearing people - those who are
friends and those who thankfully are not - every day, whereas of course i am
not on the receiving end. I think it can give an invaluable, if of course
not equivalent, perspective on the attitudes of hearing society. I
personally don't want to plumb those depths - or anyone else to, for that
matter. I guess that is what the struggle is all about.
OK? i think we can stop arguing now ;)
Cormac Leonard
ICQ - 33697118
AOL-IM - mythyka
=============================
Try to save a place from the cuts and the scratches
Try to overcome the complications and the catches
Nothing ever grows and the sun doesn't shine all day
Try to save myself but myself keeps slipping away
- Nine Inch Nails, "Into The Void"
.uk
John Fred Connors
>> Yes, I am freely admit I am prejudiced against hearing people. I have
>> come to expect prejudice from them as a matter of routine and am
>> therefore have a prejudice that all hearing people are prejudiced.
>> I pre-judge that they are prejudiced, in other words. Since you
>> ask me to, (although not entirely nicely, I note), I shall suspend this
>> pre - judgement in my reply. Actually, I think you have demonstrated
>> a considerably lack of prejudice and deserve to be treated decently
>> in most respects. However, see below..
>Thanks for that. I think. ;) You shouldn't be so prejudiced you know. Some
>of us are quite nice. We just don't always know how to express it.
Perhaps, but I'm going through a bad phase at the moment.
<Bits about the simian nature of society snipped>
>Yes, but we have the potential, if nothing more, to become more. Actually, i
>agree with you. Humanity to me doesn't seem to have advanced an awful lot,
>despite technological and social advances - your articles from the BBC
>website (gratefully appreciated, BTW) testify to that. BUT, i think that we
>should never give up hope that we can raise the level of people's horizons
>and intellects. At the same time, we should be wise enough to realise that
>it can't be rushed.
>> I quote from Matthew's original post :
>> "He tragically loses his hearing and goes to a school for the deaf and
>> blind where staff keep him from playing the piano for various misguided
>> educational resons".
>> Imaginary demons, eh? Dearie me, what could you be accusing me of?
>> There are some pretty unsavory implications here...>
>> Matthew specifically uses the words "TRAGICALLY" and "KEEPS HIM FROM".
>> Very clear, I'd have thought.
>Emmmm ... doh. Sorry. My fault entirely. Missed that.
Ooops. :-) Monkeys make mistakes. Men admit 'em.
Miriam-Webster:
Main Entry: trag·e·dy
1 a : a medieval narrative poem or tale typically describing the downfall
of a great man
b : a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the
protagonist and a superior force (as destiny) and having a sorrowful
or disastrous conclusion that excites pity or terror
c : the literary genre of tragic dramas
2 a : a disastrous event
b : MISFORTUNE
3 : tragic quality or element
So I guess you can call losing your hearing a tragedy under definition 2 a,
if you point to it as a single event but not under 1, as a tragic process.
A lot depends on your personal philosophy, I suppose. "What doesn't kill
me, makes me stronger..", is one possible attitude.
>> Ok, that's a valid point. When I cited Beethoven and Goya, I was not
>thinking
>> in terms of a 'cure' - i.e. the medical model, but in terms of the social
>> model of disability. Beethoven and Goya went through classic emotional
>> responses to deafness and dealt with them as artists, channeling their
>> fulfilment into their artistic activity to compensate for what they lost
>> in social activity. Human beings seek fulfilment in different ways.
>> A loss of a facility, be it a sense or a bodily function may force
>> re-evaluation of the ways you are fulfiled. The process involves a
>> lot of anger and frustration when fulfilment is denied, perhaps
>indirectly.
>All accepted. My point is though that short term, it's a pretty harrowing
>experience. Hmm, if you've given ground on 'ignorant', maybe i should cry
>uncle on 'tragedy'...;)
See above.
<Stuff about me putting hearies in pigenholes snipped>
>> Ok fair point. Let's lay down the grouund rules here, before we
>> start this debate so that the goal posts don't shift as they do
>> on the ever changing tides of UseNet. I made the assumption that
>> you were just a better class of troller.
>Whats a troller? Pardon my ignorance - oops, my not knowing the term. ;)
Someone who posts a single post - say, "Linux Sucks" to comp.os.linux -
and then runs away while the flames start. Usually they are transparent.
It's the coherent ones that are indisidious. We have had a few
"What did you say? HAHAHAHA" type posts in here in the past. Similar
principle. I wonder who these sad sods are, though. Young Conservatives,
probably :-)
> I welcome and am
>> gladdened by your views as it means we have some common ground.
>> You have to tell me first, what you will accept as "scientific"
>> proof. If you mean an independent, verifiable experiement with a
>> single variable and a control, it might be difficult to arrange.
>> But that doesn't stop sociologists :-)
>Ah but is sociology a true science? (i don't know meself.) Thing is, we had
I'm not going to argue this one but it would appear that it could reasonably
claim to be a statistical discipline or a branch of philosophy : both
intellectually respectable, but along somewhat different premises and
levels of validity from a 'hard' science and as long as sociologists
admit this, I'm willing to listen to ones with hypotheses and data.
>common ground all along. I would have thought that was implicit - after all
>i have the fortune to be posting to a group set up by and contributed to
>mainly by deaf people.
It's an open newsgroup, anyone can read, anyone can post, subject to the
terms and conditions of their ISP. Censorship is dammn near impossible
and everything is 100% public. Annonymity is really possible if you
want it, but you have to go out of your way and get it. Anyone can
post anything, and if you don't like it - tough. Unless it's libellious
or obscene. These are the ground rules of UseNet, and that's why it
resembles Bedlam.
>I agree with 90% of what you were saying all along -
>i just feel (and this, in the grand scheme of things, may be only a small
>problem) that there is often a hostility or suspicion of hearing people
>entering into the area, because of attitudes that they are *expected* to
>have. I am just arguing that Matthew may not have these attitudes.
Well, he hasn't shown any evidence of this so far. It can be argued either
way. Without a post from him to clarify his motives this argument is
fruitless.
>As to the society & disability thing - thanks for those BBC articles again.
>Harrowing stuff, but i am still not sure if it proves that society acts as
>one and deliberately creates exclusion of disabled people. The articels show
>the horrible symptoms, not any kind of cause. i
>I'm a great fan of Hayek's
>model of society, if not his political theories - society as a confused,
>haphazard mish-mash of traditions, outgrowths, changes-in-progress and
>oddities in human interaction and existence. hayek argues that such a system
>was never planned in the first place; we are therefore mistaken to assume it
>*can* be changed to suit us, if not wrong - because the will to change it
>(usually) springs from good intentions. Now Hayek of course was using this
>as a reason to reject socialism, but i think it is possible to positively
I liked Popper's arguments for rejecting socialism better - that it claimed
an absolute truth from spurious scientific authority - just as the
lassez - faire people do now - and linear progression to an utopian state.
But this is neither the time nor the place.
>*influence* society to try and change things - as people to today with Deaf
>Awareness classes, sign language tuition, and just plain spreading-the-word
>(as i try to do in my own small way.)
Good for you!
>The articles show that society has been fraught with horrible, horrible
>attitudes to disabled people, the Deaf, blacks, gays, women etc. etc. for
>centuries and in many ways not much has changed. But we just can't say that
>these atitudes were somehow set in motion. true, you can say 'oh, the Bible
>has much to do with the dominance of the aural rather than the visual
>tradition in religion, which dominated society for centuries", and you could
>be right, but somehow I don't think all the various people involved in the
>Bible's creation intended it that way - it just happened. Ao as much
>statistics as there are to show that deaf people are excluded, this
>'excluded' can only be in an _active_ sense if one accepts that there is no
>master plan - that there is no conspiracy afoot to exclude - that these
>attitudes are the nasty residue of history. How to get rid of them? Well,
I'm not sure I can agree with this. True, at the level of 'conspiracy
theory' as an explanation for exclusion the disabled is ridiculous
as conspiracy theories usually are, but there is the more indisidious
area of value judgements. Most of the examples Pauline has given
are an example of hearing people not thinking, but some of them
involve implict value judgements, for example the problems that
seem to crop up with subtitiling more often than not - frequent
misbilling of subtitled programs, lack of subtitles or faults
that go without apology. If it was the audio that was broken, and
not the subtitles, don't you think action would be a lot more
effective and swifter. This to me seems a clue to me that
a value judgement is being made somewhere. Likewise, when the
lecturer who has an interpreter in the room, and knows that
there is a deaf person present switches off the lights to make
an OHP presentation. Somewhere there is a set of values here that
subordinates the deaf person's needs to that of the average.
I ask you deafie to hearie, what is that value system? How do we
get at it and give it the kicking it has so long and richly
deserved?
>influence can be the only way forward - or intelligent lobbying and
>campaigning, because i feel there are limits on how much focus groups and
>awareness classes can achieve; and even if legislation is passed from above
>(a possibility that seems to fluctuate between 'lookin' good' and 'pretty
>damn bleak'), that doesn't always mean it will change attitudes. It may well
>harden them. Look at the furore over positive discrimination in the US for
>example - and preferential treatment is just one of the nooses that
>movements like the Deaf lobby can step into.
One idea I toyed with for awhile was to get a stack of C.V's printed,
with two identites - one "deaf", one "hearing" with the same skills
and qualifications and backgrounds and submit them to employers
in duplicate. When the deafie got refused an interview and the hearie
allowed one I'd jump down thier throat with loaded lawyer. Trouble
is, what if they invite both to an interview? I'm stuffed..
>In essence, the way forward - in my opinion - is as Pauuline suggests;
>little ripples. Anything bigger than that might be counterproductive. Though
>at the end of the day i am an observer rather than a participant and deaf
>people will lobby the way they bloody want to lobby ... and more power to
>'em. ;)
You're probably right. Winning rights in law is a first step: they have
then to be used wisely. I think there will be a backlash whatever we do.
I think confronting and rebutting this backlash is part of the job
that needs to be done. Since it's the reaction to of one part of
society asserting itself against many other parts. Doing things
in small steps might spread the process out and make it easier,
but ultimately it will be the same process.
>> Once upon a time, it wasn't realistic for slaves to be freed,
>> women to have the vote or race equality to be recognised in law.
>> Social progress depends on people being willing to take up
>> 'unrealistic' positions and defend them. If deaf awareness and
>> disability awareness were taught at primary school and reinforced,
>> then I am sure there would be a shift in perceptions. It takes
>> time, as you say, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
>Damn right. I agree 100%. Time will tell - and i really do think it will -
>if technology doesn't sneak in and try to erode the Deaf community - i think
>that's a scary and very real possibility. I don't think i meant that it was
>unrealistic to effect *any* change in society - just that it was damn damn
>hard in the past and the process is still incomplete, though starts have
>been made.
Things improve slowly. Nowadays a deaf person's application for University
or College is treated seriously, they just don't get laughed at.
>> Hearing
>> people *can* do it (communicate with deafies), it's just
>> they lack the confidence and concious knolwdege of how
>> to do it and end up freezing the deafie out. Sometimes
>> intentionally, sometimes not.
>I agree ... and they should be given that knowledge. As an option.
I think they should have it drilled into their thick skulls at point
blank range in mass re-education camps.
Only joking, although I confess that if a cornute gentleman ever offered
me this as an option on a contract I had to sign in blood I'd be mighty
damn tempted. Get thee behind me!
>> >entity, and consciously excludes deaf people and other minorities.i
>> Neither do I. But I do buy the concept of a 'social consensus' - that
>> some actions are socially acceptable and others are not. At the moment
>> for example, laughing out at a deaf person and making cruel jokes *is*
>> socially acceptable, by and large in a way that similar jokes about
>> sex and race are not. Unless you are a Bernard Manning fan, I suppose.
>> I don't think you are :-)
>Nope. Though i am a fan of other comedians who do poke fun at minorities, or
>at least, the stereotypes. Howard Stern for instance, Adam Sandler, etc -
>although i should qualify that; since taking up deaf studies i find that
>portrayals of deaf people in comedy are so wayyyyy off base that they are
>utterly unbelievable, and so, unfunny.
Yes, but have you considered the portrayal of hearing people in deaf jokes?
>Yes, making cruel jokes about minorities of all kinds *is* still socially
>acceptable - i notice even many deaf people tell black jokes - and vice
>versa!
True. I have seen some most primeval attitudes in deaf clubs. I can
only plead the mitigating circumstance that social isolation has lead
to this.
>Personally, i find that that is one of the features of our society
>that will be least possible to change, like that language we use. I mean,
>let's face it, some ethnic humour is pretty damn funny. Some is downright
>offensive. It's important to tell teh difference, and also that *good*
>ethnic humour depends a lot on whether a member of the group itself will
>find it funny.
Or even tell them.
>Paddy jokes, for example - i do not get offended by. Cause
>most of tehm are downright stupid jokes. This is a complicated area - like
>political correctness and our everyday language - involving far more
>discussion than i'll put into this post, though i'm happy to elaborate.
Yes, I'm aware of the complications.
>> Ok, you are right - "Ignorant" is too strong. "Unaware", would perhaps
>> have been a better choice. I plead guilty to bad use of language.
>Actually, i get the feeling that in Irish-English, 'ignorant' has a far
>deeper shade of meaning - it really does have very negative undertones in
>Ireland. So maybe there was confusion on both our parts. Intersting though?
I wouldn't know about Irish-English usage. It's some time since I stalked
the wild woods of Kilburn.
>> I don't believe he mentioned the
>> >word 'exploit'. true, his question says that he wasnts to know
>deafpeople's
>> >educational background - and not specifically their opinions of the basic
>> >idea, but since he offers to explain himself fully to anyone (and
>> >presumably, to take on board their input) it kind of rules out
>exploitatoin,
>> >or at least conscious exploitation.
>> "At least concious exploitation". Your phrase appears to undermine your
>> own argument :-) In not conciously examining his material (ie. doing
>> research) Matthew is, ulitmiately exploiting perceptions of disabled
>> people as 'tragic'.
>Yes, but the point is, he hasn't finished the script; and this seems to be
>part of his research, so he *is* doing research, don't you think? And i
>think the difference is that exploitation is 99.9% of the time, conscious.
>Again, anyone got a dictionary? ;)
>
Again, M-W and the definition is ambiguous
1> To make productive use of.
2> To make use of meanly or for one's own advantage.
I guess conscious intention may not come into it except possibly implictly
in 2>.
>> He is probably safer that way, than entering the minefield unless he has
>> a sincere desire to understand and grapple with the subject, in which
>> case my warning will not scare him off and I will respect it.
>Hmmm. He hasn't responded to any of these posts, and even though i mailed
>him and told him he should - no response. So i guess we can draw our own
>conclusions ...
Oh, well, there goes another one...
<Stuff about glibness snipped>
<Stuff about educational experiences and a plea for research material
snipped>
>> There is a thing called the World Wide Web. If he wants to do reasearch
>> it's as simple as keying a name and a keyword into a search engine.
>> That would give him some starting points.
>Good point - and the more i think of it the more annoyed i am that the guy i
>was defending hasn't responded = and actually seems to have fled.
So maybe he was a troller. I did a quick look at his posting history
and that's the only post to UseNet in any group, from that address.
>> >That's funny, because if it is so typical of the 'well-meaning' approach,
>> >then why is it not good-intentioned, as you state above?
>> Possibly because the 'well-meaning' apprach is only a vehicle for a desire
>> for paternalistic control, or is too superfical to provide the motive
>> to power the drive to make a real difference. Unlike your good self,
>> I would infer from your posting.
>Ta. Although i hav heard many examples of the well-meaning-but-seeks-control
>approach before. Sometimes - as i found out when i studied irish
>organisations for the deaf - it's not quite that simple. Have you any
>examples? I have heard the RNID exemplifies this attitude ...
Allegedly. The great RNID debate is best mentioned by other people in this
group, as I'm not as close to it as once I was.
>> You used the word 'tirade'. Does this not have connotations of
>> ill - temper? Why are you allowed to cite 'connotations' and I not?
>> Double mouldy custard to you and no returns!
>:OP !!!!
:-)
>>No
>argument
>> >here that deaf people have been victims of a terrible history, that they
>> >seek to throw off their status as victims and stand on their own 2 feet.,
>> >Hey to be honest, to me, that has been bloody obvious from the start. Any
>> >anger deaf people feel is more than justified, as is any minority
>group's.
>> Thank you for allowing me a right to my anger. Generous of you.
>Ah for God's sake. See, that is why i was dodgy about even mentioning my
>stance about ISL and deaf education - in case i got it thrown back in my
>face, like you just did there. I'm not asking for compliments or respect
>when i say something like that - it's simply the truth. You disagree?
No I don't. So why mention it? You might as well bend over with "Kick
Me" written on your behind.
>> >The thing is, i believe there are ways to go about righting wrongs that
>> >work. And others that don't.
>> >
>> For example?
>As i've said - positive discrimination. Forcing people to learn sign
>language that don't want to. Trying to forcefully impose attitudes on people
>that they simply may not be ready for. In short, trying to unduly hurry a
>process that takes time and time and more time. And YES, i admit that no one
>has ever tried to 'force' Sign language on people, or inclusive attitudes to
>deaf people - but sometimes, when i read the more militant 'deaf power'
>literature, that is often what is called for. Sorry, that is just my
>interpretation.
>I think we should pursue policies that will *both* try to begin a process of
>levelling the playing field, and also effect a gentle and effective change
>in attitudes. But i have seen so many examples where this has not worked -
>racism in the US and UK, anti-traveller and anti-refugee hatred in Ireland,
>etc, etc.
Well, it has worked and it hasn't. In race equality, as in disablity,
I think there has been some positive shift, but there is still a long way
to go. Many of the more ugly aspects are still extant. There will always
be pockets of resistance.
>What kind of policies?
>a) It's not for me to say.
>B) I dunno.
Cop-out! But I don't have a clue really, either. I can tell you the one
thing I have tried when I was with Theatre of the Deaf and that was
try to educate through Theatre In Education in mainstream schools. The
trouble for me, personally, was that I wasn't very good at it. Although
as a whole it was very effective in getting the basics of Deaf
Awareness through in a very short time via role play and signing games.
>> The last thing I want to see, along with Pauline,
>> is another 'tragic but brave' story. I can't speak for anyone
>> else here but they make me feel physically ill.
>
>Hmmm - me too, i suppose.
Popcorn sales would go down if too many people vommited in the
cinema.
>> Braveheart isn't art. It's entertainment and a dramatization
>> of history. It's a good story but who is going to watch it in
>> 50 years time except mad Scottish Nationalists?
>
>Hey !!! LAY OFF BRAVEHEART!!!!
Hey, I didn't say it was bad. Just not a classic. However, being
English, my judgement may be suspect. Bloody Hollywood.
>> As for 2001:A Space Oddesy, Clarke, the writer of the book,
>> who worked in parallel with Kubrick has a great deal of
>> knowldege that allows him to extarpolate himself into
>> situations that no human being has (yet) experienced.
>> I respect that. Matthew has appears to have no knowldege
>> of deafness or blindness or experience of it, yet he
>> presumes to extrapolate himself into the position of
>> a deafened person and his blind(ed?) sweetheart. Tch.
>> If this film is meant as an allegory then I'm willing to
>> be more receptive. It's fair use of material. Consider
>> H.G.Wells and his land of the blind.
>Perhaps Matthew *has* had a roughly similar experience and wishes to treat
>it in an allegorical form. It's not impossible.
Yes, but in the abscence of the guy - we can but speculate.
>> By and large, I beleive the above statement to be true at some level.
>> We know things either by discorse or by experience. I belive, although
>> I have no proof, that all art is informed at some level by experience.
>> This is a personal belief, and I am quite willing to accept that it
>> may not be true, as the quickest way to look like a complete
>> pratt in public is to be dogmatic about the nature of Art,
>> but for now it's my rule of thumb in dividng art from "mere"
>> entertainment.
>I broadly agree, but my head hurts, so i won't elaborate ;) (sorry - i'm not
>as much of an art critic as your good self, it appears!)
I'm not much of a sociologist, either.
>> Try having facial eczma if you really want to plumb the depths. It's not
>> contigatious, just unasthetic, causes great suffering and gets you
>> shunned socially. Great fun.
>OOooohhhhh, caustic. Think i should explain that remark - what i mean is
>that i hear the comments and bigotry of hearing people - those who are
>friends and those who thankfully are not - every day, whereas of course i am
>not on the receiving end. I think it can give an invaluable, if of course
>not equivalent, perspective on the attitudes of hearing society. I
>personally don't want to plumb those depths - or anyone else to, for that
>matter. I guess that is what the struggle is all about.
>OK? i think we can stop arguing now ;)
Yep, OK. It's been enlightening, though. Thanks.
--
Most people are too busy to have time for anything important.
rel
Cormac Leonard wrote in message ...
>As i've said - positive discrimination. Forcing people to learn sign
>language that don't want to. Trying to forcefully impose attitudes on
people
>that they simply may not be ready for. In short, trying to unduly hurry a
>process that takes time and time and more time. And YES, i admit that no
one
>has ever tried to 'force' Sign language on people, or inclusive attitudes
to
>deaf people - but sometimes, when i read the more militant 'deaf power'
>literature, that is often what is called for.
This is perhaps understandable when you consider hearing educators history
of forcing oralism on deaf children, causing them to do repetitive, boring
and often pointless exercises in an attempt to develop speech, always at the
expense of language & cognition, and punishing them physically or
psychologically for using sign / gesture.
cheers
pauline