I’m not a fan of organisations in general. In principle they are a good idea, but in practise often a necessary evil. As you know, there are many defenders of organisations, oh which organisations themselves are their greatest apologists.

In the intervening years since I was last involved in a Deaf organisation [Friends For The Young Deaf, for which I flew all the way to the UK, and partnered with a former colleague to get it going here in Australia], the charity/welfare model of deafness remains as firmly entrenched as it ever was. They adopt policies that pay lip service to the empowerment of Deaf people, yet brace themselves as jack of all trades, which puts their lip serviced empowerment policies onto a collision course with their actual activities [actions].

One only has to read, Some Charities Living In The Past, Religion: The Final Frontier, The Executive Payroll, It Could be Australia! No Wait! It is!, The Strange Deaf and HI Sector in Australia, and DEAF SERVICES AND CEOs – A FEW WORDS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE; By Paul Bartlett, to get a feel for the way organisations get in the way of empowerment of their constituents. Then reading GOD’s latest post, RNID and Medical Research, you could be forgiven for wondering, “What the fuck!”

Inspite of their protestations, the image they end up projecting is the “Jack Of All Trades and Master of None!’ Well that’s not true in RNID’s case. They are a master of fundraising!

Before we can dissect organisations and ponder what they are, how they are, and why they are, we need to ask ourselves what is an organisation. An organisation, as taken from Wikipedia, can be defined as:

a social arrangement which pursues collective goals, which controls its own performance, and which has a boundary separating it from its environment.

A rather eyebrow raising definition. A definition rent with irony, perhaps? If you break down this definition into the four embedded concepts: social arrangement, collective goals, controls own performance, and separate from its environment, you can begin to see just how and why people are alienated from their organisations. The more I think about, and reflect on the organisations that I have worked with, these are the reasons why I am so ridden with angst at the prospect of becoming involved in Deaf organisations [let alone any organisation] again.

I’m going to give you my own gut reaction to these four concepts. You may well have your own, and you are quite welcome to express them in the comments.

Social Arrangement:

What and whose social arrangement? Who does the organisation represent? Itself, or its professed constituents? If an organisation, such as the RNID professes to represent Deaf people [as well as deaf people], then how the hell does it become embroiled in medical endeavours as described in the email posted RNID and Medical Research and on their site? This automatically disqualifies them as being representative of Deaf People, Deaf Culture and Sign Language. Or is it just part of their modus operandi, which is to raise funds, using “deafness” as the mock social arrangement?

The existence of Deaf and deaf charities and welfare organisations, are in response to the prevailing view of Deaf and deaf people, as unfortunate souls who suffer an affliction, or a terrible malady. Calling into question, once again, by whose social arrangement? Deaf people’s or hearing people’s? Then again, many Deaf and deaf organisations are still being led by hearing people! Then again, the existence of these charities and welfare organisations are actually working against the emancipation of Deaf people. Read Some Charities Living In The Past!

And the intervening years since I was last involved in Deaf organisations, have not thrown up any Deaf leaders of organisations such as RAD, RNID, The Deaf Society of NSW, or [insert the name of one you know]. The question is WHY? Why aren’t Deaf people being groomed or mentored into these positions? It’s not as if there is no Deaf talent. It is there alright. In the UK, a few are shirking the organisations, and going on to set up their own independent structures, such as the production company Remark and the Deaf Professionals Network. In Australia, it’s not for want of trying, but Deaf people seem to be too tied up with Deaf organisations for setting up new independent structures.

Collective Goals:

See Social Arrangement. The question is, whose goals are being represented? I’m pretty sure if RNID was an ethereal charity, it would represent the Devil’s interests as being the equal fo those espoused by GOD’s! I would love to see the justification for this. Joke aside, it is a fair question, whose goals are being represented? Is it Deaf people’s? Is it the organisations? Is it the people who populate the boards that run these organisations? Is it the people’s who comprise the management team? Or is it the dominant society’s, in this case, hearing people’s goals? Well, if RNID are getting involved in medical projects, what does that say about their collective goals? If charities are not actually empowering their constituents, what does it say about their collective goals?

The medical issue alone, is an antagonising one for Deaf people. It conjures up the foreboding thoughts of eugenics, which STOP EUGENICS has spent the last year fighting [not the RNID]. With the RNID’s position, and the people behind the eugenics bill in the UK, irony abounds, trust me! For me, it raises the spectre of Nazism, of which Deaf and disabled people were some of the first victims in the Nazi quest for a pure race.

Controls Own Performance:

To whom are they answerable? We already know that the RNID is impervious to criticism [most organisations are], otherwise they would have a Deaf CEO by now, and not a CEO of a veterinary organisation. It says a lot doesn’t it?

Separate From Its Environment:

We here in Australia have some organisations that are devoted to Deaf people, and Deaf people alone, but conflicts remain. For the same reasons that afflict Deaf people in the UK. The RNID with its finger on the pulse of all that is going down in the field of deafness, why does it insolently continue to chart its own waters? Why does it insist that it represents Deaf people, when its own actions betray otherwise? Why do, charity and welfare organisations, impede their constituents desire for empowerment?

Another charge that is often levied at Deaf organisations, is how they rarely embrace Deaf efforts at independence. The Australian Deaf Chamber of Commerce struggled to find support, though there are moves tos et up professional networks in Australia. But my question is, will they become independent or will they be tied to the mother’s apron strings? In the UK, when a Deaf employment agency is set up, the Deaf organisations seem to be in no rush to support that service by outsourcing their own. If anything, they are all intent on duplicating the services other organisations offer. One of which is to try and cater for the entire spectrum of deaf people.

Nevertheless, are necessary to achieve things collectively that cannot be achieve individually. Organisations can be good, and as long as they don’t run counter to the aspirations of the people they purport to serve. Unfortunately, Deaf organisations have taken on an identity, as if it was an individual with its own wants, needs desires and aspirations. An individual who suffers form schizophrenia.

And you know what the saddest thing is? I know of a few Deaf people, who have been royally fucked over by Deaf organisations!

Recommended Reading:

RNID and Medical Research

Some Charities Living In The Past

Religion: The Final Frontier

The Executive Payroll

It Could be Australia! No Wait! It is!

The Strange Deaf and HI Sector in Australia

DEAF SERVICES AND CEOs – A FEW WORDS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE; By Paul Bartlett