In her latest post, Mishka asks the question, Cochlear Implants Are Oppressive To Some? Yes, it is a sensitive issue, but the bigger question is, why are we Deafies always being asked to examine our own prejudices and misconceptions, yet, the other side are being treated with great sensitivity with regards to their feelings?
Why does no one ever ask the question, Cochlear Implants: Do You Think Your Cochlear Implants are Oppressive to Some? Why does no one ever ask the deafies and the hearing world to actually examine their own prejudices, assumptions and misconceptions? Why is it, as is the norm, that the “oppressed” or weaker group, are expected to understand the deafie point of view, to continually be accommodative? Are we we meant to sup on the arse of benevolence? Are we meant to continually forgive the brain laggers and the knuckle draggers, for they know not what they think?
Well, no. I am not going to extend any great sensitivity or sympathy. I want deafies to show me that they actually do understand what audism is. I want them to show me that they actually understand the Deaf point of view, over and beyond the tired old argument of freedom of choice. I want hearing people to show me, that they can actually think outside the box. I want hearing people to actually show me that they are actually trying to understand the Deaf point of view.
It’s quite common amongst minority groups, that they show understanding, patience and what have you towards those who are ignorant. Let’s take sexism, heterosexism and homophobia as examples. I’ve witnessed ignorance coming from people who have no intention of recanting that same ignorance. They are comfortable in that space, that they think expressing “Sorry” will absolve them of any sins committed. Then they continue to perpetrate the same behaviour with someone else. Or to save them the effort of having to actually THINK, or question their beliefs and ways of seeing, like, “Gay is OK, but not for my children”, woman are still thought of as loose, if they sleep around, but men are seen to be sowing their wild oats, or the idea that a woman’s place is still in the home. Try having a conversation about women with straight guys. Ouch! Need I go on?
I understand where deafies are coming from. I actually understand people like Rachel of Cochlear Implant Online. I actually pity her. More because she has elevated the status of a piece of technology into this Pagan God, which subsumes her own humanity, and anyone else she comes into contact with. I don’t think she has any perspective, other than, “Oh My Gosh! Wasn’t that a wonderful sound!” So there you go Mishka, I’ve pointed the finger.
Last but not least, people keep ignoring the Deaf point of view, the reasons why Deaf people respond as they do, in favour of the “kumbayah, my lord!” school of pseudo community. Enough already!
I do agree that both sides need to see the other side of the rgument, but at the moment, as always has been the case, it’s all too one sided. It’s us that has to do the understanding.
Show me, that you understand me, before you start asking me, for my understanding, towards you.
12 Responses to “Question Time: How Aren’t Cochlear Implants Oppressive?”
Tony, How many of the proponents of CI will actually reply here in response to your question? This will be interesting to see.
I do agree with your take on Rachel’s elevation of CI… and worse, to define oneself by a piece of technology?! That is sad, indeed. I, too, pity her. The thing is, she will NEVER understand why we pity her. She will take umbrage at that, and that, too, is understandable.
Shel
I’m not expecting them to, actually…. it’s like racism, sexism, etc.. how many people actually respond to those issues? They do force one to examine themselves, and perhaps that is why th refusal.
Is oppressive the right word, or are we talking about a technology that is disruptive to a society?
MZ’s post actually did make me ask myself the question you posed — I know that technology can have wide ranging impact on a society, but was baffled by the idea that this type of hearing aid could be considered oppressive to a community. My first thought would be, well, no — they aren’t opprssive, but they are disruptive. But I don’t know what I don’t know, and I’m very much interested in the responses.
One analog is the traditional hearing aid, which has been around a whole lot longer and is pretty much entrenched in the deaf/HOH community. Has this self-examination been done by those using hearing aids and what is the finding? Are hearing aids oppressive? This may help us see why and how the emerging technology of the CI could be oppressive.
Great point, Tony! Yes, why aren’t THEY asked to examine their prejudices and thinking about what it means to be Deaf or Hearing?
I was thinking recently after someone (I think it was MM) accused me of having made “vicious attacks on CI users”…. I responded that I had expressed criticism of the CI, but I had never made any attacks on the users themselves (in person or online). But this got me to thinking…. when we criticize CIs, they view it as an “attack” on THEM personally. Does this mean that their whole identity is wrapped up in this little piece of plastic and metal and silicon?
I may have missed something in the responses to Carl’s vlog on this topic, because of a quirky internet connection.
Your comment that Deaf people are being asked to reexamine their motivations when hearing people aren’t about the CI, seems incongruous when Deaf people have been flinging guilt trips at Hearing people about it for years.
Carl is stating that parents of CI children are making it difficult for Deaf teachers because they expect their childrens’ hearing to be used all day in school. Yes, that happens. But it’s an issue of parent education, not an issue of the CI. That argument has been used against Deaf teachers for many years–first with the oral approach, then with hearing aids.
Parents may be afraid of their deaf child becoming too identified with Deaf adults and this may be behind their concern with the child’s CI-aided hearing being properly stimulated. Education about teacher modeling, social influence and family influence can resolve parent fears.
A principal once asked parents in a similar situation with amazement: “You mean you wouldn’t want your child to become a teacher of the deaf like him?!”
It’s not the technology, so much as the attitudes and assumptions that come with that technology. Hearing aids were once considered just that, “oppressive”, but the diff is that they are not an invasive technology, like the CI is.
However, they both come with the assumption that you will be able top join the normal world, that is hearing. Which plays on the assumption that to be deaf is a bad thing.
Li-Li’s Mom, you may ask the question I posed, but many more don’t. And that needs to happen.
But Dianrez, Hearing people are still flinging the same crap about the normality of hearing! I know I targetted my question specifically to push it off Deaf people.
Yes I know Deaf people themselves need to do some self examination, but is never gonna happen while we are all sucked into polarised positions.
It comes back to the whole question of audism!
I’m thinking about MZ’s question being posed to Deaf people, and your question about why Hearing and proponents of the CI aren’t asked how CI’s are not oppressive.
I replied to MZ’s question in response to one commenter who mentioned what happens to Deaf children who fall through the cracks, and there was discussion of language assessments. That question is worthwhile answering by culturally Deaf in that it enables us to examine the educational system and its cracks from our perspectives. As a teacher, I see the cracks, while the public, and new parents, aren’t aware of those cracks. So it brought that up into the open, and hopefully this will begin more discussions on the educational system.
I’m glad that parents like Li-Li’s Mom are willing to examine the questions for themselves and listen to Deaf adults.
Don G’s question about whether people with CI have their identities wrapped up around the technology is the same one I have been wondering about. I don’t see it as healthy to be THAT wrapped up around a small piece of technology. That’s like saying I’m an IPOD person, and if you criticize the IPOD you’re attacking me.
Shel
I agree with you Shelley. Our humanity has been sidelined basically.
Tony –
i have been out of the DeafRead world for a while so very glad to see u posting
will try to find time to read some of ur other posts that i may have missed
i fell pry to this BINARY thinking last week
this “if u question CIs and if u view CI as a form of audism, then you are rejecting folks with CIs and their parents’ right to choose etc”
i sooooo did not want to be seen as rejecting anyone. it does us no good
so i spent some good honest time trying to figure out what folks thought and how they viewed the world and how we could talk about:
1. the device
2. the manufacturers
3. the specialists / professionals
4. the system and processes of promoting and proliferating CIs etc
and still folks kept misinterpreting, misconstruing and talking out of both sides of the MOUTH
ie they are just a tool / they are saving the world, they are the future, there will be no more Deaf – ya hoo
hmmmm
so thankfully this week i also got to chat with a GREAT thinker who simply said – the sole purpose of CIs is to make someone be able to hear and speak better – audism is defined as the belief and practice that to hear and speak is superior to being Deaf
thus CI are a form of audism
yes i totally knew this / know this but i got all muddled trying to make sure i didnt offend no body
but this gent also raised the point that while u worry about them (and its a given we need to make it clear its not about them who have it but rather the device and its purpose to make one less Deaf etc) while u worry about them – u r in fact abandoning all of those who have suffered from the CIs, all of those who they themselves have grown up to reject the CIs
who speaks for them
there is NO NO NO organization or group that will properly touch this sticky issue for fear of the “we love our fix-it up chappy thingys and u cant and shouldnt reject us or take away our choice” etc
meanwhile there are a slew of folks who have been physically emotional and socially harmed by the device and the process and the system
the baby and child who gets CIs is in the newspaper and TV and its all about that – but do the Deaf folks who have had BAD experiences with CIs make the news paper?
how often are the FACTS (# of deaths, # of facial paralysis, vertigo, headaches, malfunctions, 2nd surgeries, dud CI, etc) get reported?????
bell hooks writes about how the practice and system of straightening one’s hair in the African-American community is a form of aspiring for ‘whiteness’ and a rejection of being Black. it is a product of internalized oppression
she does not say all Black people who straighten their hair are bad, horrible, losers
she just says its important the question the CHOICE of WHY
if it is not natural and u have to work hard to alter urself to look and be against ur nature – is this a product of ur own personal desire of of oppression
it is important to ask this question and many other questions
in think we can tackle this “elephant in the room” – it will be hard and folks will take things VERY personally because CI are actually inserted in their person and do have a profound impact on their personhood and perceptions
i do have hope that we CAN discuss this cuz more and more folks r starting to think critically
i was even thinking after watching one of carl’s vlogs – well maybe the SHIFT / PUSH to implant Deaf kids as EARLY as possible – 6 mo. now is not SOLELY based on hearing acquisition
maybe some of it is based on tapping into that profound grief period that parents are in and also doing it when the Deaf child can have absolutely NO say in it
so the argument maybe me – have to do it as early as possible so they can acquire spoken language as early as possible but it may also be evidence of that awful mask of benevolence – in our great thrust to give u spoken voice – we will remove any opportunity for u or your parents to understand or be exposed to the Deaf voice
i think i thought of this also when i saw how AG Bell executive director reacted so strongly to AFA’s listing of ideas of what folks could do in their local areas to take a stand against audism – there was one wee mention amongst many things about having rallies at oral/aural only programs
http://audismfreeamerica.blogspot.com/2009/03/afa-things-you-can-do-in-your-area-on.html
but AG Bell Executive director called this call for action targeting preschool children and their parents as unconsciousable
i was like whoa – stop painting us as terrorists and wow what u r so afraid
i realized they are afraid of Deaf ASL folks being visible
they are afraid of parents and young Deaf kids seeing Deaf adults and seeing ASL
they may also be very afraid of them seeing that we r basically happy and fun loving folks
it is fascinating
i still have hope that AG Bell will join us in our call for an impartial and independent investigation of CI. they now recognize and accept ASL so hey “the times they r a changing”
thanks again for ur post
peace
p
Hi Patti, I really do always like the way you take the reader through your thought process! So much there to think about and mull over, but one point surprised me:
“audism is defined as the belief and practice that to hear and speak is superior to being Deaf.”
That’s different in a significant way to the way I understood audism (constructed similar to racism) as holding the idea that one person is inherently superior to another based solely on his or her audiological state. In this definition, audism is something that a hearing point might manifest to a deaf person, but also what an aided or oral deaf person might exhibit towards a profoundly deaf person w/out aids, or even what a deaf person might display towards a hearing person.
Otherwise, in the definition you mention, it opens up that really awkward reverse issue or whatever you would call the belief that to use ASL is superior to hearing/speaking. And it brings the definition of Deaf into play, which makes it hard for those who embrace ASL and Deaf culture — and have CIs — to know if you would consider them audistic because both their Deafness and their ability to communicate via hearing/speaking are valued equally.
So, if you consider that choosing to wear a CI is not necessarily placing a higher value on accessing a spoken language than on embracing one’s Deafness via language and culture, that both can be done simultaneously, then a CI decision in itself is not a form of audism. (Of course, some of those choosing to get a CI may feel that for some reason that set of electrodes in their heads makes them suddenly better than those without wiring, in which case, yes: they are exhibiting audism).
Just a quick thought.
HI Li-Li’s MOm
i always love ur reflections and POV
based on this definition and description – how would u see CI fitting or not fitting?
Audism is attitudes and practices based on the assumption that behaving in the ways of those who speak and hear is desired and best. It produces a system of privilege, thus resulting in stigma, bias, discrimination, and prejudice—in overt or covert ways—against Deaf culture, American Sign Language, and Deaf people of all walks of life.
Is it possible to say that CI are a byproduct of audism – a manifestation of audism without saying those who have them are practicing audism?
i dont feel a need for us to hold judgment on individuals who have CIs or parents who have chosen them – i understand that their motivation has been to do “best” by their child or to increase their “success” in a hearing world
i do not want ANY Deaf person with a CI or any parent with a CI to be rejected – that they are not valued, important, loved or belonged
they are valued and treasured and loved. They are an important part of the signing community
We have not been able to discuss this topic fully or honestly because whenever we try to talk about the system behind CI, we totally fear hurting or offending our brethrens and our sisters and their parents
i do also acknowledge that there extremes on both ends – Pro-CI folks who say really insulting things to Deaf culture and ASL folks and others at the opposite end saying horrible things to parents who have gotten CI for their kids or to Deaf adults with CI
i hope im making sense
peace
patti