Post #22: Chapter 49

Chapter 49:

                The different reasons people are deaf was a little complex but I comprehended it to the best of my ability. First, I learned that “A person born deaf is said to be congenitally deaf; one who becomes deaf after birth is adventitiously deaf” (pg. 299). This can be broken down even further. Adventitiously deaf can be separated into two categories, prelingual and postlingual. Postlingual then divides into childhood deafness, pre-vocational deafness, or post-vocational deafness. I discovered that rubella (German measles), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and the Rh factor are all 3 causes of congenital deafness (pg. 299).

                When reading about congenital deafness I learned that “Not all congenitally deaf people have hereditary deafness”( pg. 299). This makes sense but I had made the assumption that in order to be congenitally deaf it must be hereditary after reading previous chapters. This chapter proved that what I thought was wrong.

                I had never heard of Usher’s syndrome before. I read that it is “an autosomal-recessive trait, [and is] a blanket term for several hereditary disorders in which profound sensorineural deafness is accompanied by progressively deteriorating vision” (pg. 300). This syndrome sounds awful, I can’t imagine losing both my hearing and my eyesight.

                Another syndrome I learned about was Waardenburg’s syndrome. This is when “congenital deafness of varying degrees is accompanied by partial albinism, such as white forelock in a head of dark hair, and extremely pale blue or different-colored eyes, and facial anomalities such as wide separation of the inner corners of the eye, and a broad nasal bridge. Not all people with WS have hearing loss, though” (pg. 300). I hadn’t heard of this syndrome either so that was a new one for me.

                This reading also taught me that “while conductive deafness can often be treated, sensorineural deafness is usually irreversible” (pg. 301) and that “adventitious deafness can be caused by accidents” (pg. 301). There were so many new terms in this chapter that I didn’t know before so I felt like I was constantly reading about  new things. One thing I already knew that the authors pointed out was that, “gradual hearing loss can result from repeated exposure to very loud noise” (pg. 301). This is what has happened to my grandpa. He worked in a factory for many years and never wore ear protection and now he is losing his hearing.

                Overall this chapter taught me all about the different causes of deafness and explains why a deaf person may ask. They are “getting a quick idea of their ethnic identity, so to speak- their background, outlook, and place in the Deaf community” (pg. 301).

Post #21: Chapters 47 & 48

Ch. 47:

The term eugenics was a new one for me, I had never heard of that before. I learned that “Eugenics was an exceedingly popular topic in the 19^th century, when many hearing educators and philosophers decided that it was better for the ‘future of the race’ if deaf people could be prevented from reproducing more deaf people” (pg. 289). Reading this really frustrated me and I could not get over how ignorant people were! That is awful! I was shocked to read that Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, even “discussed various measures for preventing deaf people- whom he called ‘undesirable’- from breeding. He proposed legislation to prohibit deaf people from marrying each other, although admitting that this was an impractical expedient” (pg. 289). I couldn’t believe this considering that his mother and wife were deaf. Reading about the Nazi’s killing deaf Jews, and Christians was sad and terrible to read about as well. I never realized how much they were discriminated.

“An estimated 90% of all deaf people have hearing parents. And 90% of all deaf parents have hearing children” (pg. 290). This just goes to show how wrong those who supported eugenics were. I learned that “Hereditary deafness can be autosomal-dominant or autosomal-recessive” (pg. 290). Deafness is not just hereditary. “Early-deafened children may have gotten their deafness from a bacterial or viral infection (e.g., spinal meningitis), high fever, or accident. Those deafened by exposure to a virus, illness or accident would not necessarily be carrying any deaf gene whatsoever-even if one or both parents are deaf” (pg.290). Many people don’t think about all the other reasons one may become deaf, most people tend to focus on the fact that it must be hereditary.

It is interesting that most hearing children “grow up with a positive self-image, a more comfortable sense of identity, than do many deaf children of hearing parents” (pg. 292). It reiterates what was stated in Chapter 46, which is the importance of a parent’s role in making the best decision for their deaf child.

Ch. 48:

I had never heard of a woman falling during pregnancy being a cause of deafness. To me that sounded a little strange and I found it hard to believe that there could be a correlation between the two. The authors apparently agreed with me. They said, “It would seem more logical for a baby injured before birth to be born with dislocated limbs, not defective hearing” (pg. 296). I think in that case I would check to see if it was hereditary instead of a physical incident. I thought that the authors provided Shelley MacLean good advice when they suggested she visit a “genetic counsel, who can test you, give you a more informed idea of the odds, and provide reassurance” (pg. 297).

Post #20: Chapter 46 and Quiz Results

Ch. 46:

It is very difficult to tell someone that what they are doing may not be what’s best for their child. Many parents assume that since it is their child they are automatically making the right decisions. This may or may not be the case. The parents of deaf children “have to make decisions based on their knowledge (which may be scanty or nonexistent), their desire to learn, their own prejudices, expectations, concepts of ‘normality,’ and instincts” (pg. 283). I think that many parents don’t choose sign language because they either don’t know much about it, or don’t want to take the time to learn it. In that case I think that they think they are choosing the easier route for their child. By getting cochlear implants and practicing oralism, they think it will be easier for them to communicate to their child and for their child to be successful in the hearing world.

 It is important to remember, as the authors pointed out, that “what is ‘best’ for one child-or family-may not be ‘best’ for another” (pg. 284). That is something that the parents of deaf children need to keep in mind. Just because they hear success stories from what other parents did they still need to consider the needs of their own child and what will benefit them the most. It may be hard for some parents to make the decision since many parents “want to be the ones to personally teach them, guide them, transmit ethical values, religious faith, and family traditions, monitor their progress every day, and tuck them into bed each night” (pg. 284). The idea of someone else teaching their child to communicate and even teaching them a new form of communication, is hard for them because they are not in control.

 It breaks my heart to read that “too many parents never learn to communicate with their deaf children” (pg. 285). I think that is very selfish on the parent’s part and I agree that it proves that the parents aren’t acting in the best interest of the child (pg. 286). The authors sum this chapter up well by saying that a parent would truly be thinking about the wellbeing of their child if “they seek a better understanding of their child-and themselves” (pg. 286).

Deaf Awareness 5-Minute Quiz:

                I felt really confident taking the quiz. I thought it really highlighted the key concepts from chapters 31-46. I didn’t miss any, which makes me feel that I understand the material from these chapters.

Post #19: Chapters 44 & 45

Ch. 44:

I have discovered, in ASL, that many deaf people ask lots of questions. They don’t mean to offend anyone but they ask out of plain curiosity. If deaf people meet other deaf parents who have a new baby I don’t find it odd that they would ask if the baby was deaf or hearing. “Deaf identity is of prime importance in their lives” (pg. 275). I love how accepting deaf adults are portrayed to be to other deaf children. They share more than a language, they share a culture. “Deaf adults feel an immediate bond, a deep empathy, with all deaf children” (pg. 276).

As for the hearing parents of a deaf child, I think the best way to help your child would be by exposing them to the deaf community and also to emerge yourself into the deaf culture. The authors say that it is best when the hearing parents “make positive efforts to establish their own link to the Deaf community. Instead of ‘surrendering’ their children to this community, they become part of it” (pg.276).

“More often, it’s an affirmation of their empathy with other deaf people. To them, being Deaf is something positive, something to be cherished- and celebrated” (pg.277). So of course a deaf person might ask if a baby is deaf or hearing. They are trying to make personal connections just like hearing people do when they meet someone.

Ch. 45:

This chapter was really interesting because it discusses hearing children raised by deaf parents. “Their children often don’t pick up good speech patterns- clear articulation, intonation, modulation of volume, and expression” (pg. 279). It must be really hard for a hearing child to learn to speak without having what the book would call “speech models”. I never realized how much I depended on my parents to teach me to speak and correct me when I was younger.

I found it sad to read that these children “are often labeled ‘language-deficient’ because ASL, not English, is their first language” (pg. 280). It must be challenging to grow up being bilingual. It would be hard to be expected to communicate clearly in English just because they are hearing. I thought it was very clever for deaf parents to have their hearing children associate with hearing people “to give them practice in listening and articulation skills” (pg. 280). That way the child is exposed to both ASL and English which will help benefit them in the future.

These kids are said to be “sensitized to the need for accessible communication” (pg. 281). Since they were exposed to two different languages all growing up, they see how important it is to be plugged into both cultures. “Their childhood experience… gives them a unique and valuable perspective. Many interpreters. Others become teachers (ASL being a popular specialty), administrators, linguists, researchers, social workers, service providers, performers, or writers” (pg. 281). It is really cool that these hearing kids continue to be part of the deaf culture and use their experience to help mend the culture gap.

Post #18: Chapters 42 and 43

Ch. 42:

The issue regarding cochlear implants is an intense debate. I completely agree with the authors when they state that, “They can choose whatever mode they feel most comfortable with… The issue is choice” (pg. 263). That really puts this whole debate into perspective. Obviously people are going to choose a side but at the end of the day it is up to the deaf person and what they choose to do.

I understand why deaf people feel that implants are “the ultimate denial of deafness” (pg. 263). It takes so much away from their culture. It was sad to read that, “Medical professionals have been advising parents of deaf children that they must never, ever use sign language” (pg. 264). I obviously do not agree with that and wish it wasn’t the case. I think the child should be able to choose and not be persuaded one way or the other.

I think that so many parents of deaf children want their child to receive implants because it seems like it would be the easiest thing to do. They don’t want their child to struggle in a hearing world. What they aren’t considering is that they are robbing their child the chance to experience deaf culture and the opportunity to possibly benefit from a form of language designed specifically for them.

                It really breaks my heart that some parents of deaf children do not even try to learn sign language, even if it means not communicating with their child (pg.265). I couldn’t imagine not being able to communicate with my parents in a way that we all understood, and I think it is selfish of the parent to not attempt.

While reading this chapter I thought about all the deaf people who have received cochlear implants. I hope that they are not outcast from the deaf community if it was something that their parents decided when they were young or even if they made the choice.

Ch. 43:

I think this chapter connects really well with the previous chapter in which they discussed cochlear implants. I think the issue at hand is whether or not the parents are presented with both sides of the matter, and making sure that each option is given an equal opportunity. I was glad to read that the authors agree that it can be important to find out if your child is hearing or deaf when they are babies. I think that will help the kids not get behind. “It’s infinitely better for parents to know that their baby is deaf right away than not to know-to start out with this knowledge instead of losing out on communication and language development for 3 years, then trying frantically to ‘make up for lost time’” (pg. 270).

                I disagree with the parents of Curt, Sallie and John, because they viewed sign language as the last resort that they did not want to have to go to. The fact they want their child to be speaking and not use sign language is very selfish of them. It should be the individual’s decision whether or not they feel comfortable speaking or not. It was also sad to read the article about Kim finding out her son Zak was deaf. She made is sound like such a bad thing and that it would be harmful for the child to learn sign language.

                I agree that “the cochlear-implant industry has mounted a successful marketing campaign, playing on the hopes and fears of parents…” (pg.271). Doctors, audiologist, etc. make it seem like the child is hopeless if they resort to using sign language. I found it super neat that some programs and agencies will come and help teach you sign language (pg. 273). By offering these services I feel like more and more families will consider sign language instead of going straight to the cochlear-implant industry. As far as what is important when teaching a child language I agree that “Clear communication is of the utmost importance” (pg. 273).

Post #17: Chapters 40 and 41

Chapter 40:

“Deaf people commonly use the term hearing (singular noun) or hearings (plural noun) to describe the non-deaf majority” (pg.253). As a hearing person, I found this strange when I first began reading this book. I learned throughout reading this book and in my ASL class that, “Hearing is a term employed by the deaf outsiders, applied to the non-deaf insiders” (pg. 253). I don’t think that it is necessarily used in a condescending way, compared to the labels that deaf people are given. “The labels that have been applied to deaf people throughout the millennia have called attention to our supposed deficits… never our strengths” (pg. 254). This unfortunately is true. After reading Chapter 37, I now recognize many of the labels given to the deaf and now understand why they are so offensive. I think them labeling us as hearing is not necessarily a bad thing but it “can describe attitudes, mindsets, lifestyles, values, even culinary preferences” (pg. 254).

One word that I had never heard of before that this chapter talked about was the term hearo. This word “describes a deaf person who apes hearing people” (pg. 255). I didn’t really understand what that meant so I looked it up. It sounds like it means it is a deaf person who seems to imitate a hearing person. The authors go on to say that, “Hearo is an equally pejorative term”(pg. 255).

Chapter 41:

I really enjoyed reading about the controversy over hearing aids. I was glad that the author started the chapter by pointing out that hearing aids are not “miracle machine” (pg. 257). As dumb as this sounds, before I always just considered how great hearing aids must be for those who need them. I never thought about how awful it would be to have everything amplified, not just what you want to hear. I never considered all the distracting background noises, etc. “It doesn’t work selectively, as our hearing does” (pg. 257). I already knew that hearing aids were “designed for users with moderate deafness” (pg. 257). I think that hearing aids could be a possible option if a deaf person chooses, so I am glad that the authors also agreed that, “The Deaf community is certainly not against children, teenager, or adults voluntarily receiving implants” (pg. 261).

                “The hearing-aid industry prefers to see deaf people in terms of audiological deficit and social debility, as potential consumers of their expensive circuitry, not as members of a cultural-linguistic minority” (pg. 259). I think that this really summarizes why many deaf people do not like hearing aids. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it makes them seem like they are defective and that hearing people make it sound like the only option if you’re deaf. They try to fix your hearing and thus the individual misses out on experiencing the deaf culture. I was glad to read that the deaf person is not criticized if it is their own choice. I think it really should be up to the individual and how they want to communicate. It seems sensible for Deaf people to think of the push for hearing aids as if “The emphasis is on overcoming one’s ‘social difficulties,’ and not on confronting or embracing one’s differentness” (pg. 259).

Post #16: Chapters 38-39

Chapter 38:

I found this chapter very beneficial. I too, just as the writer Shushano Long, find it confusing that the word deaf can be used as an adjective and a noun. Long states in her letter that, “I was told NOT to use deaf as a NOUN. It is an adjective…” (pg. 245) but then later noticed, “organizations use deaf as a NOUN and actually use hearing as a NOUN too when referring to deaf and hearing people” (pg.245).

The authors clarify that, “Using ‘the deaf’ without ‘people’ or ‘community’ is certainly acceptable usage in the Deaf community, especially if it’s part of a title” (pg. 246). When used by associations, and institutions “the usage reflects the fact that these entities were founded by deaf people” (pg. 246).

I learned that it really just depends on, “how strongly they identify with the cultural-Deaf community” (pg. 246) and their personal opinion of hearing people saying “the Deaf”. After reading the story Richard Nowell shared, I agree with him that it may be better to say “deaf persons” than “the deaf” (pg. 247). I think a lot of it is just one’s opinion but I would rather be correct than to accidently offend someone.

Chapter 39:

                “There are two basic ways to see deafness: as a physical disability or an ethnic difference” (pg. 249). This was the opening statement for the chapter and it really got me thinking. I do not think of deafness as a handicap. When people think of a handicap the book provided the reader with a definition that really puts it in perspective. They defined it as “disabled or crippled” (pg. 249). Just because they have a different language and way of communicating than a hearing person does not in any means classify them as disabled or crippled. One would not say that of any other culture such as those who speak Spanish, French, German, etc. So why would they say it of a person who uses sign language? It is just a different form of communication that makes up for a loss or lack of one of their senses. I understand that in medical terms it could be considered a disability because it is a sense that is not functioning but who is to say that that is limiting, it just is different. It doesn’t make them wrong or incapable by any means.

                I didn’t realize before taking ASL that this was something that I really do feel strongly about so the fact that I can learn ASL and then read about their culture and the trials they face, such as being considered disabled or handicap, has really been eye opening. I was not surprised to read that, “The majority of deaf people do not see themselves as handicapped” (pg. 250).

                “The ‘ethnic’ view sees deaf people as different from hearing folks, but just as whole” (pg.250). It was really hard for me to read that this is the opinion held by many doctors and specialists. I am majoring in Communication Disorders to one day become a Speech Pathologist. I do not agree with the ethnic view and know that in the profession I am going in to, I will probably work with deaf children and the approach that I am going to take is probably going to go against popular opinion. If I have learned anything from ASL it is that deaf people are NOT broken. It is not my job to force them to voice. I need to encourage their form of communication because it is not wrong. I certainly want to be able to help them not struggle as much in a predominately hearing world but I will not do it by changing them. Their form of communication is certainly different than a hearing persons but it is not wrong or unacceptable. It is a beautiful language that deserves to be recognized.