Dr. DonG.'s Deafhood Discourses - Latest Comments in Degrees of Deafhood

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Ann_C — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:26:25 -0000

Yes, Don, I get your point about seminars.

My hubby and I attended a paid real estate seminar once and we walked out when we realized we saw all the hype onstage and were getting hustled to buy their "program" of CD's, books, and telephone advice. It was another scam as obvious as day.

If one has the time and the inclination, he can glean just as much info on real estate acquisition by going to the library and online, thereby saving money where it will count in tapping the market at the right time, obtaining favorable terms for a mortgage, and getting legal/tax advice in acquiring real estate.

In this day and age unfortunately, nobody wants to STUDY anything worthwhile, so they take the shortcut via seminars. It amazes me that people pay a lot of money to go to these seminars because there are many seminars that are more hype than truth.

I've read some long and very dry excerpts of Paddy Ladd's book. I can't afford his damn book, and from reading the excerpts available online, I'm not inclined to buy the book. Nevertheless, I'd rather go by what the author has written than go by what other people interpret same author's words, period. And some people have taken more liberties with what Ladd has written than what has been acknowledged. This is the part that disturbs me because some individuals have twisted Ladd's words to mean something else just to squash dissent among those who may disagree or are skeptical, Don.

You can't blame some people for being wary about so-called seminars (the presenters are the ones making money off other people's backs) and for being skeptical about yet another philosophy. Philosophy is oh, so trendy these days.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:56:29 -0000

DT and Ann --

I've never been to a workshop (taken a full semester class but not workshop), but as I understand it the workshop provides the framework for understanding the theory behind Deafhood as Paddy has conceptualized it. You could just read the book, but for many people (even with high reading ability), it's a tough read. Think of it this way -- it's like going to a seminar on how to get rich by buying and selling real estate. You know the basic idea yourself, you could read a book on the topic, but when you go to the seminar you get more insights, from the speaker and other attendees and there may be new information or new ways of presenting the ideas that you hadn't thought of or were in the book.

Does that help?

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Ann_C — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:35:42 -0000

How telling, that a Deafhood workshop is required to understand Deafhood? The book itself isn't sufficient?

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DT — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:50:16 -0000

Sure, Don but, again, who needs a workshop on that?

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:37:45 -0000

DT --

No, Deafhood is not about a collective. What you're thinking about is how Deaf culture tends to be collectivist -- we work together to help each other (like when a kid in class doesn't understand the teacher's speech or signs, the others will "interpret" what was said) and will tend to seek a shared consensus rather than leaving it to one person to make a decision. Deaf culture contrasts in this way from general Hearing (American) culture which is individualistic -- everyone is left to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps".

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DT — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:27:52 -0000

I don't know if there are really two distinct presentations of Deafhood but I do sense a distinction in the Americanized version and I'm not sure that bodes well because, after all, since Deafhood is not about a collective. It is about each individual's journey through life. Who needs a workshop on that?

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Bug — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:12:01 -0000

That's your opinion, Mr DonG. The same thing happens when we label others and ourselves. Another word for it is judgment. And when we affix the judgment with super glue -- what a mess.

I am a White guy but I don't tell the world that I have Whitehood, why should I? Same thing with " Deafhood", I am Deaf all my life but I don't need to label myself as "Deafhood" or "Deafmute".

The next time you are about to cast a quick judgment, ask yourself the following questions: Is it true? Is it useful? Is it necessary?

-Bug

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:08:30 -0000

Ann --

I really think you've been lied to that there is a different "way" that Deafhood has been presented here in the U.S. as compared to what Paddy wrote. I've read the book, and I've seen at least one of the presenters discuss it, and I do not see much, if any, difference in the two. People are confused because they have been fed misinformation by people who haven't read the book.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Ann_C — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:58:03 -0000

That's the troubling part about Deafhood-- that "anybody can teach it if they want, although I would hope that they teach it the right way."

Several deaf leaders have taken Ladd's book and run with it here in the USA to mean other things. It's their interpretation of Ladd's words, not the author's words himself, and add to that their strong stance against CI's (yes, they keep their opinions out of their presentations but their opinions are well-known in the deaf community and online) that creates some distrust among some members of the deaf community.

Then add on top of all that, other so-called "deaf experts" latch onto certain words or phrases, such as "colonialized" and "deficit thinker" for examples, and abuse these words to keep other people who are dissenters, or skeptical, or even neutral about Deafhood, in line. Hardly the way to impress people, especially hearing parents of deaf babies reading online.

The deafhood concept has been interpreted so many ways like Chinese whispers online, that it's not a wonder that many readers remain confused.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:56:41 -0000

Margaret,

Am I an expert? Probably not. I've read the book, taken a course from one of the Deafhood presenters, thought about the issues. I want to educate others about how I see and understand Deafhood. If I'm wrong on something, I'm sure others will let me know.

But do I need any sort of authorization to do so? No. There is no copyright or patent on Deafhood. Anybody can teach about it if they want, although I would hope that they teach it in the right way.

But if you want to go hide your head in the sand, I'm sorry to see you go. Your loss. I hope someday you will understand Deafhood is not the evil thing you seem to think it is.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Margaret — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:37:07 -0000

DrDonG, what gives you the right to teach us Deafhood Discourses? You are not an expert in this matter, nor are you authorized to teach us about Deafhood.

Deafhood! Deafhood! Deafhood! Enough! I have had it with Deafhood. You are so anal about Deafhood! Seeing the word, Deafhood, makes my blood boil I decided I am going to click “Hide this” your blog/vlog.

Thank God for "Hide This!" Ta da!

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Elena — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:19:33 -0000

I feel like some people are losing sight of the CULTURAL aspects of Jewish culture-- the Jewish people aren't limited to religious identity, but crosses into ethnic and cultural identity as well. I feel like it is appropriate to use other ethnic cultures' experiences to parallel with Deafhood, particularly those of *oppressed* ethnic cultures, where the parallels become clear with analyzing the historical elements and the formation of the group identity. That's why paralleling the Deaf experience to the African-American, Native American, etc. experiences are valuable to many of us with giving us moments of clarity about the experience of being part of an oppressed, marginalized minority.

It seems like some people are so intent to distort Deafhood into being a crazed radical movement with an agenda to convert and conform people... Like the commenters before me have attempted to declare. I'm not quite sure why some people are reacting like this, but it just pretty much boils down to probably each individual's own neurosis with his/her own struggling identity as a d/Deaf person. If you're not down with Deafhood, that's fine... but at least go educate yourself holistically about Deafhood itself and also about cultural groups in general before the accusations come throwing out. Deafhood really exists to give us understanding and peace about our history, our struggles, and our missions in our lives as members of an important community that should continue to thrive in our cultural uniqueness.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:15:16 -0000

Karen --

No problem about the misspelling. OY! Such tsouris, trying to spell Yiddish gives us!

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:55:06 -0000

JPR -

Is Deafhood the one and only one social construction available for Deaf? Of course not? There is the social construction of helpless invalid that needs to be "cured", the construction of Deaf as "inferior" to Hearing, etc. etc. What I am saying is Deafhood is a social construction that can encompass the variety of Deaf people's individual constructions of their Deaf/HH identity. Remember, Paddy summarizes Deafhood as “the total sum of all POSITIVE meanings of 'Deaf,' past, present and future” and “all the largest meanings of what Deaf people have been, are and can be.”

As for a Hearing person that becomes Deaf as an adult, yes, I am saying exactly that -- that his paternity changes when he becomes Deaf, because from this point on, this person is going to have to live life as a Deaf person in one way or another. Remember, this person has acquired the Paternity, but certainly at this point, he has not acquired the patrimony.

Now, if you want to argue that this person now has a "hybrid" paternity of Hearing and Deaf, I'm amenable to that. Indeed, I've made this same argument for HH people as well -- since they can hear to some degree, they have some of the Hearing paternity, but since they can't hear to some degree, they definitely have inherited some of the Deaf paternity as well. Like a person born to a White mother and a Black father. That person has the paternity of both White and Black people. You can't take the White paternity out, or the Black paternity. That person has both.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Karen Mayes — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:51:05 -0000

Kibbutz... not kibbitz. My apologies. I was not sure of the spelling of the word, the community center that my brother lived in for 6 months in Israel, working on the farm, learning Hebrew, etc.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Joseph Pietro Riolo — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:09:02 -0000

Many, if not all, identifications of cultures are social constructions. For example, it is possible for people who live on a large island and who come from same ancestor to have two or more distinct cultures (i.e. Northern Islanders and Southern Islanders). This just supports my position that Deafhood is merely a social construction and that it is possible to have several social constructions for deaf people. In other words, Deafhood is not the one and only one social construction available for the deaf people.

I am wondering about this. If a child is born hearing and becomes deaf 18 years later, does his paternity changes when he becomes deaf? That is, when he is born, his paternity is Hearing. When he becomes deaf, does it means that his paternity of Hearing ceases and that his new paternity is now Deaf? If your answer is yes, this will strike me as very odd and strange and I will find it untenable. But, that's your perspective.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:36:43 -0000

Anon,

I'm pretty sure "kibitz" means to criticize or find fault. I usually see it in a sentence like, "I don't mean to kibitz, but do you really think that is the right color of paint?". I see from Wikipedia (I know, I know!) that it means "to offer unwanted advice", which fits with what I was thinking. Maybe you're thinking of "schmooze"? In any case, "kibitz" and "kibbutz" are definitely two different words!

Joseph P.R.,

Deafhood may be a social construction, but in reality, aren't all cultures just social constructions? They are all based on paternity and patrimony -- biology and cultural heritage. We all have the biology of being Deaf. There is no escaping that! At least not until the day the Audio-Industrial Complex invents the "miracle pill" that will make Deaf people into truly Hearing people!

MM --

We are a diverse community of Deaf people (and remember I am including culturally with non-culturally Deaf in that usage of the capital D), and we are diverse as Deaf people. I know you think otherwise, but we're going to have to disagree on that point.

As for extremism, sure, any group is going to have its extremists. You can have the extreme PRO and the extreme ANTI.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

MM — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:54:02 -0000

Don you are back peddling so fast.... we are diverse as deaf people, but we are NOT a diverse community or culture of deaf people, the only link is hearing loss, and that has been rejected..... I don't know much about Judaism, I do know many religions have their extreme and secualr core, the deaf has half a dozen...

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Joseph Pietro Riolo — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:26:08 -0000

What I am trying to say is that deaf people can escape from Deafhood. They can declare that they don't have paternity of Deafhood.

Deafhood is merely a social construction (or terminological construction as Dr. Paddy Ladd wrote) that some people try to apply to (or impose on) all deaf people. Because it is merely a social construction, deaf people are not bound to accept it. This is unlike the biological reproductive mechanism where people cannot escape from their biological parents.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
josephpietrojeungriolo@gmail.com

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

Anon — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:16:08 -0000

"kibbitz” means “to criticize or find fault".

No, it doesn't. Kibitz means to chat or to make small talk, there is nothing at all in its usage that is negative, as you suggest.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:45:21 -0000

Poor analogy, Pundit. Or are you denying that you're Deaf? I don't think so, or you wouldn't be calling yourself "Deaf Pundit" now, would you?

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

A Deaf Pundit — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:44:49 -0000

Yes, I've been watching, Don. Let's see if you find this analogy clear.

What would you do if a Jehovah Witnesses went up to your house and said, "You're a Jehovah Witness, but you just don't know it. Acknowledge it now. Practice it now. Those who don't accept and acknowledge that they are Jehovah Witnesses, are deficit in their thinking."

I would imagine you would be extremely offended and tell them to get the hell out. I know I would be... and that is exactly how I feel about the Deafhood debate.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:38:08 -0000

Pundit --

I guess from your description that Buddhism and Deafhood could be seen as a Way of Life, or as a "doctrine" (although there really is no "doctrine" within Deafhood telling you which exact way to go) designed to guide you through life and to reach self-actualization. We who support the concept of Deafhood do not consider it a religion, but as a philosophy. But if you want to consider it as something of a religion because of its philosophical aspect, I guess we can't stop you, just as Buddhists can't stop non-Buddhists from viewing it as a religion.

But, if you have been watching, you have seen us say again and again, we are ALL on the path, whether we recognize the path is there under our feet or not. None of us have been saying that if you don't like our ideology, then you are not on the path.

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

A Deaf Pundit — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:25:31 -0000

I don't understand. If Deafhood is a school of thought then it is also somewhat of a doctrine.

For instance, I'm studying Buddhism right now, and Buddhists do not believe in a god. They view it as a way of life, and in fact, they call it "The Middle Way". It's a doctrine designed to guide you through life and to reach self-actualization.

For that reason, many do consider Buddhism as a religion, whereas Buddhists themselves do not consider it a religion. Just as a way of life. So what you're saying about Deafhood does indicate that it is a doctrine, and an approach in how Deaf individuals should be dealing with their self-actualization process.

And I think that's where the vehement disagreements come in. Who are you people to tell me that I'm not even on the path, just because I don't like your ideology?

Re: Degrees of Deafhood

DrDonG — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:22:48 -0000

Au Contraire, Joseph -- I stated specifically in my vlog that there are some Deaf who may decide that they don't want it in their lives. But that still doesn't change the fact that they are Deaf, just as there are Jews who decide they don't want Judaism in their lives, but that doesn't change the fact that they have that paternity of being Jewish.

Deafhood is basically saying that we have that paternity of being Deaf, and this makes us think and behave in certain ways that we all share, whether we use sign language or not or believe in Deafhood or not. As David Kerr (DeafChipmunk) said "you can't escape it". By being Deaf or HH, we all have that Paternity of Deafhood, although some may not have the Patrimony.