Here are two of SJ’s previous articles on what is “deaf culture”, and on the back of it, an important message for the deaf community.
https://viewsfromthetreehouse.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/what-is-deaf-culture/
https://viewsfromthetreehouse.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/the-deaf-community-an-important-message/
Have a great day – wherever you may be.
“Sara Jae’s re-blog on the issues of unmoderated deaf support is a blog well worth reading.
Although dated a year ago, little has changed, and the issue seems to be still unaddressed and deteriorating..
We suspect (And hope) priorities are still in favour of the deaf child being properly cared for and support monitored, but the adult population is wide open to abuses and still left to own devices..
Indeed in many respects contributing to own abuses by accepting unqualified support. That support can come via own family, or friends, who, acting with best intentions, in reality disempower the deaf because they shift deaf reliance on professional interpreter or trained support, onto them, so family/friends become unofficial carers without qualifications or a wage.
Where their signing knowledge is good with their deaf relative most have no qualifications when the talk gets technical/medical, then the areas become blurred, and familiarity leads to contempt and decision-making going out of the deaf person’s hands. A number can rapidly become out of their depth and leave the deaf person to manage alone.
Maybe the support does not have enough communication as per a terp would, and certainly no neutrality, then it can become a real risk to a deaf person’s health and well-being. Deaf seem determined to oppose any ban on family help even those with no signing qualifications… so accept that risk, this can undermine any attempt to monitor support properly, or establish an adequate care system. Of course set bad examples for younger deaf to follow.
There is a huge rise in ‘Mentors’ (Nobody know what qualifications they are supposed to have other than they sign), and ‘carers’ (With few communication qualifications), and CSW’s and others who are under little monitoring at all, as regards to standards of care or help. How do you monitor, when no norm has been established ?
The basic CSW qualifications seem rather thin. There are examples of BSL Interpreters who go over and above their remit to help the deaf client. In effect acting as a bona-fide social worker in some respects and as a real friend. This is wrong of course, in a professional sense, and in the sense it compromises the neutral nature of signed support.
Then, BSL Interpreters are in breach of their professional standard, and become vulnerable to claims they are doing that to maintain steady work for themselves by allowing that reliance. It’s already well-known in deaf areas, many deaf have a ‘preference’ for a particular interpreter as a result.
The issue, is who monitors to ensure support for deaf people is maintaining integrity, or neutrality ? ATR has covered a number of areas of deaf mentoring where abuses happened to the deaf client and no monitoring of standards was apparent. With local authorities or Social Services ‘rubber-stamping’ second-hand support, no way to complain either. These areas may well be legally obliged to provide support, but , THEY choose who that is. Some may oblige by providing who you want, others may just say they have met the letter of the law and take it or leave it. If no availability isn’t there you can’t insist. Interpreters are busy and scarce people.
Also, the Sign language bodies dither over monitoring, because they say many BSL interpreters are not members of their agencies or bodies, more in fact are completely free-lance and operate as they want to a great extent. Also the best they can do is stop an errant terp quoting them. The BSL tuition system is a case in point, where few standards are really maintained. LEA classes are very questionable, and the ‘anything goes’ approach left to the unmonitored tutors leaves a lot to be desired. Some deaf ‘cultural centres’ were accused of such bias, and some did not belong TO the deaf community and were BSL for cash areas.
Charities also came in for considerable criticism as they tried to plug the leaking support gaps for deaf, by lowering own standards of care qualifications, and of communication. Social Services via Local Authorities are being seen to ‘shop around’ for the cheapest care they can find with the basics of qualifications, and care is applied on a strict time-limiting basis. 2 Local Authorities approached a class for BSL learners offering learners the job, because the approved BSL Interpreter system of trained professionals was ‘too expensive.’ This included work in legal, banking, and medical situations, highly skilled interpreting and sensitive areas.
E.G. Today a care worker attended a client in Wales to find an 92 yr old client collapsed on the floor. She contacted emergency services, and asked her agency if she could forgo a visit to the next client, as they can only offer care on a 15 minute visit basis, (Or someone else could attend in her place), so she could wait until medical help arrived and monitor the client till they arrive. She was told NO, she had to leave that unconscious client on the floor and go to the next allotted client or face losing her job. So she left the client unconscious on the floor and the front door open for the emergency services.
The problem with deaf care (Let’s call it what it is, as it isn’t empowerment since empowerment suggests choice), is the fact standards are almost low or non-extant in many cases because the cost of professional support to the deaf is too high. This leaves the doors wide open to staff who really do not know what they are doing most of the time, or understand what a deaf client is saying. It’s caused deaths in Wales to older deaf people. Still none of the deaf or associated charities will demand higher standards, from themselves, or, from others on the deaf behalf.
Mostly they won’t demand these standards because they supply the staff, and if more professional qualifications are demanded, they cannot supply that need. Meanwhile deaf are being sold out and left in the hands of people who don’t have the wherewithal to help them. IN part this tends to demoralise deaf who feel why bother to ask for help at all? The system seems to work on the basis ‘Anyone with ears can support the deaf..’
God help them. Is deaf support just too expensive to be practical? certainly state welfare agencies now think so… and won’t fund it any more by cutting off the financial means to buy it in. In order to address what is going on, a ban on private agencies/charities and care has to be invoked at least until a set of care norms and the means to monitor them exists.”
By Mervyn James, who can also be found ‘At the rim’…
I think a lot of deaf are upset at the command of grammar and written English when they get responses that way. Deaf annoyed when lengthy text responses go in to debates and discussions, when maybe their sole reliance is on sign not text as such.
At a number of levels including captioned TV and films etc. Some deaf can still struggle and the age-old system deaf used in their social clubs, of ‘Chinese Whispers’ still seems a valid way for them to pass on information to each other when some meeting or other has gone to length to discuss some involved issue.
Some attach their love of BSL grammar and signs, to the argument to oppose, but basically we should just look at it as horses for courses. If you ‘dumb down’ (and this is a serious issue with some hearing interpreters and others), it is asking for trouble from some deaf, because they feel insulted. If you use good English and grammar, some may well struggle with it, it is sod’s law, and you will not win.
Over 40 years’ experience with signing deaf that I have, including deaf club attendances and socialising with them, the longer and more detailed your responses or technical input, the more uncertain and disinterested they become. That simple statement will be seen by some as patronising, but when you are faced with 30-40 or so deaf people you are faced with deaf with academic abilities ranging from poor to excellent, and everything between, but only one level of skill/communication comes from the centre. It is inevitable a fair percentage of those in attendance then will not follow a lot of the details at all.
However during observations I did point out, that when they went straight to sign only communications, there were actually huge gaps in translation there too, and they were not getting all. Deaf purists brushed it off as ‘BSL Concepts’ include detail too, but they do not explain how, Interpreters more accurately said they pitch to their education abilities and observations on what they felt the deaf client can take in. However having done that, where do they inform the necessary areas of the details they think the deaf client won’t understand?
Of course, here is no identification of those deaf able to follow these mysterious BSL concepts, a lot just go with what they can see via the simple signs used. The BSL dictionary was actually panned by the deaf as appearing to be manufactured by hearing people, and signs invented on the spot to fill space, there have been many additions and clarification since, and the age-gap means under 30s may not be able to follow ‘new’ BSL effectively now.
Interpreters and lay people, tend to Stick to the highlights omit ‘boring details’, but, the devil is IN the detail isn’t it? I distinctly recall attending an local authority meeting, with a sign interpreter in attendance who stopped half-way through the meeting stating she hadn’t the signs available for some of the technical terms being used, and the deaf there were struggling to follow as she tried desperately to explain the terms another way……. It is amazing many deaf do not realise Interpreters specialise too, via court interpreting only, and in schools, and in health areas. Do they insist the suitably qualified terp is there? Do they KNOW the terp specialities?
In Health areas, very few actually are skilled enough in signing medical terminology. The approach? They ‘dumb down’, make it simple to understand, good? Or maybe not if a vital fact passes the deaf patient by. If we watch BSL on TV, is that the same BSL used on the street? Maybe it is not! There is a system of ‘media signing’ which is designed to make the most access to the most deaf, but that has been debated as accurate or widely understandable, because of UK regional differences in sign, and the subtitles are usually the ‘bridge’ that saves the BSL day. Basically near all BSL Interpreters are hearing and from hearing education, even subconsciously they will avoid the ‘grammar’ of BSL without being aware. It is not a fault as such.
Interpreters DON’T accurately adjudge the academic skills of their client, some may only meet that client 5-10 minutes before they start, no time at all to establish the right ‘pitch’ or level of sign to that client. That is why deaf people prefer same terps all the time, so that the rapport is there and it helps both parties to follow, these days, you cannot rely on having the same people all the time.
We live in an English written/speaking and spoken world, maybe BSL is just for the purists?
By Mervyn James who can also be found “At The Rim”.
Mr Mervyn James.
Mr Mervyn James.
The culture gig is, basically, a response to isolation, and controlled environment approaches… not in-built genetic norms of any kind, since only point 2% of the entire deaf area with profound loss that relies on sign language, has a true genetic background. I do not think we do deaf children or deaf adults a service by pandering/recognising that Isolation as an acceptable norm ever.
It can be seductive to think we/they are ‘with own kind’, but the ongoing effect and lifestyle is isolation. Many years when I started out and went profoundly deaf, I called this ‘The Velvet prison’… cool, cosy, and a defence and ultimately a refuge against a hostile hearing world, mainly because the belief is it is too tough out there… it certainly was for me at that time.
Now, I’d rather push access and education to break that up, so true equality and inclusion is seen in real time and not an occasional favour both mainstream and the deaf sign users go with occasionally, ‘look busy we are being watched..’ sort of thing. To use a rugby term, it was ‘going through the phases.’ but then failing to follow through to score a try at the end. Playing the game not really expecting an end result.
There is no access, no equality, and no inclusion unless, we are all in it together, if that isn’t the case, then what we see is a ‘secular or segregated’ approach, whereby those who feel they are unable to avail themselves of the ‘bridges’ of communications, or utilise the laws that exist to enhance integrations between hearing and deaf, who are then doomed by default, never to take any active part in their own inclusion.
For many adults it is already too late, you can’t teach some of these old dogs new tricks, and they are perfectly content to stay as they are, ‘all deaf together’ or ‘all hearing Impaired’ together or even ‘all hearing together.. well, all of some or other together… but we do need to stop these views being portrayed as a virtue and part of being a deaf or person with other hearing loss. Isolation is not a cultural trait, it is a norm forced on people by a lack opportunity to break out, via discrimination, or oppression, or simply by personal choice.
That need not be the case for all but a very few. It has to be said, many with hearing and hearing loss, but not profoundly deaf, do seem to adopt the ‘let’s leave them to it..’ or ‘cest la vie..’ approaches, and they/we should not be doing that because it feeds the view isolation is inevitable, or even a lifestyle choice and right.
Occasionally it can look like ‘Not our business…’ and then divides become apparent, acceptable and very real. In reality the ‘non-deaf’ with all their varieties and degrees of loss are at present not visible, unlike others who are HIGHLY visible through sign mediums, but the ‘non-deaf’ are the least empowered of all…. If you talk about ‘Invisible’ disabled then, that is us, it certainly is not someone deaf who signs who cannot HELP but be visible.
It may account for people who represent those areas latching on to aspects of sign so their issues can be seen too. It doesn’t work given the huge profile of signed language currently, and the awareness approaches that seem to be opposing each other by virtue of the fact they use different means to communicate, and/or a mixture of such approaches that the more ‘purist’ of deaf advocates don’t approve of. There is now a division of communication approach that polarises people. Deaf awareness never worked, never will.
Probably the biggest issue all with hearing loss now face, is how to pursue own access to the ultimate aim of acceptance and integration. Utopia will not happen. Even Martha’s Vineyard, which was held up as a yardstick to true deaf-hearing communal acceptance, disintegrated when that isolation was broken. In the Middle East, a whole tribe of nomads near Israel are near all deaf, and face the same outcome.
Perhaps herein lies the real reason for the pursuit of culture with some deaf, if that isolation, (which is the glue that holds the deaf ‘community’ together), is broken, then, so is their social base destroyed, certainly put under extreme pressure, who wants to be alone ? A powerful reason to pursue a cultural ideal.
~ Mervyn James.
Who can also be found at “At The Rim.“
Many years ago, deaf people were not considered to be in a position where they could be a proactive member of society. For at times, families would hide their deaf child away because they felt ashamed simply because they had a child who happened to be deaf or even worse, were not diagnosed as deaf but for want of a better word, dumb. Some of these people were mistreated, abandoned and abused.
Looking around us today, it is a completely different picture. It is not yet perfect but the deaf now have a community which has come a long way and I am using the word “community” and not “culture” because the word “culture” is rather complex and divisive. When one uses the word “culture”, it is in reference to customs, habits, language and many other factors that belong to a particular group of people who are different to others.
Sign language alone should not form the basis for a “deaf culture” because deaf people are born into a culture that already exists – if you are born into the British culture then by default you are British. Bearing in mind, that sign language is derived and based on our mother tongue. Both deaf and hearing people as well as monkeys and apes can use this form of visual language. On the other hand, it would be wrong of us to assume anyone who may be hard of hearing, deafened, deaf or deafblind automatically know sign language. To presume that everyone deaf can sign is not correct and it is misinforming our society of today.
A baby who has been born deaf into a British hearing family, growing up with the family’s customs and ways, can he suddenly deny his family’s culture and refer to himself as deaf only? Insinuating, that because his family is hearing, they do not belong to a “deaf culture” despite having tried their very best to provide their child with an enriching and balanced upbringing, encouraging him to speak, sign and integrate with his peers regardless of whether they were deaf or hearing.
It would be extremely hard for me to separate myself from the people that taught me everything I know and in the process hurting them in return by secluding myself to another particular culture, especially one that we find difficult to define.
To put it simply, we have habits (no, not those long brown gowns!) which is interpreted by some as “deaf culture”, or more appropriately termed as learned behaviour. On the contrary, we can learn it, be aware of it but it does not mean we have to adopt it.
Sadly, there are deaf parents who hope their child will be born deaf because they believe they belong to a deaf culture only and by having a hearing child, they would break that familiarity to what they only know. This is an extreme stance to have and it is one that is potentially damaging.
By simply saying to hearing people “If you do not make the effort to communicate with me then I will separate myself from you all together” is so not the route to take; the more they see of you, the more they are forced to understand you. I say forced because hearing people have the option to learn at least some basic sign language like finger spelling which should at least be made part of today’s school curriculum.
One (i.e. Paddy Ladd and his Deafhood book) could argue that residential schools for the deaf is the main continuity for “deaf culture” being learned – perhaps forty years ago but not today. Because forty years or so ago, the differences in technology, segregation and concentration then and now could not be more evident unless influenced and taught otherwise by the older generations.
As stated on NDCS website, “90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents with little or no experience of deafness or knowledge of how to communicate with a deaf person”. The other 10% would probably grow up with sign language as their first language in cases where the deaf parents also sign rather than having to wait until they have contact with other deaf children, which is normally the experience of the other 90% at school. Approximately, nowadays, 90% of those deaf children born severely or profoundly deaf are likely to be implanted before their second birthday – More than 60% of the children at Mary Hare School now have implants.
Where hearing aids and implants are concerned, people have feared deaf identities and the linguistics will be lost, “I am still deaf” one may remark. Of course, you will still be deaf because your hearing aid(s) or implants will not be in use 24/7 and you will have grown up as a deaf person, lip-reading, signing (if able to). The deaf majority at present, thankfully, now sees a CI as a superior hearing aid, which actually has very little bearing on “deaf culture” despite a tiny percentage that are anti-CI and vehemently trying to turn people against CI’s by using an excuse along the lines of “social cleansing”.
There is a term albeit rarely used, which is the “hearing brain”. I understand this to mean when someone loses hearing later in life after growing up living life to the max as a hearing person possibly could, has been fortunate to receive a cochlear implant, only to characteristically revert to whom they grew up as. Do we or rather, should we put that down to “hearing culture”? When it is whom they have learnt and happen to be, within themselves and society just as we are who we are and that others have taught us who to become.
My fear of seeing people belonging to one culture and denying everything, everyone else around them is that there is a danger of separating ourselves from the mainstream culture we have to live in and share.
In being exclusive, this will undo all the hard work that has been achieved before us, by the many generations of deaf people. They are the ones who struggled and fought hard to finally be accepted within the mainstream society today. If anything, we should continue to strive albeit much harder to keep this sense of inclusion and integration developing but there is a cycle, especially where learnt behaviour is concerned, reoccurring in many senses that people need to break out of this habit, especially if they want to advance further as an inclusive and diverse community.
There is a still a lot that has to be done, in terms of educating society that we are all equals and just as capable but not by creating and realising any further divisive ideas. With positivity, forward thinking and unity, this can be achieved by the deaf community but only if the will is there.
~ SJ (Sara Jae)
The French film, “La Famille Bélier” (The Bélier Family) is apparently being boycotted. Why? One may ask.
Here is a couple of (quoted) paragraphs from the source to give you an insight;
“The film uses hearing actors to play the roles of deaf characters, the result of which is an embarrassing and crass interpretation of deaf culture and sign language. Make no mistake, this is like blacking up for the Black and White Minstrel Show. Couldn’t find any deaf actors? Just get some hearing ones to wave their hands about. It shows a level of disrespect for deaf people and disregard for a genuine language with the nuances of any spoken language. In the UK there is a pool of experienced deaf actors and sign language interpreters. If the same exist in France, shouldn’t the makers of Le Famille Bélier have called upon them? And if they don’t exist, we should be asking why not.
Deaf people’s culture and experiences have long been appropriated for the fascination and entertainment of others, and in the process kneaded into a bastardisation bearing no resemblance to real-life experiences, because it is rare that deaf people are actually involved in the production process. Accurate representation of deafness is a good thing, it can entertain and educate in equal measures – but films and TV shows about deaf characters, told through a hearing lens, using hearing actors with pidgin sign language, are demeaning, depressing and cause more damage then good.”
My initial reaction after reading through it all was to think objectively (as always) and responded to several links of the source (as written by Rebecca Atkinson of The Guardian) which is being widely publically shared hence my now, very public thought on this topic.
When the casting team find an actor or actress who happens to be deaf and experienced enough to play the part satisfactorily then they may sign them. Just like with the Olympics, if athletes meet the standards they then qualify to compete. The very same qualification process applies to deaf sportspeople too.
I do not see why (deaf) people seem to keep spitting their dummies out all the time – has any deaf people actually auditioned for the part?? Some are dubious as to whether they actively sought deaf actors out for the part but nonetheless I am sure they advertised and did their research as all films and actors do as that is their job and one would hope they fulfilled the requirements.
It is being portrayed overall as an insult to the deaf community when this does not mean it is the general consensus of the whole yet very diverse deaf community but individual interpretations based on personal experiences and emotions which are most likely reactions upon impulse. Just because some people are boycotting this film whilst encouraging others to do the same, does not mean everyone else needs to follow suit.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle.
~ SJ (Sara Jae)
I recently watched a film called “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”. In the film the apes’ primary form of communication was American Sign Language and as a deaf person it was appealing to see sign language being represented, especially in Cinema. Yet someone who happens to be hearing made it known to me they felt it was rather insulting – their argument was that the apes in the film were less developed than the humans and to see them representing sign language was, degrading. Had it stayed true to their own form of gesturing naturally, it would be a different matter. I realised where this person was coming from so was I appreciating the fact that sign language was being used in the film, a result of desperation more than anything – a case of anything will do? As sign language very rarely feature in cinema or TV as a form of communication in its own merit.
Blue Eyes signing to his father, Caesar, that Koba killed Ash.
There are films where sign language features heavily but that is only when the subject matter concerns deafness. Will it ever be possible for a deaf actor to be the lead character in mainstream cinema? It might be farfetched but it is definitely something that deaf people deserve to look forward to once in a while in terms of inclusion. Blockbusters in general are about generating as much profit as possible and having a lead character with a disability however hidden or obvious it may be, seems to be too much of a risk for the producers to take. But if the storyline was exceptional and the film was brilliantly made, I would not predict any issues in regards to the number of the potential audience turning up to watch.
Can you think of a film that uses sign language as an alternative form of language by the actors regardless of whether they may be hearing or deaf and the subject matter does not concern deafness?
Of all the films to date that have used a deaf actor or sign language in it, which film do you think has done the most justice?
Sign language is one of the most expressive languages but when is it wrong for someone to use/represent it?
I found the initial debate rather interesting and wanted to explore those questions further, I certainly feel that a lot needs to be done for sign language to be accepted in mainstream culture. You too can contribute with your thoughts and suggestions in order to help our debate come to a conclusion of sorts – Carpe diem!
~ SJ (Sara Jae)
The Tree House. 
You must be logged in to post a comment.