Translation:
Hello. I’m Adrean Clark, and this is a vlog in response to the Holism’s article/vlog “Closed Society.” I know that many people have had discussions with him in the past, covering different things. I normally would not respond, but my friend contacted me and asked what I thought of the “Closed Society” post.
I read his post and realized that a misunderstanding took place. There are two things to consider here. One is the idea and concept of Deafhood, Bi-bi, and providing access to ASL for deaf babies. The other is the individual/group of people. This category starts with individual people, then the larger community, and last, society as a whole. Those two things are separate.
With Deafhood, Bi-bi, etc., the goal is to provide access to information on ASL and Deaf Culture, to empower deaf people. Those concepts are tools, philosophies, intended to help people. For example, people go into bookstores to find self-help books. They look around, find a book. If they like it, they buy it. They can do what they like with that book, to help themselves. Likewise, people have the opportunity to look at Deafhood, to find out if it can help their perspective on life.
As for people, community — it’s impossible to completely block the exchange of information. The government can try, but the deaf community is not a government. The deaf community consists of people who have a shared experience. Each individual is different, their ideas and behaviors different.
These are the two separate concepts.
Now some people have said that the Deafhood Foundation, DBC, etc., push too much with their agenda. Well, we have to consider that doctors push their own agenda onto parents with deaf children. We do not see those doctors because they are not within our community. Deafhood and DBC, etc — provide a counterweight to their propaganda. They provide a needed balance.
Adrean, thanks for your viewpoint. I feel exactly the same as you so aptly put it, “Deafhood, DBC, etc.–provide a counterweight to their propaganda. They provide a needed balance.”
Holism, this time, was criticizing the organization more than its philosophy. Deafhood and DBC have been criticized for being exclusive, clannish groups, for being businesses, for advancing ingroup agendas, and so on.
The groups still have a way to go in explaining that they are actually not promoting “Deaf Society” clannishness and in structuring their methods and goals so to be more effective, but as you said, the ideas they promote are a needed counterbalance to the over-optimistic ideas of the AVT-oral organizations. To tear them down before they have fully developed and matured is to allow the other side to regain dominance in the field.
Ladd’s definition of Deafhood is one’s personal journey to a deaf identity. It does not push ASL, Bi-bi, deaf culture etc. There are people who may not embrace the deaf culture and still attain their deaf identity – in their way. It’s not for us or anyone to define that for them.
There is no “two separate concepts” of Deafhood. There is only one and that’s Ladd’s book.
Therefore Deafhood Foundation, in true following of the Deafhood concept, cannot push any agenda.
DBC has nothing to do with Deafhood. DBC focuses on making sure parents of deaf children are aware of the ASL option. Hopefully the EDHI re-authorization will improve early intervention where needed.
It’s unfortunate how misunderstood the book is. And how, like Dianrez put it, “clannish” Deafhood has become in the United States. And how things are twisted to the point not agreeing with the United States version of Deafhood is called audistic.
well said!!!! he isn’t stupid & always enjoying twisting & hurting the Deaf community especially organizations since he doesn’t have one!!!! keep vlogging, enjoy watching you :)
Precisely. If you watched my vlog carefully and follow the discussion thread you will see that your response is in tune with what we’ve discussed. I never said that a closed society was wrong or bad. I only pointed out the trends when a closed society begin to impose and enforce their values / belief upon others and react accordingly if they were not accepted by the open society.
If you played the role of a vlogger you would understand the nature of jamming so much information into 10 minutes slot, meaning we have to factor in discussion thread in order to evaluate the entire point. The point is if you followed the entire thread in my vlog / blog you would have a better understanding of my view.
Regards,
Barry
Barry –
My point was that Deafhood, DBC, etc., is not a “society” – they are organizations that promote an idea. It is up to people to accept those ideas. Your criticism of them has caused other people to find fault with the ideas in addition to the organization, when they are two separate things. The ideas of Deafhood, Bilingualism, access to ASL — are positive things, tools for empowerment. Those people mean well, and like Dianrez says, they need time to mature.
Tayler –
I didn’t say that there are two separate concepts of Deafhood, I said there are two separate things in play in regards to Barry’s post.You are right in the feel of “clannishness”– I do not always agree with how the organizations say things but I can see where they are coming from.
Dianrez –
I agree. Pro-oral, pro-medical organizations have had many years’ headstart compared to DBC/Deafhood. What mistakes they’ve made were also lessened because their main goal coincided with popular view. DBC/Deafhood is a counterbalance organization, and their views not as popular.
First of all, I am pleasantly surprised at Tayler’s comment. I agree with Cheryl that Barry have consistently seek anything to just take a shot at Deafhood, DBC, and anything related to Deaf culture. Nearly all of his arguments have prove to be illogical despite its “intellectual dressing”. When he stated that democracy is an open society, I agree with that as an ideal but realistically, it is hard to attain that ideal and in the last 40 years, this nation have evolved to the point where it is almost a plutocracy which is a closed society!! Now about his argument on the concept of -hood, he claims that -hood indicates closed society, I find that it don’t cut it well. Think about this, parenthood, motherhood, fatherhood, childhood, neighborhood, and other -hoods, are those considered closed societies??? I don’t think so! His -hood argument is illogical and baseless as his previous arguments.
I am gonna repeat what I said under Barry’s posting…
I believe it is more of the cultures’ or/and any organizations need to survive, so they either become “closed” or “open”. Really, the cultures have varying degrees of closedness and openness, depending on how they perceive the “outsiders.”
I don’t have any problems with the organizations, -hoods, families, etc. They all have degrees of being open and closed, depending on their comfort level and their goals. I see that there are sensitivities (I am not immune as well) so there will always be agreements or disagreements.
Have a good day.
;o) Karen
Ashley actually Tayler is spot on. Even Adrean with Dianrez agrees that Deafhood has become clannish.
Adrean says Deafhood’s goal is to provide access to information about ASL and deaf culture. That is wrong. Adrean doesn’t understand Deafhood so she cannot say whether it is a closed or open society.
“For Ashley” –
I just made a distinction between the concept and the people (organization) in my vlog. Like I said, the criticism directed towards the organization is confusing people. Deafhood IS NOT the Deafhood Foundation. The concept is separate from the organization.
Barry was criticizing Deafhood, DBC, saying that they do not promote an open society. People are taking this to mean that the concept of Deafhood, Bi-bi, etc., do not promote an open society. This is untrue – they are actually just concepts for empowerment and self-help. That is what I am pointing at.
The problem is the more you debate ‘deafhood’ the more credence it gets, ideally we would all be ignoring the whole thing. Apart from lining Paddy Ladd’s pocket, and giving substance where none is deserved, what good has it done for deaf people ? all I have read is dissent and argument.
For those that adhere to the deafhood thing the only society they can set up is a closed one. We know deafness isolates, I don’t agree isolation is our lot, that is defeatist, and not something you can replace with deafhood, which reinforces that isolation as some sort of virtue..
Adrean,
Sorry it took me a while. I forgot about this post until someone reminded me tonight.
I never said that Deafhood, DBC and AFA were a society in itself. Furthermore you can’t deny the fact that they claim to represent a society.
My criticism is holding its own grounds. How people choose to interpret it is not my responsibility. Study the traits of co-dependency and you’ll understand why I said it.
If it were true that Deafhood’s idea is to promote access to ASL then why bother with the term deaf? Why not shoot straight and spell aslhood? FYI, one does not need a specific language in order to be empowered. It’s our birth right to empower and be empowered regardless of our choice of language.
Barry
To all–
Points taken. Thanks for sharing!
Barry–
That’s a good question. I don’t have time now to look into it but may do so another time.
Hi everybody. This morning I received an email from an individual who had question about personhood and how it relates to deafhood. Out of respect I will not post his question here but will post what I wrote.
*************quote***************
Received your message this morning and enjoyed them. Thank you for that.
I also appreciate your thoughts on personhood. As I explained to Ben Watts known as BBF I was not aware of personhood initiative so I had no idea what it was all about. Just came across the article on why the Judge threw the case out of the court / ballot. I did not have the privilege of reading the definition of personhood in the court documents so I do not know exactly how they tried to define deafhood.
But what was clear was the Judge threw out a proposed ballot that SOUGHT to DEFINE a person as “everyone possessing a human genome”. It is the same thing that deafhood attempted to do… DEFINE a deaf person processing deaf culture and language.
Based on the Judge’s view on personhood he felt that the language was too vague and it violated state law that limits questions to one subject. Now this is exactly what Deafhood has done in CAD’s by laws. It was vague at best and when I posed a challenge for them they could not answer it. CAD even acknowledged in public that their definition on deafhood was vague and will begin to correct the problem immediately. They are scheduled to have a meeting on the 12th of this month and will work on removal of deahood from their by-laws.
Secondly, it violated State of Nevada law when personhood tried to limit questions to ONE subject. The “One” subject is a reflection of a closed society. Google up ‘closed society’ and you will see numerous definition comparing ‘one to closed society’ and ‘pluralism to open society’. It’s not based on my own opinion or observation but based on research that I’ve done prior to creating the vlog.
According to the Judge, the measure on personhood was too broad and general in nature to be put before voters in November. The issue to the Judge was adequately informing the voters on what they’re voting on. I see so much parallel here with deafhood. They rushed the term into CAD’s by-laws without really helping deaf Californians understand the true and full definition. My point was not so much on benefits and thereof of personhood but how personhood was rushed into the ballot without appropriate review just as deafhood was rushed into CAD by-laws. Mind you, I’m not making any reference to the contents but how such term were rushed into ballot / by-laws. The vlog on personhood was a friendly reminder for CAD based on previous vlog I did.
Needless to say that several people from CAD contacted me afterwards and told me they appreciated my vlog and that they were working on corrective actions. In short, the vlog accomplished the very goal I wanted to accomplish. End result, I confused some people during the process and that is why I appreciate your email and video comments coming from others. It gives me the opportunity to respond.
You see, as unpopular I may be with some people I’m more focused on how we’re able to influence the leaders around the country. They’re listening to us through v/ blogs so it’s important for us to stay focused on the bigger picture and let the small bickering pass.
Regards,
Barry
***************end quote**************
Thank you,
Barry