Deaf As (in ASL) “Hearing in the Mind”

Referring to the sign, “hearing” in front of the forehead which we’ve seen in the signing community to describe:

a deaf person who may not be culturally deaf or

a deaf person showing no desire to be part of the deaf culture or signing community

a deaf person who does not advocate or assert for the rights of deaf signers

In other words, it’s small “d” instead of capital “D.”

I used to live in California for 20-plus years, from 1983 to 1994—nine years in Northern
California and eleven in Southern California. I came across a wide variety of deaf individuals of various age groups and ethnic backgrounds. California has large populations of Latinos/Latinas and Asians, much more than I was accustomed to see when I was growing up in New York City. In addition, there are many mainstreamed programs for the deaf and hard-of-hearing students
as well as some oral-education-based schools that they vastly out-numbered the
state schools for the deaf currently in existence—only a couple (based in
Fremont and Riverside).

Especially through my former jobs both as HIV/AIDS community educator with Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. and as a deaf adult literacy instructor at the Goodwill Industries of Long Beach and South Bay, I met many deaf, older students and adults of various
backgrounds. I came to learn that many of them went to mainstreamed programs though no fault of their own; their parents enrolled them. Many of them do sign but they were first exposed to Signing Exact English (that alone is enough to make my stomach churn), and eventually they moved on to American Sign Language according to their own pace and amount of interaction with other native signers. Because of such enormous amount of diversity among the deaf people in California, such labels like “hearing in the mind” and small “d” versus big “D” do not apply nor fit them. Based on my observation during my twenty-year residence in California this kind of sign, “hearing in the mind” is rarely, I repeat rarely used!

When I accepted temporary employment at the Laurent Clerc Deaf Education Center (inside the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School building on Gallaudet University campus) in the
fall of 1999, I was shocked, really shocked, to see somebody using this sign, “hearing in the mind.” I hadn’t seen this kind of sign in a long, long time. This also shows that I had lived in California for so long that this sign kind of disappeared from my signing vocabulary and way of
thinking.

With the protest that occurred at Gallaudet last May, a new term, deafhood, came up on the “scene” or “radar.” I couldn’t help thinking that if we want to embrace deafhood, we need to get rid of the sign, “hearing in the mind” because it carries negative connotation in most cases. It’s counter-productive to use if we want unity in the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. I don’t mind seeing this sign but only in rare occasions and within very good reasons. In other words, use it to describe but not to attack and oppress. Using it to describe would help me to
effectively work WITH the deaf individuals who may not have or not yet developed a strong sense of “signing community.”

There are many deaf individuals who didn’t grow up in the signing community (living in different types of environments), thus having very different ways of thoughts and responses. Sometimes I find the differences in their perspectives acutely refreshing! This we should welcome and embrace.

One last case in point here—I’m a fourth-generation, culturally deaf person and sometimes my
way of thinking and perspective are advanced or not so common in the signing community. Does that make me “hearing in the mind”? I’d say “yes,” but I never abandon deaf culture and the signing community because they are a big part of my growing up years and my current environment. I simply choose (or try to) the middle ground.

Prettiest Ladies of the Cinema

Everyone has a different idea or preference of Hollywood beauties. Below is a list of my personal beauties of no particular order or ranking:

Vilma Banky
Greta Garbo
Hedy Lamarr
Ursula Andress
Geena Davis
Grace Kelly (Princess Grace of Monaco)
Vivien Leigh
Rita Hayworth

How Wired Are You?

this is a copy of the response I submitted on www.ridorlive.com when he and other respondents mentioned about deaf people with CIs who seemed to pretend to be something else besides being deaf or put on attitudes and yet still having one foot in the deaf community.

"...I’m a 4th generation deaf myself and I have a CI. Been using for 3+ years. To make a long story short, I call CI nothing more than a glorified and expensive hearing aid. I chose it because I had expected better out of it; it didn’t come out as I thought it would be. Yes it’s helpful especially at work (I work in a hearing environment), enjoy some music and sometimes when watching movies. But it was/is not a boost as I originally envisioned. BTW, I had worn hearing aids all throughout my school years until I went to college. In other words, I’ve had auditory experience but I never reject deaf culture.

Choosing to have a CI was to add or broaden my horizons/experiences, not to diminish deaf culture or deafhood. There is indeed a few exceptions like myself (and 4 other 2nd/3rd generation deaf CI users) that I never pretend to be hearing, never expected to use a telephone and yet chose to have a CI. The world is basically designed for 5 senses, not 4. Strictly speaking for myself, there’s no harm in wanting to experience what is like to have the 5th sense. That has nothing to do with acceptance or rejection of deafhood. To echo the actor Ben Affleck’s words that he once said in an interview, “I’m not responsible for your successes or failures.” In other words, having a CI is a personal decision.

But when it comes to hearing parents deciding to hear-ize their deaf children through CI and deprive sign language, that’s where I draw the line. Of course I become uncomfortable with this. I do cringe when I see toddlers and very young children with CIs. That’s a strong part of deaf culture/deafhood in me which I respond to.

(Below is a couple more paragraphs I added here on my blog, not in the comments box on ridorlive)
I once tutored a hearing couple who has 3 children, the eldest daughter being deaf and has a CI. They were open to both choices. (at that time I didn't have a CI but got it about a year later). At first, the father insisted that I teach SEE. I was caught off-guard and naturally I wasn't enthusiastic myself. (SEE does give me the creeps, by the way) I told him I don't teach SEE. I drew a line across. to demonstrate the continuum. At one end of the line, I wrote below "ASL" and the other end, "English." I also added some more words in between like "PSE," "SEE," "Cued Speech," and "fingerspelling." I told the parents that it's entirely up to them to move in either direction along the continuum. (Later on over time with them, I discovered what the father said about SEE was that he actually thought it was PSE. I explained that PSE and SEE are two different things. He was leaning toward PSE, not SEE after I had clarified the difference) After several weeks of lessons (I used "Signing Naturally" book developed by Ken Mikos, Ella Lentz and Cheri Smith), the father finally came to realize that ASL does make sense. I felt it was important not to cram down their throat but let them, especially the father, to realize that on his own. And it paid off. Soft-pedalling sometimes is useful rather than playing hard-ball about teaching ASL.

About less than 2 years ago, I met a young mother with a newly-implanted toddler. It was extremely an uncomfortable sight for me. I didn't want to antagonize the mother. She knew I come from a deaf family myself and that I have a CI. I simply told her that the best way for her child to learn is to read, read, read books. Based on my experience in the paragraph above, I did not want to drag her into the controversy of sign language vs. oralism, deafhood vs. audism. I felt it was best to let her and her husband (he was already occupied with somebody else a few feet away from us) to travel their own path and come to their own realization (I hope) that they may need to include sign language to go hand in hand with the CI.

Take your pick but wire your battles wisely.

ODE TO THE FLAMING QUEEN

Now is the 25th year of AIDS plague. A crying shame that it hasn't gone away yet. Below is a poem I had written 16 years ago about my friend, Tom Saavedra who passed away of AIDS at the age of 30 in 1990.

Ode To the Flaming Queen

To bid our beloved friend away on his bon voyage
To the far-reaching and wondrous Shangri-La
over the rainbow where the angels greet
and friends joyfully reunite
Express what you may, in grief or solace
Hallelujah! Rejoice in his pleasure
of the everlasting journey,
befitting of the flaming queen with such pizzazz!

A man that loved men as a queen would
With unwasted and unbridled passions
“To be true to thine own self” and
“How dare you presume I’m a heterosexual”
were his credo
An unabashed queen of his own crystal design,
to shock, mock, titillate, and dazzle with glee
Disarming forthrightness sparkled with winsome regality
twinkles in his eyes bespoke, “life’s such a banquet”
Feast adorned with adventures and style
befitting of the flaming queen

The queen’s royal virtues-
to listen to the drummer and
to march to his own beat, wherever it went with him
With his spirited charisma to touch upon us,
his charitable heartbeats to warm over,
his soulful resonance to uplift,
Through him, old coats of muted hues we shed
New beats we light up and to march along
His grace to guide, we soar like butterflies
toward a rising star awaiting our reach
with his Pied Piper’s fife, joining in concert,
we radiate in triumph
Through him, one and all,
we blossom eternally

The guardian angel for life’s little losers
a shining, sturdy beacon of
honesty, faith, courage, inspiration and lively humor
Praises and admiration in homage
from the queen’s folks and,
the people living across the borders
Wearing one crown, yet in many-splendored colors,
The flaming queen as
a comic - outrageous and artful without being coarse,
a leader - defiant without being revolutionary,
a teacher - impartial without being superior,
a friend - the miracle of brotherly love

the generous queen cultivated the garden
that stretched over the boundaries
Bloomed with fruits and sustenance to bestow
the noble queen gone on his trek, return none
If to sow, reap and share his gifts,
His legacy in perpetual bounty shall return
Memories and his essence—the treasures in our hearts,
If within thine folds choose to nurture,
shall live on with brilliance
As decreed by the flaming queen

Of more years carefree and fathomless what might come forth
My lifetime with the queen suddenly a vexed finity
Seven years of friendship now a measured memory
What comfort take to thy searching heart
Friendship knows no age but its precious prize
Times we shared runneth over
Peace and fun be with him everlasting in Shangri-La

Shipboard in his ritzy finery
amidst the sprinkling confetti and undulating streamers,
With the shimmering waves and playful mists to roll by
Sailing toward the amber sunset and to beyond
on the wings of the ocean’s breeze,
on his never-ending vacation
on the royal flagship
befitting of the flaming queen

To Swing or Not to Swing

Never underestimate the power of popular culture. We always associate Tarzan with swinging on the vine, starting with the 1932 movie, Tarzan the Ape Man with Johnny Weissmuller (himself an Olympic swimming champion). This image has had permeated and embedded in our cultural psyche in the forms of sequels, spoofs, TV commercials, other movies (i.e. George of the Jungle), greeting cards, comic books and the like. A long time ago, I was watching a 1918 (silent) movie called Tarzan of the Apes with Elmo Lincoln in the title role. And to my shock, Tarzan himself was NOT a vine-swinger. Rather, he was a tree CLIMBER! We see him mostly climbing on the tree branches. The only shot I ever saw him with a vine was JUST when he landed on the ground and letting go of the vine from his hand. The vine itself was barely seen at the right side of the movie frame!

I never read the original novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, thus unable to know if the author did write about the part of vine-swinging or tree-climbing. According to the Internet Movie Database, this 1918 version is most faithful to the novel than others. It could have had something to do with limited technology or stuntwork during the filming (although the cast and crew spent almost a full year in the jungle). Or, whatever possibilties did or did not occur back, no shots existed in this 1918 film of Tarzan swinging on the vine in full view. To swing or not to swing, draw your own vines.

Taking Back the Destiny

This is my first blog ever. I’ve never read any blogs until the protest at Gallaudet occurred. Now it’s almost like a lifeline for me to keep myself abreast of what’s been transpiring on the Kendall Green. Perhaps the protest may be a good thing for several of us, that is, to appreciate the existence of blogs (of course it all depends on the content).

This protest did catch me by surprise but after all, I’m not amazed over this uproar. Given the poor choice of words such as “Jane is not deaf enough” or “she doesn’t say hi,” and any other seemingly ranting on the students’ part, please remember the students are young adults themselves, not as sophisticated yet as older adults like myself (I’m pushing 50) in presenting facts over emotions. In this regard, this is understandable but not necessarily encouraged. However, it’s a good opportunity for them to learn to analyze and articulate facts behind their reasoning and action. My intents here are to try to crystallize what they really mean. (As a footnote: I later learned that "not deaf enough" was uttered by a single individual or two, not shared by a group, which unfortunately picked up by the media)

It’s about taking back the destiny. You (meaning the deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals of various ethnic backgrounds) and I are too well familiar with oppression from the non-deaf public, which I don’t need to elaborate further. However, some brief history lessons should help illuminate here. We all know about the establishment of the first school for the deaf in Hartford, Connecticut, American School for the Deaf (ASD) in 1815. The graduates of ASD eventually became educators themselves and established about ten more schools for the deaf in other states (forgive me if my math is a little off). Surviving letters and other records show high literacy skills. The infamous conference in Milan, Italy in 1880 decreed that the deaf could not teach the deaf (think destiny). As a result, many deaf teachers lost their jobs and the hearing people took over. We went through a hundred years of abysmal level of education that neither supported nor benefited a great number of deaf individuals. However, the numbers of deaf individuals graduating from Gallaudet grew over time and because of this went on paths of higher education to acquire masters and doctorate degrees. With experience acquired through the jobs, we now see more deaf individuals with MAs, Ph.Ds, and Ed.Ds and moving up to higher levels of management, directorship and positions. The DPN protest was the next step in taking back the destiny that belongs rightfully to the deaf individuals.

Years ago, I read a challenging question in the “Ask Marilyn” section of the Parade, a Sunday supplement, and I still remember it to this day. I do see some relevance of this question to the protest. The question a reader posed was—“which is more difficult to heal—a broken heart or a broken spirit?” Surely this kind of question can foster a lively debate but fortunately because it was a Q-&-A column, we didn’t have to wait this long to find out what the “A” is. Marilyn vos Savant, this said columnist (and genius) already provided the answer—spirit. She explained that “spirit can heal a broken heart but heart cannot heal a broken spirit.”

With the next presidential candidate, I can safely sense the students want a leader to move up to the next level, that is, to the destiny they are yearning for. Though I know Jane Fernandes through very minimal professional contact, I haven’t been on campus long enough to make a sound judgment of her performance on campus. Yet from what I read and learned, it seems that in the students’ eyes and souls, Jane obviously doesn’t fit the bill, hence their extreme disappointment and anger. I don’t know exactly how many people (students, faculty and staff) are involved but they are tired of feeling being dispirited and disheartened. They could not afford to let their spirits break down. The selection was very difficult for those directly affected to swallow. In essence, the students and others’ desire for the destiny was thwarted. Coupled with low spirits and heavy hearts, they may have felt they reached a breaking point. Again, it’s hard for me to ascertain the true numbers of people involved because I live far away from Washington, D.C., thus not being able to have a little more reliable pulse of the situation.

Social unrest, social changes, civil rights movements all give birth of messy beginnings. Look at women’s movement for the right to vote, blacks’ civil rights movement, the rebellion of gay men (Stonewall, New York City) in 1969 to demand equal respect and rights, the Free Speech Movement by the students at the University of California Berkeley in the 1960’s in their protest against the Vietnam War, etc. It has had taken time to achieve the desired results and a smoother sailing. The protestors at Gallaudet aren’t that much different—the lockdown of Hall Memorial Building, though not exactly my style—right or wrong, is messy. I can’t say if it is really necessary. Only time will tell.

Again referring to another reading material that I came across--an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times covered a survivor of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings in 1947 under McCarthyism that targeted the movie industry in Hollywood (if my memory serves me right, he was one of the Hollywood Ten who refused to answer questions during the hearings). He was asked how he felt "now" with the hindsight of what had occurred during this dark period. He replied, "do not look for villians. They are not out there." This powerful, sobering yet humbling remark nearly took out my breath.

Granted that destiny comes from within of an individual, an individual or a group of individuals needs the heart and spirit hand in hand to achieve this. By their attempts to “take back the destiny” where the deaf can run their own show or be in control, they are attempting to restore, repair, or like in the “Ask Marilyn” column mentioned, to “heal” the spirit and the heart. To keep the focus on this struggle for, as the FSSA stated in its website, "social justice" with resonant spirits and dedicated hearts in the right places--rather than to look for and single out villians for they may "not be out there"--may effect the kind of the rightful destiny that those on Kendall Green (and probably the rest of the world) are searching and desiring to grasp and hold on.

The protest might be a starting point of healing, though on the face of things the appearances seem to indicate otherwise. Yet, it’s not too hard to understand, if not to empathize. Again, only time will tell where the scheme of destiny lies in the matters of the heart and spirit.