In the last year or so, the term ‘mansplaining’ has become well known for referring to the way some men explain (or talk over) women in a patronising, condescending way.
To watch this article article signed in BSL by Helen Foulkes, press play below, or scroll down to continue in written English!
One well-known example of this is the time when Matt Damon ‘mansplained’ diversity issues to a black female film producer (yes, really), and if you want more of an overview, here’s an article on six subtle forms of mansplaining.
As the term has become more well known over the last year or so, I’ve taken to using my own similar term for situations when non-deaf people speak in what I feel is a patronising or condescending way about D/deaf issues.
It’s – as the title of this article might suggest – ‘hearsplaining.’
‘Hearsplaining,’ as I use it, refers to non-deaf people who don’t really respect or take into account D/deaf people’s opinions, who assume they have expertise on D/deaf issues which is unwarranted, or more generally, talk down to D/deaf people.
(Before I go on, I want to be clear that there are hearing people – particularly in the academic and interpreting fields, including those who work closely with D/deaf people, or come from Deaf families – who are non-deaf but still have a great deal to contribute to D/deaf people. A hearing person talking about deafness isn’t necessarily ‘hearsplaining.’)
I’ve encountered ‘hearsplaining.’ I think a lot of D/deaf people have.
One recent example of ‘hearsplaining’ was added to Facebook recently. A non-deaf film director called John Leonetti has used Kiernan Shipka, a hearing actress, in a Deaf role (more on cultural appropriation here by the way) in his upcoming movie, The Silence. Leonetti said:
“I really think people haven’t seen her like this before. She learned to sign for the film, and now she’s flawless, like she’s been signing her entire life. She seems to have an almost innate sense of what it’s like being a deaf person.”
The comment was met by a range of negative comments (and quite a lot of funny GIFs) from Deaf people in response on Facebook.
(Incidentally, another recent example of a non-deaf actor playing a Deaf role is Julianne Moore in Wonderstruck. Look at what Deaf director Jules Dameron had to say about that in her Instagram post.)
Bearing in mind the fact that nearly all hearing actors’ performances in Deaf roles look incredibly inauthentic to Deaf audiences, how exactly would Leonetti, a non-deaf person, know whether Shipka looks like she’s been signing “her entire life”? Or whether or not she has an “innate sense of what it’s like being a deaf person”?
Even if he really believes it, even if he’s done a load of research, or has been told this by some sign language expert on set, to me it feels wrong to see a non-deaf person saying how authentic a non-deaf actor’s performance as a Deaf person is. We – D/deaf audiences – will be the judge of that.
Which is why I read that quote and turned to my wife and said: “hearsplaining.”
Perhaps it’s unfair to focus on Leonetti’s quote. It’s possible that after seeing the film I’ll change my mind.
But my response to his quote isn’t based on only his words – it’s based on my past experiences of seeing non-Deaf people give their views on the use of sign language in the arts.
Two conversations still stand out.
One was when a high profile drama aired on British TV, featuring a Deaf character. A month or so later, I was talking to a non-deaf person from the broadcaster, who said how amazing the performance had been.
In reply, I said I hadn’t enjoyed the performance because the actor’s signing had been so poor (in fact, a great deal of it was cut or obscured on screen, perhaps because it was so poor) meaning that I couldn’t believe in the character, and therefore, the whole series.
The person looked at me like I was being plain daft, (a bit like they thought I was being deliberately contrarian) and said “well, it doesn’t matter because people liked it and it still helped raise Deaf awareness.”
Another similar situation occurred a couple of years later. I watched a theatre performance which had a BSL interpreter. I knew the play well, and I felt the interpreter’s translation was weak and didn’t match the meaning of the play.
I was asked for feedback by someone from the theatre company after the play, but when I responded honestly, they rejected my views, telling me “no, no, he’s a really good signer.”
Which was hard to accept because while I’m not a BSL expert, the person telling me this knew no sign language at all.
This article has focused on ‘hearsplaining’ in the arts and entertainment industry, but there are so many areas of life that the term (or one like it) could be used for.
Take education. Is there a bigger example of ‘hearsplaining’ than the Milan 1880 education conference, where, after a discussion involving no Deaf people at all, a room full of non-deaf delegates voted to ban sign language from the world’s classrooms, leading to Deaf teachers losing their jobs and generations of Deaf children having only one option of language for their education?
What about the way that parents of deaf children are still sometimes advised not to sign to their children because that could affect their speech, despite research to the contrary? Where is the voice of D/deaf people who have lived those experiences, in advising these parents?
What of audiologists telling deaf people that digital hearing aids are better than analogue ones? Leaving them struggling to hear after being used to analogue sound for so many years? Or that a better hearing aid wouldn’t make any difference to them, as my wife was told several months ago? (Read her blog here).
Or non-deaf politicians telling us that they’ve done enough when it comes to BSL recognition here in England?
For me, these are examples of ‘hearsplaining,’ pure and simple.
You could argue that the history of D/deaf people goes hand in hand with non-deaf people telling us that they know what D/deaf people need better than Deaf people themselves.
And an element of ‘hearsplaining’ that should also be noted is that due to communication barriers, D/deaf people are often not able to counteract, debate or respond easily when it happens. Put it this way, if we knew exactly what people were saying around us, we’d be able to have our say far more easily.
A little ‘Deafsplaining’ – the inclusion of D/deaf people’s views, based on our experiences, would go a long way.
It’s important to say that there are brilliant non-deaf people doing great work that is far, far from being ‘hearsplaining.’ Here’s one example.
A few months ago (and I hope to write about this at some point), I was at a film festival and I met a woman who had done some amazing work in bringing Deaf people to the cinema she works in.
She had actually gone out into her local Deaf community, got to know people and asked them what they wanted to see at their local cinema, organising events that they’d told her they wanted to see.
During the talk at the festival, she told the audience of film festival planners that there were no easy fixes. That bringing Deaf people to their festivals meant reaching out to them and empowering them, rather than simply telling D/deaf people what they wanted (or what they were going to get).
She was advocating the opposite of ‘hearsplaining,’ and I left feeling inspired, wishing there were more non-Deaf people like her in the film and cinema industry.
More non-deaf people should learn from her example, and stop saying what they think about D/deaf stuff without including and empowering D/deaf people, or at the very least, bearing D/deaf people’s views in mind.
So there it is. ‘Hearsplaining.’ A useful term, or not?
I’ve found it handy but maybe it’s not for everyone. Or maybe there’s a term that means the same thing, except better?
Tell me what you think in the comments below.
Author’s note: within an hour of posting this article, I discovered that the term ‘hearsplaining’ or ‘hearingsplaining’ has previously been created and written about by US Deaf academic Teresa Blankmeyer Burke, for much the same reasons. I’m happy to credit her with the term. Read her article about it by clicking here.
Read more of Charlie’s articles here.
Charlie Swinbourne is a journalist and is the editor of Limping Chicken, and is also an award-winning filmmaker and screenwriter. Charlie has just set up his own media production company, Eyewitness Media. Both episodes of his new sketch comedy in BSL, Deaf Funny, can be seen on the BSL Zone website.
Raúl García
November 30, 2017
In relation to the comment about audiologists and analogue hearing aids…which hearing aid company still manufactures analogue hearing aids? And, it is more often than not, not the hearing instrument employed, but the audiologists programming and fitting them that will make the difference to the wearer.
capegosh
November 30, 2017
Thank you for writing this article. Sometimes hearing people explain other deaf people to me. They explain the other deaf person’s communication methods, and sometimes describe their speech. Sometimes critical, sometimes complimentary, sometimes in comparison to me.
Alison
November 30, 2017
It is hearingsplaining in the US and the word I use in the UK. See for example: http://deafecho.com/2012/09/hearingsplaining/ (which was written by a friend in 2012).
Editor
November 30, 2017
Ah wow I haven’t seen that before, nice to know people are thinking along the same lines. Thanks Alison
Editor
November 30, 2017
Hi Alison, that link didn’t work for me, but this one did: http://www.wordgathering.com/issue24/essays/burke.html I’ll add a note to the article body. Thanks Charlie
pennybsl
November 30, 2017
At last instead of constantly repeating ‘the way hearing people / hearies speak’, we have a word – ‘hearsplaining’!
It encapsulates the a least a century of hear’surpression of Deaf values.
Editor
November 30, 2017
Just to note that someone else came up with the term first (I didn’t know until this morning!) see the comments or the end of the article for more info. I agree it’s a useful term that hopefully we can use to explain the situations we find ourselves in, and be empowered by
Tim
November 30, 2017
Great article, I found myself nodding away throughout.
There’s a more complex issue that could be discussed – just because somebody is Deaf doean’t mean that they cannot talk about another Deaf person or Deaf issues in an incorrect and/or patronising way – you dn’t have to be hearing to make that mistake.
For example, I once had a life-long BSL user refer to me as ‘hard of hearing’ because my sign-language was too SSE for his liking. If he was a more wise, respectful and mature person, he would understand that some Deaf people were language-deprived at oral schools.
But the issue to too much of a mess for me to try and flesh out properly. I’ll simply say that Deaf people are not immune from making this mistake.
Editor
November 30, 2017
That’s a great point Tim and I thought about saying something along those lines but didn’t want to over complicate the article! You’re absolutely right that sometimes us Deafies are guilty of ‘deafining’ each other, or ‘hear/deafsplaining’.
Tim
November 30, 2017
Thanks Charlie, this has been broached in comments now, so all is good.
In my opinion, the worst type of heariesplaining occurs when Deaf people get into trouble with the police and courts.
I remember a case when the police were adamant that a Deaf suspect was repeatedly telling them to ‘f**k off.’ You can work out what actually happened – he was in fact saying ‘I’m Deaf! I’m Deaf!’ and the police mistook his putting up two fingers for the ‘Deaf’ sign and their lip-reading of ‘f’ on the back of ‘deaf’ for the repeated profanity. They carried on heariesplaining this away, even after the magistrates threw the case out.
Then there was a court case where the Deaf drug dealer (yes, I know he’s no angel) was denied an interpreter during the execution of a search warrant. The judge heariesplained that this wasn’t a problem because the Deaf suspect was able to understand people when making drug deals. Yet we know that making simple deals is not comparable to the complicated legal details of a search warrant, that suspects have the right to fully and properly understand.
These authorities are not always as fair as they like to think they are, we can see that from their dubious heariesplaining.
deafhub
November 30, 2017
Few months ago I was unaware of mansplaining, let alone hearsplaining. My bad, when I was saying stuff to a female something. She resorted back to me saying she did not need mansplaining from me. It knocked me for six. I asked her about the term, which she explained to me. I became so intrigued by this and it is totally right term because women does not need explaining from men. The more I think of mansplaining, the more I thought about hearsplaining and weeks later I discussed with her about hearsplaining and she totally agreed with the parallel of mansplaining and hearsplaining. We need to spread out the message and highlight the hearsplaining.
Martyn
November 30, 2017
Interesting article.
On the subject of blended/portmanteau words which are creeping into our language, how does BSL keep up with it? ie is there a sign for ‘mansplaining’, ‘Brexit’ and the like?
I know I’m showing my ignorance here, but I just wonderered.
Editor
November 30, 2017
It is signed in the video with the article, but it’s a created sign, it didn’t exist before.
BSL is always changing though, and new signs are created and used all the time.
Hartmut Teuber
December 8, 2017
I agree with the editor that neologisms do enter in the Deaf vernacular via various mechanisms, some may be unique to sign language. Deaf people are mostly bilingual, though to different degrees of competence in both languages. I always said that deaf signers are most diverse linguistically in terms of language competence and communicative ability, in addition to varying world knowledge.
The devices that represent spoken language in sign language are fingerspelling and manual speech gestures, like pointing to the nose for nasal sound ‘n’, in countries that do not employ a manual alphabet in their signed languages. We could fingerspell the whole word, or its abbreviation, or just by its first letter in a certain movement, f.e., “Germany” is signed in BSL by just the British Manual Alphabet G. Some of the fingerspelled words or abbreviations became so altered over time to be like a sign today, like the BSL “HOW” or the ASL “BACK” with its directional variations.
Nowadays, people are creating complete new signs to signify modern vocabulary or import signs from ASL for them. Some survive, some dies perhaps due to phonological incompatibility, that is the new sign is not easy to “pronounce”. Some may be imported from another sign language or from International SignTalk. Signs for countries that do not exist in BSL are taken from this SignTalk, like the old BSL for Germany has been replaced by its international sign.
The technique that an interpreter could use for a word that has no signed equivalence is to fingerspell fully first. Then employ various techniques to contract the fingerspelled word or set up an ad-hoc sign, while mouthing the word.
Rosie Malezer
November 30, 2017
The Finnish government are renowned experts in hearsplaining. I pray that some day this will change.
Martyn
November 30, 2017
In the interests of fair play, it’s only right to add womansplaining to the dialogue. I would say that, being a bloke!
Hartmut Teuber
December 8, 2017
I would not classify all examples of Swinbourne as hearsplaining. I would define the term and also “mansplaining” to limit to expressing an invalid reasoning to a decision or action, akin to poor excuse, that could be accepted by the ignorant majority to defend a biased decision. An explanation ought to be cheap to be termed “__splaining”.
I agree to the example by the hearing film-director John Leonetti’s use of a hearing actress to portray a deaf role as hearsplaining. He was simply defending his choice no matter what, disregarding the opinions of deaf viewers, which may include a lie. About 20 years ago, I wrote a letter to a German TV director who directed an episode about Deaf parents with a CODA child. He defended my criticism that the final version was approved by the Deaf sign language consultant, which was lie. I also criticised the poor camera-taking and editing that did not capture the signed dialogues fully (only face while the actor was signing, the signing at a poor angle and cut off in the middle, etc.). I knew the consultant who told me he only taught the hearing actors the necessary signs to say the lines and had no control of the camera and editing at all. Such a hearsplaining is one version of using a bull-shit defense for incorrect choices that appeals to an ignorant hearing audience, more like the poor excuse that would be accepted by the ignorant.
The thing about Milan 1880 is to me not hearsplaining. The arguments used there as well as later on against the use of sign language in the education of the deaf were not of “cheap” nature, but more fundamental due to ideological reasons. It addressed the fundamental questions of what constitutes humanity, quality of life by having all five senses intact, homogeneity of society, and the linguistic and anthropological value of sign language. Such arguments are manifestations of audism, which includes the audiologist favoring a digital hearing aid over the analog one to who has been using an analog one. (Why is the hi-fi hearing of the auditory environment so important?!)
The utterance of the parliamentarian who said to have done enough for the deaf may be of a different sort, of “please don’t pester me with the complaints that cannot be legislated but can be resolved outside of law”. He only failed to understand the societal significance of the deaf issues. More background information is needed to ascertain the nature of the utterance. To me, hearsplaining is not at the first sight. I am astonished that he said it to a Deaf constituent. Normally he would be very careful saying it for not losing votes. I wonder if the word “enough” was uttered.
Hearsplaining is one application of audism, which I define as valuing hearing and speech directed consciously or subconsciously toward deaf people and which may results in discriminatory utterances and actions. It is only a defense of an audistic behavior. An outright response to such a bull-shitting explanation may be along the line of “Don’t give me that! You failed to understand the issues behind the relations between the hearing [majority] and the Deaf [minority] suffering discrimination at their hands. Do you wish us to continue to suffer (to practice it)?” “What you said is only hearsplaining (audism), which we reject wholly.”
Kalifa coleman-best
April 1, 2018
This is a really interesting article, I have recently started a blog (I’m non-deaf) and wanted to touch on issues surrounding deafness. I have always been concerned about commenting on deaf issues without direct experience but have never had the word for it! Some great advice, would love to hear more suggestions from anyone who has any more recommendations or would like to make suggestions for articles they would like to see more of… my email is kalifaajcb@gmail.com and my website is speechieinklings.com Would love any views or comments on how well my articles are worded/accessible also.