Mark Levin: Let’s eradicate the term ‘hearing impaired’

Yep, I blogged about ‘medical model’ terms recently, I believe it’s a form of oppression:

http://tim-theregency.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/why-rnids-re-brand-was-disaster-for.html

Over here it’s an obsessive fixation on “hearing loss” – which I am not taken with.

Interesting article- but I personally use hearing impaired myself as saying that i am deaf gives people the impression that I cannot talk or hear at all, which is wrong. I think hearing impairment gives the impression that there is an issue, but that it is not as severe as being deaf (which in people’s minds, is someone who signs and cannot hear with aids or anything like that).

Folks,

Why don’t we come up with a term… politically correct, of course, that can apply to all of us no matter our etiology, severity of hearing loss, chosen mode of communication, cultural beliefs or personal opinions. I honestly really am not 100% comfortable with ANY of the terms to date whether it be Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing or hearing-impaired. Given the great minds and inner strengths we possess we should at least be able to coin an universal term that offends no one. Now, my friends, that is one superhero task.

Hope

English language like many spoken languages is audistic. It just conforms to hearing people’s view of the world. Audistic, because according to the definition of audism I developed as “having the conscious or unconscious mentality that over-values hearing and speech as the sole means of communication, on which prejudices about better quality of life and greater safety are based, and by which discriminations in deeds, words, and thoughts are generated against deaf and hard-of-hearing people.” Discriminations can range from being benign and “harmless” to harmful, like certain oppressive behaviors that we experience throughout the history. Audism is culturally dependent, as cultures may differ in its extent, and acquired through enculturation. For example, audism may be measured to be more prevalent in Germany than in the USA. (The rate of CI implantations of babies and toddlers is higher in Germany than in the USA)

Only we deafies (and HoH) define what would be acceptable, just tolerable, or audistically unacceptable to us,

Audism touches upon many areas of life, one of which is language, as used by hearing people and deaf/hard-of-hearing persons as these absorb the values and lingo of the hearing environment.

A few examples of the audistic vocabulary are mute, verbal. German has a few more, Some terms are only relatively audistic, depending on the context and usage. The words hear, speak, non-verbal, hearing impairment, hearing loss, hearing rehabilitation, language acquisition are among of them. Many English speakers restrict “verbal” and “mute” to the use of language by oral/vocal means only. However, you can make them less audistic, when you use them for using a manual language You can be mute in sign language, because you may not know sign language, are dumbfounded/speechless, or unable to answer. Why not?! The use of “mute” in USA or “dumb” in UK has been known discriminatory in the lives of deaf people. Sign language is also verbal, because “verbal” means using of words and sign language also uses words (signs are equivalent to words in linguistics). Anyone saying that sign language is a nonverbal language is definitely an audist, at least unintentionally.

As to relatively audistic words, “hear” is often harmless and does not become discriminatory. as in “I heard the baby crying, a crash;”. It is often used in the expanded sense to mean “perceive”, “listen” as in “I heard a story”, which a deafie can say, without anyone thinking, he heard it auditorilly and got puzzled about it. Readers of this blog can figure out for themselves, when those relatively audistic terms are audistic and when not. It becomes discriminatory, in yelling to a deaf person “Why can’t you hear?”. “You must learn to hear and speak in order to integrate in the society”

The term “hearing impaired” implies too strongly that a human being ought to be hearing, would be complete or perfect with the sense of hearing intact. By this, it is audistic. The same goes for “hearing loss”. They would be not(less) audistic, if describing someone to have had the ability to hear. Its usage should be restricted to describing one’s medical history. Otherwise, in the context of inability or having not heard something, better use it in terms of the naked inability to hear, like “I can’t hear you”, “I have a (some) hearing inability” Make it equal in value with the inability to walk, do mathematics, or to think, etc. that everyone has anyway. Nobody is perfect!

It is also insane to use “hearing impaired” euphemistically instead of “deaf” or “hard-of-hearing”, “cannot hear”. Indeed insane to say “I am hearing impaired”! Why should anyone being ashamed of being deaf or hard of hearing or deaf? Nothing politically incorrect about this word! In the judgement of most, the replacement is worse than the to-be replaced ones.

By thinking that way and using certain vocabulary in your communication less audistically, you relativize the value of hearing and speech. You can hear, you love music. That is good. I cannot hear and don’t give a damn about music. That is equally good. Neither hearing nor speech shall reign supreme! As we never say to a hearing person, “You should be deaf, you be better off if deaf”.

Language reform is always part of any anti-…istic effort to reform society.

I disagree with Mark. He presumes to have the authority to dictate terminology and control how others self identify based on his own personal audiological orientation and perspective.
What a very narrow worldview that requires quite a hefty ego to assume that kind of power over others.

Hello there Mark. I am a person on this planet earth too……. I have a moderate progressive bilateral hearing loss, wear hearing aids, use a FM Listening System. I am also fluent in ASL. While my hearing does not interfere when I communicate (sign) with Deaf friends, it sometimes interferes a great deal when I communicate with family, friends, and the hearing community at large. So, I assuredly and confidently self identify as *gasp* “Hearing Impaired”. I defy you or anyone who wants to ban me from using a term that I feel best describes my very own ears and diminished hearing ability.

I have a better idea: let’s eradicate the tendency to criticize and boss each other around and instead accept and embrace the wonderfully diverse, spirited and colorful community (Deaf, deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired, late deafened, newly deafened, unilaterally deaf, deaf/blind) of which we are all a valued member. Peace.

Find a better word, then we can talk. Pathology shouldn’t be associated/confused with a cultural term or stereotype, I feel that is your main complaint. Namely, people who don’t understand deaf people neglect to understand the world they operate in… it isn’t their fault, however. They don’t know how to deal with African cannibal tribes either, unless they were lucky (or unlucky) enough to run into one while they were growing up.

There ARE excuses for ignorance – it’s called lack of experience or opportunity. It’s not oppression, for gosh’s sake. Blind people don’t take up arms against being “visually impaired”, or think it’s a slur against their mental status. But in the Deaf world… hoo, boy.

P.S. Pardon me for using the word “talk”… That was audist, and I should have said “sign”. But I didn’t edit it because… I don’t think you should get offended at my choice of words.

@van Witzenburg, I have never encountered any blind person calling himself “visually impaired”. And fortunately “talk” is not an audistic term in English, as it is used in the same way as “say” in some contexts. You can talk in sign language. The verb is used in novels for a signing Deaf person saying something. You need to understand the different discriminatory isms and how they affect the language in which those isms operate. Deaf persons indeed use the signs, usually glossed as SAY, TALK, and HEAR, daily in the figurative sense.

You better rely on the usage of certain English vocabulary on the consensus within the local Deaf Community what English terms are audistic or non-audistic. As I said before, spoken languages vary in audism, for example German more so than the American English. Deaf people will thank you, when you use your vocabulary non-audistically, because you want to make the society less audistic to enable deaf or hard-of-hearing to participate in the society on an equal footing.

First it was hard of hearing, and that was deemed not PC. Then it was changed to hearing impaired and THAT became not PC. Back to hard of hearing. I’ve had a hearing aid since 1957 and have heard it all. I now have a cochlear implant and while I fight against the use of hearing impaired, I’m much too busy advocating for people who are hard of hearing to be constantly correcting the uninitiated. Did you notice I was politically correct in using “people first” language; that is, people who are hard of hearing rather than hard of hearing people. Rocky Stone, who founded the Hearing Loss Association of America always said, hearing loss is only part of our personality and shouldn’t determine who we are. Judy Martin, HLAA-Jacksonville, FL

Let me educate you…Please don’t use “hearing impaired” because this sound like we are BROKE. we are NOT BROKE. Please call us Deaf, not hearing impaired! WE ARE NOT BROKE. That “hearing impaired” is a negative word against Deaf people. Please research about us before you publish this website!

I understand the frustration and I myself have deaf friends and we communicate just fine. Some can actually talk to me and lip-read and some I can only write down my thoughts to. I myself am not hard of hearing and find it hard to handle that you are trying to cease the term impaired for those you do not hear as well while at the same time calling the rest of us impaired. If you do not wish to be labeled as impaired then why would you pass that term to anyone else?

People who are not deaf should not be to blame because of issues that arise. We cannot walk around and assume everyone is deaf. Simply asking someone to move out of the way is common in society and we are not to blame because someone cannot hear us unless you have a sign written on you explaining your hearing loss.

Also a person using the word hearing impaired does not think that you are less of a functioning person for not hearing as well as themselves. It is simply a term that is used. Every time that a person uses the term they are not thinking of how you function in society. It is not meant in a derogatory way or to belittle a person. It is simply a common term used for people who are hard of hearing. If the term itself is problematic to a person then they are being too sensitive; it’s how the term is used and said. To everybody who can hear at 100% it just means deaf, not that you are incapable. It is simply a term used to describe the level of hearing just like hard of hearing would be used.

People who can hear is the norm. People can’t change their everyday lives and vocabulary for other people that we may or may not run into especially if we don’t know about it since I don’t think you are wearing a sign on your back explaining your hearing loss.

I whole heartly agree the pathological term created by hearing doctors/audiologists, etc “Hearing Impaired” has changed society’s perspective upon the Deaf & HOH community. Hearing folks first started using “Deaf & Dumb” and the word “dumb” – just meant “mute”. Then later hearing society began to assume that all Deaf people were ‘dumb’ (not intelligent). Deaf/mute then was used. We can see a pattern of all kinds of labels hearing invented to define what human beings with limited hearing. All my life, for 27 years, I thought I was hard of hearing – I then learned without a use of hearing aids – if I wasn’t looking at a person a foot away from me and only understood10 to 20%, it meant I was deaf. I finally realized why I was struggling and straining so hard to get along with non-signing (signing impaired!?) hearing people who could not and probably will never understand the struggle. I’ve noticed in America especially – hearing folks are lazy to learn a foreign language. Since USA is a dominantly English language – why bother learning a foreign language? Non-signing hearing folks live in a sheltered egocentric mentality and with all the billions poured into hearing aids, hearing assistant technology and cochlear implants — playing Gods to brainwash deaf and hard of hearing folks to be something that they can never ever be – be hearing – and fooling them into thinking that once their “impairment” if “FIXED” – all communication ‘problems’ will disappear. Not so at all. I have met too many unhappy, stressed out, oppressed cochlear implanted deaf friends who still struggle to be accepted and loved in their non-signing arrogant hearing family who insist that they get their act together.
For me, I look at hearing people as very lazy beings that waste money on polluting technology that is expensive to upkeep, repair, replace — when all they could do is invest a few hundred dollars of learning fluent sign language classes. Why isn’t there a wrist implant for signing impaired folks? Why isn’t there a brain surgery for deaf doctors to drill holes into hearing people’s skulls and put implant to make them become fluent signers?! Because we allow them to have free will – free choice. I vehemently am against cochlear implants, hearing aids, speech therapy, oralism because I’ve learned over and over that hearing people become verbally, emotionally abusive every time I don’t understand one word or one sentence or the entire conversation (depending where I am at). Hearing people put so much pressure upon deaf and hard of hearing people and get abusively impatient and blow up. I’ve seen this over and over of how much tension for deaf individuals living or interacting with lazy hearing folks who refuses to simply learn fluent sign language. If a foreign parent can speak 3 foreign languages, how dare they deny learning ASL, for example, to effectively communicate with their children?
We’re, disappointedly, living in Star Trek world already — instead of being in outer space – like Cyborgs – half human, half robot creatures… assimilating to become more robotic than human… these are lost souls disappearing by greedy companies that are reaping billions from us “hearing impaired” rats to experiment on and laugh all the way to the bank.
For all the deaf and hard of hearing people who accept calling themselves “hearing impaired” are missing the big picture that you’re giving a wrong impression and enabling yourselves a very depriving co-dependent ‘relationships’ with people who do not accept you for who you are, as is… no devices needed. Just willingness to learn fluent sign language and there wouldn’t be forums like this to have deaf people divided and warring with each other in the first place! I’ll keep calling the lazy non-signing hearing folks “signing impaired” – the day that the term “hearing impairs” dies, I’ll maybe then call non-signing hearing people “non-signers”.

I find it amusing that
1) Mark has triggered a debate about the eradication of the term ‘hearing impaired’ from our vocabulary
and
2) that a lot of deaf people are offended by this term
As a woman who has been deaf from birth, I have always used the term ‘hearing impaired’ on most occasions, and feel there is no harm in it. To me, it is stating that basically my ears are up the creek and they cannot be ‘fixed’ so therefore they are impaired. Okay, so there are some of you who are hyper sensitive about being classified as “hearing impaired’ or have inferiority complex so much that as soon as someone pipes up with HI you go on the defence. I honestly believe this term is much better than ‘deaf and dumb’, ‘simple’, ‘stupid’ or even hard of hearing (which unfortunately I have experienced in my life time).
Anyway, don’t you think we can call our disability what we like, and what we feel comfortable with? If deaf people have a problem with using ‘Hearing Impairment’, then it’s their issue and nobody else’s. I have just created a blog
and I’m sorry, but you will see ‘hearing impaired’ as the main key word in my sentences. Does this mean that because I have used ‘hearing impaired’ that other deaf people will not read my blog site. So please don’t encourage other deaf people to believe that they are judging their disability or should be guilty for using HI just because other deaf people oppose to it
some don’t agree on.

To Ian Van Witzenburg — Thank you for your valuable input in regard to my comment. I love the way you put it as stated “we’re human beings and bridges are far more valuable than enforcing some idea of divisive language”. Very well said! I agree with you that no one can take away our accomplishments — we as human beings with various challenges of our lives have earned the right as a productive, citizens of this planet, Earth, regardless how others choose to label us by their own free will choice therein. To the readers: It is an old saying — be careful what the power of the Spoken Word coming from our own lips say to other people. It can either uplift other people in a positive way or it can harm others in a negative way. Another old saying — What words that we put out rather they be positive words or negative words can return to bless or punish us three times over. When people let go of the age old hurts that prevent them from moving forward and leaving the past behind in peace, then, there can be a sense of self-worth, self-esteem,self-confidence, and a brighter future within their own lives. As I have said in my previous comment, I encourage those of you to not let the little things rob you of your beigness in who you really are for yourself, to your family and friends, to the world, and most of all, to your Creator/Source/Great Spirit/Supreme Being — whomever you called God. To those of us in America, Happy Belated Thanksgiving! I am very thankful to be here and be part of a wonderful, challenging and productive Earth citizen with a severe profound hearing loss of 95 percent. I am thankful to be born with this challenge because I have learned as a little girl of how precious life is and be compassionate to the sensitivity of every human being on this planet. Thank you.

And so we all go through life moving from one politically correct term that will become obsolete and politically incorrect in time. It’s tiring and I take that right after living a long enough lifetime. I am hearing impaired and I am deaf (without my hearing instrument). I don’t care what you call my issue – HoH or vision impaired (I wear glasses) or whatever. I do have somethings that need for ME personally to be corrected or I cannot function in the world in which I created. I don’t need to be perfect but for me, an aid is just lovely, and without it I am absolutely impaired.

I apologize if the answer to my question lies in this wonderful mountain of comments above mine, but what is the preferred way to refer to an individual with a hearing disability? I too dislike the word “impaired” for all of these same reasons. I am asking so we can be on the same page. Is it best to refer to the person as deaf or hard of hearing and just leave the word impaired out?