Challenging Audist Language (and Slurs)

1.

“I can’t hire you beause you’re deaf.”
“It isn’t a safe environment for someone with a hearing loss”
“I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your hearing loss.”
“ASL is a “fun language”, less important than English.”
“I can’t rent this apartment to you because you’re deaf.”
“Deaf people must learn English (forget ASL) because when they grow up they will have to function in the hearing society and need it to find jobs, find happiness and have a full and useful life.”

(Malkowski. The Canadian Hearing Society Magazine. Spring/Summer 2003 and Malkowski.Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice. 2010)

2.

“I can’t hire you because you’re black.”
“It isn’t a safe environment for a woman”
“I can’t promote you to supervisor because of your Jewishness.”
“Spanish is a “fun language”, less important than English.”
“I can’t rent this apartment to you because you’re Iraqi.”
“ Immigrant people must learn English (forget Spanish) because when they grow up they will have to function in the [American] society and need it to find jobs, find happiness and have a full and useful life.”

Which set of statements would get people outraged, and upon what grounds? The second set, of course, because they are either blatantly racist, or sexist.  The outrage would spill over into the media, in government buildings, in human rights tribunals.  Many in the majority group would side with women, racial groups on this, and justifiably so.

Yet, the silence is resounding when it comes to the first set of statements.  They are blatantly audist.  How many people would speak up? Admittedly, my choice of words in the first and second sentences of this paragraph could be construed as audist .  This just goes to show just how pervasive this type of language is in this society.  To wit: I obtained Mike Schmidt’s permission to use his vlog from Facebook.  This vlog will show exactly how pervasive the negative perception of the Deaf is, and how the term deaf has such negative connotations:


In his vlog, Mike called for a change in the use of language when it comes to the term deaf, and I agree that it is necessary to challenge the audist language as applies to us Deaf and Hard of Hearing people.  The language as shown in text in Mike’s vlog are actually deaf slurs, in the same vein as racial slurs.  This language reflects the attitudinal bias, which is audist in nature.  Audism is so similar to racism in attitude, and is reflected in discriminatory language and behaviours that uncannily resembles those of racial discriminatory language and behaviours.

During his March 10, 2010 presentation, Removing Attitudinal Barriers and Audism in Policy and Practice, Malkowski calls on us Canadians to challenge the attitudes and discrimination using both the following pieces of legislation:

  • Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies and Guidelines: Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrinination
  • Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act,

both significant Human Rights legislation pieces in Canada, made stronger by the fact that Canada just became the 82nd country to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
11 Responses
  1. Don G. says:

    Good post. I like the juxtaposition of the phrasing of racist/sexist language to audist language. That really makes it clear that audism IS a valid concept!

  2. Dianrez says:

    Just about every metaphorical use of the word “deaf” is negative. It suggests that hearing people begin with a highly prejudical mindset when they deal with an actual deaf person.

    Perhaps what we should do is focus on eliminating “deaf” metaphors rather than educating about deaf people. That could be more effective and make later public education a lot easier if there is no prior negativity.

    Or we might need a new set of words. Even in poetry, we don’t say “deaf” when we mean “silent” –what if we called ourselves “people of silence” instead?

  3. Shel says:

    Your comment is thought-provoking, Dianrez. I agree that the use of language indicates a highly prejudicial mindset. We do need to challenge and change the use of language when it comes to the term Deaf, but I don’t know about eliminating the term Deaf. In the heyday of women’s rights activism, there was an attempt to change the term woman to womyn, but that never took. “Woman” still remains. In the eyes of most, myself included, Deaf isn’t a pejorative term. Hearing impaired IS a pejorative term to many. “People of silence”? I’m not too sure about that.

    In the gay community, many claim the term “queer” with pride even though that term was used pejoratively by intolerant people. What is wrong with claiming Deaf, despite its negative connotations in the Hearing world?

  4. Don G. says:

    Ella suggests we reclaim “Deaf-mute”, just as gays reclaimed “queer”….

  5. Ann_C says:

    The prob with “Deaf-mute”, Don G, is that some of us who are deaf or Deaf aren’t mute, that is, some of us do speak in addition to using sign at home or in other situations. Don’t think that term would go over too well with some d/Deaf ppl, as it seems to have the additional negative connotation of being “dumb” (retarded) as well.

    Shel, you cited a number of comments commonly referred to as examples of audism. How about also coming up with examples of answers/ways to counter those remarks?

  6. Mary Lynne Cameron says:

    I know there are some jerks out there who might say some of these things, but how often do you run into these types?

    As for how to respond to these comments, I think a simple look of incredulity and a “You can’t be serious?!!” should drive home the idea of how biased (and illegal) comments like this are.

  7. Shel says:

    Mary Lynne,

    You’d be surprised at how often these things occur. According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Annual Report 2008-2009 reported that ” 55% of current complaints received by the Ontario Human Rights Commission relate to people with disabilities. That is as much as race and colour, sexual harassment, creed, and age combined. Over half of those disability complaints relate to accommodation.” (Malkowski.
    Attitudinal Barriers Facing Persons with Disabilities, Deaf Persons and Individuals with Hearing Loss: Ableism and Audism)

    .

  8. Ann_C says:

    Mary Lynne,

    A look of incredulity and that “you-can’t-be-serious?!” sometimes doesn’t cut thru some hearing ppl’s dense thinking or un-thinking, whichever way you see it. Some ppl will try to weasel around by putting the onus on d/Deaf ppl, so they have to be reminded there’s a law (ADA in USA, for one) that requires accommodations and makes discrimination against those with disabilities an illegal act. Unfortunately in some cases, a lawsuit has to be won in order to get compliance.

  9. Mary Lynne Cameron says:

    Well, I hope you don’t have to encounter dense/unfeeling people like that very often. Some people seem like they’re just too lazy to think.

  10. This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I enjoy seeing websites that understand the value of providing a prime resource for free. I truly loved reading your post. Thanks!

  11. Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>