The Theory's Empire Event Pre-Game Show, Part I: Deaf Culture

As loyal readers already know, my social skills suffer from my inability to ever really hear what people say.  That said, the world's more amusing when, for example, one's advisor inquires about the success of one's "current tree search."  In the tumble of words I often hear such damnably unparsable phrases.  Many of them are far more amusing that "current tree search."  The only reason that one's stuck around is because of my advisor's reaction to my sudden paralysis.  Frozen I stared, and mute, wondering how he'd learned of my plans to purchase a potted lemon tree for the porch. 

"I'm thinking about lemons," I blundered.  Now it was his turn to stare, bewildered by my admission that I'd been considering lemons a valid object of literary study.  He asked why I'd been thinking about lemons, to which I sensibly replied "because there's not that much room on the porch." 

"For your work?"

"What?"

"What?"

"What are you talking about?"

"What are you talking about?"

"Planting a lemon tree on the back porch."

"Why would I care about that?"

"Then why did you ask?"

"Then why did I ask what?"

"About my current..." 

As is often the case, I trailed off exactly when my mouth, prepping to repeat the absurd statement, clues my brain in to the nature of the misunderstanding.  But I've digressed.  What I intended to write about is Todd Gitlin's brief discussion of "the Deaf movement, barely one generation old, [but] representative of the strengths of post-1960s 'ethinicization'" (408).  Gitlin continues:

The practice of capitalizing Deaf signifies more than a new respect for those who cannot hear: it has become a sign of activism, with a popular base, with heroes and histories.  It  includes a commitment to American Sign Language, an active bilingualism, a call for representation (marked in 1988 by the successful demand that the incoming president of Gallaudet University in Washington be a deaf person).  It extends as far as the rejection of cochlear implants that are intended to restore a certain degree of hearing.  The claim to a Deaf culture is, today, no laughing matter. (ibid.)

The serious question that the Deaf movement asks of identitarian thinkers concerns the essentialist stakes of identity politics.  To obscenely oversimplify: on the one hand, some schools of identity politics presuppose a strong social constructivist position in which normative identity is nothing but historical contingency and people are who they are by accident of birth; on the other, other schools of identity politics presuppose that some people possess essential qualities that normative identities have denied expression.  Either female identity has been constructed in the Western world such that women are more cooperative or women are more cooperative in the Western world because women are naturally more cooperative. 

The idea of Deaf culture literalizes this problem: either you've complete/partial loss of hearing or you don't.  As concerns other identity enclaves, a perfectly reasonable (though not often invoked) compromise exists: culture could exaggerate/suppress essential qualities.  But not with Deaf culture.  You're either essentially deaf or you aren't.  I think a critique of the identitarian claims by way of Deaf culture could be the cornerstone of a larger critique of the incoherent logic behind identity politics. 

Which I refuse to do, on principle, and because I've some citrus to attend to.

Comments

[kmort]

O yeah. The Deaf have been Oppressed, like lots, but I think the Blind have had it worse. I am sort of stuck on my guide to bargain Singapore hotels at this present juncture and don't have the data set here, the sample, the segment. But in general the Blind are worse off then the Deaf, but more talented as well. Take some po' harlem or philly youngster, blind 'em, what do you got? Talent, staight up talent. Equipped with piano and some ray bans, and the Blind will do alright, but don't let them borrow your car. But a Deaf Ray Charles--hard to envision. Ray doing some catchy number--say Route 66-- in sign language? You'd have to be Deaf yourself to appreciate it. I envy the Deaf in some sense. They don't have to hear anything from a BobGeldof production. That is not to say I don't support the cause: I do. In fact, it's like a symptom of age: finally the Sally Struthers and BobGeldofs creep into the aging suburbanite's heart and play a sad ballad about Africans there, and you fork out a twenty.

[laura]

So the Deaf enjoy being Deaf so much that they knock back cochlear implants? I wonder if the stock market is aware of that.
There's a guy in my program dissertating on gay men deliberately giving each other HIV.

[kmort]

Cool. I've heard there are counseling programs for academic women who are addicted to saying the "g-word" as well; after a period of a few months, they learn not only how to eliminate the "g-word" from their conversations, but to curb their impulse to assign an instant value judgement to every imaginable human activity. The recidivism rate is a bit high, however.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

The Deaf haven't been oppressed, or if they have, they've been oppressed in less racially marked ways. For example, as a deaf Jew, I'm forced to wear the "special" purple talit when I attend a service. But that's more out of consideration than oppression: old Jews who would otherwise only yell in my ear see my talit and know that a conversation with me may cost them their voice. I can see the cost/benefit analysis behind their beady little future-Floridian eyes from across the room...

Laura, I've met many Deaf people--I feel silly capitalizing that word--who feel, very strongly, in the sanctity of Deaf culture. When they attempt to persuade me against purchasing the implants I never planned on purchasing in the first place, I'm always tempted to hand them Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and vigorously sign "SEE! SEE! THAT'LL ONLY EVER BE A COASTER TO YOU YOU DAMN DEMAGOGUE!" (Actually, I'm tempted to yell that with really exaggerated lip-movements so as to render lip-reading impossible. (And yes, before anyone asks, it's much more difficult to read lips when people know you're reading their lips and talk to you in a way that resembles a toddler imitating a fish more than an adult speaking English.)

As for dissertations on gay men deliberately giving each other HIV, 1) I've actually heard of that (frequent commenter Some Gay Guy is indeed gay and knows the lore), 2) what texts does he consult, or is this more a sociological project, and 3) with every passing day the sliver of confidence I have in the human race becomes slimmer and slimmer...

[Laura]

Scott, that's very interesting. Departmental Dissertator consults the kinds of text that people doing cultural studies consult, if that clears anything up. The only book he discusses is by Poppy Z. Brite and it's about vampires.
kmort, are you having a go at me? If so, you're doing it in such a cryptic way that I completely fail to undertand you. It's true that I dislike his project very much, but that doesn't mean I made any snap judgements about it. I've known him for nearly a decade and had plenty of time to think about what he's doing.