How Deaf People Think DAVEN HISKEY JULY 20, 2010 Today I found out how deaf people

think in terms of their inner voice. It turns out, this varies somewhat from deaf person to deaf person, depending on their level of deafness and vocal training. Those who were born completely deaf and only learned sign language will, not surprisingly, think in sign language. What is surprising is those who were born completely deaf but learn to speak through vocal training will occasionally think not only in the particular sign language that they know, but also will sometimes think in the vocal language they learned, with their brains coming up with how the vocal language sounds. Primarily though, most completely deaf people think in sign language. Similar to how an inner voice of a hearing person is experienced in ones own voice, a completely deaf person sees or, more aptly, feels themselves signing in their head as they talk in their heads. For those deaf people who are not completely deaf or wear devices to allow them to hear somewhat, they will often experience more vocal language in their inner voice in proportion to how much they can hear. Interestingly, deafness is significantly more serious than blindness in terms of the effect it can have on the brain. This isnt because deaf peoples brains are different than hearing people, in terms of mental capacity or the like; rather, it is because of how integral language is to how our brain functions. To be clear, language here not only refers to spoken languages, but also to sign language. It is simply important that the brain have some form of language it can fully comprehend and can turn into an inner voice to drive thought. Recent research has shown that language is integral in such brain functions as memory, abstract thinking, and, fascinatingly, self-awareness. Language has been shown to literally be the device driver, so to speak, that drives much of the brains core hardware. Thus, deaf people who arent identified as such very young or that live in places where they arent able to be taught sign language, will be significantly handicapped mentally until they learn a structured language, even though there is nothing actually wrong with their brains. The problem is even more severe than it may appear at first because of how important language is to the early stages of development of the brain. Those completely deaf people who are taught no sign language until later life will often have learning problems that stick with them throughout their lives, even after they have eventually learned a particular sign language. It is because of how integral language is to how our brains develop and function that deaf people were once thought of as mentally handicapped and unteachable. One can see how observing someone who cant communicate due to lacking any language and who lacks much self awareness might appear this way. However, in recent history, up until the 1970s, it was still thought that deaf people were somehow mentally handicapped.

How could this be when they had various sign languages and even vocal training to allow their brains to develop and function properly? Well, the problem stemmed from the fact that in the 1880s it was decided that deaf people should not use sign language; rather, they should be forced to use spoken language almost exclusively. This seems reasonable enough on the surface as deaf people are fully capable of learning spoken language and this would allow them to more completely integrate into the hearing world. The problem with this was only recently discovered and indeed many of the negative implications are only just now being understood. It turns out, completely deaf people who are forced to use only spoken language are only slightly better off than those who know no language, in terms of their brain functions. Recent research has shown the brains of the completely deaf never fully associate spoken language in the way sign language gets ingrained in their brains as a language; principally they never develop an inner voice, which is necessary for our brains to process information. They do gain significantly more sense of self and better memory and the like over those who have no language, but in this state, they will never fully reach their brains potential as in when they learn sign language. There is still a lot of debate over what are the minimal levels of exposure needed to stimulate the language centers. But it is clear that deaf children need early experience of some sort of language if they are going to be good communicators in later life, says Professor David Wood, a leading deaf educationalist at Nottingham University. Because of these findings, the oralist method of teaching the deaf that had endured for just under 100 years is being rapidly phased out in favor of a bilingual education where sign language is taught as early as possible and vocal language is taught as a sort of secondary language. Bilingualism is still very much a hot potato. We have come in for a lot of flak and been accused of pushing deaf children into a signing ghetto. Yet the deaf had a big price to pay when the old methods failed. Not only could they not communicate, but they were left without a code to think in. We can no longer ignore what the research tells us, says Miranda Pickersgill, chief of deaf services for Leeds Local Education Authority. Living in Silence: A Qualitative Sociological Examination on the Deaf an d Hard of Hearing By Rebecca Culver for Field Research Methods 4930 Dr. Lachelle Norris Tennessee Tech University February 2011Abstract Living in Silence: A Qualitative Sociological Examination on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing The field research project was designed to examine what daily life is like for individuals who are deaf and/or hard of hearing. Ten in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants who either work in the field with deaf or hard of hearing individuals or are deaf

and/or heard of hearing themselves. Observations were conducted during interviews in the field where individuals worked, in their homes or attended school. The research suggests that individuals whom are deaf and/or hard of hearing live a life accompanied by resources and tools and have little shame in who they are. The research was designed in a way to get to know the participants and what their life is like. The research was conducted in a way that allows the reader to get to know the participants and their stories with background information through various literature reviews and a historical overview. All the names in this study have been changed to protect the participants identities. Living in Silence: A Qualitative Sociological Examination on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing LITERATURE REVIEW Academic Research Another article pertaining to family dynamics was published by Asberg (2008). This study examines the stress parents of deaf children experience. Asberg surveyed thirty-one parents who had children at summer camp specifically designed for deaf children. All families reported a high level of income. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to measure stress levels with indicators on demographics, perceived and received social support as well as life satisfaction. After analyzing the data, Asberg concluded that there was no correlation between stress and the rearing of a deaf child. In addition to studies examining family life when a member of the family is Deaf or had hearing loss, research has also been conducted on the how to best serve deaf or hard of hearing clients in mental health and counseling services. Fusick (2008) details the importance oftraining counselors on how to treat clients with hearing loss. Individuals with severe hearing loss can lose their sense of self worth, personal identity, or group identity, resulting in a variety of psychological problems. Furthermore, because the cost of having hearing loss alone is so great, many individuals cannot afford the added expense of treatment. Fusick states there is a major lack of resources for counselors who have clients with hearing loss, resulting in a variety of problems such as confidentiality and embarrassmentissues when forced to use an interpreter in a therapy session. Many people are not going to fully express themselves when they have to speak through an interpreter for fear of embarrassment or breach of confidentiality. Fusick concludes that there needs to be more training, resources, and workshops available for mental health counselors concerning clients with hearing loss. Historical Overview A historical analysis as to how hearing impairment has been approached is necessary. The following information was gathered from the educational organization PBS from their website about the film Sound and Fury (PBS 2006). Deaf and hard of hearing individuals have a long history of oppression dating back to early 1000 B.C. Society has a way of rejecting what is not the norm and Deaf individuals were perceived as dumb and incapable to learn. This is a centuries old battle wish harsh stigmas attached to it. As far back as, 1000 B.C., the Torah denied

property rights to deaf individuals. Even great thinkers and philosophers denied rights for deaf individuals. The philosopher Aristotle is quoted saying, Deaf people could not beeducated *since+ without hearing, people could not learn. Early Christians saw deafness as punishment from God. If parents had a deaf child that child was punishment for past sins, according to St. Augustines. In the 1500s forms of deaf education begin to emerge. In Renaissance Europe a physician, Geronimo Cardano developed a system of symbols to teach his deaf son how to communicate. This is the first evidence of a developing sign language. The first known book of alphabetic signs was written by Juan Pablo Bonet around 1620. In 1788 a milestone in deaf culture was researched when Charles Michel De LEppe established a free public school for the deaf in France and with this, the French dictionary of sign is developed.which later was used for the development of American signed English and American Sign Language. In 1817 Thomas H. Gallaudet, after being inspired from meeting De LEppe and his community, developed the first American school for the deaf. It was a sign-based school that prompted many others like it to emerge. In 1865, Gallaudet opened the first deaf college. Originally known as the National College for the Deaf and Dumb, it is the only accredited facility for the deaf in the United States to offer college degrees. In the 1850s in the U.S, it was proposed to congress by John Flournoy that an entire deaf state be created. It was proposed to be set in the western territories where all deaf people could live together and have their own sense of self, community, and government that reflects their needs. This was going to a deaf utopian community where the oppressed could escape the prejudices and restrictions of the hardened hearing community. Unfortunately, positive change is sometimes followed by an unexpected setback. This set back in American deaf history came with Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, who spent his life obsessed with sound and communication. Bell came from a family history rooted in deaf culture. His mother was very hard of hearing and used a visible speech method taught to her by Bells father. Later in his life, Alexander Bell opened a string of deaf schools that promoted the use of the oral method, educating deaf students using spoken language which consists of lip reading, using ones voice to speak, and mastering breathing techniques. The use of sign language was prohibited in the oral method of teaching; signers were not allowed to sign in public and were forced to secretly communicate. Bells approach led to much anger and aggression in the deaf community, many call it the Dark Ages in the deaf community. There were many years of banning sign and forcing young, deaf individuals to use the oral only method. It wasnt until the 1960s that the United States congress dismissed the oral only method and announced that oral deaf education was a failure. This helped pave the way for the modern development of communication for the deaf and hard of hearing.

he Deaf Culture

People with hearing loss form the largest disability group in this country. In addition to the 4000 to 5000 babies who are born deaf every year, countless numbers of people suffer injury or illnesses that cause deafness. As healthcare providers we view deafness as a disability and focus purely on the medical aspects of deafness. However Deaf people tend to find this view restrictive and limiting, because it fails to describe the sociological implications of deafness. Labels like "hearing impaired" "deaf and dumb" or "deaf mute", is considered undesirable because it refers to a presumed disability. Deaf people prefer to view deafness not as a handicap but as a shared experience underlying their sense of community. As a symbol of pride and identity within this community the word Deaf is often capitalized when referring to this group. The Deaf community is a cultural group, sharing common experience, concerns, and language. Since the primary binding force for this cultural group is its shared language, deaf people who do not use ASL (American Sign Language) are not considered part of the Deaf community. Conversely, some hearing people do belong to the Deaf community. The Deaf community now includes perhaps as many as half a million people throughout the United States.

These case studies were compiled from our personal experiences and interviews with members of the Deaf community. Many (most, I fear) hearing impaired women do not realize that they are entitled to an interpreter during visits to their doctors. Seeing a doctor is an intimidating experience for many people, and if one must write out questions instead of signing, it is even more intimidating. I know of a class through the New York Medical College which is taught by a deaf woman who is very much a patient advocate. The medical students are taught basic sign language at beginner, intermediate and advanced levels. They learn medical terms and also learn about deaf culture. (More medical schools and healthcare schools should follow this example.) I had an experience with a deaf woman who had a new baby. She had a translator who signed to the patient what the nurses said and then told the nursing staff what the patient said. As we spoke I kept talking to the interpreter and directed all of my communications to her. Finally, the interpreter told me to face the patient and speak directly to her. Not only can deaf people read lips, but we are basically leaving them out of the conversation if we do not direct our conversations to them. It was a big learning experience for me! Just thought this could be helpful for this site as an example! ( "Joseph RN" )

In a rural emergency department, a deaf patient had been waiting in the Emergency Department exam room behind closed doors for one and a half hours. The patients chief complaint was abdominal pain and no medical evaluation had been done. When asked why, the nurse simply replied ... "she is deaf and mute and we are waiting for the interpreter, it's a week end it will be a while before they arrive, we'll just have to wait. " I communicated with the patient using ASL (American Sign Language) while the doctor evaluated her. The patient asked the doctor "why do you treat deaf people as if we were animals who can neither read nor write ? in spite of my university education I continue to experience this attitude. " The degree of insensitivity toward deafness and deaf people displayed by the nurse and doctor is unfortunately very high and mainly due to ignorance rather than malice. The hearing assume that, thinking cannot develop without language. Language cannot develop without speech. Speech cannot develop without hearing. Conclusion, those who cannot hear cannot think. These assumptions and opinions have had a devastating impact on the lives of deaf people. Copyright 2012 culturediversity.org. Deaf Identities The representation of the self is the classical way of describing identity (Baumeister, 1997); it is based on how childrens family and school experiences become internalized as part of ones identity formation. Taking this idea further, Hadjikakou and Nikolaraizi (2006) add that identity is a socially constructed process, which is expanded upon by relating past and present experiences into ones identity, thus being shaped by the narratives or stories that we tell others (Sikes & Gale, 2006). Therefore, this study adopted the narrative approach as used by Leigh (2009) and Stobeck & Magongwa (2006) to explore deaf identities through analysis of the interview transcripts. The narrative approach is an ethnographic tool that uses the life stories or narratives of participants to thematically explore how identity is constructed. The pioneering study by Bat-Chava (2000) provided evidence of fairly static clusters of four deaf identities: deaf, Deaf, negative/ambiguous identity, and bicultural identity. Similarly, Ohna (2004) conceptualized four phases of Deaf identity development. In synchronic order, these phases are taken for granted, alienation, affiliation, and the bicultural deaf in my own way (Ohna, 2004). The deaf in my own way phase takes on particular significance in this study, as it informs our exploration of how deaf persons dialogue with themselves and their worlds. Hence, the deaf in my own way identity is an embodiment of a postmodern perspective where postmodernism, as a philosophical orientation (Solomon, 2000), confronts the oppressive and political overtones of modernism. This stance disbelieves the conventional conceptualization found in the medicalsocial binary that allows only a medical or a social cultural difference perspective. Furthermore, asLyotard (1984) argues, postmodernism actively negotiates between multiple meanings and often competing discourses, to redefine identity as fluidly constructed, with multiple identities coexisting in the rich multicultural postmodern landscape (Corker,

1996; Leigh, 2009; Wrigley, 1996). In the context of Deaf studies, this frame of reference equips researchers and deaf persons who seek to expose and resolve or bridge the cultural divide between the two opposing worlds of hearing and deaf. However, with this phase comes the considerable risk of being misunderstood as a cultural sell-out or a liar or an Oralist (Ohna, 2004, p. 29). Such criticism implies that cultural values have been compromised, as when a deaf person is perceived by both the hearing and Deaf communities as being an outsider, by virtue of being neither Deaf nor hearing enough. Despite this danger of failure, the deaf in my own way phase is an important postmodern construction of identity that displays and demands a strong sense of maturity and of self. Instead of being egocentric, the identity of a deaf in my own way person is centered on self-reflective coexistence in and between hearing and Deaf worlds. Therefore, this phase presents authentic deaf identity as that of a bilingual bicultural person who fits into both worlds as necessary. Such a person is able to navigate the interface between the two cultures precisely because of his or her fluid bicultural identity. This conceptualization fits well with the dialogue model mentioned in the Abstract, which is discussed in more detail in the next section. Introducing the Dialogue Model This discussion of the postmodern dialogue model begins with the disability theorist, Shakespeares (Shakespeare & Watson, 2002) claim that there is no qualitative difference between disabled and non-disabled people because we are all impaired in some form, some more than others. This point draws our focus to the concept of our humanity and moves us into the realm of ontology. Ontology is that branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality and refers to the status of being in which a person exists (Soanes, 2004), whether they are ablebodied or disabled. In the context of Deaf studies, identity has traditionally been defined around the disabilitydifference binary (Davis, 2002). From this perspective, identity is constructed as either a disabled deaf person or as a Deaf person with a difference (Davis, 2002, p. 9), either of which always implies being deaf is a second-class identity (Davis, 2002, p. 88). The assumption has been that only two identities are possible for deaf persons, namely deaf or Deaf, and that all deaf persons fit into one category or the other. Therefore, ontology is a valuable starting point into the later discussion of how deaf identities are constructed beyond this traditional identity of being deaf or Deaf. May (1983) first describes the essentialist perspective of ontology as a position of to be or not to be that includes one identity while excluding the opposite; May then proposes that this statement be rewritten as: to beand not to be, a position in which persons embrace the fullness of their humanity. Within the deaf studies context, Breivik (2005, p. 202) frames identity in terms of hybridity based on diversity and heterogeneity, a concept echoed in Brueggemanns idea of inbetweenity or living between spaces (Brueggemann, 2009). This frames identity as a quest for belonging instead of as a narrow quest for self-definition based on difference in terms of being either deaf or Deaf. Moreover, Ladd (inBauman, 2008) views Deafhood as a concept to explore how deaf persons handle the bicultural existential tension between minority and majority cultural values. This tension presents a mixture of characteristics of both cultures without a clear understanding of how the processes work upon and within us. It is this situation which gave rise to the ethnographic focus of this study to be discussed in the next section.

Traditionally, the identity journey can take a deaf person to one of two possible sites of identity. The first option is to strive to be as much like a hearing person as possible in order to blend into the oral language world (Leigh, 1999, 2009). This entails constructing their identity around their hearing impairment which is seen as something to be overcome, as framed by the medical model. The second option is to define themselves primarily as a member of a socio-linguistic minority in recognition of Deaf rights; this option is portrayed by the social model (Gesser, 2007; Padden & Humphries, 2005; Reagan, 1995; Shakespeare, 1996; Shakespeare & Watson, 2002). These two choices illustrate the long-standing antagonism between the medical and social models construction of the identity of deaf persons (Reagan, 2002; Skelton & Valentine, 2003). The maintenance of these rigid cultural boundaries is characteristic of what has been called the firstwave deaf identity politics (Davis, 2002), where an essentialist binary forces the choice between oral or sign modes of communication.Davis (2002) also observed that this binary has dominated the politics around Deaf education over the past 130 years. Fernandes and Myers (2010) suggest that Deaf studies and Deaf education need to reflect the complexity of deaf lives more accurately by going beyond the rigid oppositions between deaf and hearing people and between sign and speech. This binary model is problematic in Deaf education because as Brueggemann (2009) observes, it thrives on opposition and the rhetoric of exclusion. The consequence is that deaf persons themselves tend to stay locked into those oppositions and are afraid to enter the gap between the binary poles (Fernandes & Myers, 2010). This article addresses the need to understand the lives of deaf persons living in this space as well as those who have found new identities between these fixed terms. This approach is facilitated by the auto-ethnographic input from the researcher as a full participant. As postmodernists theorists contend, there is no single best way to communicate and understand the world (Hylnka & Yeama, 1992). This philosophical shift has great significance for the education of deaf children especially since the postmodern perspective challenges deaf and hearing communities to redefine identity as a fluidly constructed ontology (Corker, 1996; Leigh, 2009; Wrigley, 1996). Instead of a fixed state of identity, the postmodern self-concept offers people a multiplicity of identities in which they may coexist. A whole range of identities in terms of nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, languages, social status, and other dimensions becomes available. Thus, as Foster (2001)concludes, one's disability remains an important and integral part in the fluid construction of deaf identity (see also Shakespeare, 2002). In the case of deaf persons, being deaf would be construed or held onto as being a core element of identity (Leigh, 2009). Nonetheless, a person is not defined essentially and rigidly by his or her disability as tends to occur within the medical model (Reagan, 1995) and also, ironically, within the social model, despite its ardent pursuit of social and political emancipation from an audist discourse. The postmodern approach thus provides an important departure from the medical and social models insistence on defining identity fundamentally in terms of disability via either the acceptance or the rejection thereof. Hence, there is an increase or decrease of dignity according to the presence of internal dignity and tolerance of oneself as a deaf person. At the same time, the identity crisis between dignity (trust) and gap or void (distrust) as the representation of the self (Baumeister, 1997) is negotiated anew in each situation as they go through their lives. We propose to place and rename this postmodern ontological framework within Deaf studies with the more concise title of the dialogue model. The essence of the dialogue model is reconciliation through critical self-reflective bicultural dialogue, which embraces postmodern tensions between contradictory identities. This model is developed in the remainder of this paper.

The increasing awareness and understanding of what it means to be deaf, which extends beyond the outdated first-wave of identity politics (Davis, 2002), is far more nuanced than the medical/social model. The newer approach allows for an appreciation of the complexity and range of deaf ontology. The dialogue model is in alignment with the current shift into the second-wave deaf identity politics (Davis, 2002) in its celebration of marginal discourses (Corker, 2000) through a fluid network of identities. According to Ladd (2003), this concept of second-wave deaf identity politics refers to a greater tolerance and acceptance of diversity within and across deaf and hearing communities. We add that this is a significant shift away from the first-wave deaf/Deaf binary with only medical and cultural perspectives of deafness. The second wave serves as a platform for discussing the bicultural identity. This approach also fits well with the postcolonial perspective of reconciliation and dialogue between former oppressor and victim (Geertsema, 2004). It is significant for Deaf studies that Shakespeare (2000) suggests that a feature of oppression is the loss of voice, which has also been a feature of deaf identity politics (Wrigley, 1996). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa provided a symbolic and public platform on which previously voiceless victims had the opportunity to retell their stories in their own words, of their shame, oppression and human right abuses and experiences (Allen, 2006). It is this cathartic retelling that, as Thornton (2005) suggests, often provides evocative narratives of dissent against authority and unfreedom (p. 7). This narrative process provides rich data for ethnographic research. Taking this point further, Taylor (1992, p. 51) argues that if Deaf persons were to believe that they are disabled, it is because they experience contempt and shame before others (hearing) in the public space especially at school, and therefore their dignity is compromised. This example foregrounds the theme of the dialogue models stance of reconciliation through constructive dialogue. This attitude of tolerating difference fosters the (re)claiming of dignity and is of considerable value to minorities such as deaf and Deaf persons. It needs to be emphasized that the dialogue model is not positioning itself as a metatheory to explain deaf identity in its entirety. Rather, it serves as an interpretative model for theorizing how the world is experienced by deaf people in a way that extends beyond the static medical/social binary. The dialogue model is particularly useful in understanding the struggles of minority groups such as deaf persons, who fall through the gaps between the medical and social models. It is also a useful research tool for understanding how deaf persons make sense of the disconnections and displacements (Breivik, 2005) in their lives through their narratives (Leigh, 2009). Furthermore, Leigh (2009) noted that deaf persons generally used the standard labels typical of first-wave medical and social model rhetoric that is deaf, hard of hearing, or Deaf. We propose a bicultural DeaF identity (Mcilroy, 2010), which represents the cultural space from which they transition within and between both the Deaf community and the hearing community. Hence, the capital F in DeaF highlights the deaf persons fluid postmodern interactions and engagement and dialogue across the conventional dividing line between Deaf and culturally hearing identities and communities as an authentic bicultural DeaF person. What we wanted to find out is how a bicultural DeaF identity is assumed. We explored this through the fluid interactions with the (typically hearing) family in which many deaf persons grew up through the use of cross-cultural bilingual dialogue in sign language and a spoken or written language. And how this identity is assumed by established Deaf persons who transition into bicultural DeaF identity through their interactions with hearing community as they renegotiate their identity as biculturally DeaF by building on the opportunities of both communities they live within on their own terms.

Moreover, the dialogue model seeks to position itself as a rediscovery and affirmation of the ordinary (Ndebele, 1992; Taylor, 1992). This is evidenced in the life stories and rhetoric of DeaF persons as they construct new knowledge and a way of living as an alternative to the medical and social discourses (Jankowski, 1997). In discussing how bicultural identities may be understood, Ladd (2003)defines Deafhood as a process of claiming ones Deaf identity with dignity. To this point, we add that the DeaF identity goes beyond this to claim the bicultural identity domain, with the assertion that I am DeaF. Wrigley (1996) and Breivik (2005) discuss the importance of being deaf to which we would add that being DeaF is the lifelong journey of a deaf person through his or her identity narratives. This article explores how DeaF as a new culturally defined identity goes beyond the old rhetoric to understand bicultural deaf lives. Guy McIlroy* and Claudine Storbeck 1. University of the Witwatersrand Received March 1, 2010. Revision received April 7, 2011. Accepted April 8, 2011.

LOCAL RL
Filipino Deaf from the Eyes of a Hearing Person Issues, activities, experiences and technologies about Deaf People in the Philippines Survey of Conditions of Deaf People in Metro Manila (Part 1) April 29, 2010 in Deaf Experiences, Deafness, Laws on Tags: Metro Manila, Philippine Institute for Development Studies,policy notes Disability

This is an excerpt of Policy Notes entitled Looking at conditions of persons with disability in Metro Manila by Celia M. Reyes and Aubrey D. Tabuga of Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas (Philippine Institute for Development Studies) ISSN 1656-5266 No. 2009-09 (December 2009). The Policy Notes are observations/ analyses written by PIDS researchers on certain policy issues. The treatise is holistic in approach and aims to provide useful inputs for decision making. The authors are Senior Research Fellow and Supervising Research Specialist, respectively, at the Institute. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of PIDS or any of the studys sponsors. I only selected the part which involves the deaf people and their community within Metro Manila, the Philippines capital. The need to understand the conditions of persons with disability (PWD) is not only linked with the countrys aim to reduce poverty and adhere to the goals stated in the 2000 Millennium

Declaration but also and, more importantly, with the goal to improve the lives of PWDs in the long run. Persons with disability often belong to the poorest segments of the population as noted by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP). Because of disability, the opportunities faced by PWDs are often far more limited than those by non-PWDs. In the Philippines, efforts to help PWDs were renewed via the amended Magna Carta for PWDs (Republic Act 9442) passed in April 2007. This legislation aims to fully integrate differently abled persons into the mainstream of Philippine society. Studies that examine the conditions of PWDs have, however, been very limited, with only case studies being available and with statistics being very rare. In fact, the latest official estimate available on the number of PWDs in the country can be obtained from the 2000 Census, with the figure placed at 1.2 percent of the total population or 942,098.1 This is 305,098 greater than the 1990 estimate and around 23,000 more compared to the 1995.

Love for Love A FOCUS BY: JOJO I. ESPOSA JR.

the for ON

language the DEAF

means People Culture

When we think of the deaf, the first thing that comes into our minds might probably be sign language. Since they cannot communicate through speech and sound, they have to resort to gestures and hand movements. But, is that the long and short of it? That's the deaf? I beg to disagree. I never dreamed of being engrossed with the deaf, much less being near them. But I was fascinated by their language. It's soo beautiful. Every movement has meaning. The graceful flow of hands, moods of body, flickering of fingers, all suggest a variety of definition. I believe most of my colleagues would agree that we all started to love the deaf by loving their language first. Deafness to some medical doctors is an incurable disease. Any residual hearing should be capitalized in order for the disease to be at least "superficially covered." Hearing aids, cochlear implants, therapy, etc. are needed in order to make the deaf appear "normal." These are their pathological assumptions. After my first brief encounter with Charvie Arreola,a deaf student during a Campus Crusade for Christ Youth Camp last 1992, I began to look for ways to get near a true blooded genuine deaf. Three short years later, after completing my studies atPhilippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, taught and mastered sign from my boss whom I hold in high esteem, Ms. Rosalie Maracaig of Gallaudet University, experiencing interpreting stints

at "Kapwa Ko Mahal Ko" TV program and Sunday morning "Lagare" (doing many things at the same time) at Capitol City Baptist Church, Project 6 Baptist Church and Lighthouse Baptist Church (at least they are all Baptist churches) lighter moments withMs. Tess Buenaventura (our English Instructor and one of my closest friends) and of course having a deaf best friendNonoy and now Ervin Reyes whom I shared the gospel of salvation and accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior, I more or less acquired and loved their culture. I believe that no culture is better than another culture. But deaf culture is a highly debated one. Most of us who are involved with the hearing impaired in this country don't believe that there exists such a culture. But let me first enumerate the attributes of a culture as compared to the so called "Deaf Culture".

STANDARD CULTURE 1. OWN METHOD OF COMMUNICATION 2. LANGUAGE 3. HISTORICAL INFORMATION 4. COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE 5. LEARNED BEHAVIOR

DEAF CULTURE EYES AND HANDS, TTY'S, IRC, EMAIL, LIGHTS FOR DOORBELL, ETC. AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE (ASL) PHILIPPINES SIGH LANGUAGE (PSL) DEAF HISTORY, FOLKLORE DEAF COMMUNITY DEAF WAY

Based on these facts, it is to be believed that deaf culture exist. Rutherfords, "The Culture of American Deaf People" study indicates that the primary objectives of Deaf Culture are the successful adaptation and survival of the group in its specific environment. The other is the maintenance of the groups' identity and unity through time. The deaf cannot rely on their residual hearing to absorb information. Thus, eyes and body movement are generally used. Some tribes in Africa uses these gestures to convey a message or warn against danger. But for the deaf, it's a necessity. Modern amenities help them communicate well. The visual technology like captioned TV, use of TTY's (text telephones), flashing alarm clocks, vibrators, doorbells and telephone alerting lights, computers and modems all help in communications for the deaf. But sad to say, Filipino deaf don't have the luxury of having much less using these highly technical facilities. They completely rely on their own radars and satellites, the deaf way. Another hotly contested issue is the Filipino Sign Language. The Deaf community believes, and we are in unity with them, that there is a sign language native to the Filipino deaf. Other skeptics believe that these are only homemade signs or some bastardized Signing Exact English. We don't think so. In fact, MCCID is one of the advocates of the use of Filipino Sign Language both inside the classroom as well as in our daily conversations with them. They are more at ease with it. Staunch supporters of PSL/FSL are now

documenting the vocabulary and will be releasing them soon. For our part, MCCID is now in the process of producing a book on sign language in computer terms. We invited some deaf who are working in computer companies and are in constant use of computer words. For those who don't believe in PSL, try to observe the deaf communicating with another deaf. If the unbelievers can reverse interpret them with ease and freely flowing, then there is no PSL. But if not, well, you have to reconsider your ideas. The deaf has their own word order, signs and idioms peculiar to them. One of the parents of our deaf student told a story of her daughter celebrating her birthday at a certain date. They didn't plan to celebrate her birthday until about one week before. She was surprised when so many deaf attended her party at such short notice. They came from various places even as far as Pampanga and Cavite. That is how they can contact their deaf friends through their own network. In my subject, Deaf Culture ( MCCID is the only school in the country that has this subject ) we gathered ten distinct characteristics of deaf people. They are: 1. When mainstreamed with hearing people, without moving, they can be mistaken as hearing. 2. They make peculiar movements when communicating. You can differentiate them by comparing a genuine deaf from a hearing who knows sign language. 3. They show feelings in exaggerated appearance. A very happy mood is easily noticed from an excited one. 4. Views the surroundings and happenings in the world in a different way according to what they see, resulting to incomplete information. 5. Keen on gossiping and making stories about other persons. (most hearing people are also guilty of it !!!) 6. They show marked respect to teachers and other higher authority. 7. They easily feel the change of mood and feelings of another person within their surroundings. 8. It is imbedded in their emotions the feeling of deprivation due to discrimination from the hearing people. Some feel sorry for their predicament. 9. Most of them are suspicious of their surroundings and friends. 10. They are very loyal to the people who understands their plight.

This is definitely and incomplete explanation of this very rich and exciting culture. I have only discussed an overview of it. MCCID always believe that the deaf has their own place under the sun and it's up to us hearing to give them their rightful place.