[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
leads us to say that child is Native American (not will be) example, might not have the opportunity to acquire
although the child has not yet acquired the language the language and culture of his ethnic group, but he or
and culture that go with that cultural attribution. In she remains black nonetheless, according to our
making this attribution, we would not ask first about society s rules of cultural attribution. The same
Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World 305
phenomenon occurs with Deaf children; they com- consider the best interests of the particular Indian tribe
monly have delayed access to Deaf culture and language as well as the best interests of the child (Simon &
because their parents are unable or disinclined to give Altstein, 1992). Do the ethical principles applied here
them that access. Only a minority of black children find not apply equally well to other ethnic groups, including
themselves in this predicament; a majority of Deaf the Deaf?
children do. As members of a stigmatized minority, Deaf
Hence, the newborn Deaf child is culturally Deaf children s lives will be full of challenge, but, by the
(hence my use of capital-D Deaf) and a program of same token, they have a special contribution to make to
implanting Deaf children does indeed undermine that their own community and the larger society. The more
ethnic minority. To see the link more clearly, imagine children born Deaf are viewed not as members of
that the program had perfect implants: If there were no a minority culture but as disabled, the more society is
Deaf children, there would be no Deaf-World. The prepared to conduct surgery of unproven benefit and
Deaf infant may not yet have acquired the language and unassessed risk, ignoring the harm that is done to the
culture that are, given its makeup, its natural right and child s ethnic group. The representation of Deaf
heritage, those it will prize as an adult (because most people determines the outcome of society s ethical
born-Deaf people do), but the child s life trajectory is judgment.
surely headed there; it uses vision almost exclusively, it
communicates visually not aurally. The child may have
Wrong Solutions
hearing biological parents, but this child is not a hearing
person both in principle, as we have seen, and in Because they are an ethnic group whose language and
practice. As a matter of practice, if the parents cannot mores were long disparaged, Deaf people commonly
communicate fluently with their child, they will be feel solidarity with other oppressed groups, the more
severely hampered in teaching the child their language so as the Deaf-World includes such groups as people
and culture, and the child can never acquire them with disabilities, seniors, women, blacks, and so on.
natively, without instruction, as a hearing child would. Deaf people have special reasons for solidarity with
However adept hearing parents may be, they cannot hard-of-hearing and late-deafened people; their com-
model Deaf adulthood, only hearing adulthood, and bined numbers have created services, commissions,
a child who relies primarily on vision will never develop and laws that the Deaf-World alone probably could not
into a hearing person, not remotely. The parents, on have achieved. Solidarity, yes, but when culturally Deaf
the other hand, will never be culturally Deaf. Thus, people allow their ethnic identity to be subsumed
uncommon as it may be among other cultures, Deaf under the construct of disability, they set themselves
children and their parents very often do not share the up for wrong solutions and bitter disappointments.
same cultural membership. After all, members of the Deaf-World differ from
The U.S. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 was disabled people in their language and cultural experi-
passed at a time when the survival of Native American ence, in their body of knowledge, in their system of
cultures was considered threatened by very high rates rules and values, and in their models for selfhood.
of transracial adoption. The act was designed to If the Deaf-World were to embrace a disability
prevent the undermining of Native American tribes, identity, it would urge on Americans an understanding
stating that it is the policy of this nation to protect the from which grow solutions that Deaf people oppose.
best interests of Indian children and to promote the Priorities of the disabilities rights movement include
stability and security of Indian tribes (Simon & better medical care, rehabilitation services, and
Altstein, 1992, pp. 18 19). The social issues leading to personal assistance services (Shapiro, 1993). Deaf
the act were in many ways specific to that minority, but people do not attach particular importance to any
the dual principle the Congress recognized was of these services and instead campaign for acceptance
general: protect the child and protect the ethnic group. of their language and better and more interpret-
The Supreme Court ruled that lower courts must ers. Whereas the disability rights movement seeks
306 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10:3 Summer 2005
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]