Deaf geographies sandbox

Tagged: Sign Language Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  Mike Gulliver 8:11 am on September 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: cyberspace, iconicity, online, Sign Language, v-lists, video ( 2 )   

  Where are the V-lists 

  I’ve been following several debates on a list for Deaf academics recently. It’s predominantly a list with academics in the US, UK, Australia etc… there are very few from non-English writing countries and all discussions are held in written English.

  So, a recently mail caught my eye asking why it was that there was no method for posting in sign language – either ASL, BSL or any other – to help those academics who aren’t so comfortable with English to quickly access the discussions.

  The idea that this is even a sensible suggestion is one that asks some pretty tough spatial questions of the linguistic prowess that the hearing world professes over the DEAF community. Hearing world taken-for-granted linguistic/national divisions look rather silly when you consider that a group of internationally dispersed DEAF academics could conduct academic discussions using sign languages and all make sense of each other.

  When you see DEAF people communicating at something like a World Federation of the Deaf meet, the idea that hearing people struggle to communicate effectively with a person who’s grown up only a few miles from us makes our spoken ‘languages’ look rather pathetic.

  Compared to the way in which natural sign languages are able to flow towards each other in the iconic – spoken languages’ sound=morpheme system is very limited.

  So sure – sign language can’t talk round blind corners – and isn’t so easy if you’ve got both hands full. But spoken language is just as limited, but in different ways.

  No one is ‘better’ – just different – and to work effectively – each exudes different space.

  Anyway – back to the original question – where are the V-lists?

  Well – the fact I’m writing this in English suggests that it’s not quite as easy to post in sign. I’d have to record it first using tech that’s not always available, then store it somewhere, then embed it – whereas with WordPress I simply point, click and type.

  But it is possible with something like Twitter – you can simply start the tweet, and then video – twitter does the linking and sends out a message with the URL included.

  The web is still a largely text-based space – that’s a systemic limitation imposed by the space that a text vs. a video file takes up. But there are ways around that. Clunky though they might be, perhaps we need to start exploring those as a way of suggesting an alternative use of online spaces, one more suited to Deaf geographies?

  A different version of this post, with thoughts expanded slightly differently, is available at http://mikegulliver.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/where-are-the-v-lists/

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Notify me of new comments via email.

  Notify me of new posts via email.

  Δ

• 

  Mike Gulliver 3:43 pm on September 1, 2011 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: Bourdieu, Finland, Geography ( 3 ), Justice, Lefebvre, Minority, Policy, Sign Language, Soundscape, Swedish, Validity   

  News from the RGS-IBG 

  Having just returned from the Royal Geographical Society, Institute of British Geographers conference I thought it worth putting up information here on the papers that were presented and some of the discussion that followed.The session (only one at the IBG – as opposed to the 3 planned for the AAG in Feb 2012!) was entitled “Intersecting Geographical Imaginations: Social Geography and Deaf Studies” and featured four papers:

  • Anna-Maria Slotte (University of Helsinki, Finland) – Citizenship viewed from a minority within a minority perspective. The Case of the Finland-Swedish deaf

  Anna Maria’s paper described the situation of a community of fewer than 300 Deaf people using Finland Swedish sign, a language positioned on a dialect continuum between Finish and Swedish sign, and their experiences as Deaf members of the Finland Swedish community. Her paper focused on issues of identity, language sustainability and the citizenship experiences of those who belong to such a small community, within an already small community.

  • Dai O’Brien (University of Bristol) – Mainstream schools as a space of identity development for d/Deaf young people

  Dai’s paper was a primarily theoretical exploration of how best to approach spaces of identity development of Deaf (often) individuals within mainstream schools – the primary situation of most Deaf children in the UK. Describing some of the assumptions of formative reports (Warnock in particular), Dai covered some of the difficulties of using Lefebvrian theory – particularly the way that it struggles to map the spaces of the individual, and laid out Bourdieu’s approach as one that was more pertinent to his research.

  • Gill Harold (University College Cork, Ireland) – ‘Hear ye! Hear ye!;’ Exploring geographies of sound and questions of Deaf citizenship

  Gill’s paper described the city from a Deaf-centred perspective and considered its social reproduction in light of the phonocentric tendencies which are implicit in the design of urban spaces and the audist bias which underpins civic interactions. Highlighting how the long-standing conflation of speech with language is a misnomer which has had far-reaching implications for Sign Language communities, she described the need to see cities as multi-sensory scapes – as places that could also be ‘Deafscapes’.

  • Sarah C.E. Batterbury & Mike Gulliver (Bristol University) – Justice versus validity: debating the social geographies of DEAF/Sign Language Peoples’ emancipation

  Sarah and Mike’s paper was presented as a debate between two views: a pragmatic, resource allocation based policy approach, and an idealistic, utopia-as-method approach. Each presented the core of their argument separately. Sarah’s as ‘Linguistic Justice’ – secured through the application of human rights. Mike’s as Validity – secured through a full appreciation for the foundations and equality of DEAF space. Their paper presents the tension that exists between these two approaches and questions whether either is entirely possible.

  For the moment, the abstracts are available in full from the RGS conference website.

  The session was chaired by Mary Beth Kitzel who also presented at the AAG in Seattle in April. Discussion after the papers was facilitated by Tracey Skelton who, along with Gill Valentine, is one of the only geographers to have written on the situation of the Deaf community.

  As always, there was as much worth in meeting up and taking time to catch up as there was in the papers themselves. General feelings afterwards were that although conferences are good as landmarks in the year, we would all appreciate a forum for more ongoing contact.

  So, watch this space – where we’ll be discussing some of the ideas that came up throughout the day.