Holcomb explores the different elements regarding the perceptions of pioneering scholars in identifying and defining Deaf culture. The chapter allows the reader to track the shifts in perspectives on deaf people. The major perspectives presented in the chapter are those introduced with compulsive judgments to the enlightened perspectives of Deaf people as a cultural identity. Deaf culture denotes a pessimistic word, revealing a public identity and self-importance. However, terms such as deafness or impaired hearing do not indicate a precise sense of belonging or pride to the community. Certain oralists contradict that the deaf culture does not exist. They fancy seeing it as an awkward and false dogmatic concept. Some argue that it was articulated in ancient periods, and it poses defiance instead of reality. Therefore, this outlook contradicts the significance of ASL to the deaf community (Holcomb 2013, pg. 96).
Deafness as a disability is often viewed as the fundamental premise of the education and reintegration of deaf people — some pioneers of the definition view deafness as an impairment. Deaf persons who claim a socially Deaf characteristic liken themselves to the affiliates of different cultural societies (Holcomb 2013, pg. 98). They claim to possess a culture, as well as language. The critics of deaf culture do not perceive deaf persons as associates of a marginalized culture. However, they assert that deaf people are coherent audio individuals, earshot disabled, and handicapped. While exploring the definition, they place deafness as having an incapacitating impact to respond to ecological signals or relish features of conventional culture such as music. America Deaf Culture has a huge disparity with the other deaf cultures. The chapter is targeted at the scholars who interpret and training on sign dialect. It emphasizes on the diverse issues of culture rather than an expression of the language.
The author defines the reading on deaf culture and mentions that culture is a compound whole that comprises of learned habits, abilities, customs, decrees, art ethics, and knowledge of the human as an affiliate of the community. The writer considered inter-cultural communication like time orientation, low and high framework, as well as individualism and collectivism. In the main, the chapter communicated issues of the American deaf culture that marks the favored portion in the text (Holcomb 2013, pg. 104).
In describing the “America deaf culture” that I read in this chapter, there are different perceptions of the foreigners who merely learn the deaf arts and the residents living within the deaf nation. Holcomb confers the growth of a deafened culture that the tone-deaf youngsters who attended the learning institutes found it difficult in communicating with their counterparts who have the ability to hear. Nonetheless, the current developments in regard to cultures of the deaf are endangered, given that the deaf culture has no decrees that restrict deaf individuals to stay in the oblivious culture. Deaf people also aspire to be wealthier like full persons.
Deaf people must be reintegrated and end-cultured inside the hearing community. I realized that the symbolic language that is becoming useful and popular is used in classrooms or television shows. The language is not only useful to the deaf but also to the hearing community since they get enriched and learn how to relate to the deaf individuals (Holcomb 2013, pg. 108). By understanding the language, I can freely communicate and assist the deaf community in places where they seem not to understand. Nevertheless, it becomes problematic to share and communicate with deaf persons.
Holcomb thinks that devoid of the sign language, the deaf community will sense loneliness around the hearing society. Once the relative of the deaf cannot use sign language, they could misapprehend several things besides failing to benefit from significant info. In my view, the deaf still struggles in conversing with the hearing individuals. As a result, the hearing community should respect and adhere to sharing info with the deaf besides assisting them whenever they are mixed up.
In view of the connectedness, the deaf culture has a huge family regardless of the type of sign language they use or their country of origin. They find it informal to converse with the use of visual lingoes than diverse articulated dialects. For instance, without learning gestures or body languages, they can find it easy to acquire key knowledge. However, if the hearing community does not learn some spoken languages such as Chinese, it becomes hard to comprehend. Thus, the deaf family can communicate easily and become a huge culture as opposed to the hearing society that finds it hard to communicate owing to the use of different languages.
Based on the colloquial conduct, the deaf experiences both bad and polite behaviors. The disparity amid sign and spoken lingo remains that ASL has no distinct phrases like verbal language (Holcomb 2013, pg. 113). The ASL commonly engages some signs at the time of asking straight queries. The author argues that it is rude to speak behind the back or ask the deaf persons unsuitable question. Such bad acts include receiving a phone call without informing the deaf that the phone has rung, speaking about some sweet melodies, or asking them reasons for their deafness. Hence, the hearing community must comprehend the culture of the deaf in order to circumvent misinterpretation.
In conclusion, I learned abundant significant information regarding the American deaf culture. A number of advices on the way to relate to the deaf come with understanding the book. Therefore, it is important for us to respect deaf individuals and aspire to protect the philosophy of the deaf community.
Works Cited
Holcomb, Thomas. Introduction to American Deaf Culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.