SASL Newsletter - Spring 2017 Issue Issue 5 - Spring 2017 | Page 7

A Note from the President
By Samuel J. Supalla
Discussing the Concept of Signers
There is a recent YouTube release by Convo (1/24/17), which is a nicely produced collage of
well-known and celebrated signers over the years entitled: We are Signers. The captions on the
YouTube posting are: Our identity. Our culture. Our language. This is our world as signers. How will
we shape the future? I encourage you to view the footage for yourself at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9MvdWusz4I. Convo is a deaf-run business specializing in the
delivery of video relay services to deaf consumers. The "We are Signers" production is part of the
business' strategy to advertise itself to the deaf community. It appears that the term signer is poised
as paving a new path for deaf people, especially in defining themselves to the larger society.
As we all know, words are powerful. A word can be positive or negative. If we think about the
terms for deaf people, we find many (e.g., deaf and dumb, deaf mute, and hearing impaired). Of
relevance for this discussion is the use of the capitalized D or Deaf (to distinguish a cultural view of
deafness from that of pathological). The capitalized D has helped shed a more positive light on deaf
people for knowing ASL and being part of Deaf culture. Yet in my experience, 'Deaf' has some
limitations. Why? In my field, I encounter situations where I want to refer to ALL deaf children, not
just those who are Deaf. For example, when I talk about how deaf children in general need access
to ASL, I cannot use a capitalized D. So many deaf children are born to hearing parents and are in
need of learning ASL and becoming part of Deaf culture. I see the value of Deaf when we refer to
the deaf community and those deaf people who use ASL and are part of Deaf culture. However, the
problem remains that our society has constantly pursued the pathological view of deafness.
I have been deaf since birth. I have no problem identifying myself as Deaf, however a
hearing person cannot be Deaf as it refers to a biological basis. So what happens to those hearing
people born into a deaf family? While they may likely feel culturally deaf, because they can hear,
they cannot be considered Deaf. Similar to Convo, suppose we utilized the term Signer in some
instances instead of Deaf. What would happen? Perhaps a whole new conversation would emerge
about what it means to be deaf and sign. Let's consider for a moment this scenario; I have met
someone on the street who approaches me with a question. Here are two possible responses: 1) I
indicate that I am deaf, and their response is, "Oh, I am sorry...I am NOT deaf, can you read my
lips?" or 2) I indicate that I am a signer and perhaps their response will be, "Oh, I am not a signer,
but maybe I should learn signed language?" This brings us back to the notion that words are
powerful. By choosing a different term, we can solicit a different response. In the scenario above,
hearing people may find an apology is in order for the fact they do not know how to sign. The unfair
burden on the deaf individual for not being a speaker will thus diminish.
By utilizing the term Signer alongside Deaf, will I lose my identity and culture? I believe the
answer is no. In fact, the opposite is true, as I am simply suggesting enhancing the status of Deaf,
and creating a wider circle of users that is not just based on biological differences between deaf and
hearing people. While hearing people (including CODAs) do not strive to become deaf, they can
strive to become a signer and join forces with Deaf and other Signers. The situation for many deaf
children is complicated by the fact that their parents do not know ASL, and this is a social problem
we
(Continue on the next page)
7
The Power of ASL
Spring 2017 – Issue 5