The writer takes a thought-provoking stance on deafness, its culture, and language. Before reading this article, I had never heard of deafness being considered a gift, or the possibility that the deaf could be a thing of the past. The writer brings up a compelling argument, but the doubt he casts on possible technological advancements is absurd. There have been incredible advancements made in the medical field in the past 40 years, and they will continue to improve every year. The fear that deafness could eventually be wiped out should, instead, be considered a blessing. There will always be outliers that argue that being deaf is a gift, and the fact that doctors are trying to eradicate it is “demeaning” (The Economist). The quality of life of a deaf individual is nowhere near the quality of life of a non-deaf individual. The reasons for this are the extra measures they take and the constant disadvantages they face since they cannot hear. If they are driving and there is an emergency vehicle siren, they would not be able to get out the way. If a fire alarm is going off, they might not realize until it is too late. As gruesome as this sounds, these are real life situations that deaf individuals face every day, and factors I do not believe the writer considered. The writer also failed to mention the many accommodations deaf individuals require in order to live similar lives as the hearing. For instance, in school there must always be a translator in the room for the deaf student to interoperate what the teacher is saying. The fact that deaf people feel that they are “viewed as a problem to be fixed” is preposterous (The Economist). They should not be expected to get cochlear implants if they strongly feel that being deaf is best for them. The author’s statement that sign language and deaf culture could deteriorate does hold some weight, yet he/she also contradicts him/herself after arguing these points. If less people are born deaf or choose to use hearing devices, then it can be inferred that sign language will be used less and, consequently, wear away. More extreme, if the deaf become extinct, there is no longer a need to implement sign language at all. The writer goes on to state that the number of American college students taking sign language has “risen eightfold since the millennium” (The Economist). Therefore, the fear that sign language will soon die out is unsupported. The worry surrounding the potential loss of deaf culture is supported, yet there are ways to document and preserve it for future use. This would only be a necessity if deafness no longer exists. On the contrary, if there are still deaf individuals, there will always be some form of culture. An example is social media. There are countless outlets to spread culture, thoughts, or even just to communicate; outlets that close the barrier between the deaf and hearing. These outlets will never be lost. Initially I chose this particular piece of writing because it was the first blog I wrote, and I was planning to compare my writing at the beginning of the semester to my writing now. But after rereading my Listen Up Reflection, I’m honestly impressed with my variety of sentence structure, word choice, and overall fluidity. One part that I would change would be the last three sentences of the second paragraph. I would reword it to say “An example of this is social media, since there are countless outlets to spread culture, thoughts, or even just to converse with other people who are deaf or support deaf culture. This ensures its survival because avenues like social media will never be lost.” I feel like my revision clarifies what my point is, and neatly sums up the paragraph as a whole.
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |