Deaf community, SSI, etc...
This post focuses mostly on the deaf community, but I am by no means singling them out. It could easily be applied to several different communities.
I've known a handful of deaf people in my life. I often wonder if it's coincidence or not whether the amount that I like them is inversely proportional to the amount that they're involved in the deaf community. I find the deaf community, and especially the concept of "deaf culture" to be somewhat inane and VERY hypocritical. I'm okay with the inane part. People with things in common will always gather as groups and groups will always come up with attributes unique to that group. If members of the deaf community want to rally around those differences, that's fine with me, I don't need to understand. But there are two points on which I see irreconcilable hypocrisy: acceptance and disability.
Almost every deaf person I've ever spoken to has said that they do not want the fact that they're deaf to define them as a person, and that's a sentiment that I can strongly empathize with. However, the more involved one is with the deaf community, the more they are choosing to defining themselves as deaf people. I am not able to parse the disparity in any sensible way. By embracing deaf culture, art forms, social circles, etc. one identifies more strongly as deaf. In a way, it is the same as black culture, for example. More and more, one is defined as black less by skin color than cultural attributes such as clothing style, language usage, taste in music, etc. These are things that people of any race can embrace, and therefore are making a choice as to how people perceive them, and all of the stereotypes that may come with that identification. If you do not want being deaf to be your primary identification, then don't make it such a huge part of your interactions with people.
The second intrinsic hypocrisy that I see is the issue of disability. So far as I can tell, one valid definition of a disability is a condition that requires accommodation in order for somebody to perform the same tasks as a non-disabled person. Now, I know by that definition, being deaf would be a disability. I am, however, completely open to the suggestion that being deaf is not a disability, and that deaf people are capable of most everything anybody else can do without accommodation. It's mostly semantics to me. The real issue is that the same organizations within the deaf community send out conflicting messages on the issue. On the one hand there is a strong message of "deaf people are normal, capable people who can accomplish anything they want to." And I do not take exception to that sentiment. But on the other hand, they tout the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) as a landmark piece of legislation, specifically for it's recognition of being deaf as a disability. If you want to use it to provide things such as interpreters in necessary situations, or to provide resources to help employers better understand how to accommodate deaf employees, again, that's fine. But when you say that it is a disability that qualifies deaf people for social security, food stamps, and medicare, then that DIRECTLY implies that deaf people are NOT as capable as hearing people. It sends the message that they are incapable of making a living for themselves because of their disability. And people will inherently carry a prejudice for that. If you cannot work, cannot go to school, then you are not as capable as I am, and I should pity you. Social security is society's pity. Now personally, I think that's a very detrimental message for deaf people, and it's coming from both the government and the deaf community.
Again, I don't mean to single out the deaf community on this. Similar arguments could be made for the gay community, black culture, and other groups that have a tendency to exclude themselves. I don't mean to imply it makes them bad people or that they shouldn't form communities. I'm just saying that exclusion harbors prejudice and stereotypes.
I've known a handful of deaf people in my life. I often wonder if it's coincidence or not whether the amount that I like them is inversely proportional to the amount that they're involved in the deaf community. I find the deaf community, and especially the concept of "deaf culture" to be somewhat inane and VERY hypocritical. I'm okay with the inane part. People with things in common will always gather as groups and groups will always come up with attributes unique to that group. If members of the deaf community want to rally around those differences, that's fine with me, I don't need to understand. But there are two points on which I see irreconcilable hypocrisy: acceptance and disability.
Almost every deaf person I've ever spoken to has said that they do not want the fact that they're deaf to define them as a person, and that's a sentiment that I can strongly empathize with. However, the more involved one is with the deaf community, the more they are choosing to defining themselves as deaf people. I am not able to parse the disparity in any sensible way. By embracing deaf culture, art forms, social circles, etc. one identifies more strongly as deaf. In a way, it is the same as black culture, for example. More and more, one is defined as black less by skin color than cultural attributes such as clothing style, language usage, taste in music, etc. These are things that people of any race can embrace, and therefore are making a choice as to how people perceive them, and all of the stereotypes that may come with that identification. If you do not want being deaf to be your primary identification, then don't make it such a huge part of your interactions with people.
The second intrinsic hypocrisy that I see is the issue of disability. So far as I can tell, one valid definition of a disability is a condition that requires accommodation in order for somebody to perform the same tasks as a non-disabled person. Now, I know by that definition, being deaf would be a disability. I am, however, completely open to the suggestion that being deaf is not a disability, and that deaf people are capable of most everything anybody else can do without accommodation. It's mostly semantics to me. The real issue is that the same organizations within the deaf community send out conflicting messages on the issue. On the one hand there is a strong message of "deaf people are normal, capable people who can accomplish anything they want to." And I do not take exception to that sentiment. But on the other hand, they tout the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) as a landmark piece of legislation, specifically for it's recognition of being deaf as a disability. If you want to use it to provide things such as interpreters in necessary situations, or to provide resources to help employers better understand how to accommodate deaf employees, again, that's fine. But when you say that it is a disability that qualifies deaf people for social security, food stamps, and medicare, then that DIRECTLY implies that deaf people are NOT as capable as hearing people. It sends the message that they are incapable of making a living for themselves because of their disability. And people will inherently carry a prejudice for that. If you cannot work, cannot go to school, then you are not as capable as I am, and I should pity you. Social security is society's pity. Now personally, I think that's a very detrimental message for deaf people, and it's coming from both the government and the deaf community.
Again, I don't mean to single out the deaf community on this. Similar arguments could be made for the gay community, black culture, and other groups that have a tendency to exclude themselves. I don't mean to imply it makes them bad people or that they shouldn't form communities. I'm just saying that exclusion harbors prejudice and stereotypes.