Living Deafblind: A modern-historical exploration of disability (Part 2)

LITERACY

Literacy is another social process that can be investigated through the sociolinguistics lens. According to Damico and Ball (2008), literacy is a manifestation of language use; it is “a symbolic practice linking written linguistic code with attitudes, ideologies, and other aspects of human social action and epistemology” (p. 119). Literacy activities are even more powerful when there is a situated context, practical objectives/goals and a purpose to the interventions, which is easier to access in communities of practice.

In many studies, a mentor made literacy skills acquisition more accessible to the deaf/blind individuals. However, many deaf/blind people do not have access to training or the resources to purchase a computer to access the internet (Watters, Owens & Munroe, 2004). Disability mentors in this day and age are being pushed online. In many cases, a mentor made learning more accessible to the deaf/blind individuals. I believe the element of mentorship to be overlooked in many of the reports and statistics on ICT and the deaf/blind population. Indeed, many deaf/blind people do not have access to training or the resources to purchase a computer to access the internet (Watters, Owens & Munroe, 2004). Mentors are being pushed more and more online where the technology itself can be a barrier.

Health literacy is important in public health. Health literacy acknowledges the negative impact to being unable to access, understand share and share information. For some populations, health literacy interventions are very time consuming and intensive (Dennis et al., 2012). Health literacy is defined as “the ability to obtain, integrate, and appraise health-related knowledge” (Keim-Malpass, Letzkus, and Kennedy 2015). So, if a translator or interpreter is needed, it takes much longer to transfer the information from the doctor to the patient. The same study defined health literacy is a key indicator in preventing adverse health outcomes such as morbidity, ability to take prescription medications, more unexpected hospital and doctors’ visits, and more expensive care in general. Then there is the idea of a “collective health literacy” in which all people responsible for the care of the child, including the child themselves be health literate. This included parent, siblings, family members, educational staff, and such. I enjoy the idea of a collective health literacy becoming a form of social capital, which can have society-wide implications, at multiple levels (health, education, and familial). I actually support this idea because it creates an important support network that a child can access at any given point for guidance and receive understanding care.

Literacy is important for everyone, even for someone who is deafblind as it allows them to “exchange information & ideas and develop relationships that would otherwise be out of reach” (Miles, 2005). The National Information Clearinghouse on Children who are Deaf-Blind that is managed by the Helen Keller National Centre has several patient pamphlets available on this population, including one on literacy. In their January 2005 issue, Miles paints a picture of a deafblind person who has access to vast stores of information through the internet where the “person is practically not handicapped” (p. 2). It is simply undreamed-of having access to information through the internet than even 10 years ago. Opportunities provided through literacy are increasing all the time as technology develops and society embraces literacy for everyone. The transmission of knowledge informs larger society of a nearly invisible community.