FACTORS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION IN CASE OF DEAF YOUTH WITH DISABLED HEARING[1]
Emese-Hajnalka Belenyi
1. Background
In
In
such circumstances, the situation of disadvantaged social groups - such as the
homeless, the unemployed and the handicapped - is becoming increasingly
precarious in the absence of an adequate legal and institutional framework to
protect their rights and interests.
The
young population is affected by the social consequences of economic reform at a
more general level, due to the fact that in present conditions is more and more
difficult to start a new active adult life-path: to find a job and housing, to
set up a family home. But handicapped young
people are in a particularly difficult position in their efforts to obtain
employment and a secure social position.
The
situation of young with hearing
impairment is distinct - and distinctly vulnerable- among the various
categories of handicapped. The problem under discussion can be defined in terms
of marginality and inequality of a social group as a consequence of lack of
access to employment opportunities of a particular type of disabled persons. A
whole social category composed of people with special sensorial characteristics
(the deaf) is disadvantaged in exercising full participation in the social life
of the country. This is the consequence
of the inability/unwillingness of the rest of society to provide them with
adequate means to ensure complete access to the working opportunities the society
can offer.
On the other hand, the deprivation of deaf as far as their access to adequate employment is concerned, should be considered as a part and a manifestation of a much larger problem, the social exclusion and marginality of disabled. Two distinct purposes, which are fundamental for any democratic society, are intimately connected with the requirement to ensure the fulfillment of the right to work to all citizens, including the disabled. The first consideration concerns the fact that the right to have an adequate employment and a decent income is a value in itself, being a fundamental human right. The second consideration, derivable from the first, has a more instrumental significance, namely, to ensure full participation of citizens in social life.
From legal point of view: the proclamation of rights (such as the right
to information and to interest representation) is meaningless if the means,
solutions, standards, arrangements and specific policies enabling people to
exercise their rights are not ensured. There is a gap between affirmation of
rights and the possibility of their fulfillment (in the absence of adequate
means).
In a political perspective: exclusion from access to adequate employment
opportunities and full participation in social and community life of a
particular social group with specific needs is both a cause and an effect of
the political marginality of that group. Deaf and other disadvantaged groups
find themselves at the edge of Romanian society not just as the result of their
exclusion from access to information, and also in relation to other essential
aspects of their life: education, employment, social safety and access to
culture. The lack of access to important sources of information is only
aggravating their situation.
From moral point of view: the exclusion of a specific group of people
(who are already in a disadvantageous situation due to their disability) from
certain essential social resources (such as adequate employment and education),
is breaking the principle of equity. In the same time this exclusion is
amplifying the social disadvantages encountered by the members of that group.
The lack of special concerns and consideration for the particular needs of deaf
and of other categories of people with disabilities is likely to amplify their
perception of being regarded as second class citizens, who are less valuable
and deserve little attention from the rest of society.
As far as the cultural dimension of the discussed
policy problem is concerned, behind the lack of special arrangements for
disabled there is a homogenizing view on social and cultural needs, prevailing
today in the Romanian society. Such view does not appreciate social and
cultural diversity and denies to various minority cultures (including the
cultures of disabled) the right to have equal access to the sources of
information as well as their right to equal participation in the economic,
spiritual and public life of the country.
2.
Methodology
In order to obtain a clearer
understanding of what marginality means in case of the disabled and how it is
caused, it is necessary to shift the analysis from the level of individual and
micro levels in order to encompass the societal level. One has to look to the
way power and resources are distributed between social groups having competing
interests. Social disadvantage and discrimination of the disabled should be
seen in this wider context.
My research have proposed an
inquiry to the different dimensions of what exclusion of deaf from employment
and other social resources means and how it is caused:
- To improve understanding of
what social exclusion means in practice in case of hearing -impaired youth in
- To describe and measure
incidences of social exclusion of young people with hearing impairment
- To identify pathways and
measures promoting inclusion
- To
find out how best to involve excluded people- both individually and through
organisations concerned with them - in identifying exclusion and promoting
inclusion
My
investigation addressed the research problem - in its most general terms - at
the level of the whole Romanian society. However, due to my limited financial
possibilities, the fieldwork- research covers only the northwestern part of the
country. It is hoped that on the basis of the results and methods of this pilot
investigation, it will become possible in the future to extend the research to
other regions of
The
methods employed in the research are:
1.
Secondary analysis of existing official
statistical and research data on deaf young people, in particular the
available information concerning education and employment. These data has been
studied both in diachronic and synchronic perspective.
2.Thematic interviews and/or survey with young persons having hearing
impairment, their family-members, employers (real and potential), educators,
community leaders and others involved in the socialization and integration of
deaf
- The survey of young
hearing-impaired focused on their life-paths from childhood to present, trying
to identify the main factors which contributed to their disadvantage
- The interviews with employers
searched for the causes why deaf young people are in disadvantage in finding
and preserving jobs and what possibilities, ways of action are available to
improve the situation. With the occasion of making the interviews I also
collected data concerning employment of various categories of disabled persons.
- The interviews with educators and
school-managers looked at the peculiarities of special education for deaf,
trying to identify the problems and proposing ameliorative measures
-
The interviews with deaf community leaders, representatives of public
authorities and NGO-s aimed to identify the preconditions for a successful
integration of deaf youth into the society and ways of action towards this aim.
3. Survey
in selected rural and urban localities concerning attitudes towards deaf
people, the way they are viewed by the rest of society, trying to identify the
most frequent prejudices as well as their social roots. The aim of the survey
was also to form a better image about the penetration and importance among
various social groups of those moral values and human resources, which
potentially can lead to a more adequate, more positive and constructive attitude
towards people with hearing disability. The surveyed sample was regarded
representative for the population living in the north- western part of
4.
Study of current media-reports, opinion
polls concerning the situation of deaf in
3. Education and Employment
The
results of the investigation demonstrate that many of the disadvantages
encountered by people with hearing problems have their roots in the
malfunctioning of educational roles at family level. As our own experience in
the past years show, many parents have psychological difficulties in accepting
their deaf children as equal - and equally valuable - with the hearing
children. This often results in a deterioration of communicational and
emotional relationships between parents and children, with disastrous
consequences for the development of the children's personality and identity.
Most
parents lack initiative in offering an active, supportive education to their
deaf children. There are also problems
concerning the linguistic aspects of communication. Many parents whose children
are able to communicate only or mainly by sin find it psychologically hard to
accept this mean of communication.
The
negative educational effects at family level are only intensified by the
consequences of deaf education system. As the result, the great majority of
deaf young people can not hope even to enter a university, let alone to finish
it. The special schools for hearing-impaired children in
As
can be seen, the highest educational level attained by deaf young people is
almost invariably the vocational school. In a significant minority of cases we
can encounter young persons who only graduated from the primary school.
Although in the last decade of the communist regime secondary school had become
quasi-generalized, very few deaf had access to that level of education. While
after 1989 universities became accessible for a much greater number of
candidates, apart from exceptional cases hearing-impaired youth were not able
to make use of this opportunity.
The
results of our survey of economic enterprises in three western Romanian cities
(Satu-Mare, Oradea and Arad) confirm that deaf
(including deaf youth) employees have lower level of studies even than
other categories of disabled employees, with the exception of mentally impaired.
%
|
Level
of studies |
HI |
HIY |
VI |
VIY |
PI |
PIY |
MD |
MDY |
TOT |
TOTY |
|
Primary
School |
11
|
12 |
3 |
- |
8 |
- |
62 |
46 |
14 |
9 |
|
Vocat. School |
89 |
88 |
92 |
100 |
84 |
- |
38 |
54 |
83 |
90 |
|
Secon. School |
- |
- |
5 |
- |
8 |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
1 |
|
TOTAL |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
HI
– hearing impaired; HIY – hearing impaired youth; VI – visually impaired ; VIY – visually
impaired youth ; PI – physically impaired;
PIY –physically impaired youth; MI – mentally impaired ; MIY – mentally
impaired youth ; TOT – total disabled ; TOT – total disabled youth
From
the interviews conducted with teachers in the Satu-Mare special school for deaf
resulted several conclusions concerning the way in which the current educational
system designed for various categories of disabled is reproducing inequality
and social exclusion. First, it should be noted that the primary problem of
deafness is not a lack of hearing, but an abundance of isolation. As it is
organized currently, special education for deaf children tends to intensify
this isolation, rather than to attenuate it. Most students are spending all
weekdays from Monday morning till Friday evening in the school, being with
their families only in weekends. Being cut of from their families and their
initial living environment for most of the time, they have little or no
opportunity to interact with their hearing peers (hearing children of their
age) either.
On
the other hand, children from the special schools are isolated also from
entering into contact with deaf culture. As most of their teachers are hearing,
they have little opportunity to find deaf adult models, which would be
essential for their personality development.
The presence of deaf teachers would also be beneficial, as they are
likely to manifest more empathy in their contacts with children. They know
better, from their own experience, the nature of psychological problems
connected with childhood deafness.
This
isolation can be most effectively reduced through the use of student-centered,
collaborative instructional strategies in which teachers observe, understand
and build upon their students’ communication strategies, interests and
strengths. Inherent within this approach is an acceptance and valuing of cultural
and linguistic realities of Deafness and a respect for the unique and
over-riding role that parents serve in the education of their children.
Because
children display varying and distinct skills, it is necessary to employ a
comprehensive approach to classroom and community instruction, incorporating a
variety of educational and cultural philosophies accessed from several
professional disciplines. Further, it is necessary to facilitate an interaction
with deaf and hard of hearing children that respects and enhances their dignity
and reflects to society and other professionals their positive attributes,
learning potential, individuality and bilingual/bicultural heritage.
The
education of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth should not be viewed by
making abstraction of the general social environment. It is essential that
teachers focus on the whole life of the child who is deaf or hard of hearing,
including social, cultural, linguistic, and family variables. The education of
the child who is deaf or hard of hearing must be planned and implemented in
light of the reciprocal interactions of all aspects of the child's life. In
order to provide effective educational programs for the whole child, teachers
must be reflective and competent diagnosticians as well as competent teachers.
The
second main category of problems is concerning the use of modern,
individualized teaching methods. Many educators say, based on personal
experience, that deaf are generally able to do only practical things, and can
not have high intellectual, spiritual preoccupation. Thus the whole educational
effort is oriented towards offering a profession to deaf young people in order
to be able to earn a living. The educational level at which this professional
qualification is attain is almost invariably the vocational school. Although in
the last decade of the communist regime secondary school had become
quasi-generalized, very few deaf head access to that level of education. As
also confirmed by the result of our survey among deaf youth, in extremely few
cases is this profession other than manual work of a certain kind.
As
can be seen, in complete contrast with the rather diverse picture of the
hearing young population’s occupational distribution, certain professions, such
as cabinet-maker and dressmaker are dominating the deaf employment scene. In
fact this distribution reflects the inheritance of the communist regime, which
envisaged an integrated system of special education and special working places
for disabled. In practice that meant – and still means - in the overwhelming
majority of cases a transfer from an extremely low standard education to
correspondingly low standard employment, with very few choices and almost no
chance for upward occupational mobility.
Men are employed on a
permanent base in a greater proportion than women (75% compared to 60 %). Most
dressmaker women are unmarried. Most unemployed women live from social and
handicap benefits, living out of the spouse’s or parents’ income is less
characteristic. As far as skills are concerned, in case of men we find greater
polarization: a minority of them cannot even read, but there is also a small,
but significant minority who can use computers. Most men are cabinet-makers,
while women are divided between cabinet-makers, carpenters and dressmakers.
Very few deaf young people can use a computer and this fact greatly reduces
their chances to improve the standards of their jobs. The knowledge of a
foreign language occurs only exceptionally among deaf young people.
Teachers
sharing the opinion that deaf are able to do only physical work, who still
forms a great majority within the special schools for deaf, do not realize or
do not believe that the improvement of teaching methods could enable them to
take particular care of talented deaf children. On the other hand, this problem
also has organizational and financial aspects. Current regulations do not
permit schools to organize small study groups, where individualized teaching
could be applied in a differentiating manner, according to the stage of
development attained by each child. In such educational environment, the more
talented children cannot really be taken special care and basically are being
drawn back to the level of less capable children, their perspectives are
negatively affected.
To
achieve an improvement, teachers should incorporate in their activity
instructional strategies and teaching behaviors, which promote individual
learning strengths, self-esteem and empowerment, and effective visual learning
environments. They should periodically review the teaching-learning process;
engage in critical thinking and problem solving; and utilize reflective
insights from experience and teaching to develop new understandings and
improved techniques for facilitating learning. In addition, they should
demonstrate understanding and respect for the diverse family backgrounds,
physical and learning characteristics, communication and language preferences,
and varied life styles of families, children and youth in educational programs.
The
programs to prepare teachers of deaf and hard of hearing youth should have a
strong focus on individual differences. No one approach, whether in terms of
communication, placement, or educational options, is right for all deaf or hard
of hearing children. Much depends on the child's hearing loss, family
background, and individual learning style. Parents of deaf children need
reliable information and access to a range of high-quality educational options
in order to make informed choices about their children's future. Auditory/oral
education should be one of the available options.
Educational
programming for each deaf and hard of hearing child should take into account
factors such as severity of loss, preferred mode of communication, cultural,
linguistic, social, and emotional factors. The child's program should be based
on the best possible assessment of individual need and should not be driven by
assumptions that all deaf and hard of hearing children can benefit from one
kind of placement or one method of education.
The
third important issue is the relationship between communication and education.
Most teachers do not accept either teaching of
sign language or teaching in sign
language as such, arguing that it is important for children to learn the spoken
language. But there are many deaf children, particularly those with inborn
complete or near complete loss of hearing, who very probably will never be able
to learn the spoken language. As sign language is not taught in special schools
for deaf, these children are prevented to adequately learn the high culture
version of sign language. In this way, although they will learn Sign at a
rudimentary level spontaneously from their older deaf peers, they will not be
able to use the best of their sign language knowledge
The
results of our survey on attitudes towards deafness and the deaf in rural and
urban areas of northwestern
Young and middle aged people
are in a larger proportion than average ready to learn the sign language.
Elderly people regard institutionalization of sign language as being
comparatively more important. Youth support more that sign language be taught
in all schools. Middle-aged are more in favor of teaching sign language within
the special education system. Elderly tend to be reluctant about the
introduction of sign language both in the schools of deaf and in the schools
for hearing Unmarried support to a much larger extent
that sign language be taught in all schools than the married and are more ready
to learn the sign language. This probably partly reflects the age distinction.
Students
and office workers think in largest extent that sign language should be taught
in all schools. Manual workers tend to restrict sign language to the special
schools. Students, office workers, unemployed and entrepreneurs are most
willing to learn the sign language. People with higher level of education think
to a larger extent that sign language should be taught in all schools.
The greatest majority of
those who have deaf family members consider that sign language should be
learned in the special schools for deaf, but not in hearing schools. Relatives are considering introduction of sign language in schools
(whether for hearing or for deaf) only in a proportion close to the average of
population. Those with deaf friends, in contrast to family members are much
more in favor of the teaching of sign language in hearing school. To them the means to preserve close social links as opposed to both the
family links and the formal social links) with deaf are important. By contrast, the population category who had random contacts with deaf
tends to value more the importance of interpreter and do not want to take
either the burden of sign language education in hearing school or of learning
the sign language at adult age.
As sign
language did not enjoy legal recognition until recent times, and even today is
completely missing from the educational system in
In
order to be effective, communication needs to be an integral part of the deaf
or hard of hearing child's school day, and not assigned to a separate period or
place. Communication skills are not learned isolated from the need to
communicate. The teacher of the deaf is responsible for creating, and helping
others (e.g., parents, regular classroom teachers, other professionals) create
an environment where communication development of the deaf or hard of hearing
child is facilitated at all times.
Deaf
and hard of hearing children's needs are not static. A child may benefit from
different educational placements, and modes of communication at different
periods of his life. Thus educational decisions that are appropriate at one
time in a child's life may not be appropriate at another time.
Those children who are born in families belonging to
minority cultural and linguistic communities are facing an additional problem.
Due to their reduced contacts and ineffective communication with their parents,
and as a result of the fact that they do not have the opportunity in
In
order to improve the situation, the Senzor Foundation is planning to organise a
training course for parents of children from the Special School of Satu - Mare
to teach them effective means of communication with their children. The aims
are to stimulate the improvement of educational environment within the family
and to encourage the preservation and strengthening of the children's cultural
identity.
4. Nondiscrimination
Young
people with hearing deficiency are pushed at the edge of labour market also as
the result of negative social attitudes
towards them. Social exclusion of deaf has strong roots in the mentalities at
individual, group, community and societal levels, which are generating various
forms of overt and covert, formal and informal discrimination. The core
manifestations of such negative attitudes have in my opinion one very important
source, which in
The basic legal issue
emerging from the problem of lack of accessibility of disabled to employment
opportunities is concerning the interpretation of the non-discrimination
principle in the case of the population with special characteristics (such as
the disabled, ethnic and religious minorities, etc.). Decision makers should
not adopt a homogenous view on population, but need to take into consideration
the specific ways and modalities by which human rights and the equality of
rights can be implemented in a diverse society, where people have various
cultural, physical and sensorial peculiarities. Otherwise, for certain minority
groups “human rights and “equality of rights” could remain little more than
empty concepts.
This is the basic assumption
of current nondiscrimination legislation for disabled in the Western
democracies: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the EU
regulations,
“It
is unlawful for a covered entity not to make reasonable accommodation to the known
physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee
with a disability, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the
accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business”
(Title 1).[1]
The
Maastricht Treaty included no mention of disability and provided no legal basis
for specific action in this field. The result has been legislation, which
indirectly discriminate against people with disabilities. Such was the case,
for instance, with the regulations setting up common design standards for
goods. When such standards were issued, the needs of disabled population were
sometimes overlooked. For example, the 1991 directive on the mutual recognition
of telecommunication terminal equipment sets certain minimum standards, which
must be met by producers of such equipment in order to achieve free movement
within the European Union. These standards do not include the requirement that
the equipment should be accessible for use by people with visual impairment,
and the result has been to undermine national legislation, such as that in the
The Amsterdam
Treaty brought about a significant change, by inclusion of a general
non-discrimination article, which specifically mentions disability. It reads:
“ Without prejudice to the other provisions of this
Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community,
the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after
consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat
discrimination based on sex, racial and ethnic origin, religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation.” (art.13).[3]
The provision
quoted above does not confer in fact any extra rights upon European disabled
citizens. Instead, it expressly gives the Community competence in the
disability field for the first time. More over, the document recognizes the
existence of disability discrimination. In order to become an effective tool in
fighting discrimination, this provision should be translated, however, in
concrete Community policy action.
Such practical
policy measures did indeed appear with not much delay. In
"Discrimination on different grounds can have
similar features and can be combated in similar ways […] However, the specific
features of the diverse forms of discrimination should be accommodated.
Therefore, the particular needs of people with disabilities should be taken
into account in terms of accessibility of activities and results.” (art.7)[4]
There is a clear
recognition, in the text of the document, that discrimination of people with
disabilities has one special feature: namely, that it can occur simply because
the absence of the special means aimed to provide accessibility to services. By
the very fact that a society is not producing those helping means and is not
making them available to the disabled, is in fact discriminating them, since
they are excluded from products, services and facilities which the other
(non-disabled) citizens can access.
Among the fields
of action to which the Community program should apply the document lists
“non-discrimination within and by the media” (art.1b “equal participation in
political, economic and social decision-making” (art.1c) and “effective
dissemination of information about right to equal treatment and
non-discrimination”(art.1f).
In fact, EU already made a
breakthrough in this field by adopting a Declaration to the article 96 of the
Amsterdam Treaty, concerning internal market legislation. The Declaration
reads:“ The Conference agrees that, in
drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, the institutions of the Community shall take into account of the
needs of persons with disability”.[5]
Although this statement is not legally binding, if a directive adopted on the
basis of article 95 does need to be interpreted by national courts or the
European Court of Justice, the article could be referred to, to assist in that
interpretation.
From sociological
perspective, the emergence of this new type of nondiscrimination regulations
for disabled can be viewed as an outcome of a radical shift in understanding
disability: the traditional model is constantly loosing ground in favor of the
“social model”. In contrast with the old approach which considered that
individual limitations are the principal cause of the difficulties experienced
by disabled people, the proponents of the social model are focusing on the
failure of society to accommodate the needs of disabled. For instance, the
Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) defines disability as
“the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social
organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical
impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream social
activities.”[6] This definition, which equally applies to
other types of disability as well, clearly points to the social, economic and
cultural peculiarities of the society.[7]
(Barnes et col., 1999, p.2)
Similarly to other minority
and disadvantaged groups, the sociological perspective has been integrated into
disability legislation and disability policies by the emergence of a new
vocabulary of fundamental concepts, which includes “equal treatment” and
“equality of chances”, beyond mere “non-discrimination.” In this regard,
“ The duty to provide interpreters and to make other reasonable
accommodations is not limited to daily work performance activities or the
ability to perform the essential functions of a job. Applicants are entitled to
reasonable accommodations during the interview and application process.
Employees are entitled to equal access to general information, employee
benefits and training opportunities available to other employees. Employees
should be able to have access to telephone services, recreational and social
activities, emergency procedures, health programs, and the whole range of
facilities, services and amenities that are available to other employees.”[8]
As can be seen from the
above provisions, in the
The special importance of
protecting human rights becomes clear also from the requirements put forward by
the European Union for the East European accession countries. To be eligible
under the “
The socially-centered and
right–oriented approaches in understanding disability are raising one important
problem for politicians and legislators alike, namely, how to conciliate the
contradiction between the collective dimensions and determinations of the life
of disabled and the individual character of human right regulations applied to
the disabled population. In the past few decades there has been a continuous
pressure on governments, coming from the advocacy organizations in the West, in
order to recognize disabled as a minority group entitled not just to individual
rights, but also, to certain kind of collective rights. Although these efforts
were not completely successful so far, nevertheless the issue today is firmly
established on the political agenda of the countries with advanced democratic
systems.
Among the different
categories of disabled, deaf are perhaps the closest to achieving their
objective to gain collective recognition. They tend to be regarded more and
more as a distinct cultural and linguistic community. Sign language enjoys full
recognition as an official language in several EU member states (such as
The developments in
Taking all these into
account, appears even more striking that in monitoring the implementation of
minority rights within the accession countries and other post-communist states,
the European Community and the Council of Europe are focusing predominantly, if
not exclusively, on the rights of national and ethnic minorities. The main
cause of this paradox lays probably in the fact that ethnic conflict apparently
presented a much stronger threat to the political stability of the countries
concerned and of the region, as a whole. It was a matter of urgency to find
some solutions for the accommodation of coexisting ethnic and national groups.
By contrast, the disadvantaged status of disabled was not regarded as a problem
requiring immediate political action. The fact that the organizations of
disabled were less able to present and translate their case to the European
policy making bodies in persuasive political terms probably also contributed to
this partial neglect.
It can also be argued, as a
possible explanation of less active European involvement in the field, that
unlike the issues faced by national minorities, which are often to a large
extent politicized, the problems of disabled are perceived as having a
predominantly medical - or at best social - nature. Therefore there are no such
pressing needs to deal with these issues politically, the argument runs.
In the ground, things are,
however, a little bit more complicated. The lack of sufficient articulation of
disability concerns in explicit political terms is indeed the case in
The implementation of rights
generally depends not just on the existence of certain constitutional and legal
norms, but is contingent in large extent of the available means and
opportunities to exercise those rights in practice. In case of persons who have
special physical and sensorial characteristics, certain rights are simply
meaningless in the absence of special technical solutions necessary for their
implementation. To the physically disabled the existence of obstacles such as
stairs (and the lack of special devices) might prevent entering public places,
shops, etc. In case of population with disabled hearing, (if special solutions
such as translation into the sign language are not available) the exercise of
virtually all rights might be jeopardized by their inability to communicate
with the rest of society.[12]
In
As far as the nature of underlying arguments is concerned, in justifying the necessity for adopting the new regulations, the Romanian legislation differs significantly from the major European Union documents in the field. Unlike EU regulations, The Romanian Disability law is emphasizing social, instead of legalistic motives. Rather than being primarily concerned of ensuring equal treatment and nondiscrimination, it is stressing the need to achieve “social integration” and a greater “equality of chances.” This can probably be partly explained by the insufficiently developed legal tradition and democratic culture within the region.
The causes of this
phenomenon originate partly in the communist (and even pre-communist) past, but
are also related to the problems encountered during transition.
Under the
impact of European integration process and as the result of democratic civil
and political activism within the country, certain positive developments in
this field can also be traced. Even so, in spite of the progress achieved, a
large part of political elite is still adopting an ambiguous stance as far as
European and international norms are concerned. Romanian Constitution is
stating that if there is a contradiction between international norms and
internal legislation, international standards should prevail. Political leaders
often declare that "what is good for
On the other
hand, the ambiguities of the European legislation in the field, the rather
vague and general character of certain norms is also contributing to this
phenomenon. As many of the "European norms" consist of principles and
policy guidelines of a rather general and abstract character, Romanian
political leaders find little difficulty in formally adopting them, since they
remain mainly at a declarative level. While in the Western countries with a
strong constitutional tradition and legalist way of thinking general principles
have an important significance in guiding political action, in other states
they are likely to remain just on paper. The main cause is the lack of
political will to translate them in effective norms and legislative standards.
This is a rather
characteristic feature of political culture in
This
argumentation obviously originates in the communist rhetoric, which pretended
to work in the interest of "the people" understood in a homogenizing
manner. Today political leaders make intensive use of such populist arguments
in order to attract votes and support. As disabled people are mostly perceived
as a small and silent minority, without firmly articulated and efficiently
represented group interests, their specific needs tend to be ignored in the
dominant public discourses.
The population of
It is not
surprising, therefore, that today many people find it hard to come in terms
with the existence and legitimate demands of various minority and disadvantaged
groups. The fact that national minority concerns has been largely politicized
in the past decade is also raising popular suspicions about minority issues in
general, as they are predominantly perceived as representing a threat to the
interests and status of the majority. Politicians, journalists and other
segments of the majority elite tend to imply in their public utterances that
there are pretentious motives behind minority claims and that a cautious if not
outwardly rejecting attitude towards these claims would be the advisable
political line. Minorities are often accused in political discourses and in the
media of pursuing "privileges" and interests which are contrary to
the official nation state ideology.
Driven either by
a perception of "public interest" or of a "commercial
interest" or by both, media is rather reluctant to adequately represent
the interests and legitimate needs of minority and disadvantaged groups. When
these groups nevertheless appear on the screen, or in newspapers, their
representation tends to be marked by stereotypes and even hostile treatment
(for instance in the case of the Roma and other ethnic minority population). In
case of the disabled, silence, rather than misrepresentation is the dominant
trend. There is no mentioning or very scarce mentioning of disability and of disabled
mainly because they simply do not fit in the idealized (and highly ideological)
dominant self-image of the society.
As a cumulated consequence
of all factors outlined above, there is a low level of legal and human rights
mass culture at a more general level, but in special a law awareness of the
rights of disadvantaged groups, including the rights of disabled. The correct
understanding of the concept " different, but equal - different and equal", which is of vital
importance for ensuring the rights of disabled in the everyday life is
particularly far away from the grasp of most ordinary citizens. They are of
course not guilty of this. The state and civil organizations should have
assumed the task to educate them. For various reasons, some of them I outlined
earlier, the Romanian elite failed to satisfactorily respond to this need.
The recent law adopted by Romanian Parliament
in October 2001 under the impact of the EU legislation in the field in view of
the ongoing integration process, interdicts all forms of discrimination (by
implication also the discrimination based on disability). However, given the current social and
political context, this law can hardly work as an effective mechanism of
protection against various forms of discrimination encountered by deaf and
other categories of disabled. Informal discrimination, mainly originated in all
kinds of prejudices, is particularly hard to be counterweight. Our research
data shows a considerably higher rate of unemployment in case of deaf young people,
than the average rate within the region (almost 30 percent compared to around 5
percent)
y
Our survey of economic
enterprises shows the persistence of old stereotypes concerning the capability
of deaf employees to fulfill certain professional duties. Similarly to the
majority of educators working in special schools, most entrepreneurs consider
that deaf are able to do only certain types of physical work, which require a
minimum of intellectual and creative effort and a small demand for communication
during work. Among the professions most frequently listed by employers are
cabinet-maker, dressmaker, locksmith, construction-worker and bricklayer. This
opinion in fact reflects the situation in the ground. As results from the
following table, the enterprises included in our survey (41 economic units with
a total number of 13736 employees) are employing deaf people (including the
deaf youth) exclusively as manual workers:
|
Type of work |
Hearing Impaired |
Visually Impaired |
Physically Impaired |
Mentally Disabled |
TOTAL |
|
|
Manual worker |
71 |
52 |
24 |
14 |
161 |
|
|
Office employee |
- |
- |
3 |
- |
3 |
|
|
Manager |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
|
|
TOTAL |
71 |
53 |
- |
- |
165 |
As can be seen, the statistics
concerning deaf employment reflect to a large extent the general situation of
disability employment, with the specificity (understandably characteristic also
to the mentally disabled) that among deaf, occupation other than manual worker
does not occur even by exception.
In fact, deaf candidates to
a job encounter additional difficulties also when applying for the position of
manual worker. The results of our survey indicate that particularly the big
enterprises (with more than 500 employees) are reluctant to offer positions to
deaf young persons (and generally to disabled). Most of such enterprises still
are state owned and are undergoing a difficult process of privatization. During
the transition period, when there is a strong pressure on former socialist
state enterprises to dispense of a considerable segment of their work force,
disabled are – together with Roma and other categories of disadvantaged people
- among the first to lose their jobs and the last to get one.
In order to measure the level of inclination of enterprises to employ disabled people, I constructed a synthetic indicator, which expresses the rate of disability employment (the number of employed disabled reported to 1000 employees). According to this indicator, the employment of various categories of disabled in the enterprises included in my survey stands as shown in the following table:
|
|
Hearing impaired |
Visually impaired |
Physically Impaired |
Mentally Disabled |
TOTAL |
||||
|
TOTAL |
0,37 |
0,90 |
0,13 |
0,21 |
1,61 |
||||
|
YOUTH |
0,17 |
0,76 |
0,02 |
0,13 |
1,08 |
||||
|
|
|||||||||
The greater scores of
visually impaired are mainly due to the fact that persons with visual
disability are concentrated in a few special protected workplaces, with reduced
number of employees, where they form the overwhelming majority of workers. In a
special working unit one of these persons is even fulfilling managerial
duties. This is much less characteristic
to deaf, who are to a larger extent dispersed in various enterprises, only a
minority being integrated in protected employment
After 1990, with the start
of the transition to a market economy, the opportunities of protected
employment has been reduced dramatically. The Law nr.102/99 concerning social
protection of disabled does mention protected work places as a distinct legal
category and does include some facilities for disabled employees, such as the
possibility to work less than 8 hours/day upon medical recommendation. However,
no specific obligation or incentive for enterprises to employ disabled people
is enshrined in the text of law.
Having to enter competition,
enterprises are less and less inclined to take into account any non-economic
criteria. The increasing unemployment usually offers them the possibility to carefully
select the personnel they employ and to try to make the maximum benefit of the
work of their employees. In such context, it is difficult for deaf young
candidates for a job to successfully compete with their hearing peers.
Notwithstanding the legitimacy of objective assessment criteria which puts them
into disadvantage due to their weaker educational and professional background
and the communicational difficulties they encounter, there can be no doubt that
stereotypes and discrimination are also playing an important role in pushing
young deaf away from the employment market.
In this regard, the results
of our interviews show that a considerable proportion of entrepreneurs are
attaching a negative value judgment to deaf as a social category, as far as
advantages or disadvantages of deaf employment is concerned.
The same tendency to assign negative stereotypes to deaf, regarded as a homogenous social category, is also strong among the hearing population. Apart from the consequences of communist education and homogenization policies, the roots of such attitudinal pattern can also be fund in the fact that – as the results of our survey demonstrate - a large proportion of population has little if any contact with deaf people.
Given
the fact almost half of those questioned in our survey had only random meetings
with deaf in the street and public places or other superficial contacts, it is
hardly a surprise that many found it difficult to respond to the question
concerning differences between deaf and hearing people.
In what respect are
deaf people different from hearing people?
%
|
1. |
Do not hear |
19 |
|
2. |
Are the same as hearing people |
16 |
|
3. |
Way of thinking, negative traits of character |
9 |
|
4 |
Using sign language |
3 |
|
5. |
Communicate differently, have communicational difficulties |
9 |
|
6. |
Way of thinking, positive traits of character |
5 |
|
7. |
Disadvantaged in life and work |
5 |
|
8. |
Non-respondents |
44 |
What
should be remarked here, beyond the large number of non-respondents and of
those who characterize deaf in general abstract terms (“they do not hear”) is
the preponderance in the public perception of the negative traits and aspects
concerning the life and social status of deaf. On the other hand, it is
encouraging to see that this is only one side of the picture, though still a
majority side. The respondents who emphasized the positive side of deafness are
also present in a significant – and hopefully increasing – number.
The
same conclusions can be drawn from the responses to another question intended
to measure attitudes towards deaf:
What
feelings did you have when you met deaf in the street or other public places?
%
|
1. |
Pity, sorry |
30 |
|
2. |
Sympathy, desire to help |
10 |
|
3 |
Embarrassment |
3 |
|
4. |
Curiosity |
4 |
|
5. |
Admiration |
3 |
|
6. |
Neutral feelings |
8 |
|
7. |
Non-respondents |
42 |
It
is not difficult to observe, that the overwhelming majority of negative-passive
responses within the population who answered this question points to the
perpetuation of a traditional conservative vision concerning the perception of
disability and of disabled. In spite of the modernization achieved, the
relation of population to difference and to people who are different is
basically still following the old pattern, constituting a serious obstacle on
the way of achieving a higher degree of social integration and human rights standards
comparable to the western democracies. On the other hand it should be noted,
that a change of mentalities is under way, although it did not produce a
decisive breakthrough so far.
Communication
The
persons with hearing deficiency suffer serious disadvantages and are
consistently pushed to periphery also as a consequence of hard communicational barriers between them
and the rest of society. One important precondition for ensuring equal
opportunities to deaf is providing them equal access to information, and equal
opportunities to communication. This requires specifically designed technical
facilities and procedures in order to “translate” this information to them.
These facilities and procedures might vary from case to case, ranging from
captioning or subtitling to the use of an interpreter of the sign language. One
should be aware that the implementation of rights generally depends not just on
the existence of certain constitutional and legal norms, but is contingent in
large extent of the available means and opportunities to exercise those rights
in practice.
In case of persons who have
special physical and sensorial characteristics, certain rights are simply
meaningless in the absence of special technical solutions necessary for their
implementation. To the physically disabled the existence of obstacles such as
stairs (and the lack of special devices) might prevent entering public places,
shops, etc. In case of population with disabled hearing, (if special solutions
such as translation into the sign language are not available) the exercise of
virtually all rights might be jeopardized by their inability to communicate
with the rest of society.
Beyond the instrumental aspects, however, the
crucial issue is the existence and implementation of certain standards and
regulations in this field. The major questions to be raised in this regard are:
- What is the level of special solutions and practices, which can be
regarded as high enough?
- What means are available or can be devised in order to ensure the
implementation of those standards?
There are several factors,
which clearly have an influence on the level of accepted standards. First, the
level of technological development in a particular country or area obviously
has an important impact. In the past years, the invention and spread of new
technological devices (such as the digital television, the teletext and the
TTY-s) has led to a significant improvement of information technology access
standards for deaf, particularly in the
In the same time, the
existence of new technical devices in the market does not offer in itself any
guarantee, that the improvement of accessibility standards will follow suit.
New innovative technologies are generally more expensive than the traditional
devices. Thus, much depends on the level of economic development and prosperity
of the countries concerned, on the situation and regulation of markets, but
also on the political will of the government to allocate the necessary resources.
Internal and external political context, long term political processes, such as
European integration, and the advocacy work of civil organizations can have a
significant influence on the legislative and policy making processes in this
field. Much depends on the level of general moral and human rights standards,
as these issues are obviously raising not just serious human rights problems,
but also “basic normative and ethical issues for the society as a whole”[13]. The level of public acceptance of diversity
and difference as social values has, of course, an important role to play as an
influencing factor in that regard.
These
desiderata are reflected in the European Union documents. The Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000[14]
establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and
occupation is setting guidelines, which have a much greater range of
applicability than the fields explicitly mentioned in its title.
One provision with a larger
applicability to a whole range of problems encountered by disabled people
concerns the interpretation of the principle of equal treatment. It is stating
that “there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of
the grounds referred to in Article 1 (i.e. religion or belief, disability, age
or sexual orientation). (art.2). On its turn, indirect discrimination is
defined as occurring:
“where
an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having
a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or
a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with
other persons
i.
unless that
provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim
and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary or
ii. as regards persons with a particular disability, the
employer or any person or organization to whom this Directive applies, is
obliged, under national legislation, to take appropriate measures in line with
the principles contained in Article 5 in order to eliminate disadvantages
entailed by such provision, criterion and practice” (art. 2 b)
In the same time the
document reaffirms the necessity to adopt special measures beyond mere
nondiscrimination intended to prevent or compensate for disadvantages suffered
by a group of persons of a particular disability.
“Employers
shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a
person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in
employment, or to undergo training…unless such measures would impose a
disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be
disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within
the framework of the disability policy of the
In line with these
provisions, the Council Directive states that “appropriate measures should be
provided, i.e. effective and practical measures to adapt the workplace to the
disability, for example adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working
time, the distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration
resources.” (art.20)
This also includes
telecommunication and visual media equipment (TV sets), which in the
information society are essential components of more and more working
environments. The technological adaptation of TV sets, so as to enable them for
captioning, is particularly important for deaf or hard of hearing employees who
needs access to television transmitted information for the proper fulfillment of
their duties.
While making clear these
obligations, the document is also setting a limit to their applicability,
namely that such measures should not impose a disproportionate burden on the
employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently
remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of
the
In the same spirit, the
Resolution of the Council of
“All disabled persons, whatever the origin and nature of their
disability, must be entitled to additional concrete measures aimed at improving
their social and professional integration.“ (point 26).
With view to the
implementation of this requirement, The Council Resolution is making a call on
member states
1.“to
consider if relevant national policies take into account the following
orientations:
-
empowering people with disabilities for participation in society, including the
severely disabled, while paying due attention to the needs and interests of
their families and careers.
-
mainstreaming the disability perspective into all relevant sectors of policy
formulation
- enabling
people with disabilities to participate fully in society by removing barriers
-
nurturing public opinion to be receptive to the abilities of people with
disabilities and toward strategies based on equal opportunities”
to
promote the involvement of representatives of people with disabilities in the
implementation and follow-up of relevant policies and actions in their favor.”(chapt.2
For
many deaf, sign language is the only accessible mean of communication, but, as
our survey also denotes, most hearing people are not familiar with this visual
language. The occupational distribution of persons with moderate and reduced
loss of hearing is much more diverse than much more diverse as far as
occupational distribution is concerned. For people with complete loss of
hearing there are only a few options: cabinet-maker (the dominant profession),
carpenter, locksmith and brick layer. Persons with moderate and reduce grade of
hearing are employed in a greater proportion on a permanent basis (about 80-82
to 65%) compared to persons with complete or advanced grade of hearing.
The knowledge of lip
reading, though is not significantly influencing the access to permanent work
as such, does seem, however, to be essential in overcoming in-group isolation
and in diversifying employment opportunities. Those who cannot lip-read are
basically restricted to become cabinet-makers. The precarious public status of
sign language is obviously contributing to this situation, amplifying the
communicational difficulties of deaf persons who cannot use and/or comprehend
the oral language.
The results of
our survey show that an important segment of deaf young population cannot
understand the information transmitted via oral speech and a significant
proportion of them also cannot use lip- reading.
More than 80% of our deaf
young interviewees cannot use oral speech as a mean of communication and only
about half of them are able to use lip-reading.
Some cannot even read. Those who cannot use lip-reading basically have
to restrict their communicational relationships to persons who are familiar
with the sign language or use the services of an interpreter. Oral speech is
used by the great majority of young persons with a moderate impairment and by
about half of people with a reduced loss of hearing. Most of these are able to
use lip-reading, which provides them access to the hearing population. Sign language knowledge among all categories
of deaf young people is almost general.
On the basis of our research
outcome it is possible – and methodologically desirable – to divide deaf young
people in several distinctive typical categories:
1.
Persons who are completely or almost completely deaf
from birth, who characteristically communicate only by sign language. For them,
the only solution to communicate with the rest of society is the interpreter of
the sign language (as it is highly unlikely that most hearing people will learn
sign language in short run). Some of them cannot even read or write.
2.
Persons who were either born with reduced grade of
hearing loss or lost their hearing later in childhood or were born completely
deaf, but nevertheless managed to learn lip reading due to their native
intelligence, efforts and favoring conditions. Their relationship with the
hearing world is basically one-sided. They can understand (within certain
limits) by “reading” from their partners lips, but cannot made themselves
understood by the hearing, with the exception of writing, and of course, by
sign.
3. People who usually
lost their hearing at a later age and their loss of hearing is usually moderate
or reduced, (but high enough to prevent their full integration into the hearing
community). They managed to learn both to lip-read and to speak. Their level of
use of oral language is, however, usually low. Most of them are familiar with
the sign language, due to their informal socialization into the deaf community.
They learn this language from each other in the schools of deaf, but do not
receive education of this language and in this language during classes.
Therefore their knowledge of sign is at a rather rudimentary level. There is a need to improve both their using
of the sign and of the oral language. In the same time, this category of deaf
young people is the most capable to learn additional skills, such as the use of
computer, of the Internet and of foreign languages. All these would be of great
help in their future professional careers and would greatly enhance the quality
of their life.
As communication of deaf
with the rest of society involves two sides, our research also aimed to
evaluate the attitudes of hearing people concerning the public status and the
use of sign language. As illustrated by the graphs below, the population is
rather divided on these issues, but slightly more than half of our respondents
agree that there is a need for sign language interpreters to work in public
places. Almost the same majority is supporting the idea that the sign language
should be recognized as having equal rights with the oral languages.
Men are inclined to regard
the public recognition and promotion of sign language more important. Women
think in a larger proportion than men, that education and personal involvement
matter more. Students, office workers, unemployed and entrepreneurs are willing
to learn the sign language in a proportion greater than average. The less
educated and less active population segments prefer institutionalization of
sign language interpreting services to the promotion of sign language within
the education system. Students and intellectuals are supporting to less extent
the recognition of sign language: probably out of pragmatic and ideological
considerations. In case of students probably there is a manifestation of a
certain degree of disregard for the importance of legal guarantees, while in
the case of intellectuals one can perhaps speak of a stronger concern about the
political implications of recognizing more than one language within the state.
Most of respondents who say they are willing to learn sign language are secondary school graduates. Most of them are young, including students. They also think recognition of sign language is important.
As far as the ethnic distribution of the population
is concerned, ethnic Hungarian inhabitants are
much more supportive to the institutionalization of sign language than ethnic
Romanians. They are also more in favor of the recognition of sign language.
This probably reflects a greater awareness and sensitivity of Hungarian
minority members concerning language issues and more negative reactions and
stereotypes at the side of Romanians.
Hungarians also think that sign language should be taught in all schools
in larger proportion than Romanians think.
Ethnic differences are partly reflected
by the distribution of attitudes according to religious belonging, with one
particular remark. The Roman Catholic are much more in favor of the
generalization of the sign language within the education system and for the
institutionalization of sign language interpreters, compared with members of
other denominations. This is probably due to several factors: the universal
character of this church, social sensitivity and greater awareness with
international development in this field as the result of the activities of the
organization Caritas Catholica from
In case of inhabitants who
have deaf family members and relatives, friends and close working colleagues,
there is a much higher proportion of persons who communicate with sign language
or with a combination of sign language and oral speech. Those who met deaf
randomly are using in the largest proportion gesticulation and oral speech They think in a proportion much greater than the average that sign
language interpreters should be employed in public offices and that sign
language must be officially recognized. By contrast, the respondents who met
deaf randomly are using in the largest proportion gesticulation and oral
speech.
Similarly to family members,
the relatives of deaf strongly support institutionalization of the sign
language interpreting service, though are giving less importance to the
official recognition of the sign language. As for persons
who have deaf friends, a quite important proportion
of them (compared to the rest of respondents) is willing to learn the sign
language. They regard sign language interpreters’ work and the recognition of
sign language less important than family members and relatives. In case of
persons who have close deaf working-mates there is also a willingness to lean
the sign language, greater than average. They are supportive to the recognition
of Sign but regard to less extent necessary the introduction of sign language
to hearing schools.
The
need for professional interpreters of the sign language to serve in public
offices and at agencies is today officially recognised by the Romanian
Government. In, however, little has been done to train and appoint such
interpreters.
The Emergency
Government Ordinance 102/1999 concerning “the special protection of disabled
and their integration into work”[16]
puts forward certain standards concerning several facilities to be offered to
the persons having special characteristics due to their handicap. Referring to
the population with hearing disability, the regulation asserts that the sign
language shall receive official recognition. The document sets as a deadline
However, the
preconditions of achieving this objective are almost completely absent. There
are very few professional interpreters in
On the other hand, in spite of the progress made
in formulating clear obligations in some important fields related to the
communication need of the disabled population in general and of the deaf
population in special, the government ordinance completely neglects other
fields which are clearly as much important. For instance, the document does not
include provisions concerning deaf access to the telephone, visual media and
does not refer in any sense to the representation of disability issues and
interests within the television programs.
“Instead
of conclusion”. Some considerations on deaf interest representation
The most important aspect to
be considered in connection of improving social inclusion of deaf young people
is concerning interest representation on behalf of the disabled. In this
regard, disability politics already has its own history. The Western democratic
experience of the past decades generally shows that traditional party politics
and lobbying failed to adequately represent disabled people. The major positive
changes have been mainly the result of pressure made by activist groups,
setting the target to influence the behavior of groups, organizations and
institutions.
The growing activism of
self-organizing activist groups in the field of disability rights beginning
from the sixties has been accompanied by the increasing importance of minority
issues in the public scene. In case of
Today, the disability movement within the European Union has achieved a high level of integration and coordination, particularly through the activities of the European Disability Forum. The outcome of the Amsterdam Summit, which incorporated several important principles and provisions concerning disability into the EU Treaty, is regarded by the EDF leaders as the greatest achievement of their organization, not just because of the result, but also because the way it was achieved. For the first time a strategic, collective campaign work has taken place involving all EDF members over a sustained period.
In
In the same time, in order
to ensure and consolidate its legitimacy, communism cultivated a public
discourse with strong populist and nationalistic overtones, which left little
if any space for the manifestation and expression of minority needs and
interests. Such policies arguably affected even to a larger extent the
self-organizing ability of the disabled than they did in case of national
minorities. The latter received much stronger international attention and were
able to make use of covert forms of pressure to the government in a much more
efficient way than the disabled could.
After 1989 there was an
almost completely new beginning and enormous work to be done. As the
pluralistic institutional framework started to take shape, the voice of
disadvantaged groups did not seem to be heard very much. The political
priorities of the day – economic reform and democratic transition – were looked
upon predominantly from a narrow perspective. A large segment of the political
elite acted according to short run party and even personal interests, with
little consideration to the general democratic criteria beyond the game of
party politics.
In this context, the task of
disability advocacy organizations emerging in the new political environment
created after the revolutionary changes was not an easy one. They had to strive
for public recognition of their mission and to create a new public space in
order to be able to effectively act in societies accustomed to completely different
patterns of political legitimacy. Fortunately, the ongoing process of internal
democratization and the building up of emerging civil societies in the context
of EU enlargement, and more generally, of European integration, offered both a
powerful stimulus and a credible argument to these organizations in their
efforts to make themselves accepted by their own societies.
Due to the fact that civil society and group interest representation were almost completely destroyed during the communist regime, the institutionalization of advocacy activities on behalf of disadvantaged groups had to start in very difficult preconditions. All agencies and institutions dealing with disability issues under communism belonged to the state and their personnel consisted of state employees. Many of these people found it hard to start a completely new life of organizational and financial independence after 1989. On the other hand, the process of setting up authentic civil organizations, which do not have to bear the burden of past structures and mentality, has also been a slow and problematic process. Lack of financial sources, restrictive tax legislation and the insufficient number of specialists trained to work in a democratic (or democratizing) environment have been among the most important causes of this slow pace of development.
After 1989, the
Romanian deaf association was registered as a non-profit and non-governmental
organization. A new statute has been adopted, international contacts
established or re-established. The change in the legal status does not
necessarily mean, however, a radical shift of the organizational structure and
style of work. There is still a long way to go. Outdated mentalities and old
methods of work, inherited from the past centralist system, still persist to
some extent, particularly at regional level. Instead of acting as an authentic
movement organized from down to top, the organization presents partly the image
of a rather rigid structure, which resembles some of the characteristics of
state institutions.
This situation is
also reflected in the nature of the ANSR objectives and activities, as
presented in its official promotional booklet. The advocacy work, the attempt
to influence policy to a desirable direction to the benefit of deaf population
are not even stated among the association’s objectives. In fact its major
assumed task is to assist state authorities in the implementation of
legislative measures and policies in the field. In this respect, it proposes to
“cooperate with the State Secretary’s Office for the Persons with Handicap, the
Ministry of Work and Social Protection, the Ministry of Education and other
authorities and organizations contributing to the social and professional
integration of deaf ”[18]
In exercising
some of its attributions, the ANSR even takes the role of a state authority,
for instance in “identifying the hearing impaired at as early age as possible”
and in the “inclusion of deaf children in the system of special education”.[19]
The association also acts as an intermediary between the deaf persons and the
state institutions, in order to ensure that they receive the support granted by
law. Otherwise, it fulfills mostly the double role of being both an
administrative and a recreational center. While keeping the files of deaf persons
in good order, it also provides cultural, entertainment and sport opportunities
to them.
One of the most
important obstacles in overcoming this ambiguous relationship of the
association with the authorities is the perpetuation of financial dependency from
the state. The organization continue to function, most of cases, in state owned
or rented offices, and, most importantly, a large segment of its employees
receive state salaries. Apart from state funding and membership fees,
subsidiaries survive as the result of occasional donations from local sponsors.
Most office employees are not familiar with Western techniques of fundraising.
In some territorial offices even modern communication equipment is absent.
In recent years,
however, one could sense certain positive changes in the work of the
organization. The interest is gradually shifting from administrative tasks and
daily routine to promoting objectives aimed at qualitative changes in the
social status and in the life standards of deaf. The intensification of
international contacts with partner associations from
One of the most
interesting developments in this respect is the participation of the Romanian
association in EUDECU (Culture for Deaf in the Countries of the European Union)
project in partnership with similar organizations from
From theoretical
discussion to practical implementation the distance can be, however,
considerable. To what extent the Romanian Association of Deaf was unprepared to
provide the necessary expertise and human resources in this field is well
illustrated by the fact that at the beginning of 2000 the organization did not
employ even one expert familiar with both English and the sign language.
Although the ANSR leaders expressed their strong interest in the training of
sign language interpreters, the process of initiating this is still at its
early stages. Recently, a project for organizing a sign language interpreter’s
training course was discussed with a British partner organization, which
promised to support the program financially.
With the
comparatively lagging behind of the association’s own efforts and initiatives,
an important social actor from outside the world of disabled took the front
stage in promoting sign language: the churches.
For those who are familiar with the Romanian context, this is hardly a
surprise. From a predominantly dogmatic theological perspective, churches -
acting from a position of moral authority in a society where the influence of
traditional value systems is still strong - have taken interest in social and
disability problems as inseparable part of their assumed mission.
The preoccupation
of churches for the situation of disadvantaged people can be viewed also in
light of their efforts to strengthen their legitimacy and prestige within the
community. There also might be an interest to attract new adherents from
disadvantaged groups, while preserving the allegiance of their traditional
members. As churches have been regarded after 1989 by many Western
organizations as the only credible institutions after the fall of the communist
regime, they attracted considerable financial support for their activities.
This fact should also be regarded as an important factor of motivation.
As far as the
promotion of sign language is concerned, the Romanian Orthodox Church can claim
an undisputed tradition and continuity. During communism, the only sign
language dictionary was that published by the Orthodox Metropolitan’s Office of
Oltenia. After 1990 new initiatives emerged. Special orthodox communities for
deaf, where services are being held in the sign language have been set up in
several cities, including
In order to train
a qualified clergy for the deaf communities, at the Orthodox Theological
Faculty of the
The initiatives
of the churches are focusing mainly on the spiritual-religious field and
therefore are usually regarded by deaf association leaders as complementary to
their fields of activity. Since the type of work the ANSR is doing is to large
extent inherited from the communist past, it largely avoids using religion as a
mobilization tool for the deaf. As a consequence, today there is a division of
tasks between lay and religious organizations. The churches are filling a gap,
which the ANSR subsidiaries are not in the position and do not want to fill.
Certainly, the considerable moral authority of the churches within the Romanian
society and the important legitimizing role of religion are also playing a part
in setting the scene for this kind of coexistence and even cooperation between
these two key players in the field of disabled interest representation.
By contrast, the
relationship of ANSR with civil
organizations advocating for the rights of the deaf is more complicated. In
fact, we cannot speak of just one, but of a multitude of relationships, taking
into account that there are several types of civil organizations involved.
One
characteristic type is represented by the organizations set up by churches or
being church affiliated. It is a rather frequent practice in
The situation of
truly independent associations and foundations is, however, completely
different. The emergence of this type of organizations is a rather new
phenomenon. They are, by virtue of their structure, flexible, able to adapt
easily to the changing environment. In order to develop, they have to learn and
adopt new methods of work very quickly. They are challenging by their very
existence the rigid centralized structure, the patronizing relationships and
the corresponding mentality.
One
example of such organisation taking the initiative in the field of human rights
advocacy on behalf of deaf is the Senzor
Foundation, established in 1999 in
For
the implementation of this project the Foundation co-operates with the Romanian
Association of the Deaf. In the same time its aim is to create a network of
organisations from various countries, having rich experience in the field. In
this respect, close contacts have been established with the Hungarian
Association of Interpreters of the Sign Language and there have been
consultations with a representative of the European Union of Deaf. From these
discussions it became clear that sign language is recognised today by the
European Union as an official language, having the same rights as the spoken
languages. The European Union of Deaf is making huge efforts to ensure in
practice the equality of this visual language with the spoken languages.
In its approach the Foundation is taking into
account that the communicational difficulties of deaf are caused not just by
technical problems (such as the lack of availability of interpreters) but are
rooted more deeply in the mentality of population. Most hearing people do not
know, how to relate correctly to a deaf person and what should be done to
communicate effectively.
In
order to improve this situation, the Senzor Foundation produced an
informational leaflet to be spread in
Both
our research results and the day to day advocacy experience of the Senzor
Foundation show that local authorities do not perceive the problems of deaf in
their complexity and do not have a coherent vision and strategy aimed to solve
this problem. People with hearing
disability are generally treated by official institutions as belonging to an
uniform homogenous social category, without regard to the specificity of their
situation and to the special communicational difficulties which result from
their ethnic, cultural and linguistic differentiation.
To
make a change for better, it is necessary an intense lobbying and coalition
building at the level of local administration. In order to further this aim the
Foundation contacted local officials competent in the field. in the same time
articles on this topic appeared in the local media. The aim would be
to increase the sensitivity of legislators and decision-makers concerning the
nature of problems faced by disabled and to persuade them to the necessity of
enacting a more favorable legislation. Disability and human rights
organizations, media leaders, political parties and government agencies as well
as individual MP- s and other influential policy makers should be attracted to
work for the implementation of this idea. European integration process could
have a greater role in stimulating the adoption of a special accessibility
regulation if the monitoring of the way the right of information for disabled
is respected would be included among the issues tackled in the EU reports on
Autonomous
organizations do not have an easy life, as they have to survive financially
from their own resources, under the conditions of unfavorable fiscal
legislation. They are in large extent dependent on foreign donors, being
supported by Western human rights organizations and charities. Coming in
contradiction with the still strong centralist mentality and interests, they
are almost inevitably subjected to pressures of political and administrative
nature in order to adopt partisan positions or to let themselves used by
others.
Given this social
and political context, it is not surprising, therefore, that even some
“official” deaf leaders, particularly at local level, might perceive the
activities of independent organizations in this field as manifestations of
unwelcome competition, or, worst, as a threat. In long term, however,
organizational pluralism, the existence of a number of civil organizations
active in the same field is likely to produce beneficial results. The fact that
no single organization has the monopoly to act on behalf and for the benefit of
deaf, requires a gradual process of adaptation to a pluralist NGO environment
and a change of the mentalities previously dominated by the monolithic
party-state model.
Today is more and
more clear that “official” deaf association leaders at national level are not
able or are not willing anymore to de-legitimize the parallel efforts and
initiatives of other organizations by simply denying their rights to exist and
to function. In a society aspiring to full membership of the European club,
such attitude would be a self-destroying strategy. Thus, the only viable
alternative remains the “modernization” of the official deaf association’s own
agenda, so as to be able to compete with the newly emerging NGO-s. In order to
be successful, the deaf association should act as a key social actor in the
center of a communication system which involves all important stakeholders: the
deaf themselves, their family members, their teachers, medical experts,
governments, entrepreneurs, representatives of the media, interpreters of the
sign language and others.
A particular
attention should be devoted to the community organization and cultural
community life of the deaf. Special services on communication and information
matters should be established in order to assist and promote the enlargement of
opportunities available to deaf in these crucial fields. To achieve this,
instead of trying to desperately stick to a monopoly status, the organization
should adopt a more flexible strategy, by setting up or attracting under its
umbrella a number of foundations dealing with particular (social, medical, educational,
cultural) aspects of deaf community life.
As Central and East European
candidate states are approaching the moment of joining the EU, the European
Disability Forum has intensified its efforts to encourage existing or emerging
organizations in the future new Member States to prepare their membership for
active involvement in the work of EDF. Disability organizations in the current
Member States should support partner organizations in relevant countries, thus
ensuring that some of the EU funds allocated for the preparation of the
accession are spent on improving the situation for disabled people.