Allport’s Scale of Prejudice and Discrimination, developed by psychologist Gordon Allport in 1954, is a measure of the manifestation of prejudice in a society. It has been used to discuss and analyze the impact of prejudice and discrimination majority groups hold/practice against different minority groups, and can easily be applied to an analysis of prejudice and discrimination that deaf people face, as well. The scale has five levels which represent both lesser infractions and far more serious ones. While the scale can be used to identify the level a group or individual currently occupies, an accompanying implication of the scale is that groups and individuals may progress through its various levels.
The scale below contains almost the exact wording of the original, but has been modified somewhat with examples pertaining specifically to deaf people. These levels have also been adapted to reflect the prejudice and discrimination that deaf people face within their own minority group, or in other words, to reflect prejudice and discrimination that deaf people face that originates from other deaf people.
An attempt to answer the following questions may generate useful insight as readers review the scale:
1) At which level does the deaf community currently stand in relation to the hearing community?
2) At which level does the general deaf community stand in relation to the manner in which its various factions treat each other?
3) How valid is this scale? How valid are the explanations/examples given?
4) Has there been any definite progression up and/or down the scale over the years?
5) The original scale (the one provided in the link that is not modified to fit deaf people) seems to imply that only majority groups can work against minority groups (or that only minority groups can work against other factions/members of the same minority group), but not that members of a minority group can work against members of a majority group (or even members of an entirely different minority group). Is this implication valid?
Allport’s Scale of Prejudice and Discrimination
(Note that some of the examples in this modified scale imply a setting in which Deaf or deaf people *are* the majority group. Barring that, one would have to assume that the mechanisms of prejudice, discrimination, and so forth are similar for all individuals whether they are in a majority group or not.)
Scale 1: Antilocution. Antilocution usually refers to a majority group making jokes about a minority group, but it can also apply to members of a minority group making jokes or speaking negatively about other members of the same minority group (or about members of the majority group). Speech is in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images. This is also called hate speech. It is commonly seen as harmless by the majority. Antilocution itself may not be harmful, but it sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice.
Examples of antilocution could be a hearing person calling a deaf person stupid, a (culturally) Deaf person calling a (non-culturally) deaf person “hearing-minded,” or a d/Deaf person accusing another d/Deaf person of being a “Deaf Radical.”
Scale 2: Avoidance. People in a minority group are actively avoided by members of the majority group (or by other factions of the same minority group) and oftentimes vice-versa. No direct harm may be intended, but harm is done, mostly to the minority group, through isolation.
Examples of avoidance could be hearing people deliberately or unconsciously refusing to (or at least being strongly reluctant to) socialize with deaf people, deaf people refusing to socialize with Deaf people, or the reversal.
Scale 3: Discrimination. The minority group is discriminated against by denying them opportunities and services, thus putting prejudice into action. Behaviors have the specific goal of harming the minority group by preventing them from achieving goals, getting education or jobs, etc. The majority group is actively trying to harm the minority.
Examples of discrimination against deaf people are historically numerous and most likely played a part in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, other examples of discrimination could include some culturally Deaf people not accepting the presence of non-culturally deaf people (or hearing people) in certain organizations or at certain institutions, such as Gallaudet University.
Scale 4: Physical Attack. The majority group vandalize minority group things, they burn property and carry out violent attacks on individuals or groups. Physical harm is done to members of the minority group. Members of a particular faction within a minority group may also carry out physical attacks against members of another faction within that majority group. There is also the possibility of members of the minority group carrying out isolated attacks against individual members of the majority group, though of course the minority group usually lacks the numerical, economic, political, and military force to make these attacks widespread and systematic.
Examples of physical attacks could be a hearing person bullying a deaf person around in school, a non-culturally deaf person vandalizing the dormitory room of a culturally Deaf person, and so forth.
Scale 5: Extermination. The majority group seeks extermination of the minority group. They attempt to eliminate the entire group of people. There may also be members of a minority group strongly in favor of and actively assisting in the extermination of that same group (their own group).
Examples of extermination relating to deaf people are well-documented, with Nazi Germany’s T4 program being one example. The development of cochlear implant technology (as well as advances in other fields of medicine such as genetic engineering) have also been referred to as tools of cultural genocide.
[Author’s note: Great care was taken in the above examples to use neutral terms (“could”) to invite debate. It is expected that some examples, after debate, might be discarded or further clarified. Furthermore, readers are encouraged in ensuing discussion to give examples that focus on all groups (hearing, deaf, and Deaf) equally, and to avoid the type of discussion in which any one group is demonized or made a scapegoat.]
