Advertisement

Social Theory & Health

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 293–311 | Cite as

Capitalising on cultural dichotomies: Making the ‘right choice’ regarding cochlear implants

  • Tracey EdelistEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

In this article, I examine how health professionals in Ontario, Canada, frame disability, deafness, language and culture within the dichotomy between Deaf culture/sign language and Hearing culture/oral language, and the relation such framing has to parental decision making regarding hearing technologies and mode of communication for their children. I address how the Deaf/Hearing dichotomy has influenced the medicalisation of deafness and its version of integration via rehabilitation, explored through Michalko’s (1999, 2002) concept of ‘estranged familiarity,’ complicated further by the representation of Hearing people within Deaf culture. After first summarizing the historical processes that resulted in the creation of Deaf (and Hearing) culture, I use Bhabha’s concept of hybridity (1994) to deconstruct the notion of essentialist Deaf and Hearing identities. Through consideration of how d/Deaf people and hearing children of Deaf adults inhabit various in-between spaces, the fluidity of cultural identity is acknowledged. I conclude by proposing that through exploring the myriad ways to be in-between, the artificiality of the essentialised Deaf/Hearing dichotomy is revealed, allowing for a re- examination of the exclusive cultural and communication ‘choices’ presented to many parents of deaf children.

Keywords

medicalisation of deafness cochlear implants parental decision making deaf culture identity 

References

  1. Baynton, D. (2008) Beyond deaf culture: Deaf studies and the deaf body. In: H.-D. Bauman (ed.) Open Your Eyes, Deaf Studies Talking. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 293–313.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, A.G. (1883) Memoir: Upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human race. A paper presented to the National Academy of Sciences at New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, A.G. (1884) Fallacies concerning the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb 29: 32–69.Google Scholar
  4. Bhabha, H.K. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Blume, S. (2010) The Artificial Ear: Cochlear Implants and the Culture of Deafness. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brueggemann, B.J. (1999) Lend me Your Ear: Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carbin, C. (1996) Deaf Heritage in Canada. Whitby, UK: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
  8. CHEO. (n.d.) Audiology [online]. Ottawa, http://www.cheo.on.ca/en/audiology, accessed 20 July 2015.
  9. Corker, M. (1998) Deaf and Disabled, or Deafness Disabled?. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, L. (2008) Postdeafness. In: H.-D. Bauman (ed.) Open Your Eyes, Deaf Studies Talking. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 314–325.Google Scholar
  11. Davidson, K., Lillo-Martin, D. and Chen Pichler, D. (2014) Spoken english language development among native signing children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19(2): 238–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edelist, T. (2015) Listen and speak: Power-knowledge-truth and Cochlear implants in Toronto. Disability Studies Quarterly 35(1), http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4312/3828.
  13. Edwards, R. (2012) Words Made Flesh: Nineteenth-Century Deaf Education and the Growth of Deaf Culture. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzpatrick, E., Angus, D., Durieux-Smith, A., Graham, I. and Coyle, D. (2008) Parents’ needs following identification of childhood hearing loss. American Journal of Audiology 17: 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fjord, L. (2010) Contested signs: Deaf children, indigeneity, and disablement in Denmark and the United States. In: S. Burch and A. Kafer (eds.) Deaf and Disability Studies: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 67–100.Google Scholar
  16. Freel, B., Clark, D., Anderson, M., Gilbert, G., Musyoka, M. and Hauser, P. (2011) Deaf individuals’ bilingual abilities: American Sign Language proficiency, reading skills, and family characteristics. Psychology (Irvine) 2(1): 18–23.Google Scholar
  17. Garden, R. (2010) Language, identity, and belonging: Deaf cultural and narrative perspectives. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 21(2): 159–162.Google Scholar
  18. Giezen, M., Baker, A. and Escudero, P. (2014) Relationships between spoken word and sign processing in children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19(1): 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Getty, A.D. (2014) Building Bridges Crossing Borders: One Young Deaf Woman’s Education. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mayberry, R. (2001) How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 16(4): 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffmeister, R. (2008) Border crossings by hearing children of deaf parents: The lost history of codas. In: H.-D. Bauman (ed.) Open Your Eyes, Deaf Studies Talking. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 189–215.Google Scholar
  22. Huddart, D. (2006) Homi K. Bhabha. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hult, F. and Compton, S. (2012) Deaf education policy as language policy: A comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 602–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston, J.C., Durieux-Smith, A., Fitzpatrick, E., O’Connor, A., Benzies, K. and Angus, D. (2008) An assessment of parents’ decision-making regarding paediatric cochlear implants. Canadian Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology 32(4): 169–182.Google Scholar
  25. Ladd, P. (2003) Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  26. Lane, H. (1992) The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  27. London Health Sciences Centre. (2009) Cochlear implant program: Selection criteria [online]. London, Ontario, http://www.lhsc.on.ca/Patients_Families_Visitors/Cochlear_Implant/Selection_Criteria.htm, accessed 20 July 2015.
  28. Mauldin, L. (2014) Precarious plasticity: Neuropolitics, cochlear implants, and the redefinition of deafness. Science, Technology & Human Values 39(1): 130–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McIlroy, G. and Storbeck, C. (2011) Development of deaf identity: An ethnographic study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 16(4): 494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGann, J.B. and Terrill, E. (1888) The rise and progress of deaf-mute education in Canada. In: C.J. Howe (ed.) The Deaf Mutes of Canada. Toronto, Canada: C.J. Howe, pp. 78–102.Google Scholar
  31. Michalko, R. (2002) Estranged-familiarity. In: M. Corker and T. Shakespeare (eds.) Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying Disability Theory. London: Continuum, pp. 175–183.Google Scholar
  32. Michalko, R. (1999) The Two in One: Walking with Smokie, Walking with Blindness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell, R. and Karchmer, M. (2005) Parental hearing status and signing among deaf and hard of hearing students. Sign Language Studies 5(2): 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mount Sinai Hospital. (2013) Communication development: Infant hearing program, http://www.mountsinai.on.ca/care/infant-hearing-program/families-and-caregivers-1/communication-development, accessed 16 December 2014.
  35. Nussbaum, D., LaPorta, R. and Hinger, J. (eds.) (2002) Proceedings from Sharing Ideas: Cochlear Implants and Sign Language: Putting it all Together. Washington DC: Laurent Clerc Natinal Deaf Education Center.Google Scholar
  36. Petitto, L., Zatorre, R., Gauna, K., Nikelski, E.J., Dostie, D. and Evans, A. (2000) Speech-like cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people processing signed languages: Implications for the neural basis of human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97(25): 13961–13966.Google Scholar
  37. Punch, R. and Hyde, M. (2011) Communication, psychosocial, and educational outcomes of children with cochlear implants and challenges remaining for professionals and parents. International Journal of Otolaryngology 2011: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schriempf, A. (2009) Hearing deafness: Subjectness, articulateness and communicability. Subjectivity 28: 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sick Kids. (2014) Cochlear Implant Program: Assessment Process [online]. Toronto, Canada, http://www.sickkids.ca/CochlearImplant/What%20We%20Do/Assessment%20Process/index.html, accessed 2 April 2015.
  40. Small, A. and Cripps, J. (2012) On becoming: Developing an empowering cultural identity framework for deaf youth and adults. In: A. Small, J. Cripps and J. Côté (eds.) Cultural Space and Self/Identity Development Among Deaf Youth. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cultural Society of the Deaf, pp. 29–41.Google Scholar
  41. Snoddon, K. (2009) American sign language and early literacy: research as praxis. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  42. Sparrow, R. (2010) Implants and ethnocide: Learning from the cochlear implant controversy. Disability & Society 25(4): 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Speech-Language and Audiology Canada (2014) SAC Position Paper on Universal Newborn Hearing Screening in Canada. Ottawa, ON: SAC.Google Scholar
  44. Titchkosky, T. (2003) Disability, Self, and Society. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wrigley, O. (1997) The Politics of Deafness. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Justice Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations