This morning I was tweeted by Curtis Alcock, a partner in a Hearing Centre (where hearing aids and other services are provided) who has recently set up a web-based think tank called Audira – which is aimed at ‘developing an ongoing roadmap for the future of hearing care in the UK.’
He sent me (along with other individuals and organisations) a link to a thought-provoking article he has just written for the site called Why it’s imperative we redefine the word ‘deaf’ asking for my feedback.
In it, he argues that the word ‘deaf’ is being used to apply to such a wide range of people that it’s become a poorly-defined “catch all phrase” used to refer to a person with “a hearing level of 25dB on the one hand and 105dB on the other.”
He says: “it’s a difference in hearing levels of around 256 times! The effect is different! The experience is different! The needs are different! Yet we are using the same word!”
In the industry in which Alcock works, a major issue (and business opportunity if tackled correctly) is the number of people who have lost some of their hearing, but refuse to do anything about it. Indeed, I was recently told by an audiologist that over 3 million people in the UK could benefit from hearing aids (as I do) but don’t wear them.
As Alcock notes, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines someone who is deaf as being “Wholly or partly without hearing.”
He goes on to say: “we are using one word to cover everything from the person who might be having the occasional problem in noisy environments to someone whose effective hearing range requires them to use sign language as their primary means of communication.”
He argues that people with a slight reduction in their hearing resist the idea that they might be going deaf because they link deafness to a person using sign language and see this as being very different from them.
You’ll be thinking, “If I’m going deaf, is that how I’m going to end up, without hearing and using sign language?” As someone who is used to being part of ‘the hearing community’, that’s something you will consider a threat. You’ll be thinking, how will it affect my relationships, my job, my social life, my love of music?
Alcock’s proposal is that the definition of the word ‘deaf’ should refer to people “whose hearing range means they are unable to hear anything below a specified level… It needs to be of a level where an individual’s residual reduction in hearing leaves them at a disadvantage that requires the support of Society.”
He goes on to look at how the word ‘blind’ is used and suggests that the level of speech people can hear could be used as a barometer.
There’s a lot to agree and disagree with in Alcock’s article – which is partly the point. The article is aiming to prompt debate.
For starters, I’d disagree that the majority of people link deafness automatically to sign language users. I’d also disagree that most people see this as a negative – many people I meet think sign language is beautiful and are fascinated by it.
I think that deafness (and the stigma that comes with it) is more often seen as a sign of old age, of becoming less capable, of being more likely to become confused and not understand someone, leading to embarrassment, misunderstandings, and social awkwardness. Much like the portrayal of this deaf woman in Fawlty Towers (the clip is captioned).
This in my view is why so many people are reluctant to consider that they might be deaf. They don’t link themselves with what they think of as a deaf person. As Alcock states elsewhere in his article, being in denial creates a vicious circle: “the irony is that by attempting to avoid being seen as deaf (because of what ‘being deaf’ means to you), you have inadvertently reinforced the stereotype of being deaf.”
Returning to the main focus of the article, there’s no denying that the word ‘deaf’ is often applied to a wide range of people, which can be confusing. However, one major omission from the article is the fact that a variety of descriptions are already used by deaf people to define themselves.
I most often describe myself as being ‘partially deaf’ and have previously described myself as ‘hard of hearing.’ That’s because to Deaf people I know, it’s a description that gives more of an indication of how deaf I am, as a hearing aid user for nearly 30 years who communicates through both spoken English and sign language.
I’m not sure that it’s solely the word ‘deaf’ that people have an issue with. Would asking someone if they were “becoming slightly hard of hearing” make a difference? Is the stigma related to one word, or for a range of ways of describing someone with some level of deafness?
Further, if the word ‘deaf’ was defined as applying to people who require the “support of society”, as Alcock argues, then the very word many deaf people use to describe themselves would imply dependence, rather than just a degree of deafness. Is there room for a positive approach, and the cultural model of deafness too?
More importantly in the context of the aim of the article, I’m not sure that this kind of change in the definition of the word ‘deaf’ to take on what I feel would be a more negative connotation would help more people accept their hearing loss and seek out their local hearing aid centre.
There’s also a big issue over where a line would be drawn on who was ‘deaf’ or not. If the ability to hear speech was used, what of people who are expert lipreaders? There are so many variables with deafness, that defining a person simply by how much they can hear would not necessarily be an indicator of how easily a person can communicate with a hearing person, which is what this approach seems to depend on.
My view is that the answer to a lot of the issues Alcock raises is not redefining a word, but is mentioned elsewhere within his article.
These sorts of changes in behaviour require understanding and kindness on the part of others and is the mark of an enlightened society. But it also requires educating Society, because sometimes Society simply doesn’t know any better; sometimes Society just doesn’t know what to do to support.
Simply put, Society requires what is sometimes referred to as ‘deaf awareness’ training.
The answer, I feel, is not redefining the word ‘deaf,’ but increased education and awareness of what it means to be deaf in the terms in which it is defined and understood today.
That’s what will tackle the stigma that is linked to being deaf, and ultimately make more people who lose some of their hearing seek out the support that will help them – in the context of the lives they lead in the hearing world.
That’s my view, but there’s more in Alcock’s article to read and debate. So what do you think? Does the word ‘deaf’ need to be redefined? If so, what does the word mean to you? What should it mean? Read the article here and let us know what your views are.
By Charlie Swinbourne, Editor
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: what support is available for deaf students?
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- BID: Deaf services, including advice and support, interpreting, employment and letters
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
Richard Lee
April 23, 2012
It’s a toughie and I wish it would happen but all the calls for redefinition in the world aren’t going to stop deeply embedded responses. I always say “I’m a bit deaf” because most people who don’t have any experience assume it means “on or off” “silence or sound”. Personally, I’m out to ban “the hearing community” or “the deaf community”; but then anything to do with the “c” word and all the fluffy expecatations implied in it leaves me cold.
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
Richard, you’ve highlighted another important point: we currently don’t have adequate vocabulary to describe “a bit deaf”. I wear spectacles/contact lenses, but I don’t describe myself as a “bit blind”! I describe myself as short-SIGHTED. Interesting difference, don’t you think?
I will be dealing with this issue in another article if you’re interested.
Rosemary
April 24, 2012
In full agreement with you Richard. ‘C’-word leaves me cold. I find it utterly patronising to be classed as being part of e.g. ‘hard of hearing community’. This is short-cut marketing speak by organisations / businesses and means nothing in the real world. Are people who wear glasses part of a spectacles community? It’s nonsense.
Martin Griffiths
April 23, 2012
Personally I think the correct terms are already there but its how we use them. I describe myself as profoundly hard of hearing which gives an idea of the level of loss and that I am not D-eaf! We use ‘deaf’ for simplicity sometimes but when talking to those who work with or for deaf people or with our deaf peers we may use terms which describe us more accurately to them.
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
I’m a firm believer that we should feel comfortable with how we describe ourselves. The purpose of a redefinition is not to take terms away from people that they are comfortable using, but to ensure that the messages of hearing care to Society do not become confused.
Oh Dear
April 23, 2012
Oh dear…..here we go again…..redefining word(s) smacks of loony lefties political correctness mumbo jumbo
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
Your comment tickled me! Loony, sometimes! Not sure about the rest!
sirgarg
April 23, 2012
I’ve always had the belief that it made no difference what you classified yourself to be, I’ve commented on it a number of times to be scoffed at..by some. Poilitically I suppose it matters that the right people get what they need and have fought hard to get. But socially it matters only on communication issues, but I know it can be overcome by acceptance that we all have common ground, that we are limited to degrees of hearing/deafness..
I mentioned the word “deafidom” a few years ago on a deaf forum, not for the reason of creating a break off branch or political peoples front, but to outline in one word…my thoughts and belief that we can all be relieved from the d/D debate.
I have friends who socially except that my thinking is a fair one, but for fair access and rights the political stance has to remain…for those in more need and the right to fair opportunity.
You define what you like, but its how others define you that matters…There are more aspects to our lives to make us welcoming, and deaf can be a background factor. The mutual interest in cinema, arts, education or even an Almond Latte could be enough..
John Walker
April 23, 2012
I think ‘essentialism’, or the definitions based on physical or mental differences, has had its day. The boundaries between ‘men’ and ‘women’ or ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ are no longer straight forward (no pun intended). It is different on two counts: 1. people have multiple identities and 2. although people may conform to a cultural definition of a particular identity, it can diversify into sub groups. Therefore, to redefine ‘deaf’ would be a waste of time because people are constantly expressing themselves in different ways (see reference to Donna Harroway, http://deafcapital.blog.com/2011/07/07/deaf-people-and-the-cyborg/).
Essentialism was supported by the second wave of feminism and gave us a platform to talk about specific characteristics that are excluded from society (women, gay, disabled, BME, older, younger, etc). But if we were to move from a discriminating society to one that is inclusive of all peoples, we would lose the need to talk about extremes and the refer to the ever changing shades of ‘grey’. BUT, and it is a big but, one can not talk about greys if we do not know what black and white is. Therefore, when I refer to deaf people, I am clear this refers to all people with a hearing loss (Woodward 1972), and I am clear who non-deaf people refers to too. Most deaf people will pertain to adopt some ‘deaf’ characteristics and some ‘non-deaf’ characteristics to varying degrees. For example, a deaf person born to Deaf parents would adopt the cultural norms establish in the family but he has enough residual hearing to use the phone and listen on the iPod; this person will define their deafness in their own way.
Any use of an arbitrary label will be in conflict with the freedom of self definition. The history of deaf peoples has shown plenty of evidence where education, social care and linguists have redefined terms to help their work (eg. partial hearing was used to describe deaf people who had the ability to learn how to speak in 1950/60s) but they are impossible to understand if you are not informed or part of that profession. This is where the ‘Deaf/deaf’ debate moved a long way from how Woodward originally defined the terms.
So, does the original author have something to add to our understanding of ‘deaf’ people? The only thing I have learnt is there is a space for a political definition of people who are somewhere between ‘deaf’ and ‘non-deaf’. But he has a problem, they are not a salient group. In contrast, it is possible to find the Deaf community by visiting Deaf spaces, where would you find the ‘inbetweeners’? There is no point having a definition of a group of people who don’t want to be classified as a group in the first place. This alone leads me back to Harroway’s point to come away from ‘essentialist discussions’, or creating another definition for ‘deaf’, and accept that people have a multicultural, pluralist existence.
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
You’ve made some very important points here, particularly in terms of ‘inbetweeners’.
1. The purpose of a redefinition is NOT to define how people refer to themselves. People should be free to do that themselves for the very reasons you state in your comments.
2. Whatever language we use activates ‘schemas’ in our thinking. In other words, one word can pull up with it a whole collection of thoughts, feelings, attitudes and associations; it’s even been convincingly demonstrated within social psychology that words can subconsciously affect people’s behaviour and affect biases (which interestingly disappear if we try to think in a foreign language!). So it’s important we understand the effect of the words we use on people’s thinking, particularly if it results in an unhelpful attitude or behaviour.
3. The word ‘deaf’ is currently used as an “all or nothing” term. You’re either deaf, or you’re not. It fails to recognise the ‘in-between’, as you rightly observed. This has all sorts of implications related to Group Psychology which I’ll deal with in another article. With eyesight, we have terms to describe this ‘in-between-ness’, with terms such as short-sighted or long-sighted. These terms don’t describe the DEGREE, but they DO differentiate from blind or 20/20 vision. And that gives Society something to ‘hang’ their understanding on.
John Walker
April 24, 2012
Unfortunately, while you are describing a current possible observation, you are not describing the history of such terminologies and their impact on self definition. You only have to look at labelling theory and see the potential dangers. As a service provider, you may want to encourage or discourage ‘schemas’ associated with the language you use but audiology is already full of language which sets a tone to how audiologists view deaf people. Such as the apologetic tones used at the point of identification of potential deafness after a neonatal hearing screen test.
Secondly, the assumption of a medical construction of deafness would limit our understanding of how hearing loss would reflect in every day lives, so I take the position that deafness is a social construction. While an audiologist may be able to identify a certain range of hearing loss, how that loss is interpreted into how life is lived is not for an audiologist to define because they are not social scientists.
1. Deaf people were once one group of people, they had strength in numbers and used sign language in everyday communication with excellent written English (if attended a Deaf school).
2. In c.1920, education sought to encourage children with the potential to learn the spoken language to be segregated into a separate class and created, what we now know, two groups of Deaf people: deaf and hard of hearing (eg. Sleight in 1920).
3. The above segregation was strengthened in the 1944 Education Act when deaf children, who could access English, was taught in a separate school.
4. The 1970’s development in mainstream education created the Partial Hearing Unit or PHU, which caused the students to define themselves as partially hearing and partially deaf. This definition was used to segregate between the children with severe or moderate hearing loss who could fall into the Deaf school category or mainstream school category.
5. Woodward (1972) gave linguists the context to identify the language used by some deaf people by describing them as a community of Deaf people. While Woodward would identify a sign language user as both a deaf and Deaf person, this has been misconstrued as a means to identify people who are outside of the community and who are within. Beyond this discourse, Deaf people have their own means in BSL to describe their community.
6. Ladd (2003) gave a response that deaf people could in fact learn to become Deaf if they become aware of how deafness is socially constructed, hence the more a deaf person learns the language and participates in the community, the more likely they will become Deaf (ie. Deafhood).
As you can see from the above, it is not possible for invented terms for the purposes of a profession or service to not filter down into the deaf consciousness because the imposition would have colonial undertones. The change in terminology you suggest will only do more damage to the world of deaf people to reach a common consensus for political purposes and self expression. After 100 years of divide and conquer tactics for the benefit of audiological science and education only creates more strife, confusion and hostility in the world of deaf people. Equally, there are capitalist gains for an audiological scientist to carve a niche in the market who would make better use of auxiliary aids and use of such services; such services would close if the demand is not consistent so there is a financial incentive to this debate.
I would suggest to learn from the lessons of the past and to prevail from using language has a means for compartmentalising deafness for the purpose of capitalist gains.
jimcromwell
April 23, 2012
I think that it is interesting that the English does not seem to accurately portray the reality – the greys – but BSL is very clear in distinguishing them.
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
Please can you tell me more? How does BSL distinguish them (if they can be translated into an equivalent written phrase, that is).
Paul Redfern
April 23, 2012
From where I’m standing I don’t have a problem being me. I do however find myself landed with problems as a result of hearing people’s reactions to me. And if we use Mr Alcock’s arguments, then I would contend that we are being a tad unfair to many hearing people in using a single definition for them. For instance there are those hearing people who are completely ignorant about Deaf people but have the sense to allow me to tell them how I want to conduct my communication, but the converse is those hearing people who are equally ignorant but insist on telling me how I should communicate. Then there are those hearing people who have some knowledge and are our allies, while there are those who might be termed as closet fascists using their knowledge to deny Deaf people their rights. Other hearing people speak with forked tongue, saying one thing (often espousing the Deaf cause) but doing another. And then there are those hearing people working as professionals who simply see me as a pair of ears and not much else, while there are some who shriek with fright and beat a hasty retreat. Yet others tell me how wretchedly sorry they are that I am Deaf but others calmly accept who I am and show an interest in my many-sided persona. The hearing population is vast and there are so many categories and so many different attitudes, that it is so easy to have a different kind of negative experience just about every day as evidenced by my request for a simple cup of tea at lunchtime needed three serving staff to work it out…..
Maybe we should have some clear-cut definitions of the different types of hearing people and their reactions – I wonder which Mr Alcock would qualify for….?
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
I think your comments are incredibly helpful. Many hearing people are indeed ignorant of how to “react” to Deaf people. What are your thoughts on how we overcome this? Is Deaf Awareness the best approach? Is it up to Deaf people to take the initiative to educate hearing people, or is it hearing people’s responsibility to find out for themselves? If so, how do they find out?
As to which of the different types of hearing people and their reactions I qualify for, I would say I have a lot to learn. I often feel inadequate on the rare occasions I encounter a Deaf person, because I realise how lacking I am in my communication ability. I encounter far more people who hear, even if sometimes their hearing range is greatly restricted. Maybe that’s part of the problem? We don’t get the opportunity to encounter one another, and we miss out on what each of us has to offer.
Paul Redfern
April 24, 2012
I think you touch on some very important points. Many of the people you meet in the course of your professional life are hearing people who have lost various degrees of their hearing. They will bring in their ingrained prejudices and attitudes (as per my original comment) to the concept of ‘deafness’ which will vary considerably. For instance I never tell people I am Deaf without telling them how to communicate with me. I always add this as I am all too aware that their experience of ‘deafness’ could range from their elderly relative to whom you had to shout to a small child about whom everyone talked in pitying tones but almost certainly will not include someone like myself. I think a very important step forward is in your last sentence – professionals like you and us Deafies do need to meet much more often. That way professionals like you can support people who are losing their hearing because there has been exposure to a much wider range of folk with varying experiences. I say this because the hearing aid clinics are the first point at which people losing their hearing meet professionals – they are often bewildered, grieving, anxious, and frequently frightened of the possible implications. I consider them as people with hearing loss rather than ‘deaf’ and it does not help if the professional they encounter is barely more informed than they are about the whole spectrum of deafness, hearing loss and the philosophies attached to those labels.
barakta
April 23, 2012
I agree, redefining the word won’t help. Anyway, if I’m working in my professional context (with disabled people, some of whom may have a hearing impairment) I’ll use the term “hearing impaired” which I personally dislike but is perhaps broader spectrum and more neutral.
Individuals can self define how they wish. I have a blogpost in draft somewhere about ‘language of deafness’ for both “us” to use and “them” to use (or not in some cases!).
Personally like you I use “partially deaf” in English and my somewhat Englishy-sign-language and I’ll use HOH as well. I don’t use “hearing loss” cos I never had the hearing to lose. I dislike hearing impaired but I won’t object to someone using it about me.
There is a lot of misinformation out there for the majority of people in the UK who have probably lost some hearing, probably due to age. They are frightened of things like sign language and the ‘deaf community’ and think learning sign will detriment their speech and don’t have any idea of the value of lipreading classes for cunning survival strategies.
I don’t know what we self-identified deafies can do other than being kind and friendly where we can to people who may do tiny reaching out steps towards us or seek to do things like learn sign or lipreading or a bit more that’s out there. Oh and challenge irrelevancies which aren’t major factors in putting people off getting the support they need.
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to debate this with such sensible and though-provoking comments. I would like to respond to some of the comments raised in Charlie’s Swinbourne’s response article.
In it he states: “people with a slight reduction in their hearing resist the idea that they might be going deaf because they link deafness to a person using sign language and see this as being very different from them.”
You will notice that throughout my original article I deliberately used contrasts to highlight the vast difference in the way we currently apply the term ‘deaf’. Whilst it is true that I know many people who have said to me, “Does this mean I have to learn sign language now?”, this is only an example of how the meaning of the term has become confused, and a dramatic example at that.
But to say this is the main or only reason they resist is an oversimplification: the comparison with someone using sign language is an extreme example. The reality is far more involved, and often more subtle, and is related to such psychological principles as Self-Perception Theory, the Fundamental Attribution Error and Cognitive Dissonance. I have dealt with some of these other issues in other articles (with more to come). This particular article, however, is simply focused on the ‘catch-all’ nature of the word ‘deaf’
Therefore Charlie is inaccurate when he says that I suggest: “the majority of people link deafness automatically to sign language users. I’d also disagree that most people see this as a negative – many people I meet think sign language is beautiful and are fascinated by it.”
Firstly, the link to sign language is a single example; it doesn’t apply to the majority.
Secondly, I in no way mean to imply the use of sign language is a negative thing; far from it. That’s a misunderstanding (misrepresentation?) of what I was saying. The example of sign language is ONLY in the context of how an individual who has been used to using their hearing as a primary means of communication in work, relationships and social setting sees the implications of losing their hearing. That is all. And having spent the last 11 years of my life listening to people with all degrees of reduced hearing and trying to understand their thoughts and feelings I can assure you that the underlying principle of a threat to how they see themselves applies frequently, although not necessarily to extent of believing they will have to use sign language.
Charlie goes on to say: “I think that deafness is more often seen as a sign of old age, of becoming less capable, of being more likely to become confused and not understand someone, leading to embarrassment, misunderstandings, and social awkwardness.”
I agree with this analysis, and I have dealt with this in other material on the Audira website, and I am currently working on guidelines on how we can address these issues (I am a firm believer that the hearing care profession, of which I am a part, has contributed to many of these perceptions).
Charlie says, “one major omission from the article is the fact that a variety of descriptions are already used by deaf people to define themselves.”
Yes, I did omit this quite deliberately because it requires a separate article to do it justice. But briefly, there are around 4 million individuals in the UK (according to Action on Hearing Loss) who would benefit from hearing aids but do not use them.
Contrary to popular belief, the MAIN reason why they don’t use hearing aids according to self-reported studies is NOT because of any ‘stigma’ or belief that it means they are getting old. It’s because they don’t believe their hearing is bad enough; i.e. they do not consider themselves “to be deaf”. Their own perception, however, often differs dramatically from what their family might say, leading to frustration and sometimes even the break down of relationships. Hearing care professionals see this time and time again; and it is so upsetting to witness. What is also interesting is that the majority of these individuals have a mild-to-moderate hearing loss so their hearing is generally able to pick up at least some of the sounds within speech without amplification, which leads them to believe their hearing is generally within so-called normal parameters. These individuals would not consider themselves to be ‘deaf’, so by suggesting they are immediately generates resistance because they just don’t consider the message to be relevant.
By contrast, there are many people, some of whom wear hearing aids and some of whom don’t, who find it perfectly acceptable to refer to themselves as deaf (or other terms). My own experience is that these individuals usually have a more restricted hearing range, and (although I generalise here) generally cannot follow an aural language without the aid of hearing aids, lip reading or some other alternative method of communication.
But it is a mistake to suggest that the individuals within these two contrasting examples see themselves the same way. Therefore, unless our messages are relevant, they are ineffective and often counterproductive (as explained in my original article).
Charlie later states: “if the word ‘deaf’ was defined as applying to people who require the “support of society”, as Alcock argues, then the very word many deaf people use to describe themselves would imply dependence.”
I need to clarify this; I do not mean ‘support’ as in dependence (although might I humbly suggest that The Limping Chicken gives the impression to the uninitiated of dependence?). I means that Society should be expected to show understanding, kindness and co-operation.
This very website recently reported on a theatre patron who was referred to as a ‘deaf bugger’. This sort of behaviour by society is not acceptable, yet it happens far more than we would like to believe. That very incident concerned the use of captions for a performance in order to make it accessible to deaf patrons. This required the theatre to change their normal course of behaviour in order to ‘support’ deaf patrons. Is that dependence? I don’t see it that way. I see it as understanding and co-operation.
If you don’t like the word support, I would happy to have your suggestions on alternatives; it’s part of the purpose of the debate. Personally I think a suitable word should be one that could be used the other way round too, so the Deaf Community (for example) would ‘support’ those who hear and are not familiar with sign language.
What we’re looking for here is mutual co-operation between human beings, with an acceptance and understanding of what we have in common and where we might need to adjust our normal course of behaviour to find that common ground.
On the issue of “where a line would be drawn on who was ‘deaf’ or not.” It’s nothing to do with how well someone copes or communicates; it’s simply a level where an individual’s range of hearing (or absence of hearing) prevents them from ‘hearing’ speech at a normal level as specified by the Articulation Index. It’s as simple as that. Yes, there will be those who might describe themselves as ‘deaf’ who can hear parts of speech – and that really doesn’t matter. The point of the definition is to ensure our messages are relevant to our intended audiences.
Finally Charlie feels the answer is “not redefining the word ‘deaf,’ but increased education and awareness of what it means to be deaf in the terms in which it is defined and understood today.”
I absolutely and positively agree with the need for increased awareness and education. But without a disambiguated definition such messages will continue to get diluted because ‘deaf’ currently also refers to the 4 million individuals in the UK, some of whom use such a message to continue to frustrate their friends and family, giving the unjustified impression that ‘deaf people’ are stubborn or proud, which makes Society less inclined to ‘support’ people like the deaf patron at the theatre referred to above. It’s up to all of us to change this; Society takes their lead from us.
Therefore I stand by my assertion: a disambiguation of the term ‘deaf’ would allow both messages, that of “education and awareness” and “taking responsibility for your hearing” to have they impact they deserve.
Editor
April 24, 2012
Thanks for your reply Curtis – hopefully people will read your article and my response and then make their own minds up!
Even though I don’t agree with your proposal, I do agree that there’s a massive problem and hopefully ways can be found for people who are losing some of their hearing to accept this and look for services that can help.
Charlie
visualrevoluti0n
April 23, 2012
Maybe we should look where a person draws their strength from: are they primarily auditory or visual? If I had to choose from being “deaf” or “visual”, I’d choose visual because that’s how I function in this world. When I tell hearing people that I am deaf, they panic. When I just go ahead and use gestures to communicate with them, they relax. Some actually seem to genuinely enjoy having a visual conversation with me.
Lack of hearing is no big deal for people who are visual. Like Oliver Sacks says, we were never born with a tail – it’s impossible for us to know what it is like to live with a tail.
To people who were born auditory or were brought up as auditory, hearing plays a big part in their lives. Their needs are different, and this is where hearing technologies come in handy. When you try to sell these technologies to visual people, they tend to get cranky – it’s simply because they don’t need this sort of stuff. They want to see more visual resources, more sign language, more visually accessible information and so on. So much money is spent on developing auditory stuff, and so little is spent on developing visual stuff.
Curtis Alcock
April 28, 2012
To visualrevoluti0n – I have been thinking a great deal about your insightful observations over the past week and I think you may have hit upon something extremely important, and possibly a way forward in addressing some of these complex and recurring issues: it’s our need to understand and recognise that different people use different senses as their primary means of communication, and neither means is better or worse than an other. When we fail to appreciate this there’s a danger we foster confusion and discrimination, often without meaning to. We also need to have better ‘bridges’ between those with different primary senses unless we want to live in isolation from one another.
I’d be interested to know if you have any other thoughts on this.
reema87patel
April 23, 2012
I think that the argument behind the position that being deaf needs to be redefined might prove a bit too much. No classification will capture the complexity of the situation. The point is that there is some sort of commonality between those who identify as deaf – however diverse that deafness is.
It would be a little like saying that because people in India speak over a hundred different languages, eat different food and come from different areas – being ‘Indian’ needs to be redefined. It doesn’t. It just means that we need to recognise there are many subtleties to the concept of ‘being Indian’.
I would say that there is a mistake to the assumption that being deaf is a concept which is itself ‘defined’. Deafness is as much an identity as it is a set of external criteria we might ‘satisfy’. That’s why I think we would all struggle if we sat down and tried to define deafness.
There seems to be a difference between deafness as a cultural construct and deafness as defined by clinicians (a physical thing). I don’t really know what that is. But it is conceivable that a person who has grown up amidst deaf culture would be accepted as deaf – culturally – even if their hearing was perfect. And it is also conceivable that a person who grew up in an entirely hearing world would be considered deaf, and identify as deaf as well. I think those two circumstances illustrate the difficulty of finding a definition at all – let alone a redefinition.
🙂
If anyone wants to carry on this conversation tweet me; ReemaSPatel
Curtis Alcock
April 23, 2012
I agree with much of what you’ve said. The only bit I disagree with is that you say “there is some sort of commonality between those who identify as deaf – however diverse that deafness is”.
1. Many people with a lesser reduction in their ability to hear speech would consider themselves having more commonality with someone who hears all the sounds within speech, rather than considering themselves to be deaf. This is similar to how someone who uses spectacles (as I do) would not consider themselves to be blind.
2. However, there are many others who WOULD identify themselves as being deaf, and there I agree with you. But often these individual’s hearing ability is more restricted than those described in (1) above. Within in this “commonality” there is indeed a range of subtleties (like your comparison with being ‘Indian’).
My main question therefore is, should the individuals in (1) be considered ‘deaf’? This is what we need to redefine.
Hearing Link
April 24, 2012
Hearing Link consulted members last year about their thoughts on this topic. You can read the results of the survey and an executive summary here>> http://www.hearinglink.org/page.aspx?pid=441
Interesting debate- thanks for re-opening it Curtis!
idatim
April 24, 2012
Good article! We at the Ida Institute certainly agree that there needs to be more public awareness of deafness and hearing loss across the world. We have just started an ideas competition to come up with new ideas for projects that can raise awareness of hearing loss across society. You may want to check it out. http://www.awarenessforhearingloss.com
CJ
April 24, 2012
I myself have always thought that Deaf and deaf, i.e Deaf as in Totally Deaf like myself have nothing in ears at all, to the point of both ear canals skin grafted over, I have NOTHING at all making me Acquired Totally Deaf, so D eaf I am.
I once had 1 hearing Aid and it was difficult, and other ear was Totally Deaf, but I classed myself then as H.O.H because I had hearing Aid, they dont give hearing Aids If they dont work.
So to me it seems obvious Deaf for hearing Nothing at all, Totally Deaf, no reading on Audio.
And deaf when you have adaptations to help you.
Michael Theobald
April 24, 2012
If I get bored I can always be sourd!
mmostynthomas
April 25, 2012
“I’d disagree that the majority of people link deafness automatically to sign language users. I’d also disagree that most people see this as a negative – many people I meet think sign language is beautiful and are fascinated by it.
“I think that deafness (and the stigma that comes with it) is more often seen as a sign of old age, of becoming less capable, of being more likely to become confused and not understand someone, leading to embarrassment, misunderstandings, and social awkwardness.”
I am not sure it is quite so easy or simple to separate perceived notions of deafness from perceived notions of sign language. Two people close to me are deafened – one lost his hearing very slowly over time, while the other went deaf suddenly overnight while at university 15 years ago.
They both see me and Miles signing to each other regularly, but they don’t comment on its beauty. Neither do they show interest in it. Instead, they choose to be rather disparaging about it, if at all, and absolutely refuse to learn to sign. I’m afraid to say that they also see sign language as less capable than spoken language – simply because in their world, they’ve never seen it put to good use. They can’t see how that might translate in real world terms like we could.
It’s very sad really, but it does reinforce the need for better education – and how to market that to them. As a term, “Deaf Awareness” doesn’t really cut it with them.
Editor
April 25, 2012
It’s a shame they see it that way.
Based on what you’ve just said though, your friends do seem to separate “their perceived notions of deafness from perceived notions of sign language.”
They know they are deaf, but they don’t see themselves as potential sign language users.
mmostynthomas
April 25, 2012
Good point. However, it’s worth mentioning that one does not define himself as deaf. He doesn’t even use the term “hard of hearing.” In all the years that I have known him, he has mentioned a “handicap,” and only in the third person. Even though he KNOWS he’s deaf, he’s not prepared to associate himself with it.
Shaneybo
May 26, 2012
In other languages, say Dutch, French, Spanish etc, the word “deaf” is used to define a member of the deaf community. It is easier for us to say the deaf community rather than using the word “deaf”. The word is very loaded with emotions in the English language YET “deaf power” is gaining popularity in Holland’s deaf community at the moment. There is a deaf community cafe in Chile with the name “Deaf”, not “sordo” as used in the Spanish language there! 😮