Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Social Theory & Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I will follow the custom of using capital ‘D’ Deaf in reference to Deaf culture as a socio-linguistic group as opposed to lower case ‘d’ deaf in reference to audiological status.

  2. Carbin (1996) provides a history of Deaf education in Canada, and Lane (1992) outlines the hearing representations of deafness that have led to the oppression and mistreatment of deaf people.

  3. Davis (2008) outlines the history of eugenics in relation to deaf people and maps discursive changes over time from a deaf ‘race’ (as used by Bell) to a deaf ethnic group or socio-linguistic minority as the Deaf community is generally defined now.

  4. Corker (1998) provides a comprehensive examination of the interactions and tensions between deafness and disability, and Baynton (2008) argues for Deaf people aligning with disabled people.

  5. Audism generally refers to discrimination based on hearing status. Lane (1992) describes audism as ‘the hearing way of dominating, restructuring, and exercising authority over the deaf community’ (p. 43).

  6. AVT is a treatment approach focused on developing the deaf child’s auditory system through audition alone. Intensive parental training is required to ensure that audition and speech are the focus, while any visual cues (for example, facial expressions, lip-reading, gestures and manual signs) are disallowed. Any Ontario parent who chooses CI for their deaf child must commit to an AVT approach.

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Bell, A.G. (1884) Fallacies concerning the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf and Dumb 29: 32–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, H.K. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blume, S. (2010) The Artificial Ear: Cochlear Implants and the Culture of Deafness. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brueggemann, B.J. (1999) Lend me Your Ear: Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbin, C. (1996) Deaf Heritage in Canada. Whitby, UK: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • CHEO. (n.d.) Audiology [online]. Ottawa, http://www.cheo.on.ca/en/audiology, accessed 20 July 2015.

  • Corker, M. (1998) Deaf and Disabled, or Deafness Disabled?. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Edwards, R. (2012) Words Made Flesh: Nineteenth-Century Deaf Education and the Growth of Deaf Culture. New York: New York University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Garden, R. (2010) Language, identity, and belonging: Deaf cultural and narrative perspectives. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 21(2): 159–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getty, A.D. (2014) Building Bridges Crossing Borders: One Young Deaf Woman’s Education. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mayberry, R. (2001) How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 16(4): 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Huddart, D. (2006) Homi K. Bhabha. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ladd, P. (2003) Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, H. (1992) The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Mauldin, L. (2014) Precarious plasticity: Neuropolitics, cochlear implants, and the redefinition of deafness. Science, Technology & Human Values 39(1): 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIlroy, G. and Storbeck, C. (2011) Development of deaf identity: An ethnographic study. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 16(4): 494–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Michalko, R. (2002) Estranged-familiarity. In: M. Corker and T. Shakespeare (eds.) Disability/Postmodernity: Embodying Disability Theory. London: Continuum, pp. 175–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalko, R. (1999) The Two in One: Walking with Smokie, Walking with Blindness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriempf, A. (2009) Hearing deafness: Subjectness, articulateness and communicability. Subjectivity 28: 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Snoddon, K. (2009) American sign language and early literacy: research as praxis. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

  • Sparrow, R. (2010) Implants and ethnocide: Learning from the cochlear implant controversy. Disability & Society 25(4): 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speech-Language and Audiology Canada (2014) SAC Position Paper on Universal Newborn Hearing Screening in Canada. Ottawa, ON: SAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titchkosky, T. (2003) Disability, Self, and Society. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, O. (1997) The Politics of Deafness. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Justice Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, 12th floor, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, Canada

    Tracey Edelist

Authors
  1. Tracey Edelist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracey Edelist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edelist, T. Capitalising on cultural dichotomies: Making the ‘right choice’ regarding cochlear implants. Soc Theory Health 14, 293–311 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/sth.2015.34

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/sth.2015.34

Keywords

Search

Navigation