But this does not simply mean that the Deaf community rejects technological advancements as a whole; rather, as Edwards explains, the “Deaf community [supported] a technological development that respected deafness, that tried to change deaf people’s lives, not their bodies”: the teletypewriter (TTY), which allowed deaf people to send print messages along phone lines (905). While deafness is often pathologized by the hearing world and portrayed as a disadvantage, the Deaf community consciously and actively selects technologies that aid in communication and daily functioning without attempting to erase their deafness. This deliberate selection reflects the Deaf community’s insistence that they have the capacity and the right to choose what’s truly beneficial for them. Despite this repeated call for bodily autonomy, specifically when it comes to implanting deaf toddlers, Deaf adults are often excluded from conversations regarding medical decisions for deaf children of hearing parents. In 1957, the Silent Worker, a magazine for the deaf, published an editorial titled “To Whom Is Speech of Significant Concern?” which argued, “the only people who are usually asked this question, are ‘the psychologists, the psychiatrist, …, the orator, [and] the teacher’ What about deaf adults?” the editorial wondered. “Isn’t their opinion worthy of consideration?” (qtd. in Edwards 907).
Deaf activism was born in this context, due to the exclusion of deaf adults from policy-making and the portrayal of deafness in everyday life. In the late twentieth century, deaf activists were often inspired by the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement, adopting slogans like “Deaf Pride” (Edwards 908). As one of the activists’ deaf son states, “I want to be an original deaf person—not an artificial deaf person” (qtd. in Edwards 908). Activists and scholars also introduced the concept of audism, discrimination based on hearing ability, arguing that audist’s attempts at “disciplining Deaf bodies into becoming closer to normal hearing bodies” reflect a deeply problematic logic: “Speech is language; language is human; therefore, deaf people are inhuman, and deafness is a problem” (qtd. in Edwards 908). Deaf activists push back against the social mainstream that fails to recognize their humanity.
In an effort to challenge the framing of Deafness as an ailment, some in the Deaf community point to the gay community’s struggle toward acceptance. Not so long ago homosexuality was pathologized by the medical community in a way that seems unthinkable today. Journalist David Firestone writes, “Twenty-five years ago, the arguments for curing gayness seemed as unarguable as the arguments for curing the deaf seem to be now,” (68). As this logic goes, if views on homosexuality evolved thanks to the work of activists, so might our thinking about Deafness. However, this parallel is imperfect and perhaps even problematic. Although the gay and deaf communities are marginalized in similar ways, so-called gay conversion therapy is proven to have harmful effects, while the supposed “cure” for Deafness—an implant—is FDA approved. Indeed, an implant may be a viable option for some, but as Edwards reminds us hearing people tend to assume that “there is only one possible cultural meaning to being unable to hear” (918). In spite of the many strides made by Deaf activists, Edwards takes a more pessimistic view of the future than Firestone: “Though Deaf people value their Deafness and have been saying so for over one hundred years in the United States, most of the hearing community has yet to hear them ” (918).
Aronson revisited the Artinian family in a follow-up documentary, Sound and Fury: Six Years Later. After eventually receiving a cochlear implant at the age of 9, three years after the initial documentary, Heather had developed her speaking and hearing ability and assimilated well in a hearing school. The family moved back to New York and all the kids have received the implants—even Heather’s mother Nita got an implant to show support. The family appears to have overcome their initial worries and seems happy, as Peter puts it, to see “that Heather is now part of both the Deaf and the hearing worlds. Before she was only in the Deaf world, but now she has the opportunity to be in both” (Sound and Fury: Six Years Later, 00:17:28-00:17:38).
It is important to notice that the major sponsor of Aronson’s second film is the Cochlear Americas Corporation. This suggests that the narrative that Aronson chose to portray might not have captured all of the gains and losses along the journey. The language on Cochlear Americas’ website still resembles the dominant, problematic narrative. “Time To Get Back What You’ve Been Missing,” it says, casting deafness as a weakness to be cured, and the implant as a medical miracle. Advocates for the Deaf community, however, argue that such thinking threatens to eliminate Deaf identity and history. The struggle of the Deaf community has never ended—it is a perpetual ongoing war.
I keep wondering what the experience of the girl in my middle school was like—did she know how to sign? When did she get implanted? Were her parents deaf or hearing? Did she consider herself culturally Deaf? Had she been given the chance to make the choice herself? All these questions remain unanswered because I never talked to her then, and because the Deaf conversation has only relatively recently entered mainstream public discourse. This is not to say that the Deaf activists haven’t done enough. Rather, it is the hearing majority who choose not to listen to the Deaf community’s message. The Deaf community and its culture persisted and survived the age of hearing aids, and maybe we can speculate a similar result in the age of the cochlear implant. But at the same time, no one really knows. When we think about the fact that 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, we realize the Deaf conversation cannot be a conversation limited to its own community. Shifting the power dynamic will require extra work on hearing people’s part to listen.
Works Cited
Edwards, R. A. R. “Sound and Fury; Or, Much Ado about Nothing? Cochlear Implants in Historical Perspective.” The Journal of American History, vol. 92, no. 3, 2005, pp. 892-920. ProQuest, proxy.library.nyu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/224894558?accountid=12768.
Firestone, David. “Away from Language.” The New York Times, 28 Aug. 1994, p. 193. ProQuest, proxy.library.nyu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/109334513?accountid=12768.
Kim, Eunjung. Curative Violence: Rehabilitating Disability, Gender, and Sexuality in Modern Korea. Duke University Press, 2017.
Sound and Fury: Six Years Later. Directed by Josh Aronson. Filmakers Library, 2006. Alexander Street, video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/sound-and-fury-six-years-later.
Sound and Fury: The Communication Wars of the Deaf. Directed by Josh Aronson. Filmakers Library, 2000. Alexander Street, video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/sound-and-fury-the-communication-wars-of-the-deaf.