Rachel Cooper is a hearing philosopher who penned a paper on the subject of deafness. The paper is titled, CAN IT BE A GOOD THING TO BE DEAF?, and it attempts to answer the question, Can It Be A Good Thing To Be Deaf? Now, you and I, would already consider that question answered. Hosed and dusted. When I say you and I, I do mean those of us who identify as Deaf with a capital D, and who do not consider ourselves disabled. However, there are those who beg to differ. Like the deaf and the hearing. Well, that’s life! [shrug]
Still, the topic peaked my interest and I wanted to see what Rachel had to say on the subject, and if she had anything new to add to the debate.
I have to admit though, my initial response was “Whaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttt?” and words like inconsistent, obfuscation, moving goal posts, and trust a hearing person to write this, rent my morning stupor. Luckily, I had a nice long walk [as one does, when one doesn't drink herbal teas, or have partner who will imbibe them with more pleasant thoughts upon waking]. The long walk allowed me to stomp out all the caustic thoughts I was ready to pen in rebuttal. Seriously, I was planning to re-read the essay [for my own credibility, if nothing else] before pulling ideas out of thin air [as many do] and pen [well, type] a more measured response.
Upon re-reading, the paper made a lot more sense, and I could see where Rachel was coming from. In her own words:
Increasingly, Deaf activists claim that it can be good to be Deaf. Still, much of the hearing world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of deafness in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be deaf it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being deaf, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being deaf may plausibly be a good thing for some deaf people but not for others.
The above premise is a laudable aim. One which I’m not convinced that she successfully achieved. Her overall conclusion, “I conclude that being deaf may plausibly be a good thing for some deaf people but not for others.” to answer is rather lame. It feeds into the divisiveness of the various methods used to deal with deafness. It shifts accountability for the status of Deaf and deaf people from the hearing world and onto ‘deafness’.
While the question itself, CAN IT BE A GOOD THING TO BE DEAF? is a superfluous one, it still needs to be asked. Time and time again, because successive degenerations [pun intended] of hearing people still go “Duh!” when confronted with the conundrum that is deafness. [Sorry couldn't resist that barb!] Because of the ignorance of Deaf history, and the hegemony of the disability model still reigns supreme, newly deafened people, deaf, and Deaf people just coming out, often have no barometer by which to measure themselves, other than the disability model.
The paper CAN IT BE A GOOD THING TO BE DEAF? serves up a myriad angles, that are worthwhile for hearies and deafies to exercise their brains over. It is equally beneficial for us Deafies to grapple with them too - the issues raised in the paper I mean.
Like I said, the question is a superfluous one, and one that has already been answered. I know being Deaf is good. Let’s get on with life!
It’s a lot like the question of homosexuality actually. The only people really obsessed with homosexuality is heterosexuals themselves. “Why are you Gay?” “When did you become Gay?” “Were you abused as child?” and that’s not touching upon social, cultural and religious vilification issues. And so it is with Deafness. Why? Why? Why? Why, in……………..deed!
To highlight the superfluity of the question, what if we substituted Gay, Woman, Black, or other minority group for deaf?
Increasingly, Gay activists claim that it can be good to be Gay. Still, much of the heterosexual world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of homosexuality in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be Gay it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being Gay, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being Gay may plausibly be a good thing for some Gay people but not for others.
Or
Increasingly, Women claim that it can be good to be Women Still, much of the world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of Women in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be a Woman it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being a Woman, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being a Woman may plausibly be a good thing for some Women people but not for others.
Or
Increasingly, Black activists claim that it can be good to be Black. Still, much of the hearing world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of Blackness in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be Black it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being Black, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being Black may plausibly be a good thing for some Black people but not for others.
But the following premise is never put forth:
Increasingly, Hearing people claim that it can be good to be Hearing. Still, much of the Deaf world remains unconvinced, and continues to think of Hearingness in negative terms. I examine this debate and argue that to determine whether it can be good to be Hearing it is necessary to examine each claimed advantage or disadvantage of being Hearing, and then to make an overall judgment regarding the net cost or benefit. On the basis of such a survey I conclude that being Hearing may plausibly be a good thing for some Hearing people but not for others.
I get exasperated when treading familiar ground presents findings that reinforces the dominant viewpoint. If I were a hearing a parent reading Rachel’s premise as quoted above, I would take that as evidence that my individualised solution to dealing with my child’s deafness is right. Of course, Rachel’s paper isn’t that simplistic, but I’m not convinced though, that the paper poses any direct challenge to hearing people’s perceptions of deafness, let alone the question, “What is normal?” I don’t think she goes far enough. Her language is not forceful enough. Where I might say, “Well, it so. Here’s why!”, I can see hearing people go, “Yeah, but! Yeah, but!”
Then again, my complaint that the paper doesn’t pose any direct challenges, or that the language is not forceful enough, is more to do with my preference for a heated rhetoric, foaming mouth, champing at the bit, ready to wreak havoc and administer justice, style of debate. Thumping the lectern and throwing out the Bible!
Sure, Rachel’s paper forced me to consider deafness from a philosophical point of view, and to consider it dispassionate detachment. I did enjoy re-reading the paper. But it is hard to deal dispassionately with something that I consider to be an intrinsic part of me. Though, dispassionate debate and argument in the d/Deaf sphere is in short supply. The hearies generally aren’t much better. Their general approach is rarely dispassionate or objective [then again, not every Hearing person can be a Harlan Lane can they?]
Yes, there is much to savor in Rachel’s paper, and I don’t feel that I’m doing her paper justice [her conclusions notwithstanding]. In her discussion of the five senses. She shows how their value fluctuates according to circumstances. For example, while to hear may be good thing, too much sound can be detrimental. Living near the railroad tracks as opposed to living in quieter suburban streets. Another interesting take, is her description of the problems between the deaf and the hearing worlds as relational.
Rather than the communication problems stemming from the child’s inability to hear, or from her parents’ inability to sign, the communication problems suffered by deaf people are relational problems - the problem stems from the fact that the child cannot hear coupled with the fact that her parents cannot sign. As such, the communication difficulties of deaf people can be solved either by hearing people learning sign language, or, potentially, through altering the deaf person (e.g. through cochlear implantation).
Still, the crux of the matter lies in the conclusions she draws. While I understand the reasoning, I simply don’t agree. Rachel’s conclusions do not state outright that being deaf is good. She states that whether it is a good or bad thing to be deaf is hard to determine [arched eyebrow] and that the value of being Deaf/ deaf, relies on the weight of its advantages or disadvantages in a given circumstance. That is all very well, but I can’t help shaking the feeling that the larger question of hearing peoples perceptions of deafness and the role those views and perceptions play in the determination that deaf is good, is largely ignored.
I do recommend that you read, Can It Be a Good Thing to Be Deaf?
ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY:
Response To Amy’s Vlog Response On Militant Thinking
Are Parents of Deaf Babies Fully Informed of Choices?
British Sign Language in decline..
Adversity and…the audacity of hope?
Deafhood and Education
Sphere: Related Content