Expanding Diversity: Considering 2 Perspectives of Individual Hearing Differences

The following information may be new for many readers, which emphasizes the point of sharing these considerations. However, the presented information is not new, and many individuals have not only shared these perspectives but have devoted clinical work, academic research, and shared life experiences to produce and expand upon this knowledge. In turn, the author provides a list of references at the end of these considerations to encourage further exploration of an often forgotten and overlooked culture.

The first consideration is for the term “diversity.” Diversity often encompasses race, religion, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. However, these specific areas of diversity, themselves, are not fully inclusive of many other lived experiences. Consider individuals with physical differences such as visual ability, hearing status, ambulation, and those who use other assistive supports. Physical ability clearly reflects diversity; however, what remains unnoticed is the possibility for linguistic diversity and the intersectionality of multiple lived experiences. Individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing highlight this consideration.

Historically, individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing have been treated poorly by the mental health system and other institutions. Examples include terms such as “deaf and dumb” and “mute;” abusive practices such as hand binding and forced oralism; and misperceptions that individuals with hearing loss have lower intellectual ability or that they can read lips. These oppressive behaviors have historically led to misdiagnoses, inappropriate institutionalization, social discrimination, and mistrust in mental health. Consider that for many deaf and hard of hearing individuals, mental health services equate to mental illness. These historical actions provide the earliest starting point for how many Americans view individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing.

For example, the medical model is a traditional perspective of hearing loss that defines a person as disabled by their inadequacies or pathology. The model assumes that healthcare professionals can “cure” pathology. Under this model, the inability to hear or limited hearing demonstrates pathology. It also promotes an idea that there is something wrong with the individual, particularly that they are lacking in some way, and creates an urgency to be “fixed.” Within this model, terms associated with hearing loss include “deafness,” “hearing impaired,” and lowercase “d” deaf. Further, the medical model assumes hearing loss can be cured with interventions such as cochlear implants, hearing aids, FM systems, oralism, and speech. Consider that most deaf and hard-of-hearing children are born to hearing parents. Moreover, most parents are exposed to the medical model first. Initial contact with the medical model could cause despair, anxiety, stress, and feelings of loss for parents that are unaware of a competing model. Concurrently, the medical model pushes parents to make possibly life changing decisions for their child out of an urgency to “fix” their child’s pathology.

The cultural model offers an alternative to the pathologizing present in the medical model. According to Moore et al., (2003) the cultural model is “the social, communal, and creative force of, by, and for Deaf people based on ASL; encompassing communication, social protocol, art, and recreation (e.g., Deaf clubs, residential schools, and entertainment).” According to the cultural model, the American Deaf culture is considered a linguistic minority culture within the greater American hearing population. It highlights the beautiful intersectionality of physical ability, language (i.e., American Sign Language), and shared experiences. Terms used with this model include capital “D” Deaf, “hard of hearing,” “Deaf culture,” “level of hearing loss,” and “individuals with hearing differences.”  Further, this model notes that individuals of various hearing statuses can achieve anything a hearing peer can and rejects the notion of being disabled. Consider if parents of children with individual hearing differences initially had contact with a cultural model. Furthermore, children born to Deaf parents have a model for language and cultural practice. While others acculturate into Deaf culture to find role models, to normalize their experience, and to develop a support network. Any professional that provides support to individuals with hearing differences should consider how the cultural model provides an endless array of opportunities that could promote culturally appropriate interventions, more holistic conceptualizations, and appropriately targeted recommendations.

The recognition of Deaf culture highlights a much more holistic perspective of what “diversity” and “intersectionality” could mean. However, condensing Deaf culture to a brief history and two seemingly opposing models does not fully encompass the rich complexity of individual differences nor does it incapsulate the diversity of environments that individuals with hearing loss experience. As such, professionals working with an individual with hearing differences should not reduce an individual’s identity to their hearing status, assume all individuals with hearing differences are part of the Deaf culture, nor automatically prioritize Deaf cultural practices among an individual’s intersecting identities. Rather, the goal is to prompt a richer discussion and awareness for the unique experiences for individuals who identify as deaf /Deaf and hard of hearing.

Resources and References:

• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association | ASHA)
• Boston Children’s Hospital, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program (Deaf and Hard of Hearing | Boston Children’s Hospital (childrenshospital.org)
• Counseling and Psychological Services, Gallaudet University (Counseling and Psychological Services | Gallaudet University)
• Deaf Wellness Center, University of Rochester (Deaf Wellness Center – University of Rochester Medical Center)
• Gallaudet University (Gallaudet University | Changing the world with a bilingual way of being)
• Gallaudet University (2024). Suggested Readings on Deaf History and Culture. Retrieved March 21, 2024 from Suggested Readings on Deaf History and Culture – History Through Deaf Eyes | Gallaudet University
• Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center, Gallaudet University (National Deaf Education Center |The Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center (gallaudet.edu))
• Moore, M.S. & Levitan, L. (2003). For Hearing People Only: Answers to Some of the Most Commonly Asked Questions About the Deaf Community, its Culture, and the “Deaf Reality” (3rd ed. V Rochester, NY: Deaf Life Press.
• National Association of the Deaf (NAD – Current home)
• National Center for Deaf Health Research, University of Rochester (National Center for Deaf Health Research (NCDHR) – University of Rochester Medical Center)