{"id":119804,"date":"2025-04-15T08:59:56","date_gmt":"2025-04-15T13:59:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thechicagoschool.edu\/insight\/?p=119804"},"modified":"2025-04-15T08:59:56","modified_gmt":"2025-04-15T13:59:56","slug":"deaf-community-hearing-differences-perspectives-diversity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thechicagoschool.edu\/insight\/psychology\/deaf-community-hearing-differences-perspectives-diversity\/","title":{"rendered":"Expanding Diversity: Considering 2 Perspectives of Individual Hearing Differences"},"content":{"rendered":"

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. <\/em><\/p>\n

The first consideration is for the term \u201cdiversity.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cdeaf and dumb\u201d and \u201cmute;\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201ccure\u201d 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 \u201cfixed.\u201d Within this model, terms associated with hearing loss include \u201cdeafness,\u201d \u201chearing impaired,\u201d and lowercase \u201cd\u201d 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 \u201cfix\u201d their child\u2019s pathology.<\/p>\n

The cultural model offers an alternative to the pathologizing present in the medical model. According to Moore et al., (2003) the cultural model is \u201cthe 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).\u201d 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 \u201cD\u201d Deaf, \u201chard of hearing,\u201d \u201cDeaf culture,\u201d \u201clevel of hearing loss,\u201d and \u201cindividuals with hearing differences.\u201d\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

The recognition of Deaf culture highlights a much more holistic perspective of what \u201cdiversity\u201d and \u201cintersectionality\u201d 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Resources and References:<\/p>\n