An analysis of the longstanding debate between the Deaf and hearing communities.
Following the invention of the Cochlear implant, has been a longstanding debate between the deaf and hearing communities. Mired in controversy, the Cochlear implant surfaced as the leading treatment for “severe to profound hearing losses associated with the inner ear” (Mauldin, 2012, p.530); but the innovation has led to a fundamental disagreement between communities, one seeing deafness as something to be cured — a disability — and the other seeing deafness as the key to a profound and growing culture. This essay seeks to examine this growing division from both points of view; exploring firstly the various criticisms of the Cochlear implant from the deaf community, born somewhat from fear of a loss of identity and culture through ‘normalising’ children with hearing loss. In further exploration and in contrast, this essay will analyse the positive impacts of the Cochlear impact for children from a parental perspective, analysing beneficence as an important ethical consideration. Lastly, the moral and ethical ambiguity in cyber-politics that surrounds implantation as a key factor in the controversy will be explored, analysing its role in the cultural divide.
A fundamental aspect of the condemnation of the Cochlear implant, from members of the deaf community who oppose it, is the belief that deafness is not a disability. It challenges the assumption from hearing communities that those who are deaf would naturally desire to leverage any “miracle devices” (Faulkner, 2011, p.654) designed to assimilate them into the “hearing world” (Ringo, 2013) – in particular, Cochlear implants. Its implantation can be interpreted as a loss of identity and culture in the deaf community that is often intergenerational, as more of a loss than a gained opportunity. According to Leigh and Andrews (2016, p.235), those in hearing communities not otherwise strongly connected to deaf people have traditionally seen the community as a “ghetto apart from the real world”, instead of a large community that Gonsoulin (2001, p.552) examines as having a rich history, with unique “customs, values, attitudes, knowledge, and language”. The implantation of a Cochlear implant inherently threatens the survival of future generations of deaf people; assuming it works correctly and is used widely, membership would significantly decrease over time as according to Gonsoulin (2001, p.552), articulating that the preservation of a minority culture in wider society is wholly important. As a “linguistic minority” (Maudlin, 2012, p.530) who communicate via sign language, those in the deaf community who oppose the Cochlear implant have made clear that deafness is indicative of a broad and expansive culture comparable to ethnic and minority groups, and that its innovation is “not only unnecessary but unethical” and should not be considered a substitute for inner support that can be provided (Mauldin, 2012, p.530). It is through these series of beliefs held by opposing members of the deaf community that it becomes clear that the Cochlear implant was not only negatively received, but construed as a catalyst for the growing eradication of deaf culture.
The invention of the Cochlear implant has not been met entirely with resistance. Members of both the hearing community and some members of the deaf community, argue early implantation in a child is imperative to communicative development; without it, there can be “cascading consequences”, including behavioural deficits, attentional difficulties and poorer academic performance (Quittner et al., 2014, p.18). The implant, argued as a device capable of making life “easier, more entertaining, and even more productive” delivers a greater representation of sound through increased auditory stimulation that bypasses the cochlear area (Diiulio, 2007). The “efforts to reduce deafness” through implantation at a young age are seen by supporters as the ethical choice, consistent with the notion that parents should make decisions in the best interests of their children, acting upon the ethical principles of beneficence (Gonsoulin, 2001, p.553). Gonsoulin (2001, p.554) examines beneficence as simply a product of human nature and of our “mission in life” to help others through curing disabilities through a compulsion to constantly seek new scientific advancements for “increasing success”. Increased auditory access for children implanted as early as 6 months of age is an undeniable success of the Cochlear implant, and a marker of great change between generations of deaf children who have had wholly different experiences in education and socialisation (Paludneviciene and Leigh, 2011,p.8). It’s success detail a future where humanity leans upon and leverages technology to our advantage — despite criticism from those not in support of the implant — posing questions toward dependence on technology in the modern age, and where it may possibly head.
The debate surrounding the invention of the Cochlear implant brings to light an important secondary issue concerning cyborg-politics and a growing physical relationship between science, technology, and society. Fusion of technology with the human body in the implantation of a Cochlear implant draws parallels to similar devices including “electronic pacemakers, artificial joints [and] skin, [and] implanted corneal lenses” (Cherney, 1999, p.26), and draws attention to a fundamental question that has emerged with technology itself: at what point can we be considered “cyborgs in the technical sense” (Cherney, 1999, p.26)? It challenges the notion drawn upon by some supporters of the implant that they are “enabled by [their] devices” (Barnet, 2015) and criticises the physical merge between ourselves and technology, that perhaps the way technology “shapes” us goes against the laws of nature. The innovation of the Cochlear implant is indicative of a world constantly changing and evolving with society; older designs are no longer tailored to our growing needs and demands, and medical technologies are becoming increasingly heterogeneous, with the “once clear distinction between drugs and devices has no place for the new hybrids, like artificially engineered tissue” (Blume, 2009, p.17). Its innovation has facilitated an important conversation surrounding hopefulness and commercial interests, and the capitalisation of fear of rejection from ‘normal’ hearing society without its implantation. “Patchwork men and women” (Blume, 2009, p.20) are indicative of an ever-expanding medical landscape that seeks to “rebuild” people through technological means; the Cochlear implant merely a symptom of a larger cultural issue that has divided people from its invention.
The invention of the Cochlear implant will continue to divide communities, with arguments from both sides undoubtedly multifaceted, complex and often ground in emotion. For some, the Cochlear implant exists as an affront to a rich history of deaf culture and as a threat to its survival. For others, it’s a ‘miracle’ cure, an answer to a condition that keeps them separate from hearing society, a solution to a lifetime of living on the cusp of normalcy. It’s a device that indicates modern society will continue to debate culture and technology, science and the human body, and what can be considered ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’. It calls for a more sociological approach to modern medicine, taking into account the wellbeing of people who exist on both planes of the divide, with considerations for pockets of a community that argue their deafness is not something to be cured.
Comments