Topic Exploration: cochlear implant technology

1.      The initial protest was against the Listening and Spoken Language Symposium put on by the Alexander Graham Bell Association.  The organizing (anti-) group was composed primarily of members from the Audism Free America association. These members continue to be actively pursuing equality for Deaf individuals across the country and the movement is definitely larger than this singular protest. However, in my rhetorical analysis I will be focusing on the historical context, technological advancement, and cultural context that gave rise to the idea of Audism, Deaf Rights and Deaf Identity in America in a more broad context; the particular protest movement serves only as a bookmark for the larger issues I will emphasize.

2.      The idea of cultural identity surrounding Deaf individuals is not common knowledge and on the surface, it may seem like I am drawing superfluous correlations between medical technology and the identity of an entire group of people. My minor (Speech and Hearing Rehabilitation with an emphasis in Sign Language) has provided insight into the Deaf community and their struggles.  When one considers a different cultural identity, for example, Hispanic, one may think of typical ‘Hispanic’ foods, a language, country of origin, and may stereotype a ‘look’ of a Hispanic individual.  The deaf community has no country of origin, unique food type or ‘look’ but instead draw heavily on their language as a defining feature for who they are.   Therefore, when the Alexander Graham Bell Association began sponsoring conferences focused on the implementation of cochlear implant (CI) technology, some of the deaf community were outraged that the movement was trying to “fix” them and worried that the new technology would begin to phase out sign language (because the patients would be able to hear) and thereby snuff their cultural identity.   The movement against cochlear implant technology is fairly common among deaf individuals as the vast majority do not consider deafness a disability that needs help or fixing.

3.      Since I am defining my initial group as members of the Audism Free America association, their involvement in the movement is direct and simple: the protests were organized by this group.  However, since the protest will serve only as an example for larger discontent, I will also have to correlate the mission of AFA as generally representative of the sentiment of the majority of the deaf community.  In the case-by-case examples used to analyze the movement, I will need to research how families, individuals, and institutions (such as Gallaudet University) reacted to the push for cochlear implants.

4.      Due to the fact that I will be more concerned with the broader identity of the deaf community as it is concerned with CIs, I am not overly concerned with much in this project. I have a strong identity, many personal and institutional opinions, access to cultural and historical data, and knowledge of the material and technology surrounding the issue.  My one and only concern is going to be developing an argument using all of the various types of sources that are needed.   Studies of the psychology of deaf cultural identity, scientific articles on physiological deafness and scholarly accounts associated with cochlear implants will easily make-up the majority of my sources.  However, I understand that I need to look at a vast number of other types of sources in order to make a more developed argument.  I also know that first-hand historical accounts (especially those prior to the 1980s) surrounding the deaf community are hard to find; sign language is not a written language so times of audism (oppression) are often gaps in the deaf history.  The most difficult part of the project is going to be looking at the subject from a neutral point of view (since part of my studies are concerned with promoting the same awareness that the AFA provides).