Word Count 4195
Cochlear Implants and
Deaf Identity
In a flurry
of raw emotion and genuine fear, Jenna looked at her husband as if to glean
some explanation. His face was blank,
expressionless, his mind still trying to process the doctor’s words, “Sam is
deaf.” In Sean’s mind, the sound of each word started to pulse over and over,
losing an element of clarity with each reverberation like a dull echo. The walls in the small examination room seemed
to expand and contract with Jenna’s now labored breathing as she too began to
process the diagnosis. Fear, she decided, was not dark and empty; it was
bright, confusing and noisy. Overladen with medical terminology,
overly-informative brochures, white walls and an obviously polished stethoscope,
fear for Jenna and Sean was a piercing brightness. Their eyes met, and in that
instant their minds considered the inevitable future for their daughter: there
would be no “first word,” no way for her to hear “I love you,” no singing, and
no way to hear a proposal or say “I do.” The future for their baby girl was as
silent as the room they now sat. Still holding their sleeping precious miracle,
baby Samantha Rae, Dr. Yao quietly offered, “There are a few options you may
wish to consider….”
The inclination to care, treat and
fix the broken is one of the great selfless sacrifices that make humans
special, albeit imperfect. To the vast majority, deafness is viewed as a disability
that can be fixed by a relatively simple medical device: a cochlear implant.
Proponents of the procedure see the device as a unique method to improve
quality of life and include the deaf in the activities of the typical world.
The reality is much more complex.
This paper aims to question the preconceived
elements of scientific progress as they relate to deaf people and their
culture. This document will review the ongoing protest by select groups of the
deaf community, including the Audism Free America organization, against
proponents of cochlear implant technology especially the Alexander Graham Bell
Association. Specifically, this paper analyzes the Omni Hotel Protests. In
order to understand the complicated ethics and controversial opinions of both
sides of the argument, a comprehensive explanation of necessary terminology and
historical background of deaf oppression accompanies the rhetorical and object
analysis.
There are essentially two common
perspectives on deafness: disability or linguistic minority (Bramwell
222). Feeding into the opinion of
disability is the premise that deafness is a condition “that warrants medical and
biotechnological intervention,” with the purpose of absolving the problem
(Mauldin 156). Such individuals and institutions focus on medical definitions
to define and characterize deaf individuals in similar categories as the blind
and handicapped. Those whose perspective on deafness is one of a linguistic
minority argue that deafness is simply a social structure defined by diversity
(Mauldin 155). Such arguments mark the
foundations for both the Speech and Hearing Symposium and Audism Free America.
However, an understanding of Deaf identity and culture is essential to grasp
the emotional and political significance of the Omni Hotel protests.
Key concepts and terminology are
defined in order to familiarize the reader with opinions of the deaf and
medical communities. One of the most
significant words in the vocabulary of deaf rights activists is audism. Like
racism, the word ‘audism’ caps every oppressive experience and prejudiced event
into a familiar concept. Coined by Tom Humphries in the 1970s, audism has
exposed the “beliefs and behaviors that assume the superiority of being hearing
over being Deaf” (H-Dirksen 240). Audism
has been recognized as being individual, institutional, metaphysical and
laissez-faire (Eckert 101). This paper focuses primarily on the institutional
audism of the educational system and the laissez-faire audism present in the
medical system. In his explanation,
Eckert describes “laissez-faire audism” as the sort of inherent and perpetual
stereotyping by hearing individuals (107). For example, audism recognized the
practices of ‘oralism’ and ‘mainstreaming’ imposed on young individuals in the
deaf school system. Oralism is the term used to describe a method of teaching
deaf children through lessons on lip-reading and vocalization without manual
language intervention (Cerney 11). Oralism was the result of the Milan
Conference that sought to ban sign language and re-establish deaf children as
“normal citizens” (Cerney 12). Mainstreaming was the term used to describe the
“practice of moving children from their special education classes for part of
the day and placing them in general education classes” (Cerney xiii). Both tactics were used in order to persuade
the growth of the deaf individual into one of a hearing person and thereby
disturb an important feature of the deaf culture: their language.
However, oppression of deaf
individuals is not a novel issue, but rather an extensive institutional and
individual prejudice that has taken place for centuries. The problem with such oppression is that it
is constant and not always blatant; it can range from awkward public encounters
to overt discrimination disguised as medical treatment. From the Feudal
Community in the Middle Ages to Alexander Graham Bell and the rise of cochlear
implant technology, oppression has been ever present for the deaf community.
The idea of ‘disability’ in
classification of the deaf, blind, crippled, deformed or mentally unstable was
introduced during the rise of the Feudal Community in the Middle Ages. One’s
worth to society and responsibility to provide for the community were ideas
that shaped the rejection and banishment of some deaf individuals especially in
areas that saw widespread improvements in literacy. Other areas, such as the non-literate
agricultural communities, saw deaf people flourish. Success in agricultural communities was based
on skill performing highly laborious tasks such as farming, forging and
carpentry. Such skills were easily acquired by hardworking deaf individuals
(Branson 5). However, the bubonic plague in the fourteenth century put those
literate individuals into the street and thus, “the ‘able-bodied’ poor beggars
had the advantage, driving the ‘disabled’ further into poverty” (Branson 7). As
Capitalism, individualism and the notions of democracy gave rise to individual
power and justification for such prejudice, discrimination was born (Branson
10). In the late 19th Century, the most concentrated embodiment of
discrimination against the deaf community came from the education system. While
some institutions such as Mr. Bartlett’s Family School for Young Deaf-Mute
Children provided an atmosphere of encouragement via inclusion of both hearing
and deaf pupils, some schools were blatantly offensive; Frederick Knapp’s
school in 1877 shamed any student caught signing by making them wear gloves in
order to recognize “punishment and stupidity” (quoted by Cerny 11). In Milan,
Italy, 1880, the exclusion of the deaf reached a climax: a conference concerned
with the education of the deaf was called drawing educators primarily from
France, Italy and America. The Milan conference was run primarily by hearing
individuals that did not sympathize with the deaf community and pushed for
communication without sign language. The
papers published disregarded the idea of deaf culture and “called for a total
ban on sign language, believing the use of signs was a barrier to deaf people
learning speech and becoming normal citizens” (Cerny 12).
There was no greater advocate of
the ideologies put forth by the Milan conference than Alexander Graham Bell.
Mainstream history celebrates Bell “for his telephone invention and spawning a
revolution in the telecommunications industry” (Greenwald 150). Yet, in a
portion of his essay, Brian H. Greenwald also refers to Bell as a “tyrant,
guilty of committing ‘linguistic and cultural genocide’ against the Deaf
community” (137). Alexander Graham Bell was born into a wealthy family lead by
deaf educator and father, Alexander Melville Bell. The Bell family was
concerned with assisting deaf children with speech and encouraging lip-reading
without the use of sign language (Cerny 11). Motivated by a deaf mother and
wife, Alexander Graham Bell argued against the use of sign language in order to
apply the ideas put forth by the Milan conference and recent scientific
theories with the goal of improving the deaf community. However, the more
radical opinions were so strongly based in the newly coined concept of eugenics
that many classify Bell as the “most feared enemy of the American Deaf” (quoted
by Cerny 12).
Eugenics is the term coined in 1883
by Francis Galton to describe the improvement of English society by selective
human breeding particularly involved in procreation of intelligent and
successful people (Greenwald 139). It
would accomplish this feat by discouraging mating between two unfit organisms. The
connection to Alexander Graham Bell comes from a paper published in the same
year that outlined his thoughts concerning the intermarriage with Deaf people
that “dovetailed neatly with Galton’s ideas” (Greenwald 139). Bell and Galton
had an incomplete understanding of the basic principles of heredity and
evolution put forth by Mendel and Darwin respectively.[1]
Later, Bell attempted to clarify his position on intermarriage by stating that
he does not want to interfere with the liberty of marriage, but that the
knowledge about incidence of deaf births would be available for deaf people to
do with what they please (Greenwald 140). The notion that the marriage between
deaf individuals warrants a higher rate of deaf births is incorrect outside of
true congenital deafness; 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing
parents (Wrigley 25). The idea that Bell was “deeply involved in eugenics”
remains as a bitter note in the memories of deaf individuals. Instead of
scientific basis, eugenic principles were introduced to selectively breed
humans to accelerate the appearance of a desired trait and drive the
evolutionary loss of any other trait; an idea strikingly similar to radical
German Nazism (Branson 29). In Bell’s papers, he cautions the marriage of deaf
individuals on the premise of genetic characteristics even though his research
could not conclude genetic correlation between deaf parents and deaf offspring
(Greenwald 140). Branson recognizes that
Bell’s position was a focus on “increasing the number and proportion of
desirables born in successive generations of the population” (quoted in Branson
31), but it is easy to see the sense of prejudice felt by the deaf community.
The idea of ‘fixing’ deafness was profound in the early 1900s as scientific
progress exploded.
As the Civil Rights Movement began
to show signs of progress, the deaf community began to fight the overt
institutional oppression through their own protests. In 1977, Tom Humphries
coined the term audism defining it as “the notion that one is superior based on
one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears” (Eckert
105). Just as the concept of combatting
racism was understood and agreed upon by the African American community, the
prejudice, bias and oppression of audism was familiar to most deaf individuals.
In the 1960s and 1970s, deaf individuals had unequal access to telephone
services and lack of access to television services, “an equally important
communication medium” (Strauss 3). Even after improvements in
telecommunications, deaf individuals were patronized with services and special
products that did not meet the standard enjoyed by the greater public. These included expensive and quirky attempts
at closed captioning technology (Strauss 4). In addition, it seemed that deaf
students at Gallaudet University, a predominantly deaf institution, were
experiencing some representational oppression: as the previous president of the
university retired, the board was responsible for picking a new president and
initially picked a hearing president among a plethora of eligible deaf
candidates. The culmination of frustrations of deaf students and faculty was
seen in the “Deaf President Now!” protest of 1988 at Gallaudet University in
Washington, D.C. to bring awareness to institutional audism and force the board
to pick a capable deaf president (Christiansen viiii).
Novel
legislature, including equality in telecommunications and the Americans with
Disabilities Act in 1990, and a strong voice for protesting deaf rights
gradually improved the lives of deaf individuals by promoting equal access and
representation (Strauss 4). Beneath the social progress, researchers were
developing a device capable of restoring hearing via electrical stimulation:
the cochlear implant (Waltzman 8). A
cochlear implant is a medical device that is surgically implanted in the skull
of a deaf individual in order to stimulate the auditory nerve and produce
sound. Many candidates for surgical
intervention are young children because of the “neuroplasticity” that will
theoretically allow them to learn how to “hear” with the device (Mauldin 131). The
auditory microphone sits on the outside of the ear and transmits
electromagnetic frequencies wirelessly to an internal receiver/stimulator that
is permanently attached to the outside of the skull but beneath the skin. The receiver/stimulator sends electric
signals to the cochlea via a surgically implanted wire to mimic the sound
“heard” by the external microphone (Roland 118). Although a medical marvel, there is much
controversy surrounding implementation in young deaf children; the invention of
cochlear implants presented an ethical dilemma that questioned deafness, deaf
culture, the significance of sign language and what it means to be disabled.
The importance of sign language to
deaf culture is better understood now: in his book, A Place of Their Own, John Van Cleve writes, “the associations,
conventions, clubs, and marriages of deaf Americans uniformly reflected the
importance of sharing this communication method” (106). The identity of the deaf is based on their
language; other cultural associations such as a singular country of origin,
cultural food, or skin color are altogether irrelevant. Their cultural heritage is sign language.
Deaf individuals have even classified the identity of deafness by assigning
upper and lowercase versions of the word Deaf/deaf. The goal of the distinction
is to differentiate those who simply have audiological impairment versus those
that are actively involved in the signing community (Wrigley 14). The
overarching culture surrounding deaf identity focuses on altered normality
instead of abrupt difference. In A Lens
on Deaf Identities, Irene W. Leigh observes that deaf culture celebrates
deafness by opposing the notion that a child has “failed the hearing test.”
Instead the “Deaf-World” encourages the notion that a child has “passed the
deaf test” (Leigh 14). Such regard for
social inclusion based on acceptance of sign language is paramount to deaf
culture.
One
particularly strong and emotionally charged identity within the deaf community is
disability. Although some deaf
individuals have criticized medical and institutional agencies for categorizing
deafness as a disability, others acknowledge the “disabling component of not
hearing” (Leigh 18). However, the raw
emotion behind disability as an identity comes into play when medical
professionals insist on fixing deafness.
After conquering oralism in deaf schools and establishing equal access
for deaf individuals in the way of communication and social service, the
introduction of cochlear implants represents direct opposition against the
progress made in favor of deaf culture. Audism is still present and has been
making an uprising that has been disguised as medical treatment. Eckert references an “auditory industrial
complex (AIC) in which government agencies, medical professionals and
manufacturing corporations aggressively target Deaf children for medical
treatment through surgery or amplification” (107). In reference to the surgical procedure, a
member of the Alexander Graham Bell Association said, “Some say there’s no such
thing as a deaf child. Not if it’s done right” (quoted by Wrigley 215). Many deaf individuals do not view themselves
as being disabled and so the notion of having children cured of deafness by a
surgical procedure is disturbing to the deaf community. It is obvious to see
the opposition against a medical procedure designed to encourage speech
recognition and vocalization and thereby push aside the use of sign language.
The tension set up by the recent introduction
of such medical technology has urged some of the Deaf community to support
anti-implant sentiment. The deeply rooted historical issues served as a sort of
“inception,” as described by Griffin, until the “crisis” that occurred
simultaneously with the Civil Rights Movement.
The result, defined by Griffin as the “consummation,” manifested itself
as improvements in telecommunication and legislature for deaf individuals (11).
However, lingering behind the “mask of benevolence” that is medical
intervention stands a renewed institutional oppression (Lane 5).
Deaf culture, deaf pride and
frustrations against institutional audism are the driving force behind the
Audism Free America movement. The Audism Free America mission is “To promote
and protect the civil liberties of Deaf people and their linguistic
birthrights” (Audism Free America). Therefore, the support of the Alexander
Graham Bell Association for the Listening and Spoken Language Symposium
(comprised of cochlear implant technologies) was in direct conflict with what
the AFA stands for. The goal of cochlear implants, medically speaking, is to
facilitate stimulation of the auditory nerve via the cochlea for the purpose of
bypassing some physiological dysfunction and enabling “near normal speech
production and understanding” (Eisen 1). However, when viewed within the
context of deaf identity, it is obvious to see how support of cochlear implants
can be seen as harmful to the deaf community. The integration of cochlear
implants in young children and infants is an example of “Deaf people {being}
physically and pedagogically coerced into adopting hearing norms, whether they
wanted to or not” (H-Dirksen 241). The opinions of the AFA movement and the
AGBA consider the ethical dilemma faced by parents of young deaf children:
being torn by cultural identity and medical authority.
The Omni
Hotel protest represented both revitalization in the fight for deaf rights as
well as a new climax for existing issues.
Progress had been steadily and continually made in equality for all deaf
individuals until cochlear implant technology was approved by the FDA in 1992
(Waltzman 9). At this point, implementation was slow, sporadic and still
experimental, but the mix of strong deaf identity and medical support by the
Alexander Graham Bell Association caused fundamental problems. In the late 2010s, the frustrations of the
deaf community finally gave way via the formation of the Audism Free America. Their mission, in direct synchronization with
many aspects defining deaf identity, is “to promote and protect the civil
liberties of Deaf people and their linguistic birthrights” (Jordan). Lizzie Sorkin, a deaf student at the National
Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) in New York states, “I am a deaf first
before being a woman, before my faith, my sexual preference, my interests. I
didn’t see my deafness as a problem. I didn’t need to be fixed” (James). The
opposing side, The AG Bell Listening and Spoken Language Symposium attendees,
sympathized with medical intervention techniques including controversial CI
surgeries. The direct clash in opinions of what should define a d/Deaf person
reached an important peak at the Omni Hotel in Los Angeles in 2013.
The protest
against the Symposium in 2013 was established by Ruthie Jordan, an active and
important Deaf founder in the Audism Free America organization. This was not
the first protest against the same Symposium, but it was one that had garnered
a vastly accelerated level of coverage in the deaf community because of police activity. The day began, as described by Jordan in a
video log or “vlog,” with security being called on her as soon as she walked
into the hotel lobby before the protest even began. Jordan was questioned by security on whether
or not she had a room at the hotel and continually assured them that she was
simply waiting at the open café & restaurant until 3PM check-in before
heading up to her room until the 5PM protest.
It turns out that security was summoned by Judy Harrison, the AG Bell
Symposium Program director, which only added frustration to the already tense
atmosphere of the conference. However,
issues throughout evening would continue regarding the actual protest (Jordan).
When they arrived, the protesters were unsurprisingly frustrated by the nature
of the conference, but in accordance with traffic laws and general attitude,
were entirely peaceful (Ringo). Still, security and police were once again
summoned by Harrison and the hotel manager in order to control what they deemed
as obtrusive behavior. When police
arrived, they found an entirely amicable and legal protest and were confused
about the actions that Harrison and hotel staff took to try to control the
protest themselves. The situation was eventually left alone after a brief
interpreted conversation between Jordan and the four police officers, but not
before the Deaf community noticed the oppression performed by organizers of the
Symposium (Jordan).
The
encounter was relayed to social media by “vlogs” from Jordan and fellow
protestors and was quickly sensationalized in a flurry of raw emotion. The Atlantic describes the reason for such
emotion stating, “The AGB has a complicated history with members of Deaf
culture. AGB’s stated mission is to ‘[help] families, health care providers and
education professionals understand childhood hearing loss and the importance of
early diagnosis and intervention.’ Their preferred methods for doing so
emphasize spoken language and de-emphasize the use of ASL” (Ringo). The importance of sign language to both deaf
culture and Deaf identity have already been significantly outlined in the
history and rhetoric that even led up to the protest. The Alexander Graham Bell
Association’s relationship with seemingly eugenic principles and with the
cochlear implant Symposium only accelerated the anger surrounding the audist
treatment of deaf individuals at the protest and in the broader world. A common opinion held by sympathizers of deaf
culture is that audism is not dead.
Still others, including some deaf individuals, have swallowed their
pride, view deafness from a medical perspective, and admit to the unique
benefits of the upcoming technology. However, the split is not entirely
polarizing, with some deaf individuals holding a much more neutral stance on
the issue. Lisa Velez, another student at NTID agrees with the former: “I was
born deaf, and I believe that I should just leave it the way it is”
(James). However, Christopher Lehfeldt,
a dentist from Rochester, somewhat disagrees after receiving the cochlear
implant surgery. Lehfeldt admits that
cochlear implants are “just another tool in the arsenal for better hearing that
helps with full inclusion in the mainstream,” but admits that “no one person
speaks for the deaf” (James). There is
obviously still significant disagreement between medical proponents and deaf
supporters about the ethics of cochlear implant intervention.
The protests by the AFA represent a
renewed societal crisis by which the definition of deafness remains ambiguous.
The protests brought treatment of deaf individuals into the focus of bioethics
and the general public to serve as support for the movement against cochlear
implants. However, general acceptance of
improved medical technology by the public has served as the primary obstacle to
garnering full support from deaf and hearing communities; the next Symposium
will be held in Arlington, Virginia in 2017. The protest, although ethical and initially
effective in getting the word out, has begun to lose representation; deaf identity
is now far more complicated. As oppression has shifted from overt to covert,
deaf individuals continue to get cochlear implants. Medical intervention among young deaf
children with hearing parents is exceptionally convoluted: parents must now
resolve the conflict of opportunity for their children to hear apart from the
child’s consent due to age and effective treatment (Lang 92). The choice is difficult and riddled with
important questions from both positions: Who should decide when or why a child
needs surgical intervention? Should the child have a choice? Stuck between the
hearing and deaf world, where will children that get implants find their
identity? Although many of these questions have not been answered, the protests
at the Symposium served as a catalyst for necessary dialogue between the deaf,
the general public, medical professionals, and the Deaf.
Perhaps instead of considering the
difference between pathological and cultural viewpoints, the deaf and hearing
world should consider the humanity of deafness. NTID director Alan Hurwitz
wonderfully summarizes this neutrality stating, “Some of us grow up using
sign. Others elect to have cochlear
implants; they are all proud to be deaf” (James). We are all humans that are actively
pursuing happiness in our own way; getting a surgery or denying a surgery ought
not to interfere with that pursuit. A
humble suggestion for medical professionals is to reconsider the meaning of the
Hippocratic Oath which states “do no harm,” when it comes to deafness: could
surgical intervention be disrupting a beautiful and unique culture? For the
Deaf audience: could surgical intervention outside of oppressive measures be a
uniting technology for the hearing and deaf worlds? Arguments of both sides are
deeply rooted in the concept of difference.
Therefore, instead differentiating someone on their ability to hear, let
us all consider the equality verbal and manual communication.
Works Cited
AudismFreeAmerica.
"AUDISM FREE AMERICA." : July 2013. N.p., 01 Jan. 1970.
Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
Bramwell, Ros,
Harrington, Frank, and Harris, Jennifer. “Deafness – disability or linguistic
minority?” British Journal of Midwifery, vol 8., no. 4. 2013.
Branson, Jan, and
Miller, Don. Damned for Their Difference:
The Cultural Construction of Deaf People as Disabled: A Sociological History.
Washington, US: Gallaudet University Press, 2002. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 25
October 2016.
Cerny, Janet. Deaf Education in America Voices of Children
from Inclusion Settings. Gallaudet
University Press. Washington, D.C. 2007.
Christiansen,
John B, and Barnartt, Sharon N. Deaf
president now: the 1988 revolution at Gallaudet University. Gallaudet
University Press. Washington, D.C. 1995.
Christiansen,
John B, and Leigh, Irene. Cochlear
implants in children: ethics and choices. 2002. Ebrary. Web.
Eckert, Rowley.
“Audism: A Theory and Practice of Audiocentric Privelege.” Humanity &
Society, vol. 37, no. 2, 2013, pp. 101-130.
Eisen, Marc D.
“History of the Cochlear Implant.” Cochlear
Implants, edited by Susan B. Waltzman, Thieme Medical Publishers, 2014, pp.
118-127.
“Genetics.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2016.
Greenwald, Brian
H. "Taking Stock: Alexander Graham Bell and Eugenics, 1883-1922." The Deaf History Reader, edited by John
Vickrey Van Cleve, Gallaudet University Press, 2007, pp. 136-132.
Griffin, Leland
M. “the rhetoric of Historical Movements.” Readings
on the Rhetoric of Social Protest, Third Edition. Charles E. Morris III and
Stephen Howard Browne, eds. Pittsburgh: Strata Publications 2013, pp. 11-13.
H-Dirksen L.
Bauman. “Audism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppression.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 9, no. 2, 2004,
pp. 239-246.
Hull, Raymond H.,
ed. Aural rehabilitation. Singular Publishing Group, 1992.
James, Susan
Donaldson, and Huang, Grace. “Deaf and Proud to Use Sign Language.” ABC News. 12 December, 2006.
Jordan, Ruthie.
“AFA Rally Part 1.” Audism Free America:
July 2013. Web.
Kolb, Rachel.
“The Deaf Body in Public Space.” The New
York Times. 28 December, 2016.
Lane, Harlan. The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf
Community. DawnSignPress. 1992
Lang, Harry G.
“Cochlear Implants in Children: Ethics and Choices (review).” Sign Language Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1,
2002, pp. 90-93.
Leigh, Irene W. A Lens on Deaf Identities. Oxford
University Press, New York, 2009.
Mauldin, Laura. Made to Hear : Cochlear Implants and Raising
Deaf Children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016. Ebook
Library. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
Mauldin, Laura.
“Precarious Plasticity: Neuropolitics, Cochlear Implants, and the Redefinition
of Deafness.” Science, Technology &
Human Values, vol. 39, no. 1, 2014, pp. 130-156
Ringo, Allegra.
"Understanding Deafness: Not Everyone Wants to Be 'Fixed'"The
Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 9 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.
Roland, Peter S.,
and Roland Jr., Thomas. “Cochlear Implant Surgical Technique.” Cochlear Implants, edited by Susan B.
Waltzman, Thieme Medical Publishers, 2014, pp. 118-127.
“Social
Darwinism.” Encyclopædia Britannica.
2014.
Strauss, Karen
Peltz. A New Civil Right –
Telecommunications Equality for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Americans. Gallaudet
University Press. Washington, D.C. 2006.
Van Cleve, John
Vickrey and Barry A. Crouch. A Place of
Their Own Creating the Deaf Community in America. Gallaudet University
Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Walsh, Kathy.
“New Cochlear Implant Technology Gives Deaf People A ‘New Ear.’” CBS Denver. 6
January, 2016.
Waltzman, Susan
B.; Roland, J. Thomas. Cochlear Implants.
New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, 2014. Ebook Library. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
Wrigley, Owen. The politics of deafness. Washington,
D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1996.
[1] Bell and Galton incorrectly interpreted evolutionary
principles and instead turned to the idea of Social Darwinism that was
exceedingly popular at the turn of the 20th century. It was based on the idea that societies, like
organisms were subject to evolutionary principles. Social Darwinism was the
theory that weak cultures were diminished by the power and influence of
superior cultures. The phrase “survival
of the fittest was coined during this pivotal scientific misunderstanding (“Social
Darwinism”). Their misinterpretation of
Mendel’s work was based on a simple type of inheritance (later called Mendelian
inheritance) where the crossing of pea plants with a particular physical
appearance, or phenotype, gave rise to an expected offspring phenotype. This
was a very simple dominant versus recessive experiment that did not translate
well into the complications of hereditary deafness (“Genetics”).
No comments:
Post a Comment