Philosophy of Deafness: A Perspective

Since the beginning of my doctoral program in 1980, I have been consumed by the debate on whether “deafness” should be considered a disability or a natural condition. In light of my bilateral profound hearing loss and use of a hearing aid—at that time—I had a personal interest in this debate. I also had a professional interest, given that my master’s degree (MS) was in aural rehabilitation (read: deaf education), and that I had begun my PhD work in a program called “Interdisciplinary Studies in Hearing Impairment.”

My first scholarly publication was an article titled “Handicap or Disability?” (Paul, 1980). My use of the word handicap in that article seems in retrospect to have been a precursor to the now current phrase social construction of disability (see, e.g., discussions in Ralston & Ho, 2010; Thomas & Vaughan, 2004)—albeit I am not a fervent fan of social constructivism. I informed friends and colleagues that although I could not overcome my disability, I was determined to eliminate or minimize all handicapping conditions. In my view, the word handicap refers mostly to a negative or unfavorable attitude, which results in barriers, held either by the person with a disability (or condition) or by others toward that person. The word disability refers to the so-called physical or mental characteristic—or is evocative of the emphasis on “biology” in our modern parlance (e.g., Wasserman, Asch, Blustein, & Putnam, 2015, 2016).

Views of Disability

In several of my post-PhD publications, I have written about the clinical/medical (biological) versus cultural (social) views of deafness (e.g., Paul, 2009; Paul & Jackson, 1993; Paul & Moores, 2010, 2012a, 2012b). Even my dialogues with Harlan Lane (e.g., see Paul, 1996, 1997) evolved around this polarizing dichotomy. In all of my scholarly works, I have only scratched the surface with this discussion of deafness and disability. Clearly, I am not on par with philosophers and other scholars in this domain (e.g., see Talley & Crews, 2012; Wasserman et al., 2015, 2016). I have attempted to treat both polarizing views as neutral—that is, neither positive nor negative (Brown, 2016; Silvers, 2003); however, each view can engender positive or negative consequences as well as positive or negative reactions.

I suspect that it is difficult to be dispassionate or neutral and to render a balanced treatment, especially in light of the contentious manner in which disability can be defined or contextualized. Are there advantages and benefits or disadvantages and limitations, or both, associated with this construct? Should we focus on the biology (and, thus, objectivity) or acknowledge that the term disability is socially constructed (and, most likely, subjective)—or should we consider the tenets and consequences of both extreme positions? Are there other views?

From one angle, individuals may be placed in various categories of abnormality or deviance—as is made evident by strong proponents of the clinical/medical paradigm. From another standpoint, the social or cultural paradigm highlights problematic issues such as oppression and stigmatization, similar to those being raised in other dissent-marked domains such as sex, gender, identity, and ethnicity (Branson & Miller, 2002; James, 2008; Silvers, 2000; Wasserman et al., 2015, 2016). In the United States, there seems to be considerable tension over whether there should be medical interventions and possible ameliorations of disabilities, or government compensation for past discriminatory practices or support via forms of socialism (e.g., Medicaid).

In these postmodern times, you will find individuals in our field who sympathize with the clinical/medical view and those—especially with a focus on identity—who strongly favor the cultural or social view (e.g., Bauman & Murray, 2010, 2014; Glickman, 1996; Lane, 1992; Padden & Humphries, 2005; see also discussions in Paul & Moores, 2012a). Most likely, the former group supports early detection and amplification and whatever else is needed to either ameliorate or prevent hearing loss. These adherents argue that the role models for d/Deaf and hard of hearing children are typical hearing children in the general education environment and, eventually, typical hearing adults in the mainstream of society.

Proponents of the latter view argue that deafness is a natural condition, even a culture or...