-
The D/deaf-H/hearing Debate
- Sign Language Studies
- Gallaudet University Press
- Volume 2, Number 2, Winter 2002
- pp. 141-149
- 10.1353/sls.2002.0006
- Article
- Additional Information
Sign Language Studies 2.2 (2002) 141-149
[Access article in PDF]
Commentary
The D/deaf–H/hearing Debate
Jemina Napier
This commentary explores the role and status of hearing people within the Deaf community, in particular, sign language interpreters. Of the various literature that has been written about the Deaf community, its language and culture, most of the works have discussed the notion of culturally Deaf people who identify as a member of the Deaf community as a linguistic and cultural minority group. Pathological definitions have been disregarded in favor of social models of deafness, whereby it is purported that Deaf people are disabled by society in that they are not given access to information, rather than being regarded as people with disabilities. Deaf people are described as sharing a sense of pride in forming an identity based on their linguistic and cultural experiences (Brien 1981; Erting, Johnson, Smith, and Snider 1994; Gregory and Hartley 1992; Higgins 1980; Lane 1993; Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan 1996; Padden 1980, 1989; Padden and Humphries 1988; Turner 1994; Wilcox 1989).
Woodward (1972) established the convention—now prevalent in the literature—of using the upper- or lowercase letter D/d to classify the status of D/deaf people. “Deaf” people are those who identify themselves as members of the Deaf community and regard themselves as culturally Deaf, whereas “deaf” people are those who do not sign and regard themselves as having a hearing impairment.
Several authors have discussed what it means to be a member of the Deaf community, suggesting various criteria to determine [End Page 141] whether someone is a member of the core community or on the periphery (Kannapell 1989; Kyle and Woll 1985; Ladd 1988; Lawson 1981). Different models ascribe different levels of membership depending on hearing loss, use of sign language as a first or preferred language, whether born to D/deaf or hearing parents, and level of contact with the community. One of the most familiar models of the Deaf community is that devised by Baker and Cokely (1980), which suggests four “spheres” of life in which people can become involved in the Deaf community—through audiological status (i.e., deafness), political support of the goals of the Deaf community, social contact within the community, and linguistic fluency in the sign language of the community. One of the central features of this model is the term “attitude,” whereby somebody might satisfy the criteria for all four “spheres” but still needs to have the right attitude toward Deaf people, their language, culture, and minority status in order to be accepted into the community.
The majority of models and discussion of the makeup of the Deaf community seem to accept the inevitability that hearing people will be members of the community—up to a point. The focus in this context is often on those hearing people that have Deaf parents or siblings and have therefore grown up in the Deaf community, acquired sign language from an early age, and become enculturated to the Deaf way of life. One particular paper even acknowledges that hearing people who learn sign language later in life might have more proficient sign language skills and know more about the Deaf community and its culture than D/deaf people themselves because of their access to education (Corker 1997).
Regardless of the theories that acknowledge that it is possible for nondeaf people to become members of the Deaf community, the theories do not always work in practice. One can still argue that there is a “fractious interdependence” (Napier 2001) between Deaf and hearing people involved in the Deaf community, especially in relation to sign language interpreters.
With regard to the role of sign language interpreters in the Deaf community, the general philosophy has changed in line with the consensus that the community is a linguistic and cultural group. The notion of the interpreter as a conduit or machine who does not have [End Page 142] an impact on interaction is now out of date. Although it is recognized that a conduit approach is appropriate in certain contexts (Pollitt 2000), most writings advocate for an interactive...