In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 This chapter examines the issue of childhood cochlear implantation against the background of the situation for Deaf people in the United Kingdom (with reference to other countries where relevant). It is my belief that one reason for the lack of success in critiquing or challenging cochlear implantation is that Deaf discourses in general, and Deaf studies in particular, have been overwhelmingly inwardly focused; Deaf issues are discussed almost in intellectual isolation from the wider political patterns of world events. Thus, this chapter takes pains to extend the frame of reference for discussion of this issue. In particular, the concept of colonialism,1 as it pertains to signed language communities, is used to frame and evaluate issues related to cochlear implantation. I also introduce a new concept of “positive” and “negative” biology as a bridge to similar emergent concepts in other disciplines such as women’s studies. Wrigley (1996) concisely frames the issue: What new colony in the name of communications technology is sited on the body of the Deaf? What discovery by a new “Columbus” is re-enacted on this new “continent” of language and communication? Did anyone notice any natives? (206) COLONIALISM AND SIGN LANGUAGE PEOPLES The discourses of sign language peoples (SLPs), as I term them, and those who have administered those communities have been diametrically opposed for the past 120 (or more) years. At the root of their difference are the conceptualizations of deafness and Deaf people. The primary difference has been one of perception . Deaf people often see themselves as linguistically and culturally complete human beings. Moreover, during the SLPs’ more self-confident eras, their epistemologies and ontologies have stressed what I have termed “positive biology” (Ladd and West, forthcoming); that is, through their biological differences, SLPs 1 COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION, COLONIALISM, AND DEAF RIGHTS Paddy Ladd My thanks go to the following people (and those who could not be named) for their help with aspects of this chapter: Kay Alexander, Jen Dodds, Mike Gulliver, Claire Haddon, Linda Komesaroff, Harlan Lane, Raymond Lee, Karen Page, and Joe Santini. 2 PADDY LADD have developed skills and faculties that are underused and thus underappreciated by hearing-speaking populations. Features of Deaf people’s positive biology include enhanced visual skills; sensitivity to touch and enhanced general tactility; and enhanced use of face, hands, and bodies. Indeed, Deaf languages have emerged from precisely this foundation. These qualities have led to a remarkably high degree of globalism among Deaf people; the syntactic similarities and profound “plasticity” of their languages has led to their belief that SLPs set a contrasting example to the (hearing) human history of war and oppression. This positive example of human diversity is a gift that SLPs offer to the rest of the human race (compare Mottez 1993) and is a significant contribution to what constitutes human knowledge. This perspective is perhaps best encapsulated by the expression used by the great American Deaf leader, George Veditz, in his description of Deaf peoples as “Peoples of the Eye” (see Crouch 1941/1998). By contrast, negative biology, the hegemonic professional discourse used in the field of deafness, is the perception of SLPs as medically deficient and in need of a cure. The problem created for Deaf communities lies in the imbalance in power between Deaf and hearing people that results from this discourse. Following Lane (1993) and Wrigley (1996), I have argued elsewhere that it is not possible to effect a shift in the balance of power without a sophisticated understanding of how it has come to be constructed and how it manifests itself in Deaf people’s lives (Ladd 2003). I submit that the model of colonialism is one step toward such understanding . Colonialism is best understood here as linguistic, cultural, and socialwelfare colonization, although Lane suggests that economic colonization is also present. Once we step into the domains of postcolonialist discourse, we are able to identify parallels between SLPs and other colonized peoples. Moreover, we note that considerable differences exist in how the various forms of colonialism manifest themselves on each of those peoples. Each have their own particular bete noires, whether they be missionaries, mining companies, military contractors or social workers, even including Native Americans’ especial anger toward anthropologists (Deloria 1988). These differences are important, not least of all because the thrust of audist colonialism comes from what conventional postcolonialist theory might perceive to be an atypical colonialist domain—the biomedical domain . However, the focus on biological dimensions is also found in the treatment of other colonized...

Share