Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Terminology Lesson

What’s the difference between the terms Deaf, deaf, Hearing, hearing, hard-of-hearing, and hearing-impaired? The answers are: biology, culture, and personal preference. With over 34 million Americans experiencing some degree of hearing loss, it’s important that we know these distinctions.

“Little-d deaf” and “hearing” are medical, biological terms. They indicate whether a person has the ability to naturally hear sounds through their ears. “Big-D Deaf” and “Hearing,” however, are cultural terms. In Anthropology, culture is defined as a group of people who share the same beliefs, values, and behaviors. I am both “hearing” and “Hearing,” because I can hear normally and because I live and socialize in the Hearing World. Brandt would be considered culturally Hearing, because he still functions in the Hearing World, although biologically he is becoming deaf.

Cultural Deafness requires accepting the values of Deafness, and is solidified by communicating in American Sign Language (the history of Deaf Culture and ASL will be discussed in an upcoming post). Big-D Deaf people do not view their lack of hearing as a disability that needs to be fixed. Instead, they call themselves a “linguistic minority,” because they identify themselves primarily through their language. They are very proud to be Deaf. Interestingly, biological deafness is not a prerequisite to being Culturally Deaf. Sign Language interpreters and CODAs (“Children of Deaf Adults”—hearing adult children of Deaf parents) are often considered part of the Deaf World, because they can communicate in fluent ASL and have extensive experiences with and knowledge of Deaf Culture.

The difference between “hearing-impaired” and “hard-of-hearing” comes down to individual, personal preference. When I was studying for my certification as a Hearing Loss Support Specialist, I was surprised (and embarrassed) to learn that many people with hearing loss find “hearing-impaired” to be offensive. They do not like to be defined by an “impairment” of their hearing, and prefer the term “hard-of-hearing.” I had been using “hearing-impaired” for as long as I could remember, thinking that “hard-of-hearing” was just outdated terminology. Boy was I wrong!

I immediately asked Brandt and Josie about this, and they were surprised as well. They both prefer to call themselves “hearing-impaired,” because “hard-of-hearing” is cumbersome to say and sounds rather antiquated. Brandt didn’t mince words: “Of course I’m hearing-impaired—my hearing is greatly impaired! Why dance around the issue with a politically-correct phrase? I have a disability; my hearing is damaged.”

Oftentimes, “hearing-impaired” is used to cover both Deaf people and people with hearing loss, but it’s actually better to say “Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing” when referring to both groups together. So when you notice that your DVD has subtitles available “for the Hearing-Impaired,” they should instead say “for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing” to avoid offending anyone.

As a side note, “Earless” and “Nearly Earless” are terms created by Brandt and myself, respectively.

Class dismissed!
  

1 comment:

  1. This reminds me of the English to Spanish captioning on TV. On Jay Leno I get a bigger laugh out of the captions than his jokes!

    ReplyDelete