Juxtaposing
deafness in society
Is the word deaf a label? How does it denote
a person? Today, in this post-structural
age, labels are everything. We use labels
everyday, we speak in labels and we encounter
labels everywhere. Sometimes we use labels
for convenience, as shorthand for complicated
concepts. Other times labels are used in
technical vocabulary, to marginalize error.
So, we identify ourselves with labels.
Hence, the word deaf is a label that connotes
a particular characteristic of a person.
The dictionary explicitly signifies a person
who is not physically able to hear, and
that definition is derived from the norm
of a society of peers who can. The identification
of a person as deaf is a discursive product,
because it is relevant only within a set
classification that is established by a
particular discourse of deafness.
Disability in this sense does not necessarily
result from a handicap, but rather is manifested
through a society that devalues and segregates
people who deviate from the physical norms.
However, this marginalization as a disability
is a negative concept and does not satisfactorily
answer the question — what is deafness?
Is there an alternative, more positive,
definition?
One possible candidate is a social explanation,
which is a departure from biological or
existential explanations. As a label, deafness
functions as a discursive formation that
is socially constructed by discourse. The
phrase social construct is a celebrated
description that the radical freethinkers
use to question the ideological beliefs
of a modernist Modernists believe that reality
is a homogeneous entity — that knowledge
is the sole result of a pure, sincere will
to truth, and the meaning of anything is
disinterestedly given.
Discursive formations are derivatives of
discourse, which is the semiotic structuring
of all social phenomena as codes and rules.
This is practiced by a unity of discourse,
or consensual agreement. Discourse defines
identity and describes what characteristics
are possible for a person. A discursive
formation constitutes its object and generates
knowledge about these objects. That means
our knowledge is discursively determined.
However, nobody writes a discursive formation.
There are no authors of discursive formations
because they are constituted by archives,
or anonymous collections of text. These
archives are the sustained recording of
the history of the individual, and in doing
so, the person has a place, a name, a number,
a task, a credit history and so forth —
meaning that the person never strays from
the steady observation of authorities. This
constant observation of behavior leads to
a certain discipline: the individuals behave
as if they were under sustained surveillance.
In the deaf person’s situation, especially
in the United States, his or her life is
observed, recorded and probed under a microscope
by a collaborative and cooperative effort
of specialists such as deaf teachers, guidance
officers, speech language pathologists,
interpreters or note takers, and audiologists.
We must deal with a continuum of psychological
profiles, aptitude test placements, audiograms,
educational performance, objectives and
other documented efforts.
The increasingly complex and technical serialization
of the disabled person is an ongoing process
of a biographical production. The biographical
sketch of the individual, chronicled to
a greater detail than ever, results in the
real, tangible and physical snapshot of
the self.
Individuals actively construct their social
world, as opposed to having it imposed upon
them. Therefore, it seems that the concept
of deafness does not necessarily signify
a disability, but is contingent upon what
context the individual chooses to define
himself.
If labels are constructs, and language is
the limit of thought, then I am nothing
more than a social construct, that “deaf
guy.” However, I do not identify myself
as a deaf person because of my existential
nature as a free human being. To act otherwise
would be bad faith.
Awet Moges is a philosophy major at Cal
State Long Beach.
|
