"VOICES OFFSTAGE:"

How VISION HAS BECOME A SYMBOL TO RESIST

IN AN AUDIOLOGY LAB IN THE U . S .

LAKSHMI FJORD

In each of the preceding papers in this journal, SOME BACKGROUND ON MYSELF AND "THE PROBLEM"
visual traditions of signing, culturally Deaf people offer
unique visual landscapes of each expressive medium A tradition in Deaf social circles is that in an
while jousting with what I have come to think of as introduction one offers background on connections to
"voices offstage." Deaf art, theater, the teaching larger Deaf networks and hearing or deaf status; infor-
traditions of Deaf adults, and signed language practices mation not unlike that offered in anthropology intro-
present images of creative, engaged visual communi- ductions, also, that places the individual within the
cators who, however, can never leave far behind the larger, encompassing group. My background also
legacy of the long, frustrating history of the public helps to explain why observed practices in an audiology
denigration of signed languages in the Euro-American lab could look strange and curious to me in a medical
contexts in which these arose. An unintended outcome setting where the "exotic" might disappear in the
of my fieldwork observations in one of my research familiarity of the known—always a problem for the
sites—over a noncontinuous period from 1995 to 2000 anthropologist who "studies her own."
in an audiology clinic in the U.S that performs cochlear Yet, for me that could not happen because in 1971
implants1—is that these "voices offstage" must take I had the life-altering experience of being a hearing
center stage. By concentrating upon the diagnostic acting student at the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center
process to find how hearing parents of deaf children are while the National Theater of the Deaf (NTD) was in
socialized into medical and/or popular visions of deaf residence, rehearsing. The actors whom J Ranelli
personhood2. histories of oppression and the politics of discusses in his article in this journal were the first deaf
culture for deaf people had to follow. I observed the people I knew. They generously became my signed
curious phenomenon of vision having become a kind of language teachers and were my models of Deaf culture
encompassing symbol that some audiologists appear to during a time when "old" classifications that divided
resist. 1 suggest that this phenomenon is embedded in human beings—such as racism, sexism, and hearing
a history of oppositional thinking. How much this levels—were thought (or hoped) to be breaking down.
phenomenon is the consequence of historical factors My image of Deaf people as stupendously gifted
and cultural ethos systems became manifest while communicators whose work and gifts were publicly and
doing cross-cultural comparative research principally popularly recognized did not encompass the whole
in Denmark, with several trips to sites in Sweden. continuum of deaf experiences at that or any time. 1 did
Although I caution against generalizing to other medi- have the marvelous good fortune to observe rehearsals
cal and audiological sites in the U.S. or elsewhere, some of what became the NTD production "Promenade" (or
of the cochlear implant discourse internationally re- "Nightwalk." as Ranelli prefers in his article), part of
flects similar concerns about vision and its primacy in "My Third Eye." 1 watched the actors work and
deaf children. Yet, because my research is anthropo- improvise upon memories, dreams, and nightmares,
logical—that is, long-term in focused sites—my caveat also, of being deaf in America (see Padden and Humphries
stands, and I welcome other explanations and analysis. 1988 for the source of this phrase and its discussion).

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number 2 Fall Winter 1999-2000

Yet. it was in a HUD (Housing and Urban Develop- history of oppositions starting in the 1970s by enacting
ment) project for deaf people during fieldwork some legislation and social policy to make the national signed
lwentyfour years later that the tremendous handicaps language the "first" or "native** language of deaf
that American society places upon deaf children came children, no such national policy has standardized the
solidly to the forefront of my attention. educational and social practices in the U.S. Therefore,
What others, most notably Harlan Lane (also a the loudest "offstage voice" that either must be ad-
contributor to this journal), not without cause have dressed or is addressed between the lines of scholarship
called the acts of those wearing the "mask of benevo- on Deaf people in the U.S. is this binary oppositional
lence," "paternalism,** and "colonization** (1992), 1 saw thinking. While it is safe to say that these oppositions
in my anthropology fieldwork as social practices by are a cultural construct similar to the category of race
individuals—audiologists and otologists—whose mean- (Black or Caucasian in the census box) in America, like
ings or intentions I could not gloss. Social practices that race these oppositions have great staying power. No one
ascribe negative meanings to the vital perception of initiated into this domain can ignore the sharp political
vision became mysteries to unravel of complex inter- and social line in the sand. Thus, like nationalism, a
relationships, histories, and power dynamics. Like the construct designed to both enclose and exclude, these
complex practices involved on both "sides** of the binary oppositions have their versions of border patrols
debate over female genital circumcision (or mutilation and fences that both define and hamper the expressive
as some call it), only by closely examining specific acts actions of individuals within their schema (see Handler
and the symbolic meanings placed upon them by the 1988 for nationalism). Due to the long history of such
actors can discussion shift from the polemical, and opposition-making, what was once fictive is now
areas open up for social negotiation (see Boddy 1982 reinforced by its familiarity and air of received knowl-
for FGC in Sudan). Few professions ask self-reflexivity edge. Most significantly, oppositions in the U.S. have
of their practitioners. Therefore, that their resistance been made to seem "natural" by remaining unexamined
toward vision and visual language was first of all, compass points in the geography of social deafness.
unseen, and thus, could not be examined by audiolo- Similarly to the hearing parents of deaf children,
gists and some otologists in this site cannot be surpris- those who enter the arena of prelingual deafness in the
ing. It is only by prying apart cultural ethos systems U.S. by any means are immediately socialized into the
from practices that they become more accessible to tradition to construct binary oppositions between lan-
scrutiny and less "just the way it is.** One component guage modalities and educational methods that first
of these ethos systems concerns philosophical adher- arose among hearing people involved in deaf issues.
ence to an ongoing set of beliefs about structural Throughout the social history of deaf people in Euro-
oppositions—most notably, between vision and speech. American contexts, what is thought to be "in the best
interests'* of deaf children has not just been contested,
BINARY OPPOSITIONS MADE "NATURAL" but hotly contested (Lane 1984: Winefield 1987;
Benderly 1990; Van Cleve 1993).
Binary oppositions not unlike those discussed by The historial roots of these dichotomies are so
Levi-Strauss (1963) hold an almost traditional place in strong that they have been made to seem "natural** in
the social history of deaf people in the United States and ways that did not become clear to me until I had spent
elsewhere. These include the creation of structural time in Denmark. There the Berlin Wall of oppositions
dichotomies between the conceptual categories of a has been systematically taken down as the value of
medical or a cultural model of deafness; oralism or Danish Sign Language (DSL) and Deaf culture has been
manualism—now auditory-verbal training or signing; augmented. That is not to say that the histories that built
Deaf culture (DEAF-WORLD) or Hearing culture; "The Wall" are erased, but that in Denmark. Sweden
pro-cochlear implant or anti-cochlear implant; and and Norway, the consequences of binary oppositions
hearing versus vision. are no longer tenable to the societies. 1 have written
While the Scandinavian countries addressed this elsewhere concerning binary oppositional thinking in
Lakshmi Fjord presently teaches anthropology at DePauw University. She has a long and abiding interest in the
celebration of Deaf signing traditions and cultures.

122 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

this arena (Scandinavian Audiology, to be published notably the Scandinavian countries and Uganda, have
2001), and why the persistence of such dichotomies abandoned an either/or approach, in the U.S. bilingual
must be attributed to "ongoing exclusionary prac- programs for deaf children are lew and still considered
tices"—where the power to describe deaf embodiment "experimental."
is held by doctors, educators, and even politicians, and Interestingly, while performing my fieldwork re-
the perspectives of Deaf adults are marginalized or search in Denmark, there was much public discussion
ignored. In addition, I suggest that the persistence may aboutthelackofassimilationof immigrant families into
also be understood by looking at symbolic meanings— the fabric of Danish society because the adults often did
a kind of emotional, social gut reaction such as my not learn Danish. Yet. deaf children are not pressed to
observations in the audiology clinic reveal. become assimilated into mainstream society through
Each of these dualisms has significance in the learning to speak Danish, it is their parents who are
process of describing how vision and hearing have asked to learn the visual language that their child needs.
become tropes in opposition to each other within this Though Danish Sign Language (DSL) and Deaf iden-
schema. When "medical" as a category is considered tity are officially, and popularly, described as arising
to be in opposition to "cultural" as a category, then from a kind of "ethnicity," this form of difference is
social practices within a clinical setting are "seen" as publicly supported, while immigrant languages and
outside of cultural influence. As part of a form of difference are often described as causing tension in
ethnocentrism in which what "we" do is not culture, but Danish society. My Danish consultants who were
what "they" do is, taking the "cultural" out of American teachers of the deaf or parents of deaf children ex-
medical practices masks power differentials. When plained the difference in approach to me as deriving
medicine as a category also takes on a structural from a fundamental characteristic of Deaf children that
opposition to Deaf theater or art in which theater and art immigrant children do not share. Unlike immigrant
are more clearly "cultural," then the very different children who are "able to learn spoken Danish," deaf
cultural capital and level of cultural authority assigned children "are visual," therefore "they must learn a
to each remains unexamined. signed language first."
Similarly, when oralism—or relying solely on This popular conclusion is the outcome of the long,
audition, speechreading the face, and speaking a lan- frustrating experiment in Denmark and elsewhere, of
guage—is placed in binary opposition to manualism, or trying to teach prelingually deaf children to speak a
signing a language, other possibilities such as bilingual- language without support of a signed language. The
ism seem overly difficult to achieve and wrought with perceived failure of oral education had taught these
worrisome consequences. This particularly American educators that spoken language is not visual. Even the
(U.S.) image of languages as "in competition" with invention in Denmark of a visual aid to learning spoken
each other for the brain cells of the developing child, as language, translated as "sign-supported speech"
was told to me by audiologists in the States, seems (Vestberg 1997).3 which later was adopted in different
almost silly to Europeans. Africans, and others who live form in the U.S. as "cued speech," had not proved
multilingually. A vision of languages as territorial— successful. William Stokoe's (1960) research on the
gobbling up brain cells, and therefore threatening to linguistics of American Sign Language (ASL) had a
children in linguistically diverse contexts—is an image profound affect on Brita Hansen in Denmark. She.
useful to further the political and social agendas of unlike Stokoe and his counterparts in the U.S.. was able
dominant language groups. Since the late 1800s in the to convince the Danish Ministry of Education that deaf
U.S.. the push for monolingualism has been a part of the children in Denmark must be taught in DSL (personal
public record as a component in the effort to shape an communications Stokoe 1997). Social policy arose
English-speaking, able-bodied, patriotic citizenry from from the recognition of this need to be visual. This
a heteroglot immigrant population. That the first major, unique "fact" of deaf embodiment in conjunction with
successful effort to dislodge ASL as one of two, if not the social fact of deal people being born to mostly
the primary, language of deaf Americans took place hearing parents and giving birth themselves to mostly
during this era places anti-signed language rhetoric hearing children in all my research contexts, is also
within a wider, nationalist agenda. While other nations. what makes their "ethnicity" and "kinship" subject to

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number2 Fall Winter 1999-2000 123

different political and social standards than immigrants between technology, deafness, and kin in the U.S. Such
and their children. a link occurred, quite disastrously for deaf people, with
Deaf people living within hearing society as the Alexander Graham Bell, whose mother and wife were
children and parents of hearing people, for the most both deaf. Bell characterized himself as a speech
part, complicates an opposition of Deaf culture to teacher, and the telephone, the ancestor technology to
Hearing culture. the implant, was the result of his desire to devise a
As with other historically oppressed social groups "speaking machine." If, instead of inventing a machine
such as Native Americans and African Americans, that requires hearing language, he had invented one that
culturally Deaf Americans will "know" a great deal requires seeing one—such as the later text telephone
about hearing people, while most hearing people will (TTY), a variation of the teletype machine then in use,
know very little about them (see hooks 1992 for African he would have put seeing as the encompassing whole
Americans; Basso [ 1979] 1989 for Native Americans). (Dumont 1970). Then, those who could not read and
However, unlike other so-called ethnicities or racial write would be handicapped by their inability to partici-
cultural groupings, the "Other" are deaf people's kin. pate. However, by requiring speech and hearing to use
Deaf Americans are also exceptional, because even if it, the telephone created a communicative chasm be-
their parents somehow manage to remain outside the tween deaf and hearing people as never before. As a
social and cultural experience of deaf personhood in the result of the telephone, deaf people lost jobs in record
U.S., they do not live outside its stigma as a form of numbers and became more socially isolated and "dif-
"handicap" or "disability." And, the children of deaf ferent" from hearing Americans (Winefield 1987). The
parents are assuredly not able to do either. Finally, the stigmatizing aspects of deaf personhood in the U.S.
numbers of deaf people in the U.S. do not allow them were compounded greatly. Many deaf Americans see
the "luxury" of working and interacting with only Deaf the implant similarly today. Its invention is based upon
people, as do some ethnic groups. a fundamental assumption that a Deaf identity and
Kinship for deaf people in the U.S.. therefore, must visual, signed language is a less-than-whole identity
be considered as being both "biological" and "chosen," that must be "fixed" no matter the financial or social
such as that of gays and lesbians whose parents and cost.
children will also usually be "straight." As with Holo- Meanwhile, the implant itself has turned out to be
caust survivors in the U.S., gay families, and even some not the quick or certain "fix" that was hoped. The deaf
tight-knit religious communities. Deaf people usually population saw early implantees not using them, saw
marry other Deaf people, and often choose to pursue implant **failures"(little or no language spoken or
leisure activities with chosen kin like themselves, with signed) turning up in schools for the deaf across the
whom they share particular, bonding experiences and country. Outcomes have been quite variable. Deaf
a language with which to satisfactorily interact. This is people knew also, if the press did not, that not all deaf
the DEAF-WORLD of which Lane, Bahan and people are candidates for this technology described by
Hoffmeister write (1999), and Deaf networks sign; the some as a "miracle." To my consultants among the
Deaf Clubs, sports teams, and friendship/support net- culturally Deaf, this seems to be another technology
works that are the stuff of human connectedness. that seeks to divide the deaf population into "haves" and
Without taking away from the depth of these connec- "have nots." When one realizes that the implant costs
tions nor their value, I suggest that the sharp delinea- upwards of $50,000 in the U.S. simply for the surgery
tions that have arisen between so-called WORLDS, in and post-operative fitting, but not the years of habilita-
which the membership of children of Deaf parents may tion or follow-up at the cochlear implant labs, or
or may not be included, arises also from past oppres- processor replacements, software, or batteries, the
sions. Obvious as this may seem when considering the cochlear implant becomes a story of the romance of
list of similar "chosen kin" above, this history becomes technology in wealthy countries.
oddly erased in medical settings. As does the children's Therefore, the cochlear implant also raises ques-
actual deafness (as will be seen in the next section). tions of social resource allocation: where shall money
Kinship also plays an important role in the anti- be spent for deaf children—in schooling and signed
cochlear implant debate because of an historic link visual language or in technology and teaching speech?

124 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

While the implant literature now gives a more balanced NOI-SITINC.
picture of what can be expected with an implant, parents
in my fieldwork research in the U.S. told me that their I had not long been obsen ing in (he audiology lab
expectations were initially high and now reflect a more when I noticed two very curious phenomena that
"realistic' picture of quite variable speaking abilities battled and contused me. By then, I knew from
and speech discrimination. Danish and Swedish parents observation that the audiologists and otologists or
are cautioned at the outset about possible limitations, ENTS (Ear, Nose, and Throat specialists) whom I
which is why implanted children continue to be edu- observe with deat children are usually immensely
cated in a signed language with supplemental speech dedicated people, highly trained, and emotionall) en-
training. gaged in their work. They are both "earing"" and
Knowing these variable outcomes in the children "competent, the twin moral goods that Byron and
whom they implanted, however, results in the person- MaryJo Dehecchio Good (1993:91 94) identify as

Fig. 1. An audiologist talks with an implanted child in the U.S. Photo: Lakshmi Fjord.

nel in one American audiology lab looking to visual present in doctors whom other doctors recognize as
acuity and language as the cause of less-than great good doctors and earnest medical students want to
outcomes, even if the deat child knows no form of emulate (Fig. I (Therefore w hen I observed an otolog\
signing. This "resistance to vision also takes on the resident talking to apost-operati% e. cochlear implanted,
strange form of nonrecognition. or so it seems, of these teenager behind his back, 1 didn't understand. The
children s deafness. implant would not be hooked up for six weeks while the
incision healed; the bandages o\ er this incision covered

Visual Anthropology Review Voume 15 Number2 Fall Winter 1999-2000

a surgery from the previous day. Surely he of all people promotes the use of signed language. "What was I going
(since he assisted in the surgery) knew that this boy to do with these," she asked me rhetorically, "when I
could not hear what he was saying. Another time I can't move?" In the U.S., unlike in my fieldwork in
observed one of the audiologists telling what they were Denmark and Sweden, no parent reported that they
going to do to a three-year old deaf child who was about were given any positive or culturally beneficial images
to be "hooked up** to her implant for the first time. of deaf embodiment. One parent told me that her doctor
However, she was talking to the top of the child's head, had told her there was a "deaf community," but she had
while she was busily playing on the floor. My puzzle- no idea where to find it: did I know?
ment grew because they had just told me that this If the diagnosis of prelingual deafness can be seen
particular child was one of the few deaf children who as an initiation process (for an extended discussion of
had never heard even the loudest, deepest or highest this: Fjord, upcoming Scandinavian Audiology), then
sounds, since she was born with a malformation of the one could say that at the initial stage, parents are being
cochlea. What was going on had to be more than introduced to the social contract their society offers to
myopia, in my view. the parents of a deaf child. I am indebted to Benedicte
I began to note how 1 routinely saw audiologists Ingstad and Susan Reynolds Whyte (1993) for their
take off a child's implant receiver, leave the booth for analysis of disability and culture and their contrastive
one reason or other, and then call from outside of view terms "sociocentric** and "egocentric" to describe what
for the child to come to them. There could be no sound I consider social contracts.
to hear, even if this implanted child was one of the lucky In the U.S. there is an egocentric social system that
ones able to understand the directive when "hooked is reflected in our social contract with citizens. The
up." Or sometimes an audiologist might call to a child individual is responsible for the well-being and support
to come to see a special toy, having disconnected the of themselves and their children. The individual is also
receiver from the portable sound processor computer considered to be morally responsible if they do not
she or he wears. How was it that these professionals in measure up to the standard ideal (this is shared with
deafness were interacting with deaf people as if they Scandinavian societies when it comes to body perfect-
weren't deaf, as if they didn't need visual contact to ibility, but not with what is "owed" to the individual by
communicate? It is tempting to assume that these are social contract). As Louis Dumont has pointed out
just unaware people, but my experience with them (1970), competition is at the foundation of American
taught me otherwise. I began to look for other clues to democratic equality—an ethos of individual endeavor.
explain what might be going on. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a civil rights act,
and grievances are of individuals being discriminated
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE "DEAF IN AMERICA" OR against. Since Public Law 94-142. mainstreaming for
SCANDANAVIA all "disabled" children has been the goal. The cochlear
implant is designed to promote mainstreaming by
When hearing parents take their child to "see" a providing the sound to take deaf children out of deaf
hearing specialist such as an otologist. ENT, or audiolo- schools, the ability to compete in the open market. This
gist. along with the diagnosis in any society comes individual-based society requires, then, a performance
initiation into social meanings and ideologies about of a "disabled" identity—however much deaf people
what it means to be a deaf person in this society. One may dislike having to do so—in order to receive special
set of parents in the U.S. told me that their physician benefits individually: social security, financial support
cried when he gave them the diagnosis. Another mother for education, provisions for interpreters, and voca-
said that her ENT told her there was a "short window tional rehabilitation training.
of opportunity" before her child would be "lost from the Not surprisingly, then, the cochlear implant
hearing world." Yet another reported that after grimly symbology in this milieu of assimilation is of a "miracle,"
giving her the hearing test results, her otologist handed a "cure." The technology is thought to have the power
over two brochures —one for a program in California to transform the individual from the performance of a
that promotes the use of speechreading and hearing aids stigmatized social identity as disabled to that of a full-
and the other for a program in Washington. DC that fledged member of the majority culture. How deeply

126 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

imagined the transformative power of the cochlear squarely upon the individual (or parents, in this case).
implant is in the U.S. can be seen by the fact that The flip side of this message is then: if an individual
Medicaid—federal medical financial aid to families does not learn to speak and understand speech, it is
living below the poverty line—covers the entire cost of because he or she did not work quite hard enough. There
the cochlear implant but not the cost of hearing aids. is an inherent blame underlying that reveals where
Private insurance covers the cost of the cochlear im- responsibility for failure lies. Therefore, in this society
plant in most cases as well, and also does not cover the of the transformative magic of biotechnology and the
cost of hearing aids. In such a context of potential necessity of individual endeavor, post-operative habili-
transformation, parents then say to me: "how could I not tation to listening and sound falls upon the parents once
get the cochlear implant for my child? I have to give her again—to lobby for local school systems to support or
or him the opportunity." to pay for themselves out of pocket. The parents are
Therefore, even audiologists who know that back to their personal responsibility once the implant is
the cochlear implant is a technological tool seem to in place.
respond to the implant as if it had "magical" abilities. I do not think that is a coincidence that in the
This "magical thinking" is demonstrated when an Scandinavian countries in which I researched, the
audiologist talks to a deaf child while holding essential cochlear implant is not described as a "miracle," but
parts of the child's implant in her hand; talks to the child instead as a form of "high-powered hearing aid."
from behind or out of sight, as if they were hearing. Hearing aids and cochlear implants are alike financially
Through its technical substance, then, the implant supported by the state, as is the post-operative habili-
sometimes appears to make an implanted deaf child into tation. The considerable lessening of expectation of
a hearing one in the minds of some who do not live with such a different symbolic meaning ensures that deaf
them everyday—whether the power is switched on or children with implants are treated as any other deaf
no. Also, like a car parked in the driveway the keys to child—educated in the national signed language, usu-
which are in hand, it seems to be the potential of the ally bilingually, and with their deaf peers. This lack of
implant to carry the child to a destination that is focused need to transform deaf children into hearing may result
upon, not whether she or he knows how to drive. from what Ingstad and Whyte would call the Scandina-
As an observer from outside this system, but inside vian "sociocentric" perspectives. The social group is
one that looks for symbols and meanings, I can only put at the center of priority. The social contract with the
interpret these behaviors by seeking those meanings citizenry is for a social welfare model of equality.
attributed to the implant. When I asked one audiologist Equality is forged by the state through leveling the
to describe the implant, this was the response: playing field, removing obstacles to having a valued
identity within the larger society. To belong to a peer
I see the cochlear implant as a kind of miracle. group as a valued member is considered vital to
It requires a lot of hard work. I tell my folks with emotional and social development for all Scandinavian
implants it's like the Olympics: anyone can make children. Therefore, in order to forge these peer groups
it to the Olympics if you work really hard and train for deaf children, institutions in these societies pay for
all the time. But you've got to work to get there toddlers, even, to be taxied long distances to be together
[U.S. fieldwork, April 2000]. and interacting with fluent adult signers; if necessary or
possible, families are aided to move closer to facilities
It is an interesting choice of metaphor, since in this for the deaf; residential programs are available for older
Olympiad year we are again reminded of how very few children to be with their peers during the school week.
who "try really hard" actually make it to the Olympics. Deaf identity or personhood in Scandinavia is the
Yet, the explicit connection to core values in clinical performance not of a disability, but of a special status
medicine in the U.S., and in dominant American society of linguistic minority group of visual people. That deaf
more generally, is significant. The American myth that people receive state support, sometimes for their life-
it is possible for anyone to reach any goal if they work times does not stigmatize them in a society with a social
hard enough (any native-born citizen can become contract where all of its citizens are supported at various
President) puts the responsibility for success or failure points in their lives: childhood, prenatal care and

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number2 FallWinter 1999-2000 127

maternity, post-natal childcare, and as an elder. Further, transracial adoption in the U.S. is discouraged
In such a milieu the cochlear implant is a powerful because of a notion of a sort of necessary sameness that
hearing aid that can support bilinguality. It does not constitutes perceptions of what constitutes "the family"
transform personhood, nor do parents expect it to, since (for American kinship in general see Schneider
the evidence suggests a bell curve of outcome success [1968] 1980; see Weston for gay and lesbian families
not predictive for the individual child pre-implant. 1991). What happens, then, when the biological family
Thus, the implanted child remains in the status of deaf and their deaf child have a fundamental difference in
child, continues signing and adds more speech train- embodiment more profound in many ways than color?
ing—a strategy designed to prevent the perceived moral What if the child needs to see language, and the parents
and social injustice of having no primary language first learned to hear it? Race is socially profound, but
fluency or interaction with a peer group (fieldwork race is a learned category. In this case, before social
Denmark, parents 1997-1998). identity is even to be thought of, a deaf infant is in the
I did not observe workers with the implants in arms of people who must teach her or him visually
these countries talking behind the backs of deaf children without knowing anything about how to do so (fig. 2).
who were not hooked up. This is not to say it might not A deaf infant can learn language only through the
occur. But I would suggest that since the social identity visual channel, and in the U.S. even if hearing parents
that hearing parents in Scandinavia are "offered" for want to learn ASL, their access to it is extremely limited
their child at diagnosis is not stigmatized, and after the because programs are very thin on the ground in most
initial shock at the first news, parents in Scandinavia did geographic regions. Also, there is no social contract to
not report the ongoing angst that I found in the States, provide ASL to parents without fees. With regard to
there would be less pressure to "help transform" these support services in general, much, if not all, depends
deaf children to hearing. upon the individual set of parents' (but often the
Therefore, I believe it is in these contrastive notions mother's) determination and ability to find what is
of deaf personhood that we can discover one reason why available. While early intervention programs are in
concerned American audiologists and otologists re- place in all states, educators, audiologists, and Deaf
spond to deaf children as if they are hearing. Could it advocates all agree on one point: with the exception of
be that the problematized social identity of "deaf* in the such places as the Washington, DC Metropolitan area,
U.S. guarantees that a doctor trained to be "caring and parents are hard pressed to find real choices to educate
competent" will seek to transform that child's social their deaf child. Having been socialized at diagnosis
status via any possible improvement in their hearing into the oppositions of either/or signing or oral, parents
levels? Treating the deaf child "as if* hearing, then, believe they must make a "choice," and usually agonize
becomes a kind of performance encouraging ability; a over that choice, while in reality there is rarely a choice
nonrecognition of dis-ability. And, if visual language available. Unless they fight it (often with lawyers paid
and visual learning needs equate to manifestations of for by themselves), they must accept what is provided
"disabled" statuses, then vision becomes a multi- by their state for infants, and by their school district for
layered symbolic trope for disability in this context. children aged two years and above (fieldwork inter-
views 1995-2000). Due to these structural limitations
THE DEAF CHILD IN A FAMILY: U.S. for hearing parents to rear a deaf child, each parent in
AND DENMARK COMPARED my fieldwork in the U.S. described to me nearly the
same experience: feeling as if they were the first parents
Judith Modell (1994) writes of what she calls the of a deaf child. This places enormous tension upon the
"fiction of adoption" in the U.S. By looking briefly at family unit, making a sense of unity and "sameness"
American ideas about adoption, ideas about the kinds hard to achieve.
of "difference" tolerable in the American family are One reason the implant is so accepted in the U.S.,
revealed. Modell notes that after adoption, the adoptive is the notion that it will help to promote "sameness" in
parents are granted an entirely new birth certificate, and the biological family (fig. 3). Yet, this requires tremen-
this begins a relationship between parents and child that dous effort to teach the child habilitation to sound
is socially supported to be "as if genealogical" (2). (learning to identity what each sound means; as with

128 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

 Fig. 2. An American family, one child is deaf with a cochlear implant. Photo: Christine Blincoe.

Fig. 3. In the U.S. the cochlear implant is described as a "miracle' that can transform deaf children from
a "disabled" status.

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number 2 Fall Winter 1999-2000 129

learning any "new' language phonemic distinctions are demonstrate this willingness to participate are judged
very difficult: some closely-related phonemes such as "lazy, and even seen as harming their child's chances
b or p are always difficult to distinguish). Therefore, of success with the implant. This kind of "work' is seen
in the U.S, when parents decide to get an implant for as both "giving the child a best shot" and an effort to
their child, there is a very specific set of valued unify a family which involves bringing the child into
behaviors and attitudes that parents are expected to alignment with the language of the family ( fig. 4).
demonstrate in order to perform 'good'" parenthood in Denmark has the highest per capita rate of interna-
implant centers. One is that they should be very tional, non-European adoptions in the world (von der
involved in learning techniques that emphasize listen- Lieth personal communication 1998). The emphasis, as
ing and sound habilitation—playing audition games at with immigrant children, is not upon biological sameness,
every available opportunity. Parents who do not but upon the child's becoming 'Danish" through dem-

Fig. 4. In the U.S, a mother helps herdaughterto habilitate to sound after implanta-
tion. Photo: Lakshmi Fjord.

130 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

onstrating ability in spoken or signed and written ensure] for the children that they have sign
Danish. While a further discussion of why this may be language. . .In the Deaf society the saying is: if
so falls outside the confines of this paper, what is you are signing Deaf you feel very well.' Hard of
significant is the notion of what counts as difference hearing people have more psychological problems
within a family. Since deaf children are popularly and no true identity—you know this is the saying.
imagined as visual learners, then the family of origin or [Bergman interview 1998J4
adoption is considered morally responsible to learn the
child's "natural" language—that is. Danish Sign Lan- The doctor's example of hard of hearing people
guage. Parents who do not do so willingly are looked with "no true identity" is an important one since the
upon with some scorn by other hearing parents of deaf status of "hard of hearing" is an in-between category.
children as being "lazy" or "not caring enough." He is certain that I "know" this saying because it is so
Therefore, each society has its own value system to prevalent in the discourse around him. In Sweden and
describe what good parenting looks like (and those who Denmark, this assertion was repeated with certainty in
do not match this are "lazy" in both cases). In Sweden, public meetings and private interviews on numerous
psychologists in a cochlear implant program told me occasions. Deaf people are said to be far "better
that parents who do not learn to sign "cannot be adjusted," "happy," and socially accepted than hard of
considered as candidates for the implant, because they hearing people, because their role as visual people
have not accepted the deafness of their child" (field- makes them different, but not "out of place." Living as
work Lund 1997). Such policy is predicated upon the an in-between category of person is something Scandi-
foundational notion that deaf children are visual, and navian societies seek to erase—whether it is in-between
that it is "cruel" to try to force them into spoken relying on partial hearing or sometimes seeing their
language without the aid of a signed one. The impli- language or in-between relying on Turkish or Danish.
cations for family life are a sort of replication at the The status of hard of hearing in the U.S. is also
microcosm level of the state macrocosm—a leveling of instructive because it reveals differing centrisms. Padden
the playing field to bring those who can hear and see in and Humphries (1988) explain how, from a Deaf-
alignment with those who can see language only. There centric perspective (and using the standard form of
are those who resist this policy and this ideology by not rendering signs into English with all capitals), "hard of
learning signed language or. in Denmark, by requesting hearing" takes on a whole new meaning than that in
the implant. However, there is this stigma placed upon hearing American society:
such a decision shared by the professional "experts" in
deafness such as teachers of the deaf, psychologists, or In this case, DEAF, not HEARING, is taken as the
other parents. When these are immigrant parents who central point of reference. A-LITTLE-HARD-OF-
are struggling to learn yet another language, this social HEARING is a small deviation from DEAF, and
"disapproval" outlines the dominant social ethic in thus is used for someone who is only slightly
Danish society to "become" Danish. Learning DSL is hearing. VERY HARD OF HEARING is someone
to best perform parenthood and become a family by who departs from the center greatly, thus someone
linguistic means. who can hear quite well. [Padden and Humphries
It was a Swedish otologist who performs cochlear 1988:41]
implants who helped me to see how these social ethos
systems affect and pervade the medical systems in their According to a Deaf-centric perspective, having
societies. the least hearing deficit may convey the most social
deficit among those who center upon visual language
The Deaf society has the ear of the government so and culture if hearing is that individual's priority.
that they have a very strong position in founding From the hearing-centered perspective, the reason
their situation in Swedish society. Therefore, if the why the cochlear implant is so lionized is precisely
child is not so good having a CI that they can be because it places implantees nearer to hearing on the
mainstreamed it has meant that we place them all continuum—"even a little is better than none" is the
in deaf schools . .We have to cover up [he means philosophy. The mother of a newly-implanted teenager

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number2 Fall Winter 1999-2000 131

told me the da> after surgery: 'now my daughter is no Such comparative statements reveal some of the
longer profoundly deaf; she is only slightly hard of values placed upon seeing and hearing from Deaf-
bearing" (Bergin interview 1996). Not surprisingly centric and a hearing-centric perspectives. In the U.S.,
considering the way in which a Swedish otologist I suggest there is a hierarchy of valuation of perceptual
sp.aks of hard of rnanng peoph- in Sweden, this "hard abilities that is derived from the social personhood
of hearine status for implanted children is one of its granted to deafpersons in the U.S. Further, as discussed
drawbacks in Swedish society. The concern is that before, this social personhood is woven of ideas of
children with implants will be sort ot not-great at necessary sameness within families, the egocentric
everything: not great at seeing language, hearing Ian- social contract in which the individual must forge her
or his own way in acompetitive marketplace. When this
is coupled with our peculiar American history of
granting cultural authority to medical expertise (Starr
1982) rather than to, say, Deaf associations (as in
Scandinavia), the deaf child that hearing parents take to
be "seen by American doctors is a very different
"object' than her counterpart elsewhere.

SEEING AND POWER

There is one kind of vision or "seeing" that is given

value in medical settings in the U.S.. and that is what
Foucault (1973) has called the "gaze' of doctors. Due
to the power vested in the expertise of the doctor, this
gaze and its object—the patient—have unequal power
in the medical dynamic. In the case of hearing parents
who have no prior knowledge of deafness, the expertise
granted the perceived objectivity of the doctor s gaze,
its link to science and the world of facts, trumps the
parents" form of expertise about their child every time.
According to my consultants in the U.S.. and those
in Denmark and Sweden during diagnoses prior to the
1990s, it is the gaze of mothers in particular that does
not fit the value gi\en to the perceived'detachment" of
doctors (fig. 5). Because of their supposed emotional
"attachment, mothers told me that they were ignored
or figuratively patted on the head and told to relax when
they brought their undiagnosed children to clinics.
They were told it was 'normal" for babies or toddlers
to behave as their child did. When one mother in the U.S
took her tiny daughter to the pediatrician, he looked into
Fig. 5. In medical settings, mothers are often considered her ears, did a few simple tests, such as clapping his
"too attached" to be experts on their children. Photo: hands, and told her: 'I don't see anything wrong* [her
Christine Blincoe. child was profoundly deaf at 10 days old.]
Ignoring a parent's observations raises questions
guage, finding their group. In the American implant about what is considered a medical sign or symptom,
center context where 1 talked with the happy mother of and whose gaze is privileged: the mothers over time or
the newly implanted teenager, the emphasis is upon the single clinical or test encounter? These interactions
'getting even slightly more hearirm. reveal power, too. because gate-keeping to further tests

132 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

and outlay of financial resources in these societies audiologist in the American clinic told me "we now
depends upon results from tests that require the doctor s know immediately after birth that some children may
approval. While these are also examples ot mothers be deaf [follow up tests are neeessar\ |. et we do not
who resisted being discounted, one unintended result is have in place anything more to offer than the cochlear
a loss of feeling competent with one's child. implant at one year old" (Fjord fieldwork May 2000).
Kathryn Meadow-Orlans research (1990) on hear- An irony here is that proponents of these diagnostic
ing parents' feelings of competence with their deaf biotechnologies seek to better li\es by making visible"
child may help to illustrate why it is important to closely the "invisible"—part ot the greater \alues of caring and
examine the unequal value given to the gaze ot doctors competence in medicine. However, because the tech-
and parents. She found that before a diagnosis of nology is considered a good in itselt, it was de\eloped
deafness, hearing parents had already, and without independently from its consequences—in some cases,
knowing they were doing so, adapted to the visual needs that is greater emotional suffering when there is either
of their child: that they were visually engaging their nothing to be done at present (medically for deaf
child using gesture and touch that brought satisfying newboms) or little treatment at all (such as in the case
communication within the parent-child dyad. How- of Parkinson s).
ever, after diagnosis when
they had become "offi-
cial ly " the parents of a deaf
child, these same parents
experienced what she called
"loss of competence in
these same practices
(1990:286). As Shawn
Neal Mahshie puts it: "the
parents lost their voice"
after diagnosis (1995). In
this case, voice means both
a language of communica-
tion and also power—par-
ents are no longer able to
communicate with their
child because they feel they
don't know how to do it.
and they are not considered
competent judges of their
Fig. 6. Newborn hearing screenings allow for early interventions. The social identity
child's behavior. available to a deaf person. then, begins at birth Photo: Lakshmi Fjord.
Now many states in the
U.S. have mandated that
newborns receive a hearing screening that eliminates Certainly no one on any side of the linguistic and
the time between birth and diagnosis. As with other social debate about deaf children would argue against
technologies such as DNA testing that tiives informa- knowing as soon as possible if children are deaf,
tion to patients or their families about invisible medical because all '.sides subscribe to the short window of
pathologies, after the newborn screening detects a opportunity" metaphor for deaf children s language
potential problem, the recipients are left with little they acquisition. Yet. ironicalls. the newborn screening also
can do. The new technology offers this snapshot—a eliminates the period of hearing parental "ignorance"'
diagnosis—but its inventors were taster or the task reported by Meadow-Orlans that leads them to experi-
much simpler than what it takes to create a standard ment with \ isual communication before loss of comp -
follow-up plan in a zone of oppositions. As one tencc interv enes post-diagnosis. And, when the deaf

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number2 Fall Winter 1999-2000 133

personhood available to that child in U.S. society is cipher important to decode. What I see is how vision
stigmatized, it is only a matter of hours of life before an has been shaped into an encompassing, multi-vocalic
infant carries about this social identity. symbol (Turner 1967: Myerhoff 1974) composed, in
On one visit to the lab 1 was asked not to talk with part, of the features of an American ethos system I have
a mother holding an infant in the waiting room—her described to this point. The effects of idealized
infant had screened as negative for hearing as a new- American kinship, the pressure placed upon the indi-
born, and though the child was now seven months of vidual to achieve competitively, and social conceptions
age, she was considered "too upset" for me to talk to her. of the so-called "deaf, visual" brain that are to follow
She was there because she planned for her baby to have in my analysis are pieces of ideology that influence both
a cochlear implant when the child, who'd been prema- doctors and the parents who look to them for guidance.
ture, was strong and big enough. With the newborn Doctors* training in the values of caring and compe-
screening, tests can "see" a deaf child sooner than ever. tence lead them to want to provide that guidance, to
The question then becomes: what person do they see? offer something substantial that will alleviate what they
(Fig. 6). perceive as suffering. A heavy reliance on biotechnol-
ogy in medicine in general in the U.S., as is seen in our
SEEIM; VISION AS "VICTORIOUS" IN highly-technological approach to birth when compared
DEAF EMBODIMENT to other developed nations (Jordan 1993), is what
doctors believe they can "offer" of substance.
Mariposa [a pseudonym] was born with malforma- In the case of deaf embodiment in the U.S, the
tion of the cochlea of the ear and had never heard cochlear implant is an offer of social transformation to
any sounds. At age 3, she received a cochlear better bring the deaf child into alignment with the
implant. When she was first "hooked up" to elec- standardized ideal that Tocqueville saw in the Ameri-
tronic sound six weeks after surgery, she cried can social landscape as early as 1830. Because, unlike
bitterly. Her merry-eyed, hearing, Latino immi- the Scandinavian countries whose ethic of "leveling"
grant father got down on the floor where she'd overrides competition at every turn, in the heterogene-
thrown herself in a toddler fit of despair. First he ity that is the U.S., uniformity—certain types of
caught her gaze, then made funny faces to hold her sameness—becomes a virtue in a competitive society.
interest, and finally brought a toy down to her eye Unexpectedly, the linguistic, neurological, and social
level that seemed worth stopping the crying for. research that arose from American scholars of Deaf
There was no signed language, as they knew none— Studies (despite a more widespread popular enjoyment
just a caring dad who knew how to communicate of ASL and its boom on many college campuses) has
with his little girl. When they'd left for the day, I not initiated a seismic shift toward validation of Deaf
commented to the audiologists how impressed I was people as visual beings in the majority hearing society.
with his visuaJ competence with his deaf child. Ironically, though ASL is now given considerable
Their reply was simple: "He needs to stop doing social value in the popular American imagination,
that" [Fjord fieldwork 1999]. being "deaf in America" is still stigmatized. The
enduring conflict over the use of ASL for deaf children
The baffling phenomenon of the strong resistance and disputes over power and expertise, can, in part, be
of the audiologists in this clinic to visual connectivity understood in relation to what does or does not promote
is startling to the noninitiated. This is why I placed this this uniformity.
quote near the end of my analysis, in hopes that the How emphatically "against" vision and visual
reader will interpret the interchange rather than simply communication audiologists were in my clinical set-
judging the speaker. Henry Giroux (1992) writes of the ting, how patiently and painstakingly they would pur-
"resistance to difference" in American public schools. sue any avenue that was not-visual in order to commu-
I would suggest that this resistance underlies most of the nicate, signaled the presence of a taboo in which vision
ideology in this, and many, medical clinics as well. The was equated with an almost polluting substance (see
resistance to the notion of seeing language instead of Douglas [1966] 1984). When I heard one audiologist
hearing it occurs so consistently that this becomes a remark that "if an infant uses signs to communicate, this

134 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

will take over their brain," I recognized that neurologi- use and promote auditory-verbal training. This method
cal research data using brain scans of adult signers were suggests speaking adults ought to cover their mouths
now being used to prove signing's harmfulness to the when talking to an implanted child so that the child
developing brains of signing children. These studies cannot see their lips. This is intended to train listening
taken together prove that signed languages stimulate skills, which, in turn, stimulate auditory nerve cells. In
brain substrates similarly to spoken ones. Left hemi- this model then, it is thought to be important that the
spheric aphasias affect signed language grammar, but eyes become less relied upon.
not gesture, in signers similarly to effects on spoken As noted earlier, observations of an audiology lab
grammar in speakers (Neville and Bellugi 1978; Bellugi in the U.S. reveal that the implant is thought to be
1980). But the finding that is most over-interpreted by capable of changing implantees from being a seeing to
oral advocates concerns the reallocation of normally hearing person if relying upon seeing and signing is
auditory areas for visual processing in adult deaf signers given up. How deeply intertwined are these images was
(Neville 1988, 1989). By neurologists and signed illustrated by one twenty-five year old man from this
language advocates these research studies are read as clinic. Very eloquent about his experience, he told me
evidence of the linguistic wholeness of signed lan- that his "brain did not expect to hear" when the implant
guages and the enormous plasticity of the human brain was first turned on. Then, his "brain became confused"
to respond to lived experience; by oral advocates, this by the new signals, and finally, his "sight became
last data is interpreted as worrisome evidence of how confused" because of the auditory input (Tucker inter-
deafness (and visual language) negatively affects the view 1995).
young brains of deaf children irrevocably. Signed In this imagined neurological conception, brain
language research on the way that fluency decreases if plasticity looks like an either/or phenomenon This
acquisition occurs after age five (Newport and Supalla limited and limiting image of plasticity is ver\ signifi-
in Rymer 1988) became a call from signing advocates cant, because of the implications for using a bilingual
to ensure immediate use of signed language with deaf approach to the general education and habilitation of
infants. It well may be, however, that herein lies a implanted children. The image of the deaf child's brain
deeply emotional issue at the core of oralism. If the upon implantation then becomes one of uprooting old
parent of the newly-diagnosed child can never become and familiar pathways of receiving information in order
fluent in signed language (nor the adult who trains in that new ones may take hold. Signing becomes sym-
audiology or otology), that frustration is bypassed, it is bolically "dangerous." Other conceptions of brain
hoped, by the child learning to align with the hearing plasticity, such as the enormous potentials exhibited by
speaking adults—that is, to speak. The question children who even have brain hemispherectomies or
becomes, once again, in each society, whose needs are notions of a second "fluorescence" of brain cell growth
put at the center of priority (I borrow this concept from between ages 10 and 12, disappear. This second, in
Jordan 1993 with regard to birth; whether it is the particular, offers considerable hope for second lan-
unborn child, mother, or the attendants who are at the guage development (bilingualism) if a primary lan-
center of priority). guage has been modeled and accepted in infancy.
As I spent more time in the world of cochlear Instead, parents are offered an image of a war going
implants in other contexts, such as the 4th International on between hearing and speaking and seeing and
Pediatric Cochlear Implant Conference in signing for control of nerve cells. Whenever a signing
s'Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands in 1998, the image child with an implant came into this clinic, 1 was told
of colonizing signed languages "taking over" auditory that her or his progress had been delayed because of
and speech areas of the brain was used often by being a signer. Signing apparently caused "visual areas
American researchers (and unfortunately because of to take over areas allocated to speech." that, in turn,
the globalization of expertise they had a very big stage). resulted in "neural atrophy of auditory pathways" and
It became a kind of shorthand, a "commonsense" "degeneration" (quotes from fieldwork 1995-2000).
explanation for why implanted children oughtn't to use To make this leap in logic, vision and signing have
signing to communicate. It was the central organizing somehow to become one thing and be placed in total
principle tor why parents and implant centers should opposition to hearing and speaking. In this imagining.

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number2 Fall Winter 1999-2000 1 5

even the perceptions are in competition as if they realities of working with deaf people, all but one said,
themselves were individuals in a place of limited in effect: "absolutely not." They told me that there was
resources. Thus, in order to "protect" the supposedly no time spent upon deaf people's experience of deaf-
vulnerable auditory nerve cells, audiologists may be led ness. One said that he was "shocked to discover how
to resist vision itself in their young, deaf patients. passionately deaf people felt about their language." He
This concern about the effects of visual language also said that he had not been introduced to that
upon speaking has meant that few American audiolo- language; had known only one oral "hard of hearing"
gists and otologists have been strong supporters of man in his youth. Only the Swedish doctor told me that
bilingual education for deaf children—that is. educa- he now includes the social, linguistic, and experiential
tion that valorizes and teaches both the national signed aspects of deafness in his otolaryngology (ENT) train-
language and the written and spoken one. Bilingual ism ing program. Without such promptings by instructors,
has been the educational method of choice for deaf and the values they demonstrate, I believe audiologists
children in the Scandinavian countries (since 1981 in and otologists in the U.S. shall continue to talk to the
Sweden: Mahshie 1995) as the best way to ensure full backs of the heads of deaf children. Since the audiolo-
participation in society while receiving maximum knowl- gists and otologists whom I have observed over five
edge. In the U.S. the rhetoric of languages "at war" at years are exceedingly caring and dedicated, their desire
the cellular level reflects the larger stage, where the to "rescue" deaf children from the social contract they
long-standing, naturalized oppositions mentioned ear- receive in the U.S.— from a stigmatized deaf
lier have precluded widespread implementation of personhood—can be seen as part of a continuum of that
bilingualism. What must be contended until absolutely caring. Through cross-cultural comparison, it has
proven otherwise, is a tendency to replicate in the become clear that what that caring "looks like" is
human child's brain a map that looks suspiciously like entirely a matter of cultural values that few, if any,
an American social landscape of competition. A place medical practitioners are able to resist themselves. Nor
where brain cells can be "taken over" forever, and they can practitioners in medicine who "see" deaf infants or
are in short supply. And where it is "natural" that children only in clinical settings for short and pre-
speaking and seeing languages cannot be promoted scribed visits easily resist the symbolic meanings given
together because they are in opposition. to a deaf child in their society. These forms of caring
and these meanings of personhood are the manifesta-
CARING AND COMPETENCE: REVISITED tion of values and are descriptions of the location of
power and voice within a society. As Wittgenstein
Audiologists and otologists who are trained to be proposes, the familiar, and our received knowledge and
"caring" and "competent" can be competent only in the assumptions, are our most important objects of study.
values that are transmitted to them by their society and The curious example of vision as a strange, but true
by their training. When I questioned otologists about symbol to resist in an audiology lab provides just such
whether or not their training prepared them for the an ongoing source of inquiry.

136 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review

 NOTES AC K\OVVI.KI)GK.MI;MS

1. A cochleai- implant is an electronic device surgically To the National Theater of the Deaf, I owe a huge debt
threaded into the cochlea of the ear in order to bypass of gratitude for opening my eyes to the beauties of
the damaged hair cells that prevent sound from stimu- signing and Deaf artistry, as well as for their generosity
lating the auditory nerve. Sound is received through a in "taking in" a hearing neophyte. To Bill Stokoe, I bow
microphone and digitalized through a computer proces- in thanks for his immeasurable support in mentoring
sor worn by the recipient, sent to a magnetic transmitter and help to find a way for a hearing student to offer her
that sends it across the skin flap that covers the skull to studies to Deaf scholarship. I thank J. David Sapir for
a magnetic receiver that has been sutured onto a small seeing that Deaf visual traditions have a valued place
depression created on the skullbone. The multiple in visual anthropology.
channel electrode array within the cochlea is activated
at various frequencies that stimulate the auditory nerve RKFKRKMKS
to the brain. The implant requires the recipient to Basso, Keith
habilitate to this form of perceptual stimulation over a [ 1979] 1989 Portraits of "The Whiteman:" Linguistic
period of time that is quite variable, as is the resulting play and cultural symbols among the Western
ability of the individual to either receptively discrimi- Apache. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
nate speech sounds or to produce recognizable ones. In Bellugi, Ursula
my fieldwork experience, 1 have observed the entire 1980 Clues from the Similarities Between Signed and
continuum of variability in implanted children from Spoken Languages. In Signed and Spoken Lan-
ones whose speech nears that of hearing siblings to guage: Biological Constrainsts on Linguistic Form.
those who are unintelligible after 7 or 8 years of use. In U. Bellugi and M. Studdert-Kenned\. eds.
both the cases mentioned, signed language was the Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.
primary linguistic mode, though the first was in Den- Benderly, Beryl Lieff
mark and the second in the U.S. 1990 Dancing Without Music: Deafness in America.
2. I am indebted to Meyer Fortes (1973) for his use of Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
this term "personhood" to mean a social category in Boddy. Janice
which individuals, in this case with hearing losses, must 1980 Womb as Oasis: The Symbolic Context of
negotiate social statuses regarding marriage partners, Pharaonic Circumcision in Rural Sudan. American
job opportunities, social representations, and descrip- Ethnologist 9(4):682-698.
tions of embodiment that are available to them in their Douglas, Mary
context. [ 1966] 1984 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the
3. Sign-supported speech involves making handshapes Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: ARK.
near the mouth, therefore, within the visual field while a division of Routledge and Kegan Paul.
the listener is attending to speechreading. Dumont. Louis
Speechreading, as lipreading is now named, is the [1966J 1970 Homo Hierarchicus. London: Weidenfeld
difficult "art" of deciphering spoken language by and Nicholson.
observing the placement of the tongue, shape of the Fortes. Meyer
mouth, and other facial clues. The reason spoken 1973 On the Concept of the Person Among the Tallensi.
language cannot be said to be "visual," however, is that in La Notion de la Personne en Afrique Noire. G.
in spoken English, for example, only some 40c/r of Dieterlen. ed. Editions du Centre National de la
phonemes can be "read" as distinct in this way. Recherche Scientifique. Paris.
4. All interview names are pseudonyms. Handler. Richard
1988 Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,
hooks, bell
1992 Representing Whiteness in the Black lmagina-

Visual Anthropology Review Volume 15 Number2 Fall Winter 1999-2000 137

 tion. /// Cultural Studies. Laurence Grossberg, J. Stile-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, and U. Bellugi,
Cary Nelson and Paula Treichler. eds. Pp.338-346. eds. Hillsdale, N.J.: Hove.
New York: Routledge. 1989 Neurobiology of Cognitive and Language Pro-
Giroux, Henry cessing: Effects of Early Experience. In Brain
1992 Resisting Difference: Cultural Studies and the Maturation and Behavioral Development, K. Gibson
Discourse of Critical Pedagogy. In Cultural Stud- and A.C. Petersen, eds. Hawthorn. NY: Aldine
ies, Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula Gruyter Press.
Treichler et al, eds. New York: Routledge. Padden, Carol and Tom Humphries
Ingstad. Benedicte and Susan Reynolds Whyte 1988 Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cam-
1995 Disability and Culture. Berkeley: University of bridge: Harvard University Press.
California Press. Rosen, Roslyn
Jordan, Brigitte 1994 Advocacy and Agendas in the United States. In
1992 Birth in Four Cultures: A Crosscultural Investiga- Parallel Views: Education and Access for Deaf
tion of Childbirth in Yucatan. Holland, Sweden, People in France and the United States.
and the United States. Prospect Heights: Waveland Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Press. Inc. Rymer. Russ
Lane, Harlan 1988 "Signs of Fluency." The Sciences, September
1989 When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf. 1988:5-7.
New York: Vintage Books. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy
1992 The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf 1992 Death Without Weeping: The Violence of Every-
Community. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. day Life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of Califor-
Lane. Harlan, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan nia Press.
1996 A Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego: Schneider, David
DawnSignPress. [1968] 1980 American Kinship. Chicago: University
Levi-Strauss. Claude of Chicago Press.
1963 Structural Anthropology. Basic Books. Starr, Paul
Mahshie, Shawn Neal 1982 The Social Transformation of American Medi-
1995 Educating Deaf Children Bilingually: with In- cine. New York: Basic Books.
sights and Applications from Sweden and Den- Stokoe, William
mark. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Unversity Pre- [1960] 1978 Sign Language Structure. Silver Spring,
College Program. MD: Linstock Press.
Meadow-Orlans. Kathryn P. Turner, Victor
1990 Research on Developmental Aspects of Deafness. 1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu
//; Education and Developmental Aspects of Deaf- Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
ness. Donald Moores and Kathryn Meadow-Orlans. Van Cleve, John Vickery
eds. Washington. DC: Gallaudet University Press. 1982 Deaf History Unveiled: Interpretations from the
Modell, Judith New Scholarship. Washington. DC: Gallaudet
1993 Kinship with Strangers: Adoption and Interpre- University Press.
tations of Kinship in American Culture. Berkeley: Vestberg, Palle
University of California Press. 1997 Educating the Deaf in Denmark: Historical Devel-
Myerhoff, Barbara opment and Current Educational Services for Deaf
1973 Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Children and Adults. Copenhagen: Danish Deaf
Indians. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Association.
Neville, H.J. and Ursula Bellugi Weston. Kath
1978 Patterns of Cerebral Specialization in Congeni- 1992 Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship.
tal l y Deaf Adults: A Preliminary Report. In Under- New York: Columbia University Press.
standing Language Through Sign Language Winefield, Richard
Research, Patricia Siple, ed. New York: Academic 1987 Never the Twain Shall Meet: Bell, Gallaudet, and
Press. the Communication Debate. Washington, DC:
Neville. Helen Gallaudet University Press.
1988 Cerebral Organization for Spatial Attention. In
Spatial Cognition: Brain Bases and Development,

138 Volume 15 Number2 Fall-Winter 1999-2000 Visual Anthropology Review