Chapter 6: Resisting a Hegemonic Medical Discourse of Deafness: Collective Resistance and Dispersed Transgressions

This chapter examines how a hegemonic medical discourse of deafness was resisted in the past and how that is different to resistance in the system today.  Given the relational nature of power, any act of domination can be met with an act of resistance. In this context, resistance pertains to any act, intentional or otherwise, that challenges the hegemonic medical model of deafness. Just like power, resistance is a combination of resources and effects. In this book, any act that supports or aligns with a social model of Deafness is seen as an act of resistance against a medical model.  When one of these acts is unintentional but resistant in nature, it is called a transgression. Because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between what is intentional and unintentional, the term transgression/resistance is sometimes used in this book – this also acknowledges the potential for transgressions to develop into acts of resistance over time.

Traditionally, Deaf communities developed near residential schools when DHH adults remained living in the area after completing school. These communities pooled their resources to resist the medical model and establish a Deaf identity. The use of sign language is the most common and significant deliberate act of resistance, particularly when its continued success is framed within the context of a growing negative discourse towards sign languages internationally in decades gone by. After St. Mary’s adopted an oralist philosophy, their students used secrecy and unsupervised time to continue developing and using Irish Sign Language. This is an example of disobedience as a form of resistance.  Some children learned from Deaf relatives, while others invented signs to fill in gaps in their lexicon. Several strategically brief signs emerged at this time to communicate, for example, that a teacher was watching. This collective agency demonstrates how peer contact within Schools for the Deaf facilitated resistance. This resistance continued often in spite of sanctions against pupils who signed.

Protest has also been used as a form of resistance, in particular through collective action of the Deaf Community.  Local clubs and organisations set up by the Deaf community, usually in locations close to their former Schools for the Deaf, paved the way for the establishment of a macro-level collective, cultural movement in Ireland, the establishment Irish Deaf Society (IDS) in 1981. The IDS campaigns for improved resources and recognition for DHH people.  Perhaps its most significant campaign to date is for official recognition of ISL in Ireland. The IDS used tactics such as public demonstrations to mobilize resistance. The ISL Awareness Week of 2008 culminated with an ISL Pride March through Dublin’s city centre. This campaign used the physical presence of DHH people and a clear rhetoric of Deaf empowerment to increase public visibility of the IDS, and subsequently of ISL. In 2016, the IDS used social media to lobby general election candidates to include ISL recognition in their manifesto, they also held a nationwide campaign to get local town councils to pass a motion to call on government to recognize ISL. 

Both examples given so far show collective, intergenerational resistance traditionally arising in and around Schools for the Deaf.  This contrasts significantly to the current forms of transgression/resistance emerging from DHH children who are spatially dispersed in mainstream schools. Since these children are at a distance from one another, either parents must resist on their children’s behalf, or the Deaf community must facilitate the intergenerational transfer of resistance tactics outside of the residential school system. Within this study, the resistance of parents was more likely to be motivated by pragmatics than by ideologies. These parents engaged in transgression/resistance in three ways: noncompliance, perseverance and mobilization. Non-compliance was evident where parents, frustrated with the impracticalities of following a speech-only routine, adopted ISL to facilitate meaningful communication. However, these acts of transgression/resistance are often short-lived, in particular if children undergo cochlear implant surgery.  If, at that point, parents experience disapproval of the medical professionals towards ISL, it can undermine their short-term transgression and re-established the authority of the medical experts. Perseverance was evident amongst the small number of participants who persisted with ISL in spite of this disapproval. These families tended to have connections with the Deaf community and saw their child as part of that community. Having an awareness of the ideological foundation for sign language was, in this study, a protective factor against institutional power tactics. Taking part in this study became a transgression/resistive act for some parents of older children who regretted not being supported to develop their child’s sign language. For these parents, their regret often manifested as mobilization with other parents. Many utilized their experience of raising a DHH child as a resource to counteract expert authority. 

The mainstreaming of deaf education has impeded resistance to the medical model both spatially and temporally. In this study, acts of transgression/resistance were frequently limited to the family home. Without collective agency, the transgressing/resisting acts of parents are spatially limited. Temporally, they are limited when acts of transgression/resistance did not extend past early childhood. The lack of intergenerational knowledge of Deaf culture also temporally restricts resistance, as these transgressions/resistances only last for one generation. It is interesting that the parents within this study never directly challenged expert advice. This signals again the power embedded within the authority of the medical model. Although parents spoke about campaigning for access to therapeutic and medical services, they rarely engaged in debates around access to ISL or the inaccurate advice that had been given to them. Another significant barrier to resistance is that some parents simply do not want their child to sign. For DHH children embedded within a medical model, speech is indicative of success. This indicates the subjectification of parents, who have internalized the medical goal of speech.

Although the resistance of the Deaf community has gained increased momentum in recent years, it tends to operate on a systemic level, failing to trickle down to parents, teachers and children. Hearing parents of DHH children are not often referred to Deaf services. When they do access advocacy services, the services tend to be run by hearing people for DHH people. This, combined with the poor representation of DHH people within the mainstream education system, limits the potential for collective resistance between the Deaf community and parents of DHH children. Although many parents spoke positively of their local Deaf community, several recounted negative experiences. A primary point of contention is the opposition to cochlear implantation parents encountered from many in the Deaf community. This stance is greatly at odds with the goals many hearing parents have for their DHH children. Although the recognition of the Deaf community as a cultural and linguistic minority group is an important part of their mission, strong opposition to the medicalization of deafness inhibits understanding and cooperation between the Deaf adults and hearing parents. As a result, two significant players who could collectively resist the system are not working together to their potential, thereby preventing more successful resistance against a hegemonic medical model.