Deafness As A Culture

These past couple of weeks, I have been thinking about deafness in its cultural context and in its biomedical context. I know that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides special services such as interpreters. However, I recently started thinking that the fact that the act itself is named a “disabilities” act requires that the individuals receiving these services acknowledge either a physical or an emotional disability. This, to me, seems to cause a tension between a disabled identity and a cultural identity for a deaf individual. In particular, I feel like there is a tension between an identification of deafness as a disability and an identification of deafness merely a difference.

From what I have been learning so far in the class, the deaf community is moving away from the identification of deafness as a disability towards encouraging an affirmation of a rich deaf culture complete with its own language, tradition, and pride. However, the social services provided by the ADA require that at some level, the deaf acknowledge that deafness is a disability. I do not see deaf individuals as having a severe handicap or disability but I do see that we need to make certain accommodations in order for the hearing and the deaf to reside together effectively. I believe that the services offered to provide deaf individuals with a greater access to the hearing world should not be done in such a way that it creates an affront to deaf culture. Specifically, having access to an interpreter should not require a disabled classification. After all, interpreters are required for world leaders to have equal access during UN meetings. We would not classify the need for interpreters in this instance to be as a result of a disability. If the immigrants in the United States who do not speak English are not recognize as disabled or “impaired,” why should deaf people who have access to their own sign language be?