Introduction
Currently, the American Deaf Community is recognized as an indigenous linguistic and cultural minority group. Previously, deaf people were viewed as disabled or handicapped. Today’s society realizes that this cultural group has to be included in various cultures that cover the “hearing” educational, health, and other social services through the training provided by the health providers. Although social policies aim to adapt deaf people to today’s reality to the maximum possible extent, it is essential to understand the difficulties of cross-cultural interaction and mediation between hearing and deaf people in terms of family or provider-family relationships.
The ADA
In 1990, ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, became law. It is a civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimination against disabled people in all public living areas, including schools, educational institutions, transportation, and other private and public services opened to the general public (“What is”). The law aims to ensure that disabled people have the same opportunities and rights as other individuals. The ADA protects civil rights to individuals with disabilities analogically to those provided to people based on sex, age, color, religion, and national origin (“What is”). The ADA guarantees equal opportunities for people with disabilities in employment, public accommodations, telecommunications, transportation, and local and state government services.
The ADA and the American Deaf Community
The ADA entitles all the deaf or hard hearing individuals to the same services provided by law to anyone else. It prohibits their segregation or exclusion from the whole spectrum of services and different treatment than to the other people (“Communicating with”). Law enforcement institutions should ensure that their staff treats people who suffer from hearing disabilities efficiently. This applies equally to both civilian and sworn personnel.
Empowerment Concept
The main issue of the empowerment concept is its practical complexity. Empowerment models assume the implication of the bottom-up strategies for a broad contextual framework and change. Primarily, it is focused on giving authority and power to an individual. In those terms, it addresses power and resources redistribution. Hence, the primary issue is whether the increased empowerment for one community automatically decreases the others.
In terms of this framework, deaf individuals are recognized to have ultimately the same abilities of self-presentation, participation in health care work, and decision making in different fields. The deafness classification from the medical point of view does not match health promotion strategies’ aims. In turn, the deaf community members identify their disability as a cultural but not audiological problem. Prejudice attitudes, negative stereotypes, and pathological stigma towards deaf individuals unfavorably affect legal, educational, and medical policies. In fact, deaf people experience more disability from their interrelations with the hearing world representatives than from their hearing pathology. In order to overcome this social problem, it is appropriate to identify five key strategies:
- improve legislation on barriers in communication;
- provide the needed information;
- provide the society with the relevant information;
- enforce the coping policies of people with disabilities;
- improve physician-patient communication and the appropriate care settings.
The “Audism”
Disordered thinking and, as a consequence, a negative stigma towards deaf people is called audism. It is similar to sexism or racism, as it similarly labels, limits, and judges people based on their ability to speak and hear (“Audism: Oppression”). In fact, audism is the reflection of the medical view of this disability that should be fixed. In terms of historical beliefs, deaf individuals were considered to be the savages with no language, as the word was equated to humanity. Taking into account the fact that many deaf individuals were born and raised in hearing families that were not taught to sign, audism might be ingrained. It is noteworthy that both deaf and hearing people may be audists. Moreover, this kind of attitude might also exist among deaf people. There are numerous possible examples of audism: for instance, one can jump in to help a deaf individual communicate. Some people ask deaf persons to read their lips or write when the last indicates they do not prefer it. An audism might also be expressed through making the phone calls for a deaf individual since they are “not able to” (“Audism: Oppression”). Moreover, deaf people may experience a refusal to call an interpreter in case he or she is needed.
Additionally, even assuming one’s superiority due to better English skills or speech is a vivid example of audism. A deaf individual should never be asked to tone down his or her facial mimics as they make someone uncomfortable (“Audism: Oppression”). Similarly, it is unacceptable to refuse to explain a deaf person the reason for the laughter of the surrounding people. For deaf children, if most of the instructional time is devoted to speech therapy and lipreading instead of educational subjects, it is also the audism feature.
There are several conflicts arising within the American Deaf Community in both cultural and medical prospects. A pathological approach to deafness considers it in psychological and medical terms and is inherently harmful. Hence, deaf people are constructed as “broken hearing persons” facing an undesirable condition. They view themselves as needing to be fixed and specially trained in order to fit in the world of those who hear. From the medical point of view, deafness is based on measurement of audiological function, with hearing loss greater than 70 dB characterized as being severe-to-profound” (Jorgensen at al.). On the other hand, there is a psychological definition of this disability emphasizing the functional consequences. In other words, psychologists claim that deafness is likely to significantly affect individuals social interactions and development.
By contrast, there is also a cultural view that is value-neutral. It is based on the recognition that deaf people have their own so-called “deaf culture” and sign language. This view accepts the fact that persons with a hearing disability might not be willing to be fixed. Moreover, deaf individuals may be happy with their identity and themselves in general. It is noteworthy that while discussing their deafness, such people use specific terminology related to their past, language, and community in general. Simultaneously, they tend to avoid focusing on potential cures and “medicalizing” the situation.
Conclusion
It is crucial to engage interventionists in community outreach and education analogically in providing direct services. Society should place more emphasis on working with the entire family. It would also be appropriate to develop and continuously improve a solid communication base. Parents of deaf children should be provided with social support to adjust and gain confidence in parenting. Hence, a family with deaf members should have the availability of any needed support resources. Service providers need to balance intervention strategies and improve the coordination of auditory and manual skills. At the same time, they should be sensitive to the ways of service delivery and be flexible in dealing with different individuals and their families.
Works Cited
“Audism: Oppression in the Lives of Deaf Individuals.” VAWnet, n.d., 2020. Web.
“Communicating with People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: ADA Guide for Law Enforcement Officers.” ADA, 2020, Web.
Jorgensen, Lindsen E., et al. “Conventional Amplification for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.” Semin Hear., vol. 39, no. 4, 2018, pp. 364–376.
“What Is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?” ADA, 2020. Web.