Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:23:23.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevention & Conservation: Historicizing the Stigma of Hearing Loss, 1910-1940

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jaipreet Virdi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the early twentieth century, otologists began collaborating with organizers of the New York League for the Hard of Hearing to build a bridge to “adjust the economic ratio” of deafness and create new research avenues for alleviating or curing hearing loss. This collegiality not only defined the medical discourse surrounding hearing impairment, anchoring it in hearing tests and hearing aid prescription, but, in so doing, solidified the notion that deafness was a “problem” in dire need of a “solution.” Public health campaigns thus became pivotal for spreading this message on local and national levels. This paper focuses on how, from the 1920s to 1950s, as otologists became more involved with social projects for the deaf and hard of hearing — advocating lip-reading, community work, and welfare programs — at the same time, they also mandated for greater therapeutic regulation, control of hearing aid distribution, and standardization of hearing tests. The seemingly paradoxical nature of their roles continued to reinforce the stigmatization of deafness: with widespread availability of effective help, the hearing impaired were expected to seek out therapeutic or technological measures rather than live with their affliction.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 4: Stigma & Health , Winter 2017 , pp. 531 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Draft of speech, “Overcoming the Handicap of Deafness.” Chicago Hearing Society Records 1916-1979, MSS Lot C, Box 1, Folder “Minute Book & Related Papers, 1935-1939.” Chicago History Museum Research Center.Google Scholar
Baynton, D., Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 1996). The capital-D “Deaf ” was coined in 1972 by the sociologist James Woodward to distinguish between deafness as an audiological affliction and the community of individuals with hearing loss with a distinct culture grounded in the use of sign language. On theoral history of deafness in the United States, see: Edwards, R.A.R., Words Made Flesh: Nineteenth-Century Deaf Education and the Growth of Deaf Schools (New York: New York University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
“Hope: How Medical Help Also Moves Forward,” The New York League of the Hard of Hearing Bulletin 12, no.8-9, Silver Anniversary Souvenir Number (December 1935-January 1936). Mara Mills argues that at the start of the twentieth century, hardness of hearing was primarily an euphemism for deafness. Wanting a new nomenclature, the New York League demanded that “the deaf” be separated in two categories: “deaf” for those born deaf, whether signing or oral, and “deafened” for those with “adventitious” hearing loss, whether in partial or full. As more categories of hearing impairment were devised, the categories in turn were used to distinguish self-identities; “hard of hearing,” “hearing impaired,” and deafened” were still used as an all-purpose term rather than specifics of partial or full hearing loss, even if individuals themselves subscribed to a particular categorical identity. The distinction in terminology remains a matter of debate. Mills, M., “Deafening: Noise and the Engineering of Communication in the Telephone System,” Grey Room 43 (2011): 118-143; see also: Lane, Harlan, “Construction of Deafness,” in Davis, L. (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006); Rhoades, E., “Revisiting Labels: ‘Hearing’ or Not?” The Volta Review 110, no.1 (Spring 2010): 55-67; Brueggemann, B., “Are you Deaf or Hearing?” Deaf Worlds 14, no. 2 (July 1988): 615.Google Scholar
Burch, S., Signs of Resistance: American Deaf Cultural History, 1900 to World War II (New York & London: New York University Press, 2002); Nielsen, K., A Disability History of the United States (Boston: Beacon Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Malzkuhn, M., “Compromising for Agency: The Role of the NAD during the American Eugenics Movement, 1880-1940,” in Greenwald, B. and Murray, J. (Eds.), In Our Own Hands: Essays in Deaf History 1780-1970 (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2016), 171–92.Google Scholar
As the case of Junius Wilson (1908-2001) shows, eugenics and socio-legal trends could have dire ramifications for d/Deaf individuals. Likely deaf since birth, Wilson was enrolled at the Colored Department of the North Carolina School for the Blind and Deaf in Raleigh. In 1925, he was wrongly arrested for rape, declared insane, and sent to the State Hospital for the Colored Insane, where he was sterilized. He remained in the institution until 1994, before relocating to a small house on the hospital grounds. See Burch, S. and Joyner, H., Unspeakable: The Story of Junius Wilson (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007). On passing, see Brune, J. and Wilson, D. (Eds), Disability and Passing: Blurring the Lines of Identity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Comfort, N., The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2012). On disability and eugenics, see Baynton, D., Defectives in the Land: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016); Biesold, H., Crying Hands: Eugenics and Deaf People in Nazi Germany, trans. Sayers, W. (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. A., “Normalization and Abnormal Genes: Hereditary Deafness Research at the Clarke School for the Deaf, 1930-1950,” in Greenwald, B. and Murray, J. (eds.), In Our Own Hands: Essays in Deaf History 1780-1970 (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2016), 193-210.Google Scholar
Virdi, J. [as Virdi-Dhesi], “Curtis’s Cephaloscope: Deafness and the Making of Surgical Authority in London, 1816-1845,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 87, no.3 (2013): 347–77.Google Scholar
See Mills, supra note 3. Some League members even pressured AT&T to build better hearing aids, as Mills documents in “Hearing Aids and the History of Electronics Miniaturization,” IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 33, no.2 (April-June 2011): 24-45, at 28.Google Scholar
Esmail, J., Reading Victorian Deafness: Signs and Sounds in Victorian Literature and Culture (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2013), at 136.Google Scholar
Hays, H., “Do Your Ears Hear?” Hygeia 3 (April 1925), at 197.Google Scholar
Gardner, K., Early Detection: Women, Cancer, and Awareness Campaigns in the Twentieth-Century United States (Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Rogers, F., “Can Education End Deafness?” The Federation News 3, no. 8 (January 1935), at 1.Google Scholar
Conrad, P. and Schneider, J., Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness, expanded edition (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998); Conrad, P., The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Mauldin, L., Made to Hear: Cochlear Implants and Raising Deaf Children (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016), at 9.Google Scholar
See Mauldin, supra note 16 at 15. B. Brueggemann makes a similar argument for the professionalization of audiology in Lend Me Your Ear: Rhetorical Constructions of Deafness. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Many proponents of Deaf culture resist medicalization, citing deafness not as an impairment, but a difference in ability. See: Blume, S., The Artificial Ear: Cochlear Implants and the Culture of Deafness (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2010) and Lane, H., “The Medicalization of Cultural Deafness in Historical Perspective,” in Fischer, R. and Lane, H. (Eds.), Looking Back: A Reader on the History of Deaf Communities and their Sign Languages (Hamburg, 1993).Google Scholar
See Mills, , supra note 3 at 133.Google Scholar
“We Go Backwards as We Go Forwards,” The New York League of the Hard of Hearing Bulletin 12, no. 8-9, Silver Anniversary Souvenir Number (December 1935-January 1936), at 1; “The March of Time,” The New York League for the Hard of Hearing Bulletin 18 (June 1940), at 1.Google Scholar
Palmer, R., The New York League for the Hard of Hearing in the Context of the Progressive (1900-1918) and Neo-Progressive (1960-1957) Eras, unpublished PhD. thesis, New York University (1997).Google Scholar
The Volta Review is a prominent journal published by the Volta Bureau, a research organization established by Alexander Graham Bell. Located in Washington, D.C., the Bureau served as a national center and reference library on oral education for deaf children.Google Scholar
Hays, H., “The Social and Economic Importance of Deafness,” The Volta Review 15, no.7 (October 1913): 303–11 at 303.Google Scholar
Gooday, G. and Sayer, K., Managing the Experience of Hearing Loss in Britain, 1830-1930 (London: Palgrave Macmillian, 2017) at 25. Yearsley especially emphasized that otologists needed to adopt more invasive methods for preventing deaf-mutism: surgical procedures, better hygiene, elimination of superstitious methods, and, to completely eliminate congenital deaf-mutism, sterilization. Yearsley, M., “The Prevention of Deaf-Mutism,” The Volta Review 14.6 (October 1912): 348-353 at 353.Google Scholar
Hays, supra note 23 at 306. On hearing aids and invisibility, see: Virdi, J. [as Virdi-Dhesi], “The Hearing Aid’s Pursuit of Invisibility,” The Atlantic, August 4, 2006; Mills, M., “When Mobile Communication Technologies were New,” Endeavor 33, no.4 (2009): 140-146; Sarli, C. et al., “19th-Century Camouflaged Mechanical Hearing Devices,” Otology & Neurotology 24, 4 (July 2003): 691-698; Schwartz, H., “Hearing aids: sweet nothings, or an ear for an ear,” in Kirkham, P. (ed.), The Gendered Object (Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press, 1996), 43-59.Google Scholar
See Hays, , supra note 22 at 311Google Scholar
See Virdi, , supra note 9; Gooday and Sayer, supra note 23 at 32-35.Google Scholar
See Gooday, and Sayer, , supra note 24 at 90-95.Google Scholar
For an overview of the history of otology as a specialization, see Virdi, J. [as Virdi-Dhesi], From the Hands of Quacks: Aural Surgery, Deafness, and the Making of a Surgical Speciality in 19th Century London unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto (2014); Weir, N., Otolaryngology: An Illustrated History (London: Butterworths, 1990. On medical specialization, see: Gavrus, D., “Men of Dreams and Men of Action: Neurologists, Neurosurgeons, and the Performance of Professional Identity, 1920-1950,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 85, no.1 (2011): 57-92; Weitz, G., Divide and Conquer: A Comparative History of Medical Specialization (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Davidson, L., “‘Identities Ascertained’: British Ophthalmology in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” Social History of Medicine 9 (December 1996): 313-33.Google Scholar
The Federation News 3, no. 1 (January 1935).Google Scholar
See Palmer, , supra note 21 at 19.Google Scholar
See Palmer, , supra note 21 at 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
In June 1919, the Federation became incorporated as the American Association of the Hard of Hearing, but by 1922 it was noted that the name was too similar to another national organization, the American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech for the Deaf, which was also commonly referred to as “The Association.”Google Scholar
See Mills, , supra note 3 at 127.Google Scholar
See Mills, , supra note 3. See also: Sterne, J., Mp3: The Meaning of a Format (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2012), 53-55.Google Scholar
See Sterne, , supra note 35 at 59.Google Scholar
Phillips wrote part of a report on hard of hearing children for the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection: “Not only have plans been evolved for children but they have been tried and proven…Their adoption on a country-wide scale is recommended.” Phillips was a member of the Committee on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Section on Special Classes at the Conference and “believed, however, that no plan for the detection of ear trouble in children and medical care for those in need of it would be successful unless provided for by state regulation.” The Federation News 3, no.1 (January 1935).Google Scholar
Chicago Hearing Society Records 1916-1979, MSS Lot C, Box 1. Chicago History Museum Research Center.Google Scholar
NYAM Section on Otology Minutes of Meetings, Annual Reports and Correspondence, 1915-1931. New York Academy of Medicine (subsequently NYAM) Archives.Google Scholar
See Virdi, supra note 29.Google Scholar
See Mills, supra note 3 at 127. On the history of AMA and quackery, see Boyle, E., Quack Medicine: A History of Combating Health Fraud in Twentieth-Century America (Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, 2013). On health and consumerism, see Tomes, N., Remaking the American Patient: How Madison Avenue and Modern Medicine Turned Patients Into Consumers (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Quinn, D. M., “Concealable versus Conspicuous Stigmatized Identities,” in Lein, S. and van Laar, C. (eds.), Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, 2006), 83-103; see also Goffman, E., Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (New York: Touchstone Books, 1963); Garland-Thomson, R., Staring: How We Look (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Peck, A., Samuelson, E., and Lehman, A., Ears and the Man: Studies in Social Work for the Deafened (New York: F.A. Davis Company, 1926).Google Scholar
Shambaugh, G. Jr., “The Otologist and the League for the Hard of Hearing,” manuscript notes for Yearbook of the Chicago League for the Hard of Hearing (n.d), American Medical Association Archives, Department of Investigation Records, Deafness Cures Box 181.Google Scholar
The Volta Review 23 (1921) at 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, W. and Hays, H., “The Physician’s Responsibility to the Deafened,” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Hard of Hearing 2 (1921), at 25.Google Scholar
See Rogers, , supra note 14.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M., “The Deafened Child, His Handicaps and their Correction,” American Federation of Organizations for the Hard of Hearing, Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting (1923) at 31, NYAM Archives.Google Scholar
Memo by D. Dougherty, Secretary of NYAM Section of Otology, April 27, 1922, NYAM Section of Otology Minutes of Meetings, Annual Reports and Correspondence, 1915-1931. NYAM Archives.Google Scholar
Sperry, F., “Cooperation of Otologists and Organizations for the Hard of Hearing,” The Federation News 3, no.10 (October 1935), at 1.Google Scholar
Internal memo, December 9, 1927. NYAM Section of Otology Minutes of Meetings, Annual Reports and Correspondence, 1915-1931. NYAM Archives.Google Scholar
NYAM Section of Otology Correspondence, 1921-1931, NYAM Archives.Google Scholar
See Rogers, , supra note 14.Google Scholar
Richardson, C., “Conserve your Hearing,” Hygiea 2 (November 1924), at 702.Google Scholar
Burnham, J., Health Care in America: A History (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2015), at 339.Google Scholar
See Gardner, , supra note 13 at 25.Google Scholar
Zwerling, S., “Problems of the Hard of Hearing,” Hearing News 6, no.1 (January 1938), at 1.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., Living with Polio: The Epidemic and its Survivors (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Murphy, J., “Common Sense Means of Conserving Hearing,” The Federation News 5, no.4 (April 1937), at 1.Google Scholar
In 1998, for instance, the U.S. military integrated various hearing conservation programs into a new Department of Defense Hearing Conservation Program; see Suter, A. H., “The Hearing Conservation Amendment: 25 Years Later,” Noise Health 11, no. 42 (January-March 2009): 2-7.Google Scholar
Coolidge, G., “Help for the Hard of Hearing,” Hygiea 16 (November 1938), at 991.Google Scholar
On “hope” as cure, see Clare, E., Brilliant Imperfection: Grappling with Cure (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Bulletin of the New York League for the Hard of Hearing 18, no. 7 (November 1940), at 3.Google Scholar
Bulletin of the New York League for the Hard of Hearing 17, no. 10 (February 1940), at 3.Google Scholar