What if the glass isn’t simply half empty or half full; it could be that the glass is just too big for the water it holds. The glass analogy is often used as a way to shed light on new perspectives. Imagine the water personifies the minority, and the glass represent the expectations of the dominant society. Now, what if the glass is simply too large for the water it holds?  Whether you’re a part of the dominant culture or not, societal expectations have proven to influence your beliefs and behaviors both explicitly and implicitly. As we focus on the Deaf community, we see expectations force many to rebel and even more to assimilate. The never-ending battle of proving the validity of their culture and existence has demonstrated near impossible due to unreachable societal standards. The glass is simply too large.

How does one acquire their culture? We begin to develop our culture the second we are born and continue to build it until the day we pass. One’s unique experiences and exposures unanimously classifies all individuals as ‘multicultural,’ regardless of one’s beliefs otherwise. After extensive research with significant focus on the Deaf community, I’ve determined that there are three primary sources that affect the development of culture, and ultimately, identity, in an individual: family, education, and the media.

The lack of proper development both culturally and mentally for Deaf children is apparent due to an alarming quantity being born into hearing families. Many of these children live life ignorant of the potential gain of their preached loss as hearing families often appeal to medical authority. Home environments prove to offer valuable intelligence regarding the development of one’s culture and identity. Writers of Deaf Epistemology: Deafhood and Deafness agree that parental attitudes and behaviors influence the cultural evolution of an individual, and furthermore, how the access to knowledge (voluntary and incidental) drives our learning of potential risks, behavior, and overall confidence. Their research comparing both hearing and Deaf parents raising a Deaf child (labeled Deaf of Hearing and Deaf of Deaf) produced contrasting numbers in favor of a visual culture (Hauser, O’Hearn, McKee, Steider, & Thew 2010). With that being said, it’s not surprising that the exclusionary and biased environment hearing parents offer has left many Deaf children depressed and uneducated; ultimately contributing to their continual failures to meet societal standards. This reminds me heavily of the school to prison pipeline theory that entails the criminalization of youth by means of disciplinary strategies that essentially direct students to prison following their education.

The traditional stigma, and unfortunately, statistical proof, that deems Deaf individuals as educationally incompetent in contrast with standard expectations, has proven to be the result of the privileged ignorance of hearing authorities and the failed opportunities for success that follow. Deaf scholars like Thomas K. Holcomb have attempted to enlighten educators of Deaf epistemology and the ways in which a Deaf child rightfully develops proper culture and identity. Two significant factors involved in that development are accessible communication and proper role models, especially in educational environments (Holcomb 2010). Of course, the use of accessible communication is a necessity in any educational atmosphere, but an emphasis on proper role models opened my eyes to another primary source of enculturation. With high rates of Deaf of Hearing children, there is a lack of proper role model behavior in the home. Therefore, the educational systems in place have a duty to not only educate the Deaf but provide model Deaf figures to make up for the significant lack of one from immediate family. While steps toward deaf inclusion concerning access to communication and proper role models are rendered, appropriate interpretation disappoints, and consequently we continue to live in restrictive environments.

Traditional principle gives authority to the dominant society by providing them not only with valuable information, but the power to interpret its salience. Media culture presents overwhelming concern due to its extravagance and nearly world-wide access. Its content proves its inadequacy to relate to culture, moreover, it shrewdly aims to teach it. While it’s driven by infinite information, the data is capitalized by dominant industries and political systems that innately silence the minority by means of an impossible competition. Nealon and Giroux, authors of Culture. The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for The Humanities, Arts, & Social Science, state that many are “dependent on media to keep [them] both informed and entertained” (Nealon & Giroux pg. 70 2011). However, the information provided is riddled with ideological ism’s that merely serve the dominant, not the whole. A phenomenal example illuminates the representation of the Deaf community in television and feature films. Putting aside obvious issues of casting (hearing often play Deaf roles), portrayal of Deafness is often characterized in audistic manners that emphasize unpopular practices like lipreading and the praised use of cochlear implants that all assume Deaf assimilation toward an audiocentric center (Eckert & Rowley 2013). Once again, dominant interpretation of Deaf ideology fails to provide proper models of understanding, and consequently, results in a cross-cultured belief that Deafness is inferior (Dysconscious audism) (Gertz 2008).

Over the last few decades, the primary focus of many Deaf scholars has been to verify the authenticity of their culture. In a world where eugenics still plays a huge role in unnatural selection, technological advancements may soon influence the eradication of disability leading to the extinction of beneficial diversity and potential societal gains. In efforts to communicate the epistemology of one’s culture, Deaf scholars attempt to influence the search for ‘what one does’ rather than ‘what one has.’ Using popular stigmas like “coming out,” writer of Talking Culture and Culture Talking, Tom Humphries, explains the contrasting complexity involved when one publicly unveils their once private, yet communal, identity with repercussions of relentless interrogation for ‘proof.’ In the beginning, scholars yielded sparse evidence in accordance with societal standards of historical literature due to a language that has been passed down visually. Furthermore, the enthusiastic and rapid talk of Deaf culture and the evidence required to confirm its’ validity, left many of those involved within the Deaf community fearful of cooperative criticism; a vital process for internal growth and overall societal progression. Humphries’ interesting observations enlighten the relationship of ones’ struggles in distinction to their culture and how it has the potential to dangerously bind them in unison singularly (Humphries 2008).

So, what if the glass is just too big? Societal expectations pose unreachable standards that most communities struggle to meet both physically and morally. The learning of behavior from primary sources of enculturation (family, education, and the media)  has left many involved in marginalized communities ignorantly blinded by public misrepresentation of their culture, and consequently, the assimilation toward dominant beliefs are favored in an effort to ‘fit in.’ Public concentration on the validity of Deaf culture and its’ overall benefits to society as a whole has discouraged the future progression of Deaf literature by means of constructive criticism. Standards are too high, and the glass is too large. No amount of water will satisfy the ­­­size and expectations of the glass.

 

 

 

 

References

Eckert, C. R., Rowley, J. A. (2013). Audism: A theory and practice of audiocentric            privilege. Humanity & Society, 37(2), 101-130. 10.1177/0160597613481731

Gertz, G. (2008). Dysconscious audism: A theoretical proposition. In H-D. L.         Bauman (Ed.), Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking (pp. 219-234).

University of Minnesota Press.      https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=346040

Hauser, P. C., O’Hearn, A., McKee, M., Steider, A., & Thew, D. (2010). Deaf epistemology: Deafhood and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154, 486-492. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0120

Holcomb, T. K. (2010). Deaf epistemology: The deaf way of knowing. American Annals of the Deaf, 154, 471-478. doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0116

Humphries T. (2008). Talking culture and culture talking. In H-D, Bauman., Open your    eyes: Deaf studies talking. pp. 35-41. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota        Press.

Nealon, J. & Giroux S. (2011). Culture. The theory toolbox: Critical concepts for the         humanities, arts, & social science. pp. 51-92. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield           Publishers.

Ryan, M., Ingram, B., & Musiol, H. (2010). Ideologies. Cultural studies: A practical             introduction. pp. 40-52. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.

 

 

Articles