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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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.
2.
D.Baynton, 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: R.A.R.Edwards, Words Made Flesh: Nineteenth-Century Deaf Education and the Growth of Deaf Schools (New York: New York University Press, 2012).
3.
“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. M.Mills, “Deafening: Noise and the Engineering of Communication in the Telephone System,”Grey Room43 (2011): 118-143; see also: HarlanLane, “Construction of Deafness,” in L.Davis (ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006); E.Rhoades, “Revisiting Labels: ‘Hearing’ or Not?”The Volta Review110, no.1 (Spring 2010): 55-67; B.Brueggemann, “Are you Deaf or Hearing?”Deaf Worlds14, no. 2 (July1988): 615.
4.
S.Burch, Signs of Resistance: American Deaf Cultural History, 1900 to World War II (New York & London: New York University Press, 2002); K.Nielsen, A Disability History of the United States (Boston: Beacon Press, 2012).
5.
M.Malzkuhn, “Compromising for Agency: The Role of the NAD during the American Eugenics Movement, 1880-1940,” in B.Greenwald and J.Murray (Eds.), In Our Own Hands: Essays in Deaf History 1780-1970 (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2016), 171-92.
6.
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 S.Burch and H.Joyner, Unspeakable: The Story of Junius Wilson (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007). On passing, see J.Brune and D.Wilson (Eds), Disability and Passing: Blurring the Lines of Identity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013).
7.
N.Comfort, 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 D.Baynton, Defectives in the Land: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016); H.Biesold, Crying Hands: Eugenics and Deaf People in Nazi Germany, trans. W.Sayers (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1999).
8.
M.A.Schmidt, “Normalization and Abnormal Genes: Hereditary Deafness Research at the Clarke School for the Deaf, 1930-1950,” in B.Greenwald and J.Murray (eds.), In Our Own Hands: Essays in Deaf History 1780-1970 (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2016), 193-210.
9.
J.Virdi [as Virdi-Dhesi], “Curtis’s Cephaloscope: Deafness and the Making of Surgical Authority in London, 1816-1845,”Bulletin of the History of Medicine87, no.3 (2013): 347-77.
10.
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 Computing33, no.2 (April-June2011): 24-45, at 28.
11.
J.Esmail, Reading Victorian Deafness: Signs and Sounds in Victorian Literature and Culture (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2013), at 136.
12.
H.Hays, “Do Your Ears Hear?”Hygeia3 (April1925), at 197.
13.
K.Gardner, Early Detection: Women, Cancer, and Awareness Campaigns in the Twentieth-Century United States (Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006).
14.
F.Rogers, “Can Education End Deafness?”The Federation News3, no. 8 (January1935), at 1.
15.
P.Conrad and J.Schneider, Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness, expanded edition (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998); P.Conrad, The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2007).
16.
L.Mauldin, Made to Hear: Cochlear Implants and Raising Deaf Children (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016), at 9.
17.
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).
18.
Many proponents of Deaf culture resist medicalization, citing deafness not as an impairment, but a difference in ability. See: S.Blume, The Artificial Ear: Cochlear Implants and the Culture of Deafness (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2010) and H.Lane, “The Medicalization of Cultural Deafness in Historical Perspective,” in R.Fischer and H.Lane (Eds.), Looking Back: A Reader on the History of Deaf Communities and their Sign Languages (Hamburg, 1993).
19.
See Mills, supra note 3 at 133.
20.
“We Go Backwards as We Go Forwards,”The New York League of the Hard of Hearing Bulletin12, no. 8-9, Silver Anniversary Souvenir Number (December1935-January 1936), at 1; “The March of Time,”The New York League for the Hard of Hearing Bulletin18 (June1940), at 1.
21.
R.Palmer, 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).
22.
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.
23.
H.Hays, “The Social and Economic Importance of Deafness,”The Volta Review15, no.7 (October1913): 303-11 at 303.
24.
G.Gooday and K.Sayer, 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. M.Yearsley, “The Prevention of Deaf-Mutism,”The Volta Review14.6 (October1912): 348-353 at 353.
25.
Hays, supra note 23 at 306. On hearing aids and invisibility, see: J.Virdi [as Virdi-Dhesi], “The Hearing Aid’s Pursuit of Invisibility,”The Atlantic, August4, 2006; M.Mills, “When Mobile Communication Technologies were New,”Endeavor33, no.4 (2009): 140-146; C.Sarliet al., “19th-Century Camouflaged Mechanical Hearing Devices,”Otology & Neurotology24, 4 (July2003): 691-698; H.Schwartz, “Hearing aids: sweet nothings, or an ear for an ear,” in P.Kirkham (ed.), The Gendered Object (Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press, 1996), 43-59.
26.
See Hays, supra note 22 at 311
27.
See Virdi, supra note 9; Gooday and Sayer, supra note 23 at 32-35.
28.
See Gooday and Sayer, supra note 24 at 90-95.
29.
For an overview of the history of otology as a specialization, see J.Virdi [as Virdi-Dhesi], From the Hands of Quacks: Aural Surgery, Deafness, and the Making of a Surgical Speciality in 19th Century Londonunpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto (2014); N.Weir, Otolaryngology: An Illustrated History (London: Butterworths, 1990. On medical specialization, see: D.Gavrus, “Men of Dreams and Men of Action: Neurologists, Neurosurgeons, and the Performance of Professional Identity, 1920-1950,”Bulletin of the History of Medicine85, no.1 (2011): 57-92; G.Weitz, Divide and Conquer: A Comparative History of Medical Specialization (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); L.Davidson, “‘Identities Ascertained’: British Ophthalmology in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,”Social History of Medicine9 (December1996): 313-33.
30.
The Federation News3, no. 1 (January1935).
31.
See Palmer, supra note 21 at 19.
32.
See Palmer, supra note 21 at 13.
33.
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.”
34.
See Mills, supra note 3 at 127.
35.
See Mills, supra note 3. See also: J.Sterne, Mp3: The Meaning of a Format (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2012), 53-55.
36.
See Sterne, supra note 35 at 59.
37.
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 News3, no.1 (January1935).
38.
Chicago Hearing Society Records 1916-1979, MSS Lot C, Box 1. Chicago History Museum Research Center.
39.
NYAM Section on Otology Minutes of Meetings, Annual Reports and Correspondence, 1915-1931. New York Academy of Medicine (subsequently NYAM) Archives.
40.
See Virdi supra note 29.
41.
See Mills supra note 3 at 127. On the history of AMA and quackery, see E.Boyle, Quack Medicine: A History of Combating Health Fraud in Twentieth-Century America (Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, 2013). On health and consumerism, see N.Tomes, Remaking the American Patient: How Madison Avenue and Modern Medicine Turned Patients Into Consumers (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2016).
42.
D.M.Quinn, “Concealable versus Conspicuous Stigmatized Identities,” in S.Lein and C.van Laar (eds.), Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, 2006), 83-103; see also E.Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (New York: Touchstone Books, 1963); R.Garland-Thomson, Staring: How We Look (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
43.
A.Peck, E.Samuelson, and A.Lehman, Ears and the Man: Studies in Social Work for the Deafened (New York: F.A. Davis Company, 1926).
44.
G.ShambaughJr., “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.
45.
The Volta Review23 (1921) at 471.
46.
W.Phillips and H.Hays, “The Physician’s Responsibility to the Deafened,”Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Hard of Hearing2 (1921), at 25.
47.
See Rogers, supra note 14.
48.
M.Goldstein, “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.
49.
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.
50.
F.Sperry, “Cooperation of Otologists and Organizations for the Hard of Hearing,”The Federation News3, no.10 (October1935), at 1.
51.
Internal memo, December 9, 1927. NYAM Section of Otology Minutes of Meetings, Annual Reports and Correspondence, 1915-1931. NYAM Archives.
52.
NYAM Section of Otology Correspondence, 1921-1931, NYAM Archives.
53.
See Rogers, supra note 14.
54.
C.Richardson, “Conserve your Hearing,”Hygiea2 (November1924), at 702.
55.
J.Burnham, Health Care in America: A History (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2015), at 339.
56.
See Gardner, supra note 13 at 25.
57.
S.Zwerling, “Problems of the Hard of Hearing,”Hearing News6, no.1 (January1938), at 1.
58.
D.Wilson, Living with Polio: The Epidemic and its Survivors (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
59.
J.Murphy, “Common Sense Means of Conserving Hearing,”The Federation News5, no.4 (April1937), at 1.
60.
In 1998, for instance, the U.S. military integrated various hearing conservation programs into a new Department of Defense Hearing Conservation Program; see A.H.Suter, “The Hearing Conservation Amendment: 25 Years Later,”Noise Health11, no. 42 (January-March2009): 2-7.
61.
G.Coolidge, “Help for the Hard of Hearing,”Hygiea16 (November1938), at 991.
62.
On “hope” as cure, see E.Clare, Brilliant Imperfection: Grappling with Cure (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2017).
63.
Bulletin of the New York League for the Hard of Hearing18, no. 7 (November1940), at 3.
64.
Bulletin of the New York League for the Hard of Hearing17, no. 10 (February1940), at 3.
