Strip Speech Of Its Status

‘By dethroning speech, we may free ourselves to entertain alternative constructions of language and human nature.’ - Dirksen/Bauman

The above quote, to me, encapsulates a dreamy alternate universe where audism - in summary, discrimination or prejudice against those who are deaf or hard of hearing - no longer exists. Given the fact that a red line appeared underneath "audism" as I typed it just goes to prove that hearing people have deluded themselves into believing that audism doesn’t exist - it’s not even recognised by a laptop. I doubt the vast majority of hearing people are familiar with the term; even I wasn’t until relatively recently. When I stumbled upon it, however, I felt as though I was rediscovering a long-lost toy that I’d been desperately searching for.

Finally, I'd a found a name that I could attribute to the discriminatory attitudes and treatment I've been subjected to from some hearing people: their sense of superiority and 'pity' because I cannot hear; those who wonder how on earth I’ve managed to forge a career in teaching whilst being deaf; all of the explicit frustration from hearing people that I’m forever on the receiving end of; the isolation I experience in groups of people who actively choose to ignore my deafness and refuse to employ strategies to facilitate my inclusion in conversation; people who find me ‘difficult’ because I require adjustments. Audism can be explicit or covert. Sometimes it's frustratingly difficult to ‘prove’, but you feel it in your gut. Audism sits in your drink like a minuscule fly, maybe even unnoticed at first, but floating just beneath the surface. Others watch you struggle to extract it, or simply sit with unblemished drinks, oblivious to your plight.

-

Why is speech deemed to be so important? And why are we - as deaf and HoH people - excluded, marginalised and judged for not being able to fully access it? The reason may be because, according to Dirksen and Bauman’s research, there exists "the confusion that language is speech." It goes on to argue that audism is founded on the historical idea of speech: "Historically, we humans have identified ourselves as the speaking animal; if one cannot speak, then he or she is akin to human in body but to animal in mind. In this orientation, we see ourselves as becoming human through speech."

Speech is often thought of as the primary means of communication between people. This, in my opinion, is simplistic rubbish. If anything, I feel as though I have improved my ability to interpret communication on a deeper level than I did before I lost my hearing at the age of nineteen. I'm more attuned to body language, facial expressions, and a person's 'vibe' (for lack of a better, more sophisticated word) than I did before. Considering that the majority of communication is nonverbal - although the classic 'only 7% is verbal' has been widely debunked (the "7%" arose from Professor Albert Mehrabian's prominent study in the 1960's that gave us the 55, 38, 7 'rule' (body language, tone, and actual words respectively). However, it's still agreed that the nonverbal plays a large and critical role in communication. I certainly don't view myself as any 'lesser', even if certain hearing people hold the ableist belief that I am. Whilst the foundation of speech is language, speech has little meaning without the nonverbal.

-

I am a self-confessed linguaphile. I love language in all of its various forms, yet 'speech' certainly isn't something that immediately comes to mind when I hear the word 'language'. This isn't because I'm deaf. I fell in love with the written word as a child. It's a cliché, but if anything has the power to transport you to another 'world' then it's a book. It's the written word; not the spoken. I vividly remember the final weeks of Year Two at school, when I was six years old, being told that I had successfully completed the reading scale - colour-coded to denote reading ability - and I could choose any book from the library that I wanted from now on. Any book that I wanted - I was BUZZING. I chose The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, very apt when discussing 'other worlds'. For me, the written word plays a fundamental role in what I consider to be my identity.

I love the power of a modifier; an Oxford comma; a carefully crafted metaphor in the form of zoomorphism or pathetic fallacy; and a good old-fashioned simile, to name but a few. I love to see them on the page, especially a page that smells of love, care and/or a second-hand bookstore. I don't feel deprived of language when I can't access podcasts. If I hear an intriguing song, I pull up the lyrics on Apple Music or Google and read along as best I can (anyone else remember Smash Hits! magazine and the pull-out lyrics at the back, square shaped pieces of card with perforated edges?! I say they bring it back.) If the lyrics resonate with me, I listen to the song again; if they don't, it's not worthy of a repeat. So what if I can't hear them saying the lyrics? I can appreciate them in exactly the same way as a hearing person. Whilst phonocentrism - the belief that sounds and speech are superior to the written word - still appears to pervade our society, I find no credence in it.

-

Given then the vital role of nonverbal cues, and the power of the written word in helping to carve our identities, it makes complete sense that speech be 'dethroned'. Language shapes us, regardless of whether it's written or spoken. I don't feel prevented from accessing language. If anything, I feel as though losing my hearing has opened up a secret entrance, a wardrobe door into a fresh perspective on language and communication that I, as a deaf person, have 'secret access' to.

It's time for speech to abdicate its throne.