Neither Hearing nor Deaf: How CIs Change the Meaning of Deaf Identity
Benjamin McKane
Sept 2021
When we think of instruments of cultural eradication, the most salient images are either the biggest or the most horrifying — forced sterilization, bombs, mass propaganda campaigns, and so forth. Surprisingly, though, even the tiniest of technologies can generate concerns over cultural eradication from members of marginalized communities. Case in point: the cochlear implant. This device (which I will abbreviate to CI) can be surgically implanted into the inner ears of those who are profoundly or congenitally deaf, allowing patients to hear by stimulating the auditory nerves directly. Initially, CIs appear to be a medical miracle, offering a cure for deafness. But is deafness something that inherently needs to be cured? Backlash within the Deaf community has erupted since the improvement and popularization of CIs a few decades back. Deaf leaders argue that the devices are attempting to eliminate the deafness that community members have taken such great pride in. Being deaf, they argue, is not something to be ashamed of; deaf people are still capable of achieving great success, regardless of whether or not they can hear. CIs, they fear, will lead deaf individuals to view being hearing as superior and to reject or move away from their Deaf identities. As such, it is understandable why many deaf people are apprehensive towards the devices.
The debate over whether or not CIs can eradicate Deaf culture is one that has been discussed and scrutinized for decades, with neither perspective being clear-cut. For this paper, though, I will not engage in this debate. Rather, I would like to look at what happens when children — the group generally targeted for CIs — are given the implant and how it changes their Deaf cultural identity. Childhood and adolescence are perhaps the most crucial periods for forming one’s identity, and the introduction of a device that can allow children to transition from being deaf to hearing complicates this. As such, it is important to consider how CIs impact one’s sense of belonging to the Deaf community. Do children with CIs truly leave the Deaf community after implantation?
How might the environment they find themselves in impact whether or not they associate and connect with other deaf people? Understanding how youth with CIs view themselves may provide some clarity as to whether or not cochlear implants are truly instruments of cultural eradication, and it is important to examine what factors may influence their sense of belonging to the Deaf community.
Generally, children and adolescents with CIs hold a stronger deaf identity if they are raised in a supportive environment that values deafness; however, mainstreaming kids into hearing-dominated environments can disconnect CI users from deaf culture and leave many individuals with either hearing identities or negative perceptions of deafness.
Before continuing, it is important to understand exactly how CIs work. As creative writing professor and deaf rights’ activist Sara Novic writes, CIs work by gathering sound information through a receiver and sending it to the brain, bypassing defective cochleae — the tiny hairs in the inner ear that register sound. Because of this, she notes, those who have certain forms of hearing loss (such as having non-functioning auditory nerves) cannot receive CIs, as either their cochleae are still functional or there is no way that the CIs could directly send sound information to the brain (Novic). The implants themselves sit inside the inner ear, while the receivers are typically placed just behind the user’s outer ear. Since the receivers are external, users may be self-conscious about them and try to cover them up or make them indiscreet (I will discuss this more later on). One final detail to note is that those with CIs must train their brains to process the brand new sound information they can now hear. For instance, those implanted post-lingually (after one’s language skills fully develop) typically have a harder time learning spoken language than those implanted pre-lingually, since their brains are no longer at the stage where learning how to understand and decipher language comes relatively easily. Some may be implanted so late in life that they will never fully master spoken language, having to use sign language instead.
Interestingly, this detail about language use and development has some interesting ramifications for the development of a deaf identity. For many deaf individuals, sign language is the only way in which they can communicate with others. Sign language is so integral to deaf life, in fact, that almost every deaf community across the world uses it to one extent or another. Deaf anthropologist Goedele A. M. De Clerck notes that in each of the deaf cultures she has studied so far, from Cameroon to the U.S. to Belgium, members of the communities use a common sign language for things such as interacting with each other, conducting business, and expressing themselves (106 – 108, 126). This suggests that the use of a sign language is nearly universal among deaf cultures, which makes sense since sign language is what enables much of the communication and transmission of deaf culture to happen in the first place. While sign language is the only form of communication for many deaf individuals, though, the situation becomes significantly more complicated for CI users. Many CI users, particularly those implanted at a young age, can use spoken languages quite well and often prefer them to sign languages. A Reddit user with a CI by the name of u/_beerye, for instance, mentions that he does not even know sign language since he had been raised verbal throughout his childhood. For others, though, spoken language comes much less naturally to them. Any number of factors, such as being implanted post-lingually, may limit their ability to fully communicate in spoken language and will often require them to sign at least part of the time. As such, adolescents with CIs will require a wide range of communication strategies to navigate the world, whether it is purely signing, purely speaking, or some combination of the two. These varying degrees of signing and speaking also mean varying degrees of being able to interact with deaf cultures. So how does mode of communication impact CI users and their deaf identities?
It is generally accepted that using sign language as the preferred method of communication supports a deaf identity. As researcher Mckenna Johnson mentions, “Access to sign language…strength[ens] one’s Deaf identity, which may reduce the stress of stigma and perceived social limitations for deaf people with CIs” (148). As such, CI users who sign — especially those for whom sign language is their only mode of communication — better understand that being deaf does not inherently mean being limited in what one can do. They may recognize that sign languages can still accomplish all the communicative goals of spoken language and that deaf people, therefore, can still express themselves just as well as someone who uses spoken language. In this way, signing reinforces deaf pride, or the belief that being deaf is something that one should be proud of and hold as an integral part of their identity. What about those for whom spoken language is their preferred mode of communication? Interestingly, there appears to be no general consensus among researchers. Researchers Jennifer Mance and Lindsey Edwards have found that CI users who prefer speaking identify, in part, with the mode of communication they use most frequently (in this case, verbal language) (94). Others, however, have pointed out that the ability of CI users to speak and hear is rarely perfect. Researchers Kimberly Wolbers and Leala Holcomb note that patients often have difficulties with parsing speech information and understanding what others are saying, since it can be difficult for CI users to process voices and language when there are plenty of other environmental sounds around. Because of this, as Alexander Wheeler et al. note, this may lead to identity conflicts within CI users. They are able to speak and process spoken language, but because they cannot do it with the same ease as hearing adolescents, they may be stuck between identifying as hearing and identifying as deaf (Wheeler et al. 311).
Initially, these findings seem contradictory — CI users who prefer speaking both identify more strongly with a hearing identity and feel torn between identifying as either hearing or deaf. I believe, however, that this discrepancy comes from one’s level of comfort with spoken language. Shanit Rich et al. note that spoken language skills tend to significantly impact one’s degree of hearing identity (1339). Thus, greater spoken language skills would contribute to greater hearing identification. For example, we could assume that the aforementioned Reddit user u/_beerye would identify more as hearing since he, presumably, has a great command over spoken language and no command over sign language. However, even if an adolescent with a CI prefers spoken language, they will not necessarily be as successful as someone like u/_beerye when learning and using it. Some may be using it simply because they feel like it is what they need to do rather than what they want to do. They may be in a school with no other students or faculty who know sign language and thus must communicate verbally, for example. Alternatively, they may be in a community with very little access to sign language, so spoken language is needed to function in day-to-day life. In these cases, they will not feel entirely comfortable identifying as hearing since they are somewhat forced to communicate verbally rather than choosing to do so. For them, spoken language is more of a chore and not an instrument of self-expression and bonding. Without that emotional component tying them to the language, they lose some of that identification with hearing cultures.
The ability to interact in one mode of communication or another is only part of the picture, though; what matters just as much is who adolescents with CIs interact with. Peers have a significant impact on CI users’ identities, and the ones that adolescents identify with often depend on how they can communicate with them. As Irene Leigh notes, “Generally, individuals who prefer signed languages will identify with those who also use their language, while those preferring spoken language will identify with like-minded peers” (Leigh 23). As previously mentioned, sign languages are an integral part of deaf culture. Thus, adolescents with CIs bonding with other sign language users suggests that they recognize sign language as a part of their cultural identity. This would similarly suggest that preferring to speak will lead to greater identification with other peers who speak. Because most of these speakers are hearing, it follows that these CI users will begin to adopt a stronger hearing identity. However, this is not the case for every individual; simply being able to speak does not inherently lead someone to bond with hearing peers more than deaf peers. For instance, Leigh tells the story of one author who had gradually lost her hearing over time and later became implanted with a CI. While she is able to communicate with others who hear, “she still prefers her deaf friends because she is still most at ease and relaxed when she is in signing environments” (Leigh 23). This preference is most likely because the author has to exert less effort to interpret her friends when they are signing as opposed to when they are talking. Hearing with a CI can sometimes be tricky since the sound may not be transmitted perfectly, but there would be nothing impeding her from seeing her friends’ signs correctly. Once again, comfort with a language is a crucial factor in the formation of an identity. In the case of the aforementioned author, she has the ability to speak and sign, but signing comes more easily to her. Thus, it is likely she holds a stronger deaf identity, as she feels more comfortable signing with others and thereby reinforcing her sense of deafness. The same could be said for adolescents since signing around deaf peers may make students feel more comfortable, especially in hearing-dominated locations like mainstream schools.
The location in which one interacts with others is important as well. For adolescents, this often takes place in school environments, and who is present in those environments can dramatically impact one’s sense of identity. Perhaps unsurprisingly, having other deaf students or CI users in one’s class can often strengthen a deaf identity. Mance and Edwards note that deaf students tend to feel closer to other deaf students, most likely because they have a mutual cultural identity (94). Extending this logic to CI users, it stands to reason that many might also feel more comfortable around deaf students and thus identify more strongly as deaf. Indeed, some studies have corroborated this hypothesis. Yael Bat-Chava and Elizabeth Deignan argue that children with CIs tend to have good relationships with children with hearing loss, and in many cases, they may have better relationships than with hearing children (194). Through bonding with deaf or hard-of-hearing peers, CI users demonstrate an understanding that their hearing level makes them different from other adolescents. They choose to group with deaf peers not based on some arbitrary quality but based on an aspect of their identity that they all share. Recognizing this means that they, at least in part, recognize themselves as deaf. On the other hand, in schools with relatively few or no other deaf children, it would be logical to assume that deaf children would gravitate more towards a hearing identity as there would be no other people with whom they could share a mutual deaf identity. Hearing would essentially be the norm, and deafness would be more of a deviation from the norm rather than a defining characteristic itself.
Interestingly, though, this gravitation towards a hearing identity may not necessarily be the result of wanting to feel normal. While hearing schools give students with CIs more exposure to hearing cultures, it can also create a stigma surrounding deafness.
For example, Reddit user u/afraidofwater mentions feeling “ostracized” in her school due to her implants and perceived deafness. While she says that she was not bullied by other students, this ostracization reflects a general negative attitude towards deaf people that the student body likely held. This situation is not unique to her, though; Johnson mentions that prior studies have “found that deaf individuals [with CIs] who claimed a Deaf identity reported feeling more discriminated against than those with hearing and bicultural identities” (150). For students such as these, adopting a hearing identity — or, at the very least, a hearing/deaf dual identity — may allow them to feel more normal in environments where being deaf is generally not desirable by their peers. It might act as somewhat of a protective mechanism, as they might not have to struggle with the same level of ostracization and stigmatization that they would if they fully embraced a deaf identity. Such toxic attitudes towards deafness and deaf culture have also, in certain instances, led teens to report attempting to hide their CIs because they act as physical reminders of their deafness (Watson et al. 298). Perhaps most fascinatingly, though, is that these negative feelings about deafness may be more profound in CI users compared to deaf people without CIs. Johnson mentions that CI users in hearing environments tend to feel more limited because they have a CI, since their CI makes them aware of what their body physically cannot do on its own (150). All of these factors combined — from discrimination to shame to feelings of limitation — can chip away at any sense of deaf pride and leave residual feelings of hearing superiority. Without that sense of deaf pride, CI users are often unable to see their deafness as anything other than a marker of what they cannot do.
It is because of this that it is crucial for CI users to get positive exposure to deaf culture should they want to develop a deaf or partially deaf identity. Being in a social setting where deafness is celebrated rather than criticized can counteract these societal prejudices and foster a belief in the abilities of deaf people. To illustrate this, consider the story of a week-long course for adolescents with CIs held at a School for the Deaf in England. As Lorna Lord and Diana Harbor describe, the course was designed to help CI users “meet other young people with a cochlear implant” and “improve their perception of being deaf and wearing a cochlear implant” (S30). The course was successful; while some reported having no significant feelings about their deafness, over two-thirds (25 out of 35 attendees) said that they felt more positively about their deafness at the end of the week than they did at the beginning (31). Hearing their individual responses helps illustrate why: multiple participants claimed feeling proud of being deaf, others claimed that they now viewed being deaf as cool, and still others felt more positively because they recognized that there were others there who were deaf like them (31). Again, this change in attitude towards deafness took place over the span of a week with other deaf individuals. It would not be farfetched to assume that, given additional time, being placed in a heavily deaf environment or with other CI users could have even more profoundly positive benefits on one’s feelings than just those described. Indeed, when given that sense of deaf pride that mainstreamed students typically lack, deaf identities can feel more comfortable and natural to individuals. In believing that deafness is cool or that there are others around them who have shared their experiences, identifying more significantly as deaf feels much more normal and socially acceptable. It should be noted, though, that not all predominantly deaf environments will be supportive of one’s identity. For instance, 14-year-old CI user Juliet Corwin mentions feeling “rejected” by some Deaf individuals because she has an implant; as a result, she feels like she is “regarded as ‘not Deaf enough’ to be a part of the community.” Cases like Corwin’s highlight how positive exposure to deaf culture and deaf-identifying individuals is often necessary for the formation of deaf identities, not just exposure in and of itself.
Environment is undoubtedly one of the most important influences in the development of a deaf identity. Very few individuals, though, live in only one environment. For instance, adolescent CI users who are mainstreamed in public, hearing-dominated schools may have a home life that fosters deaf pride. Likewise, adolescents who are a significant part of their local deaf community and who attend schools with deaf peers may often find themselves navigating and working in the hearing world. How exactly would their identities develop in these situations? To understand this, it may be worth recontextualizing the idea of deaf identity. A CI user may not identify with a certain culture in every situation, so rather than thinking of deaf identity as rigid and static, it is often more accurate to view it as fluid and dynamic. Consider the story of Heather Artinian, a CI user who discusses her relationship with deafness in a TEDx Talk given at Georgetown University. Artinian recounts her experiences as a deaf child wrestling with a desire to be part of both “the deaf world and the hearing world.” She viewed having a CI as a way for her to accomplish this, as she could transition from not being able to hear to being able to listen to, talk with, and interact with members of hearing society. While attaining that sense of belonging in both groups did not come easily — countless hours of speech therapy, strained relationships with her culturally Deaf parents, communication barriers impeding her schooling and progress — she found herself gradually entering into hearing society and achieving those goals. Yet after all that time and effort, she argues that she belongs to neither the deaf world nor the hearing world. Instead, she argues, she belongs to the Heather’s world, a place filled with her experiences as both a deaf individual and a CI user and one that does not restrict her to labels like deaf and hearing. In this sense, she frees herself from the typical binary structure that many would use to categorize CI users, able to transition between feeling more strongly connected to the deaf community and feeling more strongly connected to hearing peers.
Artinian’s identity fluidity is representative of that of many other young CI users. Adolescents tend to offer mixed responses when asked about the identity they most strongly hold, often saying that they identify as deaf some parts of the time and hearing other parts of the time (Wheeler et al. 310). One explanation for this is that CI users, having both hearing and deaf qualities, often find themselves in situations that evoke different aspects of their identity. As Rich et al. note, “based on the results of [our] study, it is suggested that some CI recipients have both hearing and hard of hearing identities, each activated and expressed when made salient in their respective situations” (1342). For instance, adolescents with CIs may adopt a stronger deaf identity when participating in deaf cultural events, especially if those around them are doing things like using sign language that might immerse the CI user in deaf culture. Alternatively, CI users may identify more as hearing when attending a concert with friends, an activity which they would otherwise be unable to do with deaf peers or family members. In this sense, their identities are less like fixed points on a spectrum and more like spectra in and of themselves. The analogy of Heather’s world fits this idea perfectly; her identity cannot be confined to one or two key traits, and she therefore needs a wide array of experiences to properly describe her self-perceptions.
What I have discussed in this essay should not be taken as the exact experience of all youth with CIs. Each individual holds a unique and complex identity, constantly being molded and shaped by the experiences and circumstances they find themselves in. What I hope I have illustrated, though, is that there are certain experiences and circumstances which can have considerable influence in how strongly one identifies with the deaf culture. Being raised in a deaf-supporting environment — one that encourages sign language, fosters deaf pride, and encourages connections with deaf peers — can enrich a sense of cultural belonging that CI users might otherwise lose in a hearing-exclusive environment. Likewise, adolescent CI users may feel more comfortable embracing the hearing aspects of their identity if they feel a stronger connection to hearing cultures. No matter the environment or peer influences that surround them, though, CI users’ identities are likely to change over time and may sometimes even do so from day to day. Understanding this may help us understand the larger debate over the role of CIs in deaf culture and to what extent the devices harm it. I have said previously that I do not wish to engage in the debate, but I believe that in order to answer this question, it is important to consider how CI users identify with deaf culture. Much like the experiences of deaf individuals without CIs, deaf individuals with CIs do not share a singular homogeneous experience.
Their identities are complex, fluid, and wide-ranging; as such, one’s identification with Deaf culture may not be the same as another’s. Because of this, it is difficult to definitively say whether or not CIs will completely remove an entire group of people from the deaf community. This discussion will inevitably persist for years and decades to come, but much like one’s deaf identity, the discussion itself will be complex, fluid, and wide-ranging.
Works Cited
Artinian, Heather. “Not the hearing or Deaf world.” TEDx Talks. 11 Dec. 2013.
Bat-Chava, Yael and Elizabeth Deignan. “Peer Relationships of Children with Cochlear Implants.” The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6:3. 2001. 186–199.
Corwin, Juliet. “The lonely world between the hearing and the Deaf.” The Washington Post. 20 Jul. 2018.
De Clerck, Goedele A. M. Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning: A Comparative Perspective. Gallaudet UP. 2016.
Johnson, Mckenna. “The Developmental Benefits of Allowing Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants Early Access to Sign Language.” Infants & Young Children, 34:2. 2021. 141-155.
Leigh, Irene W. “Cochlear Implants: Implications for Deaf Identities.” Espaço, n.41, 2014. 21-30.
Lord, Lorna, and Diana Harbor. “European Young People with Cochlear Implants: Developing Confidence and Communication.” Cochlear Implants International, 15:S1. 2014. S30–S32.
Mance, Jennifer, and Lindsey Edwards. “Deafness-Related Self-Perceptions and Psychological Well-Being in Deaf Adolescents with Cochlear Implants.” Cochlear Implants International, 13:2. 2012. 93–104.
Novic, Sara. “A Clearer Message on Cochlear Implants.” New York Times. 21 Nov. 2018.
Rich, Shanit, et al. “Being an Adolescent with a Cochlear Implant in the World of Hearing People: Coping in School, in Society and with Self Identity.” International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77:8. 2013. 1337–1344.
u/afraidofwater. “IAmA 19 year old deaf girl with a cochlear implant. AMAA.” Reddit. 2 Feb. 2012.
u/_beerye. “IamA profoundly deaf male who wears cochlear implants to hear! AMA!” Reddit. 30 May 2017.
Watson, Victoria, et al. “Exploring the Experiences of Teenagers with Cochlear Implants.” Cochlear Implants International: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17:6. 2016. 293–301.
Wheeler, Alexandra, et al. “Cochlear Implants: The Young People's Perspective.” The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12:3. 2007. 303–316.
Wolbers, Kimberly A. and Leah Holcomb. “Why sign language is vital for all deaf babies, regardless of cochlear implant plans.” The Conversation. 31 Aug. 2020.
Benjamin McKane is from Ashland, Missouri, and studies in the College of Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.