Search

In the nineteenth century, acoustic hearing aids (such as ear trumpets or conversation tubes) became ubiquitous attributes of deaf people from polite society. These prostheses were a visible sign of otherwise invisible deafness. Although some deaf people used hearing aids openly and proudly, and constantly attempted to convince others that using them was nothing to be ashamed of, others wanted to hide these stigmatizing devices. Therefore, they were equally (or even more) concerned with their visibility than with their performance when buying these devices. For this reason, manufacturers tried to design instruments to meet the needs of their customers. This article investigates two design strategies that were used by ear trumpet producers to maneuver between the troubling visibility of these instruments and their performance: the first is hypervisibility—designing hearing aids as luxurious objects of conspicuous consumption; the second is invisibility, which was achieved with miniaturization and camouflage. Both these aesthetic strategies are considered in the context of Victorian technophilia and regimes of the body. As hearing aids became more accessible to the middle class, design patterns spread beyond elite consumption.

Kulturowa historia relacji niesłyszenia i techniki opowiadana jest zazwyczaj wedle utartych i wielokrotnie powtarzanych scenariuszy, w których klarownie rozpisano role wynalazców, producentów i konsumentów. W opowieściach tych osoby niesłyszące - podobnie jak osoby z niepełnosprawnościami w ogóle - nieodmiennie zajmują pozycję konsumentów. Związki niesłyszenia i techniki są jednak bardziej złożone i niejednoznaczne, a zakwestionowanie patologiczności niesłyszenia i uznanie, że można je traktować jako przejaw ludzkiej różnorodności, pozwala spojrzeć na technikę pod całkowicie innym kątem. Niesłyszenie staje się wówczas sposobem doświadczania rzeczywistości, który pozwala między innymi w codziennych przedmiotach dostrzegać afordancje odmienne od zwyczajowo uznanych, nierzadko z korzyścią dla słyszących użytkowników. Książka Telefon, kino i cyborgi. Wzajemne relacje niesłyszenia i techniki oferuje alternatywne ujęcie kulturowej historii techniki oraz spogląda na nią z "głuchych" peryferii. Wskazuje na niesłyszących jako aktywnych i sprawczych aktorów technologicznej zmiany. Przyjęcie takiej optyki pozwala w kinie dostrzec pole bitwy o prawa obywatelskie, w telefonie ujrzeć pierwszy elektryczny aparat słuchowy, a w zaimplantowanych głuchych - cyborgi. The cultural history of the relation between deafness and technology shows that the same scenarios are often repeated over and over again: deaf people – just like people with disabilities - invariably occupy the position of consumers or beneficiaries, while the roles of innovators are assigned to hearing (and able-bodied) engineers, inventors and producers. Telephone, cinema and cyborgs. The mutual relations between deafness and technology offers an alternative approach to this history that is written from the 'deaf periphery'. This perspective makes it possible to consider cinema subtitles in terms of civil rights; to see the invention of the telephone as the first electric hearing aid; and to recognize the implanted deaf as cyborgs. The experience of being deaf involves everyday hacking and modification of objects and services. All people, including the hearing and able-bodied, benefit from this: for example, when using subtitles on Netflix or YouTube. The book’s main focus is technologies related to telephony, cinema and hearing aids. These include a wide range of solutions: from those invented by the hearing world to normalize the deaf, to technologies created by deaf people themselves. When investigated with the deaf experience in mind, these technologies reveal common themes: deaf agency, and the right to use or reject technology. For example, in the fields of medicine and rehabilitation, hearing aids are often discussed with an optimism that leaves no room for critical reflection. In turn, deaf studies and Deaf Culture show great distrust towards medical technologies, which are perceived as a means of ‘fixing’ the deaf and forcing the oral mode of communication on them. Telephone, cinema and cyborgs shows that both these perspectives are incomplete as the relationship between deafness and technology is much more nuanced. This may be seen in the Deaf community’s complex reactions to cochlear implants. Some deaf reject them as a threat to the Deaf community and sign language; however, for others, implants may be just another way of experiencing the world in a 'deaf way'. Telephone, cinema and cyborgs stands on the intersection of cultural studies, history of technology, deaf studies, and disability studies; it draws from the research and theoretical approaches of all these disciplines. Cultural studies focuses on individual cultural practices and values ​​that are attributed to technologies; it allows individual voices on technology to be heard, therefore both enthusiastic and dystopian views on technology are presented. The history of technology brings analysis of primary sources, of the materiality of technology, and of its social, political and economic contexts; all this makes it possible to redefine the values embedded in particular solutions and revise their history. Finally, deaf studies and disability studies bring the perspectives of marginalized groups, which are usually regarded as a subject of the social, medical and pedagogical sciences rather than as active and creative providers of new cultural texts and technological change.

In the 19th century, the ear trumpet became a ubiquitous attribute of deaf people. This large clumsy device was synonymous with deaf issues such as misinterpretation and other communication difficulties, leading to deafness being seen as a funny impairment, in contrast to blindness. Deaf users wanted to hide these stigmatizing devices, therefore producers invented sophisticated ways of disguising them as hats, fans or even chairs. Similarly, producers of the new electric hearing aids of the time followed this trend by designing them in the form of bags, jewelry, and glasses (it was still better to be shortsighted than hard-of-hearing). The miniaturization afforded by transistors consequently served the same aim. However, trumpets and especially hearing aids reflect the social and cultural emancipation of deaf communities that took place over the course of the 20th century; from aids bashfully hidden to instruments available in vivid colors and styles (e.g. with animal patterns or in punk styles) and decorated with specially designed jewelry used by the “proud Deaf”. The article is based on twofold empirical research: object-oriented analysis of the ear trumpet and hearing aid collection at Thackray’s Medical Museum (Leeds, Great Britain), and analysis of hearing aid advertisements published in Volta Review since 1910.