Disability & Society

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

Deafnormativity: who belongs in deaf culture?

S. J. Wright

To cite this article: S. J. Wright (2020): Deafnormativity: who belongs in deaf culture?, Disability &
Society, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2020.1787818

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1787818

Published online: 16 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 409

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdso20
DISABILITY & SOCIETY
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1787818

Deafnormativity: who belongs in deaf culture?

S. J. Wright

Department of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article explores how formerly sighted Deaf individuals Received 6 November 2019
confront vision loss and grapple with adopting new identi- Accepted 10 June 2020
ties as Deaf-Blind individuals. Co-researchers in this study
KEYWORDS
analyze sighted Deaf culture and the resulting power
deaf-blind; deafnormatv-
dynamics that have relegated the Deaf-Blind body as infer- ity; disability
ior, revoking membership from sighted Deaf culture. From
the perspective of 6 Deaf-Blind individuals, the balance of
power within sighted Deaf culture is explored and solidified
to reveal a hierarchy which categorizes the Deaf Disabled
body in comparison to the sighted, Deaf normate.

Points of interest
 Members of the Deaf-Blind communities are beginning to develop
their own culture which is separate from sighted Deaf culture and
operates under different norms.
 Deaf-Blind communities reject the label of Deaf with a disability and
have begun to take ownership of not only the definition of culture,
but the modality in which they communicate.
 A majority of Deaf-Blind individuals lose vision in early adulthood,
which means at some point, they were members of sighted Deaf cul-
ture and then become outcasts as a “disabled” body.
 The research indicates that Deaf culture actually has an unspoken hier-
archy where power is concerned, an analysis that is not yet part of the
academic discourse, particularly where Deaf Critical Theory
is concerned.

This article explores how formerly sighted Deaf individuals in the Deep
South articulate the transition to becoming Deaf-Blind1 as a matter of being-
in-the-world. The context of the American Deep South includes states south

CONTACT S.J. Wright [email protected] Department of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, Lamar
University, P.O. Box 10113, Beaumont, TX 77710, USA.

Rochester Institute of Technology, One Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623.
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. J. WRIGHT

of North Carolina and Tennessee, stretching towards Louisiana, which are

important to delineate as it denotes a hostile, hyperevangelized area of the
region that operates under the veneer of politeness and covert warfare
against undesirable others; particularly that of the Deaf-Blind body (Wright,
2017). Deaf-Blind communities in the Deep South face marked intersectional
oppression as a manifestation being undesirable under the guise of ‘bless
your heart culture’ whereas, peer communities in other regions of the United
States such as Seattle enjoy a more progressive relationship with sighted
communities (Wright, 2017).
In undertaking this phenomenological study when confronted with a
dearth of research on this topic, I wanted to better understand how Deaf-
Blind individuals articulate the transition from a locus of social power as for-
merly sighted Deaf individuals to a different state of ‘disability.’ As a sighted
Deaf individual, I was aware that entering myself into this type of study
under the traditional researcher and participant dynamic would likely cause
an imbalance of power, as Deaf-Blind communities of the Deep South often
view sighted Deaf individuals as oppressors. However, I had worked with the
Deaf-Blind community of the Deep South for more than 9 years, eventually
developing close ties and friendships with many members of the community,
who would come to invite me as an ally alongside the Deaf-Blind commu-
nity. For this reason, the magnitude and depth of the study is perhaps differ-
ent than a disinterested, objective party seeking to study meaning-making in
the same community. Yet, the dynamic between researcher-participant as a
sighted, deaf, white LGBTQ cisgendered male even with the validity of meas-
uring the length of time I have in the field would not create an organic
approach. An organic approach was necessary in formulating a relationship
that drives meaning-making methods equally among all members as co-
researchers instead of the more traditional researcher-participant paradigm.
Utilizing the phenomenological method of co-researchers seeking mean-
ing through the hermeneutic circle (van Manen 2014), the resulting dynamic
of power relationships within and spindled from the Deaf community
become clear through a series of interactions, providing a platform to the
Deaf-Blind community where their ‘voice’ has been silenced. This articulation
of power hierarchies is new in the field of Deaf Studies and has not been
formally named or recognized. An emerging part of this study is a stand-
point theory (Stoetzler and Yuval-Davis 2002) derived from how Deaf-Blind
co-researchers crystalize invisible power dynamics and make known, what
has historically been covered through the formulation of a social hierarchy in
the Deaf community that stems from the perspective of the ‘other’. Findings
from co-researchers result in what is termed Deafnormativity, which describes
a social hierarchy that is interpreted through collective experiences of mean-
ing-making interactions as experienced by Deaf-Blind individuals who
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 3

formerly held positions of power in the dominant, sighted Deaf hegemony.

This hierarchy has implications for the field of Deaf Studies—particularly,
Deaf Critical Theory (DeafCrit). Just as other Critical Theories such as Queer
Theory, Critical Race Theory, and Crip Theory have developed internal cri-
tiques of their own critique, Deaf Studies has yet to do this (Wright, 2017).
The following sections offer a review of the literature, description of method-
ology, participant selection, followed by analysis, discussion and conclusion.

Literature on Deaf-Blind culture

There is little in the literature where Deaf-Blind culture is concerned (Wright,
2017). Although the articulation of Deaf-Blind culture is not a central tenet
of this study, it is important to include the relevant literature here. There are
only four traditional publications that expressly discuss Deaf-Blind culture
(Shariff 2014, Wright, 2017).
Shariff’s (2014) dissertation expresses that ‘research that engages individu-
als who are DeafBlind as participants is relatively rare … it is rare to read a
peer-reviewed article with the statements of people who are DeafBlind’
(p.37). Shariff’s study focuses on the educational experiences of leaders who
are DeafBlind located in Seattle, WA. Shariff found that oppression and
hegemony as an obstruction to educational access on par with their peers
necessitates a critical lens specific to the DeafBlind community (2014).
Critical DeafBlind Theory (CDBT) was developed by Shariff based on the grey
literature she analyzed from members of the DeafBlind community, which is
based on the premise of academic oppression—specifically, ableism, audism,
vidism and vidaudism as a means to examine the four levels of educational
oppression shared in common among the participants (2014).
In the second piece of literature, Smith (2002) asserts that Deaf-Blind cul-
ture is the result of experiences and linguistic needs that have evolved to
become what she terms Deaf-Blind culture. Smith’s book Practical Tips for
Working and Socializing with Deaf-Blind People is an instructional tool geared
towards interpreters, Support Service Providers, and educators. Although
widely cited, it is not rooted in the academic rigor of anthropology as a
means to study culture. Instead, this instructional guide is built largely upon
Smith’s personal experiences with the Deaf-Blind community, friendships,
and acquaintances encountered in various working capacities. However, it is
an important contribution for practical applications in education and rehabili-
tation mainly because Smith incorporates Deaf-Blind perspectives where, as
Shariff pointed out is largely missing from traditional literature (Shariff 2014;
Smith 2002).
Hoffman (2005) discussed that the moment when an individual becomes
Deaf-Blind determines which community they will join. For example, if one
4 S. J. WRIGHT

became blind first and experienced hearing loss later, they may choose to
join the blind community and if one became deaf first then later blind, they
may choose to join the Deaf-Blind community due to linguistic ease
(Hoffman 2005). While a worthwhile observation, this is an encyclopedia
entry, and not a study of and about Deaf-Blind culture or identity. The con-
cept of Deaf-Blind culture seems to be elusive in the literature, except for a
newspaper article published over two decades ago by NAT-CENT News.
The NAT-CENT News in 1994, published an article that reported Deaf-Blind
culture did not exist in the same magnitude as Deaf culture. In fact, the art-
icle suggests Deaf-Blind culture cannot exist because it is derived from sen-
sory experiences, and is not cultural (Spear 1994). The significance of this
article is that it is published by Helen Keller National Center, which is widely
regarded to be an international source of expertise on matters and research
concerning deaf-blind people (Edwards 2014b; Shariff 2014). Spear also
asserts that the formation of a Deaf-Blind culture would be problematic due
to the low incidence and extreme geographic variety among those who are
deaf-blind, which would make the formation of such a culture virtu-
ally impossible.
The overall purpose of the literature review is to demonstrate a gap in
research where Deaf-Blind individuals are concerned, as ‘voice’ of Deaf-Blind
individuals is largely missing from academic discourse, where it exists in the
etic perspective, but has yet to offer a body of emic perspectives (Edwards
2012; Shariff 2014, Wright, 2017).

Method
Phenomenology is a philosophic method for questioning, not necessarily a
method for answering, discovering, or drawing resolute conclusions
(Heidegger 1962) and as such, is not used to make transferable generaliza-
tions. The thrust of phenomenology is to analyze how individuals experience
a phenomenon, what this experience is like, and most importantly—how do
individuals make meaning of being-in-the-world? (van Manen 2014). This
study does away from the traditional researcher-participant paradigm,
employing the Heideggerian approach of unbracketing in which the
researcher and participants become co-researchers.
Through unbracketing in tandem with the Hermeneutic Circle (Heidegger
1962), a researcher invites their participants to become co-researchers,
whereas validity is achieved through mutual meaning-making and circum-
spection. Heidegger explicitly refers to this approach as Zuhandenheit or
ready-to-hand (1962). In this approach, Heidegger uses a hammer to demon-
strate how a researcher in the phenomenological tradition achieves
Zuhandenheit. When confronted with a hammer, one can objectively observe
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 5

the hammer and make assumptions about its form, purpose, weight, and
sensation. However, one may also directly use and become one with the
hammer itself (ready-to-hand) and through the benefit of circumspection,
can offer a more organic, primordial account of the hammer’s form, purpose,
weight, and sensation. This study adopts a ready-to-hand approach in which
participants are co-researchers. Co-researchers, in this example are able to
use the ‘hammer’ in that our existence in the world as Deaf bodies are
shared experiences manifested through meaning-making by directly con-
fronting, grappling with, and sharing organic accounts of what it is like to be
Deaf. Other co-researchers use the ‘hammer’ to articulate the experiences of
transitioning to Deaf-Blind in which fellow co-researchers are invited to bask
in such presencing, through a shared understanding of ‘othering.’

Participants
Six participants; Olga, Emily, Anthony, Richard, Nathan, and Norman were
chosen for this study through a strategy referred to as intensity sampling.
Intensity sampling is an appropriate tool when the researcher wishes to
identify individuals or specific sites where the phenomena in question has
strong representation (Mertens 2010). This particular strategy requires know-
ledge on the researcher’s part as to determine which individuals meet spe-
cific criteria necessary for the study. Participants were recruited from specific
areas of the Deep South known to have a strong grassroots Deaf-
Blind community.
Participants were invited to attend an initial focus group, followed by
one-on-one individual interviews in private, and finalized with a debriefing
focus group. Although the original study encompasses varying data topics,
this particular article focuses on discussion within the final focus group as it
relates to identity and rejection from the sighted Deaf community. As the
purpose of phenomenological inquiry is to uncover what has previously
been concealed, meaning-making from shared lived experiences strive to
answer one central question: Who belongs in Deaf culture? Who is Deaf
enough? The following section offers a narrative rendition of the final focus
group meeting, in which co-researchers analyze collective narratives from
the previous focus group, as well as our individual narratives.

The business of labels

During the final focus group meeting, we discussed ‘the business of labels.’
It had occurred to me during the course of data analysis that there is much
focus upon the issue of being labeled as ‘Deaf Plus’ or ‘Deaf-Blind.’ Donna,
Emily, and Anthony are very much involved with the national and inter-
national DeafBlind communities and are well informed about the grassroots
6 S. J. WRIGHT

movement of ProTactile that originates from the Seattle DeafBlind commu-

nity. Richard, Norman, and Jason are not involved with the movement on a
national level but are active in their regional communities. It was Olga who
pointed out that whether or not regional Deaf-Blind communities in the
south currently use the vernacular of the ProTactile movement, the effects of
oppression are evident and articulated in similar ways that simply lack the
sophistication of the ProTactile movement.
The ProTactile movement seeks to liberate DeafBlind individuals from the
oppression of sighted, Deaf and hearing people. The movement perceives
Tactile American Sign Language, haptics, back channeling, and touch signals
as oppressive communication methods that are essentially rehabilitative
efforts put in place by sighted deaf and hearing people (Nuccio and Granada
2013). Further, it seeks to reject the label of Deaf-Plus, while embracing the
DeafBlind body as a way of being that is equally worthy as a Deaf body, and
a source of pride (Nuccio and Granada 2013). At the center of this group dis-
cussion, I relate to the group that there is a unanimous concern with ‘the
business of labeling.’ This discussion provides a platform that shows how
Deaf culture, through the ‘business of labeling’ effectively creates binary
others through the use of the term Deaf-Plus. The hyphen that follows the
term Deaf in Deaf-Plus is a dangerous space. It serves as a repository and a
placeholder for a variety of terms that describe disabilities and thus, creates
a binary from the sighted Deaf body.
‘I’m not Deaf-PLUS! I am DeafBlind—and really, I wish people in the South
would stop with that stupid hyphen. Its DeafBlind, one word,’ Olga waves
her hands in the air with frustration. Emily is nodding fervently in agreement,
when Jason raises his hand and asks: ‘What’s the difference whether the
words are together or separate? It is still Deaf-Blind.’ Olga seems offended
and begins to reply, while Emily interjects with a calm and cool demeanor:
‘Because if you separate the words, then it’s the same thing as Deaf-Plus—
you’re just adding whatever word there. DeafBlind is one word, one whole
person.’ She says matter-of-factly, while Jason seems to register the point
with a side-to-side nod as if weighing the validity of it. Anthony seated right
next to Jason eagerly taps his right knee to get his attention. Jason presses
Anthony’s shoulder, while his free hand tracks over Anthony’s wrists in his
preferred viewing angle. “A hyphen tends to combine things—like marriage,
when some people hyphenate them, they become “one” but they’re two dif-
ferent people,” he says, while my mind immediately snaps to attention at his
reasoning. ‘Deaf-Blind is taking two different things and trying to make it
one. Make sense?’ he asks Jason. Jason nods, putting his hands up in friendly
concession. ‘I really like that analogy,’ I say to Anthony. In my studies, I have
always written like a formula: Deaf þ Blind 6¼ DeafBlind.” ‘Ah cool!’ Anthony
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 7

says, while Olga smiles and signs, ‘cool,’ her fingers wiggling out from
her chest.
‘That’s right. Deaf culture, community, and language are one thing. Blind cul-
ture and community, different—when put them together it’s not the same as
Deaf-Blind,’ Olga says to the group, in a much calmer tone. ‘And that’s the
same problem with Deaf-Plus, I’m seeing from everyone’s comments since the
first meeting,’ I inform the group, continuing: ‘to varying degrees, everyone in
the group believes the term is divisive and offensive.’ Richard raises his hand
and adds ‘Really, if you think about it—remember back in the day people at
school would call Deaf MR [mentally re


ded], those who were different or
have special needs,’ he speaks to those members of the group who are older
and would remember that time period. Richard continues: “I think Deaf-Plus is
the same thing—just looks more nice—same as with “special needs”, it’s more
PC language now.” I pause to consider the gravity of his recollection. Though
such phrasing is derogatory, it was developed by hearing professionals in the
field, and has been endorsed by Deaf professionals. The term ‘Vanilla Deaf’ sug-
gests that the ideal student is one that is White, uses American Sign Language
(ASL), possibly from a Deaf family, and has no dis/abilities. ‘Deaf Plus’ was also
created by hearing, abled professionals. However, the terms ‘Vanilla Deaf’ and
‘Deaf Plus’ are grounded in the idea that difference is undesirable. (Lawyer 2018
p. 64)
‘It’s almost like Deaf people who can see aren’t disabled but we are?’
Anthony asks the group. ‘Well, I certainly don’t believe I am disabled,’ Olga
states emphatically in response, turning to me she says: ‘You’re Deaf and
sighted, do you think you’re not disabled?’ I am slightly taken aback by the
abruptness of the question, yet I welcome it. “That’s interesting because part of
what I gleaned from this study is that the word “Deaf-Plus” certainly does seem
to suggest that a sighted Deaf person is not disabled,” I pause for a second,
adding that “Deaf culture doesn’t see Deaf people as disabled. I mean—con-
sider the phrase ‘Deaf students with disabilities.’ ‘What?’ Anthony scrunches up
his nose and eyebrows signing ‘What?’ repeatedly, his index and thumb tapping
together. ‘It is a phrase used in Deaf education,’ I begin to explain, while Emily
interjects, taking over: ‘That phrase is used similarly to Deaf-Plus, so if a Deaf
student is Deaf-Blind or in a wheelchair, or has autism, that’s how it’s phrased.’
‘But that makes no sense,’ Anthony replies, shocked.
‘I tend to agree that the business of labeling is really inaccurate. I want to
answer Olga’s question before we continue on that,’ I say, facing Olga.
‘That’s a tough question, but I’ll answer it honestly,’ I respond.
I don’t like the word ‘disabled’ to begin with. I don’t view myself as disabled, and I
think that disability is a myth, really. However, when I leave the house, sometimes I
encounter a clueless hearing person that does something awkward or rude, that
reminds me that I am Deaf. Or if I have to ask for accommodations like an
8 S. J. WRIGHT

interpreter, I am reminded that I am Deaf and ‘different’—but not disabled. So, in

other words, I have to ‘be disabled’ to receive some services. In my life as me, no—
I’m just me.

Olga nods her head and says, ‘I think it’s the same for me—I’m not dis-
abled, but sometimes Deaf people make me feel disabled.’ To that end, I
pose the question to the group: how many of you feel that you fit into the
‘Deaf-plus’ label? Nobody raises their hands. After a short silence, Emily says
‘Well the Deaf part of me isn’t a disability but being blind is a disability
because it’s so limiting—I don’t know, it feels like other people make it into
a disability by how they treat us.’ ‘Who makes you feel disabled as the blind
part of you?’ I ask, wondering if the wording of such a question is appropri-
ate. ‘Well, mainly—people in the Deaf community,’ Emily answers, point
blank. ‘And what about hearing people?’ I ask. ‘I’m not concerned about
hearing people, we don’t interact with the hearing community much at all,
so it doesn’t bother me’ Emily responds. ‘I think it’s more Deaf than hearing
people,’ Anthony volunteers, ‘hearing people like VR (Vocational
Rehabilitation) and O&M (Orientation and Mobility) do that, it’s their job—so
it’s different. But the Deaf community does make me feel more of an out-
cast, and are afraid to communicate with me,’ Anthony finishes.
Inwardly, I wonder if the entire group feels the same way. ‘Does everyone
agree with Emily and Anthony’s comments?’ I ask. Richard shakes his head
from side to side, as if mentally wrestling with his answer. ‘Like I said before,
most people don’t see me as Deaf-Blind, because I don’t look like Anthony—
no offense,’ he adds quickly, nodding towards Anthony as he continues ‘but
now that I think about it, it doesn’t happen to me but I see it happen to
other Deaf-Blind a lot, so I agree.’ ‘I’m not offended,’ Anthony replies quickly,
adding: ‘you’re right—people see my glasses and my cane, and it’s obvious
which is why I get uncomfortable at Deaf events.’ I notice that Richard has
become more acknowledging of his privilege to ‘pass’ as Deaf, in light of our
one-on-one meeting when he was uncomfortable admitting this to
the group.
‘I agree, Deaf isn’t a disability—but my vision is really a disability because
it’s very limiting and isolating,’ Jason adds, seeming to struggle with express-
ing what he means to say. To clarify, I ask Jason whether he personally feels
that he is disabled, as himself at home, or when he steps out into a public
space that he feels disabled. Jason replies with the latter, while Norman joins
in Jason’s observation. With a majority feeling similarly on the topic, I look to
Olga for her input and ask: ‘Do you feel the same or different?’ ‘Growing up
in a Deaf family with a Deaf-Blind mother and brother, and now myself and
my children, I always thought this was very normal. We are people. Everyone
has different needs,’ she pauses, adding: ‘I really feel like it’s certain sighted
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 9

Deaf people that make me feel that way—just like Emily said, I don’t interact
with hearing people, so it doesn’t bother me.’
A group consensus on the topic has been reached at this point. As a
sighted Deaf person, I cannot help but wonder in the process of analysis just
how a sighted Deaf hegemony can justify that the state of being Deaf is not
a disability yet, Deaf people with ‘other’ physical conditions are labeled as
such. In recognizing my own sighted privilege, I recognize that I am part of
the institution that is in ‘the business of labeling’ on more than one front.
On the one hand, the sighted Deaf hegemony labels Deaf-Blind individuals
in the Deep South as Deaf-Blind, a hyphenated word that shares the same
oppressive dynamic of Deaf-Plus, another hyphenated word.

What is deafnormative?
The group had reached a consensus that a Deaf-Blind body is differentiated
from a sighted Deaf body through three methods: 1) stigma, 2), labeling,
and 3) creating a hybridization, which serves as a platform for what we call
Deafnormativity.
For the group, our quests begin at varying times on two levels: to find a
veritable home for our ‘otherness’ and to repeat this quest for a different
reason when the body manifests itself as different, and is automatically
sorted and labeled as yet another ‘other.’
With a trove of narratives from the group that is rich in timbre, dynamic
as the magnitude of human emotions, and as varied as the topography of
each person’s collective being, we relate the themes of these experiences
succinctly. The common thread that binds the group together is a quest for
belonging at the hands of being an outcast from what once was. Through
the process of systematic oppression in the mediums of stigma, labeling,
and hybridization the concept of Deafnormativity takes hold; becoming a
concrete experience that is common to this group.
The stigmatization of the Deaf-Blind body has been expressed by co-
researchers through themes of the fear of physical contact through Tactile
American Sign Language, the fear of association resulting in the loss of
friends and family, loss of independence—particularly driving—as the marker
of a burdensome being, and the Deaf-Blind body as the visual representation
of sighted Deaf individual’s worst fears. This stigma gives rise to newfound
boundaries that have been described as a veil-like separation between Deaf
and Deaf-Blind communities. The stigma of being an other is mitigated by
‘how Deaf-sighted’ one can pass for—such as Richard—who can seamlessly
pass through both sides of the veil, while others who are ‘markedly’ Deaf-
Blind are cast out of the Deaf community.
10 S. J. WRIGHT

With ‘otherness’ comes ‘the business of labeling things’ which has been
expressed as Deaf-Plus, Deaf with disabilities, and even in the terms Deaf-Blind
vs. DeafBlind. ‘The sign itself is not even accurate!’ Olga observes during my
summary as if to bolster the point. ‘What do you mean?’ I ask casually. Olga
repeats the sign slowly to dissect it, beginning with Deaf: ‘See? That is the sign
for Deaf—Deaf people, Deaf culture’ she continues with the sign for Blind stat-
ing, ‘See? That is the sign for Blind. Blind people, Blind culture. Remember we
just discussed that?’ I never thought of this and realize immediately that she
has a very valid and worthwhile point. ‘Exactly—like some of my friends in
Seattle don’t sign that. They just spell DB, and I use it in my email and texts all
the time’ Anthony joins in. This observation, which further buttresses how label-
ing problematizes the Deaf-Blind body and in effect, minimizes the meaning of
the DeafBlind experience as being worthy of unequivocal attention, independ-
ence and validation similar to the ProTactile movement.
The business of labeling the other through Deaf-Blind in both textual and
ASL representations as mash-ups of two unrelated communities lends itself
to the problem of hybridization. According to Merriam-Webster (2017),
Hybridization is generally defined as ‘a person or a group of persons pro-
duced by the interaction or crossbreeding of two unlike cultures, traditions,
etc.’. In other words, the dominant Deaf, sighted hegemony has created a
‘half-breed’ in a manner that overwhelmingly suggests that the Deaf-Blind
experience does not belong in the shared space of the Deaf experience,
effectively relegated to lesser. Based on these categories formed from collect-
ive meaning-making experiences, the group moves to construct a graphical
representation of how the business of labeling sorts and categorizes each of
us, from which the working definition of Deafnormativity was born.

Defining deafnormativity
It is then I lay out a succinct working definition to the group based on our col-
lective narratives and experiences. I decide to begin with an informal hierarchy to
see if my co-researchers agree with how I have arranged our categories/labels.
Me: I see this as a “hierarchy” which places Deaf of Deaf at the top, or as some of
you refer to them as “the Deaf Elite.” This includes people who are Deaf, born to
Deaf parents, use ASL as their native language and probably attended a residential
school for the Deaf, or a similar day program for Deaf students. Below, are Deaf
people born to hearing families who have ASL as a native language, followed
below by Deaf people born to hearing families that learn ASL later in life.
Anthony: Like you, right?

Me: I’m not sure yet, we’ll find out soon, I guess? (I laugh) And … this is followed
by Late Deafened Adults and hard of hearing individuals I think their acceptance
level depends on how fluently they sign, if at all. Deaf-Blind, seems like is at the
bottom of this hierarchy.
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 11

Olga: Or even off the chart, it’s not in the same world.
Emily: That’s true—you know what, it makes sense. I never thought about it in this
way, seeing it formally discussed as a list or … hierarchy. It’s almost disgusting but
it’s right.

At this point, Emily’s comment seems to cement what everybody else is

thinking but does not want to say: that the reality of this has always been—
but has yet to be formalized within the boundaries of white space and aca-
demic formatting. Anthony, as if reading my mind asks again: ‘But where
would someone like you fit in?’ ‘Probably with Deaf born to hearing families,
learning ASL later, right?’ Olga replies. Anthony reminds Olga that I became
Deaf at the age of four, then Norman offers this perspective: ‘Well, if you
learned ASL in college then that’s when you became culturally Deaf I guess,
so maybe you really are a Late Deafened Adult?’ I wonder inwardly if he is
correct, never having had this realization before. ‘Actually, Norman … ’ I say
half-laughing; half incredulously—‘I think you’ve answered something I’ve
been asking myself for years.’
Initially, the group agreed that Deaf-Blind feels like the lowest part of the
hierarchy—at the very bottom of the pyramid. Olga was insistent that ‘just
because we are using the shape of a pyramid does not mean that we have
to stick Deaf-Blind in there somewhere. Why can’t it be a different shape
next to it?’ Emily and Anthony seemed to consider Olga’s comment seriously,
while others believed that it would be more accurate to put it at the bottom,
because it certainly ‘feels like we are at the bottom of the totem pole’, as
Anthony put it. Olga contended that ‘while it does absolutely feel that way, I
feel like the pyramid still shows some relationship to the people at the top,
and I don’t like that.’ In the end, after considerable debate, it was decided
that the category of Deaf-Blind should exist as a sphere outside of the hier-
archy-pyramid to best reflect how co-researchers felt like they have their
own culture and community but do not share much in common with Deaf
of Deaf, Deaf of Hearing, or Hard of Hearing individuals.

Discussion
This study presents a standpoint theory (Stoetzler and Yuval-Davis 2002) of
six Deaf-Blind participants and the author as co-researchers that make mean-
ing of being-in-the-world as it relates to belonging and unbelonging in the
Deaf community. The resulting articulation of the transition from Deaf to
Deaf-blind as is understood through the phenomenological views of lived
space, lived time, and being in the world ultimately transcends the con-
straints of disability and labels. The notion of Deafnormativity is explored,
born as a product of a common discovery among both Deaf-Blind and
sighted Deaf co-researchers that there is such a thing as a socially
12 S. J. WRIGHT

constructed ‘blueprint’ way of being Deaf. Sighted, Deaf people born to Deaf
parents, having ASL as a native language takes its place as the normate
within Deaf culture. As such, those who do not fit this description fall to the
wayside, under a hierarchy that excludes Deaf-Blind, and d/Deaf individuals
born to hearing families. The irony in this shared discovery is the fact that a
majority of participants in this study prior to transition were members of the
‘Deaf Elite’ at birth. As such, we recognize that each of us are collectively
affected by the notion of Deafnormativity.
First, it is necessary to briefly examine what causes a binary and further,
what causes one group to be regarded as inferior, or ‘less than.’ For the LGBT
community, we are oppressed by the blueprint of heteronormativity, which dic-
tates the ‘correct’ way to exhibit and engage in one’s life in relation to all of
society. Heteronormativity was coined in 1991 by the social critic Michael
Warner, and has since become a mainstay in critical studies to denote the invis-
ible norms of heterosexuality as a dominant hegemony. The term refers to the
belief and practice of opposite sex romantic partners, a clear division between
male and female functions (gender roles) and adhering to the belief that one’s
traits follow in direct relation to anatomy (Warner 1991). Deviance from these
beliefs such as having same-sex romantic partners, exercising fluidity in gender
roles, and transitioning one’s biological sex whether through medical interven-
tion or without are seen as inferior, and therefore stigmatized. This stigmatiza-
tion, at least in the United States has resulted in overt and covert discrimination
against LGBTQ individuals (Goldstein and Davis 2010).
Recall that the ProTactile movement of Seattle has begun a grassroots
effort of breaking away from the constraints of ‘Deaf-Blindness’ that has
been placed upon them by normative sighted communities. This is arguably
among the first sources of grey literature by DeafBlind individuals that points
to a grassroots movement in which DeafBlind individuals are fighting to lib-
erate the community from oppression by sighted Deaf people (Nuccio and
Granada 2013). ProTactile, aside from delineating methods of communication
that seek to reject the need for sighted intervention also rejects communica-
tion methods of haptics, back channeling, and touch signals, as they are con-
sidered ‘rehabilitative’ efforts invented by sighted people (Nuccio and
Granada 2013). Members of the movement seek to reject the label of Deaf-
Plus and instead delineate DeafBlind identity, culture, and politics as distinct,
while severing the greyscale backbone of culture shared by the Deaf and
DeafBlind communities (Nuccio and Granada 2013). Finally, the ProTactile
movement views ProTactile American Sign Language (PTASL) as a language,
echoing the parallel struggle of legitimacy as was the case for ASL, which
was legitimized by Stokoe in the 70’s (Stokoe 1978). In essence, Tactile ASL
(TASL) was once considered to be an accommodation of Visual American
Sign Language (VASL) and therefore, a ‘shared’ language with VASL. As TASL
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 13

is often considered inferior by not only co-researchers, it has emerged in

newer traditional academic research, as well as grey literature that such a
view is found to be legitimate experience by a majority of Deaf-Blind individ-
uals (Edwards 2014a; Nuccio & Granada, 2013; Shariff 2014).
The sentiment among co-researchers and recent research shows there is
an increased awareness that the Deaf community is not inclusive of the
Deaf-Blind community. As such, the push for a national or global scale under
the ProTactile movement suggests that there are certain characteristics of
being Deaf, which is inclusive of membership within the Deaf community,
while other characteristics cast the individual as an undesirable deviancy that
is incongruent with the Deaf norm.

What is normative in deaf culture?

Here, I offer an examination of what co-researchers consider the context of
‘What does it mean to be Deaf?’ gathered from both focus group discussions
and interviews. From analyzing the data, there exists a blueprint as to what
being Deaf entails, forming a hierarchy within this blueprint which, after
accounting for certain characteristics, certain Deaf people become undesir-
able. At the top of the hierarchy, the most ‘ideal’ form of being Deaf is ‘Deaf
of Deaf’ which is regarded as the golden benchmark norm (Solomon 2012),
The inherent implication in being Deaf of Deaf as Olga indicates, is a label of
‘prestige,’ along with the assumption that Deaf of Deaf means ‘native flu-
ency’ in ASL which is unadulterated and superior. A compelling account is
given from Olga, which expands upon this premise:
It’s definitely a privilege. I was born into a Deaf family, and I always remembered as
a teenager that we felt superior and aloof at school, it was a small group of us.
Even when we went to The Deaf College, I remember that attitude clearly it was
like a special club (claps hands and flexes biceps), definitely was “Us vs. Them.” But
now … as a Deaf-Blind person, I’ve been kicked out of that club—even though as I
got older, I realized that attitude isn’t right, I still had that pride. Now, I’m on the
flip side. Cast out (uses sign for excluded).

The idea of having a benchmark norm is statistically problematic, as only

one out of ten Deaf individuals are born to Deaf parents and thusly, is not
representative of the diversity of the Deaf community (Karchmer and
Mitchell 2004). Although sighted Deaf individuals born to hearing families
are not at the top of the hierarchy, there are certain privileges associated
with this physical permutation, with certain social restrictions:
Richard: As I was born to a hearing mother and father, it’s different because you do
get reminded and teased a little about it from time to time. There are some people
who are Deaf of Deaf in a “club” like she (Olga) said … She’s right, a lot of
14 S. J. WRIGHT

favoritism goes on—like you know those powerful fraternities. And same as her
(Olga), it’s even harder if you lose your vision too.

Me: Oh, I agree. As I was born into a hearing family too—and also grew up oral—
learning ASL and going to College was overall, a great experience. But there are
“those people” like you both said that really make it hard.

The hierarchy extends to late deafened adults as the lowest level theoret-
ically but casts out those who are considered Deaf with a disability (Wright,
2017). The term Deaf Plus problematizes disability in terms of which disabil-
ities are acceptable and which are considered deviant and undesirable. To
iterate, a Deaf student with a disability is defined as a ‘deaf or hard of hear-
ing student with any of the 13 disabilities identified in the IDEA,’ or as it is
referred to in the familiar, Deaf plus (Lane 2002; Wright, 2016). In other
words, the Deaf community resists the label of disability (Lane 2002) while
choosing what disabilities differentiate a Deaf person from being simply Deaf
or relegated to a binary, second class culture membership as Deaf Plus. This
divisive rhetoric is evidenced through sentiments of participants, most not-
ably Olga, who is outspoken about the term Deaf Plus:
Deaf Plus? That’s insulting. I can understand if it applies to perhaps deaf people
who are mentally reta



, or maybe MLS [Minimal Language Skills] … but to
lump Deaf-Blind people into that category is hateful. Deaf-Blind is a culture, it’s a
way of being, it’s … (pause) everything we are, and there is nothing wrong with
me. So that means for 21 years I’m Deaf and don’t have a disability, then all the
sudden because I have ONA (Optic Nerve Atrophy), and identify as Deaf-Blind, that
means now I have a disability? But deaf people aren’t disabled? It’s messed up.

This reasoning supports what I have described as the Deaf community

adopting a ‘normate’ where the ability-disability dynamic is concerned. The
data supports the existence of Deafnormativity as phenomenon which cre-
ates binary otherness between those who fit the ‘Deaf norm’ and those who
are disparaged by the normate established in both the hierarchy and the
ability-disability dynamic which is not addressed in DeafCrit.

The limitations of DeafCrit

It is important to note how DeafCrit is ill-equipped to incorporate intersec-
tionality where the Deaf body is concerned, particularly that the foundation
of DeafCrit is built upon the perspectives of sighted, white, cisgender, het-
erosexual, epistemologies that eschew the notion of disability and instead,
frame the Deaf experience as a culture (Gertz 2008; Wright, 2017). In
doing so, sighted Deaf individuals don the colonizer’s coat, casting the label
of disability on those bodies that are deemed undesirable and deviant
(Lawyer, 2018; Wright, 2017). Vehmas and Watson (2014) assert that the sys-
tematic construction of disability highlights the ‘u €ber-abled’ and
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 15

simultaneously delineates the ultra-disabled, as a corollary that there is no

driving factor behind the construction. While I agree with this assessment
across the spectrum of disability, it functions differently where
Deafnormativity is concerned. The thrust of DeafCrit and by extension, the
Deaf community does not view the condition of Deafness as a disability the
way society at large regards the condition of deafness. Instead, the view of
disability is focused within the community, which is a different phenomenon
from the normative, non-disabled vs. disabled argument as the focus of
much scholarship in Critical Disability Studies (CDS) (Corker 1999; McRuer
2010; Vehmas and Watson 2014; 2016).
Further, Vehmas and Watson (2014) argue that the goal of CDS is to break
down distinctions between the binary of disabled and non-disabled people,
which actually highlights the notion that DeafCrit functions as something of
a panopticon. In this sense, the epistemologies of sighted, Deaf of Deaf,
white, cisgender, heterosexual individuals hold guard over other permuta-
tions of Deaf bodies keeping these epistemological and ontological view-
points guarded in an omnipotent manner of precision (Lawyer 2018; Wright,
2017). Building upon this premise, Vehmas and Watson (2016) critique CDS
and the use of normative ideologies in that they tend to ignore the lived
experiences of disability and are absent of empirical data that supports the
voices of the disabled experience. While the silencing of others makes nor-
mative practices obvious, it is not enough to simply observe this to be true
insomuch as it is to proffer a reconciliation for binary differences.
Deafnormativity is derived from the lived experiences of Deaf-Blind individu-
als who essentially fell from a locus of power as formerly sighted Deaf of
Deaf individuals and is a starting point for casting light upon the status quo
of DeafCrit. Crucially, these findings highlight the need for DeafCrit to move
away from single-lens identity underpinnings and evolve to incorporate mul-
tiple lenses.
Corker (1999) argues that when academics produce frameworks about the
experience of disability, they should result as a dialogue between disabled
people and the research community as a tool for emancipatory action.
Corker addresses the in between spaces of disability that are seldom men-
tioned in the literature, where theory rarely explores such spaces and
instead, fortifies disability as a monolith. Further, she demonstrates that
many deaf people view impairment in terms of language and communica-
tion instead of hearing as a physical loss. These two points are an important
part of Deafnormativity as it explores the in between spaces of Deaf culture,
and how disability is assigned when the absence of hearing itself is not the
disabling condition. The disabling condition rises from communication where
DeafBlind individuals are concerned being that the hegemonic language of
the Deaf community is VASL. The use of tactual communication becomes an
16 S. J. WRIGHT

in between space in which sighted Deaf individuals apply the label of dis-
ability within our own spaces. Lastly, Corker calls for a method of discourse
that relies upon these unstated absences.
Deafnormativity attempts reconcile unavoidable parallels from CDS, Queer,
and Crip Theory in order to promulgate the move away from the panopticon
of DeafCrit to reflect agency and ownership of multiple epistemologies.
Sherry (2004) asserts that Queer Theory and Disability studies are not neces-
sarily distinct fields, but alike in that they problematize deviance, stigma, and
the construction of identities. For example, living in a homophobic society
under the ubiquitous eye of heteronormativity can be traumatizing which
leads to internalized oppression, among other psychological scars. Sherry
also argues that the experiences of passing and coming out are prevalent in
both Queer Theory and CDS. In the same vein, Deafnormativity is essentially
a product of the internalized oppression of sighted Deaf people which cre-
ates the trauma of passing—most notably by the attempt to drive a motor
vehicle and pass as ‘sighted’ as reported by co-researchers. Particularly,
Sherry (2004; 2002) makes the case that exclusion among in-groups are par-
ticularly problematic for Queer and disabled individuals, which supports the
concept of Deafnormativity as straddling the experiences outlined in Queer
Theory and CDS as DeafBlind individuals share a greyscale backbone vis-a-vis
a shared culture and language, but become excluded in between spaces
where identity changes from a disabling condition. I agree with Sherry’s
assessment that there is a need for cross-fertilization of ideas among disci-
plines as is evidenced by the prism of experiences of DeafBlind individuals
that formulate the concept of Deafnormativity.
McRuer (2010) connects these points saliently through his contextualiza-
tion of compulsory able-bodiedness through an understanding of compul-
sory heterosexuality, arguing that able-bodied identity is more normalized
than heterosexuality in a system where there is no choice. Interestingly,
McRuer discusses the desirability of able-bodiedness and poses the question:
‘Yes, but in the end wouldn’t you rather be more like me?’ (p.93), going on
to demonstrate through the use of Butler’s (2005) theories of gender per-
formativity that able-bodiedness is a compulsive system and simultaneously,
a comic parody. The concept of able-bodiedness is not in a state of crisis, as
it succeeds whereas disabled people are seen as queer, and queer people
are often seen as disabled.
Further, McRuer (2010) posits that the concept of severely disabled as a
tradition of queer history similar to the concept of the fabulous could be
used to spotlight the most marginalized, most disabled voices of the com-
munity in order to reverse the inadequacies of compulsory able-bodiedness
not unlike the Deaf community’s shuttering of Gallaudet University in protest
for a Deaf President. The most marginalized members of the Deaf
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 17

community are those who identify as DeafBlind, Deaf People of Color,

DeafDisabled, and DeafQueer (Wright, 2017). Reinventing these identifies as
fabulous and severe would very well challenge the dominant hegemony of
sighted Deaf of Deaf individuals, which is precisely what Deafnormativity
aims to do in providing an emancipatory platform beginning with DeafBlind
communities.

Answering the “who belongs?’

This paper from a focus group as part of a larger study with 6 co-researchers
offers an analysis of how Deaf-Blind individuals in the Deep South experi-
ence being-in-the-world as it relates to sighted Deaf culture. Particularly,
how co-researchers experience rejection and make meaning from the lack of
belonging results in the schema of Deafnormativity—in other words, a
graphic depiction of how co-researchers experience the unspoken hierarchy
in Deaf culture.
There are limitations to this study, particularly as it relates to sample
size. With a n of 6, it is a small focus group limited to a specific region
of the United States and may not have shared viewpoints from other
Deaf-Blind or DeafBlind communities around the globe. However, phenom-
enology does not concern itself with how many people experience a par-
ticular phenomenon, as is common to quantitative empirical methods but
rather—how people experience similar phenomena (Englander 2012). All
co-researchers in this study are Caucasian, which precludes the Deaf-Blind
worldview of people of color from the meaning-making process as it per-
tains to ‘othering’.
The implications from this study for future research show that
Deafnormativity is a necessary tenet of Deaf Critical Theory as the world-
view of oppressed minorities within DeafCrit are lacking. The worldview of
Black Deaf experiences is lacking in the literature, and not sufficiently
addressed in the current working theorem of DeafCrit (Lawyer 2018). A
similar argument can be made for Deaf Latinx worldviews as there is also
limited study in DeafCrit Theorem for their worldviews (Lawyer 2018).
Future research should consider the disability binary as it fits in Deaf
Critical theory, which eschews the notion of the Deaf body as disabled
(Gertz 2008; Ladd 2003). While Deaf individuals with disabilities is a com-
mon term used in the familiar, this paradox has yet to be addressed in
DeafCrit. Finally, intersectionality in Deaf bodies is lacking where DeafCrit
is concerned. Take for example, Deaf Queer bodies—where do we fall
under the auspices of Deafnormativity?
Robust Critical Theorems actively engage in internal critique, such as
Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, and Feminism. Such critiques serve as a
18 S. J. WRIGHT

veritable ‘looking glass’ for a particular theorem and allows members to vis-
cerally analyze the flaws of our being, the gaps in our inclusivity, or the sali-
ent points of exclusivity—all while expanding the consciousness and
reflective worth of critical merit. Deafnormativity serves as a sort of ‘looking
glass’ for DeafCrit—a young theorem that is still in its infancy. Though the
development of Deafnormativity, co-researchers answered the question ‘Who
belongs in Deaf Culture?’

Note
1. The term Deaf-Blind is used as such in the Deep South of the United States where
this study occurred. The general use of the term is DeafBlind and is used as such in
this article when referring to DeafBlind culture as a whole (Wright 2017).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Butler, J. 2005. “Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity GT.” Political
Theory 4: 4–24.
Corker, M. 1999. “Differences, Conflations, and Foundations: The Limits to ‘Accurate’
Theoretical Representation of Disabled People’s Experience?” Disability & Society 14 (5):
627–642. doi:10.1080/09687599925984.
Edwards, T. 2012. “Sensing the Rhythms of Everyday Life: Temporal Integration and Tactile
Translation in the Seattle Deaf-Blind Community.” Language in Society 41 (1): 29–71.
https://doi.org.10.1017/S004740451100090X
Edwards, T. 2014a. “From Compensation to Integration: Effects of the Pro-Tactile
Movement on the Sublexical Structure of Tactile American Sign Language.” Journal of
Pragmatics 69: 22–24. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.005.
Edwards, T. 2014b. “Language Emergence in the Seattle DeafBlind Community.” Doctoral
diss., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Order No. 3686264).
Englander, M. 2012. “The Interview: Data Collection in Descriptive Phenomenological
Human Scientific Research.” Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 43 (1): 13–35.
https://doi.org.10.1163/156916212X632943
Gertz, G. 2008. “Dysconcious Audism: A Theoretical Proposition.” In Open Your Eyes: deaf
Studies Talking, edited by H.D. Bauman, 219–234. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Goldstein, S. B., and D. S. Davis. 2010. “Heterosexual Allies: A Descriptive Profile.” Equity &
Excellence in Education 43 (4): 478–494. https://doi.org.10.1080/10665684.2010.505464
Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Hoffman, I. 2005. “Deafblindness.” In Encyclopedia of Disability, edited by G. L. Albrecht.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 DISABILITY & SOCIETY 19

Karchmer, M., and R. Mitchell. 2004. “Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing
Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States.” Sign Language
Studies 4 (2): 138–163. https://doi.org.10.1353/sls.2004.0005 doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0005.
Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Lane, H. 2002. “Do Deaf People Have a Disability?” Sign Language Studies 2 (4): 356–379.
doi:10.1353/sls.2002.0019.
Lawyer, G. 2018. “Removing the Colonizer’s Coat in Deaf Education: Exploring the
Curriculum of Colonization and the Field of Deaf Education.” Doctoral diss., ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Mertens, D. 2010. “Transformative Mixed Methods Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6):
469–474. https://doi.org.10.1177/1077800410364612
McRuer, R. 2010. “Compulsory Able-Bodiedness and Queer/Disabled Existence.” The
Disability Studies Reader 3: 383–392.
Merriam-Webster. 2017. Definition of Hybridize. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic-
tionary/hybridize. Accessed on January 2, 2017.
Nuccio, J., and A. Granada. 2013. Welcome to Pro-Tactile: the DeafBlind Way [Video file].
Februrary 14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l11lahuiHLA. Accessed on February
14, 2013.
Shariff, R. 2014. “Leaders Who Are Deafblind: A Phenomenological Study of Educational
Experiences.” Doctoral diss., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Order No. 3663048).
Sherry, M. 2002. “Welfare Reform and Disability Policy in Australia.” Just Policy: A Journal
of Australian Social Policy 11 (28): 3.
Sherry, M. 2004. “Overlaps and Contradictions between Queer Theory and Disability Studies.”
Disability & Society 19 (7): 769–783. https://doi.org10.180/0968759042000284231.
Smith, T. 2002. Guidelines: Practical Tips for Working and Socializing with Deaf-Blind People.
Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media Incorporated.
Spear, K. 1994. “Is There a Deaf-Blind Culture?” Nat-Cent News 25 (1): 12–20.
Stokoe, W. 1978. Sign Language Structure. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
Stoetzler, M., and N. Yuval-Davis. 2002. “Standpoint Theory, Situated Knowledge and the
Situated Imagination.” Feminist Theory 3 (3): 315–333. doi:10.1177/
146470002762492024.
Solomon, A. 2012. Far from the Tree: Parents, Children, and the Search for Identity. Scribner:
New York.
van Manen, M. 2014. Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in
Phenomenological Research and Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Vehmas, S., and N. Watson. 2014. “Moral Wrongs, Disadvantages, and Disability: A Critique
of Critical Disability Studies.” Disability & Society 29 (4): 638–650. doi:10.1080/09687599.
2013.831751.
Vehmas, S., and N. Watson. 2016. “Exploring Normativity in Disability Studies.” Disability &
Society 31 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/09687599.2015.1120657.
Warner, M. 1991. “Introduction.” In Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory,
edited by M. Warner, vii–xxxi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Wright, S. J. 2016. “Diversity: Deaf Studies and Disability.” In The Sage Deaf Studies
Encyclopedia, edited by G. Gertz & P. Boudreault, 305–309. New York, NY: Sage
Publications.
Wright, S. J. 2017. “From Deaf to Deaf-Blind a Phenomenological Study of the Lived
Experiences of Deaf-Blind Individuals in the Deep South.” Doctoral diss., ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses (Order No. 10654904).