ROBERT L. SHAROFF

AN ASPECT OF T H E P R O B L E M OF D I S T O R T E D C O M M U N I C A T I O N

ROBERT L. SHAROFF

My interest of the problem of com- munication and the disturbances in communication among people has been focused most specifically on one group. This group comprises people with profound hearing loss from birth or early infancy. This hearing loss has been so great and the onset has been so early that these people have never been able to establish verbal communication in the normal way, that is, by hearing other people talk. These are the people referred to as the "deaf."

It is about this particular group that I wish to make my remarks and report my observations, and then see if my observations can have any validity concerning the problems of communication among normal hear- ing people inside and outside the therapeutic situation.

The earliest descriptions concern- ing the deaf emphasized the fact that for the most part they were regarded with great fear and very little understanding. Often they were treated as mentally retarded, as im- beciles or psychotic. One of the prime reasons for reacting to them this way was the apparent inability to com- municate with such people and the subsequent assumption that they were incapable of communication. Here an implicit assumption was being made by the hearing population, namely, that communication can occur only through verbal means. Later, another assumption was made. Not only could communication occur only through verbal means, but it had to be in the structure, form, and context that the user was familiar with. I will return to this when I discuss the problem

of communication among the hearing, and the meaning these assumptions can have in hampering attempts at communication.

To return to the problem of com- munication with the deaf: In the seventeenth century a priest became interested in attempting to educate the deaf. He invented the sign lan- guage and with it was able to teach them to communicate. Once meaning- ful communication with the deaf was possible, their status slowly began to change. They were able to be educated to a certain degree and to be taught gainful occupations. A new under- standing of the deaf began to emerge. It became apparent as time went on that the original descriptions of the personality and character of the deaf were gross distortions. As the ability to communicate grew, the great differ- ence that seemed to exist between the deaf and the so-called normal hearing personality began to diminish. This made a tremendous difference in the deaf person's relationship to his environment, as well as his relation- ship to himself. The ability to com- municate is of great importance in the individual's ego development. Only with the ability to communicate could there be any real ego growth. In addition, when hearing people could communicate with the deaf, the feel- ing of strangeness that existed on both sides began to diminish.

As time went on, more and more efforts were made to educate the deaf and improve their means of communi- cation. And it was assumed that ira-

Robert L. Sharoff, M.D., is Associate Lec- turer, American Institute for Psychoanalysis and a practicing psychoanalyst.

102

AN ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM

provement in communication for the deaf meant that the deaf should have the ability to communicate the way hearing people do, namely, through speech. It was found that the deaf could be taught with considerable variations in the degree of proficiency to communicate orally through lip- reading and verbal speech. The en- thusiasm for teaching oral or verbal communication increased, and as it did many people began to feel that it could be taught with the greatest degree of efficiency if all attempts to use the sign language were restricted. It was felt that because the sign language was easier for the deaf, they would use it to the detriment of their oral speech, unless they were for- bidden in every way to use it. As a result, some schools became known as purely "oral" schools. In these schools no sign language was to be used or taught. Parents were advised never to respond to anything other than oral or verbal attempts at com- munication by their deaf children. At the present time, this constitutes one of the areas of Considerable contro- versy in the education of the deaf.

Now a strange thing appears to have happened. In spite of every attempt by the oral schools to prevent the deaf child from learning or using the sign language, practically all deaf students do learn it. And once they are out of the school and away from the watchful eyes of the school au- thorities, they seem to prefer to com- municate through signs, rather than orally. In observing what goes on when the deaf "talk" through signs, as compared to their oral communi- cation, one gets the feeling that a great deal more goes on in communi- cation through signing. There appears to be a much more animated and total involvement. The entire body seems to come alive. Emotion and facial expressions are added as part

OF DISTORTED COMMUNICATION

of the total communication. Many hearing parents have experienced this when their deaf child meets another person who can communicate with him through signs. There is a sense of an immediate emotional relation- ship quite different from that which exists between the deaf and the person who cannot sign, or where communication is restricted to oral means.

The deaf have been described as being pessimistic, suspicious, and lacking in a sense of humor. However, to anyone who has ever seen a group of deaf people socializing such de- scriptive terms would not seem ap- propriate. Where they are able to communicate meaningfully among themselves one can observe no differ- ence from any other group having a pleasant social relationship. The only difference one would notice is the fact that communication goes on through signing rather than verbally.

I was impressed a number of years ago by a newspaper story con- cerning Puerto Rican baseball players who were then playing in the major leagues of the United States. They were described as taciturn and rather non-communicative. As soon as the ball game was over, they would hur- riedly dress and go off among them- selves. One day a reporter asked one of them why this was so and the player replied, "Well, why should we show any more interest in you than you show in us. When American ball players come to Puerto Rico to play, we show our interest in them by trying to talk to them in English. If you were interested in us, you would try to learn to talk to us in our language."

We are only now beginning to be aware of the fact that differences in communication do exist. The out- standing difference, perhaps, is the difference in language. One may get

103

ROBERT L. SHAROFF

some sense of what the deaf feel but, of course, only very slightly. A person who has been in a foreign country without knowing the language, with only a minimal degree of proficiency, may feel a sense of isolation, un- easiness, and considerable frustration. Everything seems alien. One feels un- able to be understood, and from these feelings it is not difficult to go on to feelings of being discriminated against personally. Under such cir- cumstances, meaningful, mutually re- warding and helpful communication and relationship are not likely to be established. One senses some aspect of this in the world situation today.

We have some awareness of the fact that anxiety may distort the abili- ty to communicate. Thus, in oral examination, unless one is actively trying to create stress as part of the examination, examiners are instructed in ways of putting the person to be examined at ease. If this is not done, we know that very often the anxiety engendered by the situation will prevent the person being examined from communicating what he knows. A good examiner will always try to make the examining situation one that as closely as possible resembles other situations with which the indi- vidual is familiar.

Too often, however, we take it for granted that situations which are comfortable and usual for us have the same meaning for everyone else. We also tend to assume that the way we communicate is the same for others. For a long time psychiatrists have been aware that they gradually ac- quire certain types of patients. The work of Redlich et aI. 1 called atten- tion to the fact that psychiatrists often end up treating patients who most closely approximate their own social and cultural background. Either they find that they do poorly with people of backgrounds differing from their

own, or they find reason to feel that such people are not suitable for psy- chotherapy. Much of the psychiatrist's problem here, although he may not be aware of it, is due to the difficulty of understanding communications couched in a different frame of refer- ence. A common proverb states that "silence gives consent," but as we have attempted to understand better the spectrum through which com- munication is filtered, we realize that silence may mean much more than giving consent. To a considerable ex- tent, it depends on the individual's previous life experiences. In addition, we have learned--through the work of Ruesch and Bateson 2, among others--that communication goes on in m a n y ways besides the verbal.

To go back now to my specific interest in communication regarding the deaf. Based on my experiences with the deaf, I believe that until we can communicate with them in a com- fortable manner- -and for the great majority this is through signing--and accept this as part of their total life situation, we will not learn too much about the emotional development of the deaf. As long as we insist on com- munication only in the way w e deem natural, that is, only through oral means, we will only make them sup- press and deny a meaningful aspect of themselves.

Finally, in our relationship with other people, as well as in the thera- peutic situation, the same must obtain. To be able to communicate meaning- fully and to avoid creating distortions in the communicative process, we must make every effort to understand the totality of other's situation.

REFERENCES 1. Hollingshead, A. B. and Redlich, F. C.:

Social Class and Mental Illness, John Wylie, New York, 1958.

2. Ruesch, J. and Bateson, G.: Communi- cation: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry, W. W. Norton, New York, 1951.

104