Reviewed by:

• Managing the Experience of Hearing Loss in Britain: 1830–1930 by Graeme Gooday and Karen Sayer
• Coreen Mcguire (bio)

Disability history is a relatively new historical field, but within it, Deaf history (which is capitalized to indicate that the term is being used for a group identified through culture and community rather than their medical status) has emerged as a particularly strong subfield. This is partially thanks to the momentum lent by Gallaudet University Press (part of the private university for deaf and hard of hearing students in Washington, D.C.) and mostly because disability history has engaged with insights from the social model of disability, which conceptualizes disability through the way actors are disabled [End Page 1227] by their environment. Deaf history fits with this model, as many Deaf people do not regard themselves as disabled; moreover, Deafness is a paradigmatic example of a disability caused by the (hearing) majority prioritizing and enforcing speech as the dominant mode of communication.

The social model of disability is implicitly set up in opposition to the medical model, which has meant that disability historians have overlooked the importance of technologies to the lives of disabled people in the past. Recently, scholars including Beth Linker, Bess Williamson, and Julie Anderson have pushed back against this, convincingly arguing that to fully understand the lives of past individuals, we need to explore all aspects of their lives, including how they engaged with medicine and prostheses. Gooday and Sayer take up this challenge by discussing the lives of a group not usually considered―adults with hearing loss. As the authors point out in their introduction, hearing loss "disappears" from the historical record because disability historians prioritize Deaf history as a part of Deaf culture; "conventional" historians assume normalized function and so overlook the importance of tools like hearing aids.

Gooday and Sayer address this gap to reveal a fascinating history of the lived experience of hearing loss, which they explore thoroughly by foregrounding the diverse ways people used, appropriated, rejected, and innovated with a range of tools and techniques to "manage" their experience of hearing loss. Categorizing and investigating the experiences of a group defined through individual members' emotional experience of hearing loss as a loss is a simple yet innovative approach, making this book valuable to the burgeoning field of the history of emotions. Their interdisciplinary study also necessarily engages with material culture; indeed, this book came from the authors' experiences working with the vast collection of hearing aids held by the Thackray Medical Museum in Leeds, England. However, their primary expertise in science and technology studies means that they combine the material evidence from such museum collections with a rich variety of sources (including Victorian advertisements for deafness cures) to reveal a "pattern of end-user creativity." One notable example is a hearing-horn evidently held close to the user's body in her accompanying handmade bag (p. 76). By including this kind of evidence, Gooday and Sayer highlight the diverse individual experiences of hearing loss. In line with insights from historians of technology, they consider technologies in the widest sense to include tools such as paper, pens, journals, and hearing aids alongside lip-reading, note-writing, and correspondence networks.

As well as investigating such individual-level attempts at "managing" hearing loss, Gooday and Sayer address the macro-level impact of medical institutions dedicated to helping people cope with their hearing loss. In this way, they consider hearing loss as it featured historically, both as a problem situated within the individual body and as a problem created by society. This is the central contribution of this book: it analyzes hearing [End Page 1228] loss aside from Deafness. It is not an addition to the Deaf history canon, although there is considerable material of interest to Deaf historians. The use of the word "managing" encompasses this spectrum of experiences in the same way that historian Alan Kellehear uses the concept of "managing" death to accommodate the multifarious circumstances, experiences, and sensations tied to the way individuals approach end of life.

The...

审核人：

• 管理英国听力损失的经验：1830年至1930年，Graeme Gooday和Karen Sayer
• 科伦·麦奎尔（生物）

残疾历史是一个相对较新的历史领域，但在其中，聋人历史（大写表示该词是指通过文化和社区而不是其医疗状况识别出的一个群体）已成为一个特别强大的子领域。这在一定程度上要归功于加洛德特大学出版社（华盛顿特区聋哑和听力障碍学生的私立大学的一部分）借出的势头，并且主要是因为残疾史吸收了残疾社会模型的见解，该模型将残疾概念化为演员被禁用的方式[结束页1227]根据他们的环境。聋人的历史符合这种模式，因为许多聋人并不认为自己是残疾人。此外，耳聋是残疾的一个典型例子，该残疾是由（听力）多数将语音作为沟通的主要方式进行优先处理和实施而导致的。

残疾的社会模型是隐性地建立起来的，而不是医学模型，这意味着残疾历史学家过去忽略了技术对残疾人生活的重要性。最近，学者包括贝丝链接，贝丝·威廉姆森，和朱莉·安德森将反抗这一回，令人信服地争辩说，要充分认识过去个人的生活，我们需要探讨所有他们生活中的各个方面，包括他们与药物和假肢的互动方式。Gooday和Sayer通过讨论通常不被认为是成年人的听力障碍人群的生活来应对这一挑战。正如作者在介绍中所指出的那样，听力损失从历史记录中“消失”了，因为残疾历史学家将聋人的历史列为聋人文化的一部分。“常规”历史学家承担着标准化的职能，因此忽略了诸如助听器之类的工具的重要性。

Gooday和Sayer解决了这一差距，以揭示人们对听力损失的真实经历的迷人历史，他们通过介绍人们使用，采用，拒绝和创新的多种方式，并通过一系列工具和技术来“管理”他们的经历，来进行深入探索。听力损失。通过对个体成员的听力损失（作为一种损失）的情感体验来定义和调查一个群体的经历是一种简单但创新的方法，使这本书对新兴的情感历史领域具有重要意义。他们的跨学科研究也必然涉及物质文化。的确，这本书来自作者与英国利兹Thackray医学博物馆收藏的大量助听器一起工作的经验。但是，他们在科学和技术研究方面的主要专业知识意味着他们将来自此类博物馆藏品的物质证据与丰富的信息来源（包括维多利亚州失聪治疗广告）结合起来，以揭示“最终用户创造力的模式”。一个显着的例子是，在自己随附的手工包中，靠近用户身体的听力角很明显（第76页）。通过包含此类证据，Gooday和Sayer强调了听力损失的个人经历。根据技术史学家的见解，他们认为技术范围最广，其中包括纸，笔，日记本和助听器之类的工具，以及唇读，笔记书写和通信网络。

除了研究这种个人级别的“管理”听力损失的尝试外，Gooday和Sayer还探讨了致力于帮助人们应对听力损失的医疗机构的宏观影响。这样，他们将听力损失视为其历史特征，既是个体内部的问题，又是社会造成的问题。这是本书的核心贡献：它分析了听觉[End Page 1228]除了耳聋以外的损失。尽管有很多聋人历史学家感兴趣的资料，但这并不是聋人历史经典的补充。与历史学家艾伦·凯勒希尔（Alan Kellehear）使用“管理”死亡的概念来适应与个人接近生命终结的方式相关的多种情况，经验和感觉一样，“管理”一词的使用也包含了这些经验。

那个...