Morrison’s Space: A DeafBlind Activist

June 11, 2026

By Morrison

It is not, “Do you need an interpreter?” It is, “Do we need an interpreter?”

Hearing people are often taught to believe that interpreters exist so Deaf and DeafBlind people can understand them. This assumption is presented as common sense, as though interpreting is a service provided to us out of courtesy or accommodation. Yet this framing reflects a deeper political reality: the dominance of spoken English and the long-standing belief that it is the “norm,” or “superior” language of public life. Scholars such as Pierre Bourdieu have described this as linguistic capital, the idea that certain languages are granted more legitimacy and authority because of the social power attached to them (Bourdieu, 1991). In the United States, English has been positioned as the language that everyone and everything else must adjust to. When examined through this lens, it becomes clear that hearing people need interpreters just as much as we do, not because we lack anything, but because they do not know our languages.

The assumption that interpreting is “for us” is not simply a misunderstanding, it is a product of linguistic hierarchy. Disability scholars have long argued that access is shaped by power, not by inherent need. Lennard Davis (2013) notes that “normalcy” is a political construct, created to justify which bodies and languages are treated as standard and which are treated as deviations, outliners. In Deaf studies, Harlan Lane (1992) and Tom Humphries (1977) describe this dynamic as audism is the belief that hearing and speaking are inherently superior ways of being. This belief is embedded in institutions, policies, agencies, and everyday interactions. It is why signed and tactile languages have historically been dismissed as lesser, incomplete, inferior, or merely “tools” rather than full languages. It is also why hearing people often assume that interpreters are present to “help” us, rather than to bridge a mutual linguistic gap.

American Sign Language (ASL), Protactile, and other signed and tactile languages are complete languages with their own grammar, syntax, semantics, structure, and cultural foundations. Linguists such as William Stokoe (1960) and more recently Terra Edwards and Diane Brentari (2020) have documented the linguistic complexity of signed and tactile languages, demonstrating that they are not auxiliary systems but full linguistic worlds. When hearing people cannot understand them, that reflects a language difference, not a deficit. This is why discussions of linguistic justice, audism, vidism, and distantism are essential. They help us name the power structures that shape everyday interactions and expose the assumptions that often go unchallenged.

Interpreting, then, is not a one-directional service designed to help Deaf or DeafBlind people “access” hearing individuals. It is a communication system that supports both parties equally. As mentioned earlier, hearing people rely on interpreters because they do not know our languages. They depend on interpreters to participate in our conversations, understand our perspectives, and engage with our expertise. When hearing people assume the interpreter is present for our benefit alone, they reinforce a hierarchy in which spoken English is centered and our languages are treated as supplementary, and inferior. That hierarchy is both inaccurate and politically harmful.

If ASL or Protactile were the dominant languages of public life, the dynamics would look very different. Hearing people would be the ones routinely requesting interpreters, waiting for access, hoping for accuracy, and navigating communication barriers. They would be the ones experiencing the delays, misunderstandings, and exclusions that Deaf and DeafBlind people navigate every day. The only reason this is not the case is because English holds institutional power, not because it is inherently more legitimate or complete than other languages. This is the core argument of linguistic justice scholars such as April Baker-Bell (2020), who emphasizes that language hierarchies are constructed to maintain social hierarchies. Understanding DeafBlind cultural frameworks helps shift the conversation away from “accommodation” and toward equity, where all languages are recognized as valid and all participants share responsibility and care for communication.

This reframing matters because the belief that interpreting is “for Deaf people” or “for DeafBlind people” gives hearing people a sense of authority over access, the space. It leads them to believe they can decide when interpreting is necessary, what counts as reasonable access, whether Deaf or DeafBlind interpreters are worth the cost, and whether our languages are valid enough to require support. These decisions are rooted in power, not linguistic reality. Disability justice scholars such as Mia Mingus (2017) and Patty Berne (2015) remind us that access is not charity; it is a collective responsibility shaped by systems of privilege and oppression. Recognizing that hearing people also need interpreters changes the dynamic. It acknowledges that communication is a shared responsibility, not a one-sided act of “generosity.”

In sum, interpreters are not here to “help” Deaf or DeafBlind people. They are here because two groups of people do not share a language. This understanding respects our languages as equal, challenges the assumption that English is the default, and exposes the power structures behind access decisions. It moves the conversation from charity to equity and reminds hearing people that they are not the center of the communication process. They are participants, and like all participants, they rely on interpreters when they do not share the language of the space they are entering.

References 

Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge.
Berne, P. (2015). Disability justice framework. Sins Invalid.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Davis, L. J. (2013). The disability studies reader (4th ed.). Routledge.
Edwards, T., & Brentari, D. (2020). Tactile languages and the emergence of Protactile. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 395–417.
Humphries, T. (1977). Communicating across cultures (Deaf-Hearing) and language learning. Sign Language Studies.
Lane, H. (1992). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the Deaf community. Alfred A. Knopf.
Mingus, M. (2017). Access intimacy. Leaving Evidence blog.
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. University of Buffalo Press.