↓ Skip to main content

Symptom and Surface: Disruptive Deafness and Medieval Medical Authority

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Symptom and Surface: Disruptive Deafness and Medieval Medical Authority
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11673-016-9744-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Hsy

Abstract

This essay examines constructions of deafness in medieval culture, exploring how deaf experience disrupts authoritative discourses in three textual genres: medical treatise, literary fiction, and autobiographical writing. Medical manuals often present deafness as a physical defect, yet they also suggest how social conditions for deaf people can be transformed in lieu of treatment protocols. Fictional narratives tend to associate deafness with sin or social stigma, but they can also imagine deaf experience with a remarkable degree of sympathy and nuance. Autobiographical writing by deaf authors most vividly challenges diagnostic models of disability, exploring generative forms of perception that deafness can foster. In tracing the disruptive force that deaf experience exerts on perceived notions of textual authority, this essay reveals how medieval culture critiqued the diagnostic power of medical practitioners. Deafness does not simply function as a symptom of an individual problem or a metaphor for a spiritual or social condition; rather, deafness is a transformative capacity affording new modes of knowing self and other.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 11 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 3 13%
Psychology 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Energy 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 13 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,876,720
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#267
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,354
of 338,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.