Deafness and Great War Veterans

In this blog post, MMU PhD student Jemma Lakmaker shares some of her research on the experiences of veterans who experienced hearing loss or deafness after serving in the Great War.

 

After the armistice of the First World War in 1918, 1.6 million soldiers returned to Britain, wounded and with life-changing disabilities. 2.4% of the British army returned with hearing loss or deafness.  Soldiers who experienced deafness or hearing loss had a unique experience after the war compared to soldiers with other war-caused disabilities.  One of the main differences in experience was due to the invisible nature of deafness. The deafened soldier did not receive the immediate sympathy or compassion that was evoked by the severe visceral injuries that civilians saw every day, bringing shock and acting as a visual reminder of the harsh realities of what these men had sacrificed for their country.

 

One of the main challenges for deaf veterans was that the government did not view deafness as a serious disability. This was because deafness was not as obvious or visually disturbing as other war-related injuries and was not considered as disabling as injuries such as limb loss or facial disfigurements. In 1919, Douglas McMurtrie wrote ‘deafness is really more an embarrassment than a physical handicap’, [1] promoting the opinion that the deaf body was functional rather than disabled. Consequently, the disabled soldier was commonly overlooked by the British public in addition to the British government. Public sympathy often led to the disabled soldier receiving official support from the government. After seeing the disturbing visual reminders of the horrors of war and the sacrifices made by British soldiers, the public put a strain on the government arguing that they owed them a ‘debt of honour’. [2] As the deafened soldier’s injuries were not visible, they were excluded from this public advocacy and determination to secure them government support.

A large number of deaf ex-servicemen did not receive pensions as medical professionals reported that their deafness was not caused or aggravated by the war. [3]  After medical examinations, medical professionals gave their medical opinion about if the disability was caused or worsened by the war. There was no uniform method of testing hearing loss during the early twentieth century,  therefore to successfully receive a pension, the ex-serviceman relied on the medical professional believing that his deafness was not a pre-existing medical condition. For many deafened soldiers, this resulted in them being rejected for a disability pension.  For example, one ex-serviceman was not given a pension as the doctor stated his deafness was a pre-existing condition, despite the man’s pre-war doctor confirming that he had never before experienced hearing loss.[4] This oversight by medical professionals resulted in many deaf ex-servicemen not receiving the financial support that would have significantly benefited them.

The deafened soldier struggled to find employment and were labelled a ‘problem social group’, associated with laziness and idleness.[5] It was believed that a soldier who did not gain employment after returning from the war was no longer ‘continuing to do his duty.’[6] As the deafened soldier was viewed as having a functional, not disabled, body, he was viewed as having many jobs available to him, and his ability to earn a living wage was not impacted. As such, if a deafened soldier was not in employment, it was perceived to be due to their own choice and indolence. However, it was not easy for the deafened soldier to find employment, and his earning capacity was severely impacted. In addition to receiving minimal support in readjusting to their new bodies and navigating post-war society, employers believed that the deafened soldier could not be employed. A document from the Ministry of Labour in 1918 stated, ‘men suffering from partial defects of speech and hearing…could not be employed among their fellows…the need of minor attention and the fear of ridicule alone are themselves sufficient to prevent their employment.’[7] The challenges associated with deafness in the workplace deterred employers from hiring the deafened soldier. Therefore, the deafened soldier was viewed negatively for not finding employment but were inhibited from being employed due to the nature of their disability.

The deafened soldier had different experiences after the war compared to those with more visible disability such as limb loss or facial disfigurements. The deafened soldier was not given as much support from the government and medical professionals who were responsible for their care upon their return from war. Finding employment was extremely difficult due to the negative perceptions of deafness, and as a result, the deafened soldier was viewed as idle and lazy. With many deaf veterans struggling to find employment or receive a government pension, and receiving less public sympathy than their visibly disabled comrades, the deafened soldier was at a clear disadvantage navigating the post-war experience.

References

[1] Douglas McMurtrie, The Disabled Soldier, (The Macmillan Company, 1919), p.134.
[2] Deborah Cohen, The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans in Britain and Germany, 1914-1939, (University of California Press, 2001), p.15.
[3] PIN 26/205; MH 106/2082/328; MH 106/2093/334.
[4] Ministry of Pensions, War pensions records: Frank Ernest Adams, 1915-1919 (PIN 26/247), The National Archives, London.
[5] Coreen McGuire, (2016) The ‘Deaf Subscriber’ and the Shaping of the British Post Office’s Amplified Telephones 1911-1939, Ph.D. The University of Leeds, [Online] [accessed 24/01/2024].
[6] McMurtrie, The Disabled Soldier, p.34.
[7] Ministry of Labour, ‘Correspondence concerning demobilisation and the position of the disabled soldier in industry’, (LAB 2/272/DR177/3/1918), TNA, London.
[8]Image from US National Library of Medicine, via https://archive.org/details/101560506.nlm.nih.gov/mode/2up.
[9]Imperial War Museum, IWM PST13211.

Jemma Lakmaker is a second-year PhD student at Manchester Metropolitan University. Her research examines the experiences of soldiers returning from the First World War (FWW) with hearing loss or deafness.