When Regulation Becomes Cultural Authority
Sometimes standards do more than define behaviour.
I’ve noticed how often professional standards are treated as neutral, even when they reflect assumptions about what is considered normal, credible, or appropriate.
Regulation should set boundaries.
It should not define belonging.
When regulatory bodies move beyond enforcing safety, legality, or compliance, they can begin to shape what is seen as acceptable, professional, and legitimate.
Standards are not always neutral.
Who defines what is professional?
Who defines what is impartial?
Who defines what is respectful, balanced, or appropriate?
These definitions shape whose language is legitimate.
Whose tone is credible.
Whose behaviour fits.
Whose culture is treated as deviation.
For Deaf communities, this is not abstract.
When hearing norms become embedded within policy language – “clear speech,” “appropriate tone,” “balanced perspective,” “standard communication” – Deaf expression can become something measured against hearing expectations.
Regulation becomes a gatekeeper of cultural legitimacy.
Underneath this is power.
Regulators are framed as neutral.
Standards are framed as universal.
Yet neutrality often reflects the assumptions of the dominant group.
When regulation becomes cultural authority, it does not simply protect the public.
It can also shape what is considered normal.
And what is considered normal influences who is trusted, who is questioned, and who feels they belong.
