Appendix A -- Deaf Culture

Deaf Culture
Kendra Rhodes November 18, 2007
The centuries old Deaf America has much to show for their perseverance and a wholly justifiable pride in their strong existence today. From the challenges of sparse schooling, oppression and lack of understanding there came an existence of an identity stronger than most. For every hit they took, I saw strides ahead, in what has today become a culture.
Deaf culture in America began in the early 1800’s around the time that the first schools for the deaf were constructed. “A matrix of variables contributed to the formation of the deaf community: school experiences, paternalism, social status, public prejudice, occupational categories and urbanization.” (Winzer p. 363). In her article regarding the history of the Deaf she goes on to explain that in order to “survive and even thrive in a hostile hearing world, the deaf community catered to special needs and sustained a way of life for an emerging deaf urban group” (p. 363). In these times the “deaf persons saw themselves as an excommunicated class and they reacted by drawing into cohesive groups and primarily confining their social relations to other deaf individuals” (p. 363). Because of the relatively low numbers of deaf children and the widespread demographic of the population when schools for the deaf were constructed, most of them were boarding schools in which the kids would travel to and stay at for the majority of the year (www.throughdeafeyes.org). In these schools there was a flourish of activities. The students had social clubs, outings, sports, newspapers etc. The experiences that the children had in the schools for the deaf further strengthened the kinship they’d built by leading their lives segregated under public prejudices.
The first ever school for the deaf was opened in Hartford, Connecticut and named “Connecticut Asylum for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb persons.
In the language of the day, asylum meant a safe place, and dumb referred to
individuals who did not speak with understandable speech. Because of
changing word associations, asylum eventually gave way to institution, then
school. Today the ‘Connecticut Asylum’ is named the American School for the Deaf.
Mason F. Cogswell, Rev. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, and Laurent Clerc were the three founders of that first school for the deaf (www.throughdeafeyes.org). Not only was Laurent Clerc instrumental in the opening of that first school, he was a brilliant deaf man who brought with him the sign language of Paris they’d used in the large Deaf community he’d left behind when he moved. His visual language coupled with the sign languages that traveled with the students coming from surrounding areas eventually made the transition from “the natural language of signs,” to the American Sign Language as it is known today (www.throughdeafeyes.org). “By the 1850’s, twenty schools had been established; by the turn of the century, more than 50”(www.throughdeafeyes.org).
“Thousands of young deaf people came to residential schools to live and
study together. A new culture was born, enriched by each passing generation
that came to include folklore, poetry, games, and jokes, as well as distinctive
rules of etiquette and sign naming practices. The language that would be known
as American Sign Language in the late 20th century was becoming more
standardized. From this common language and common experience arose and
American Deaf Community(www.throughdeafeyes.org).
It seems just when the Deaf were finding their niche in society and comfortably carving their own way through the hearing world a new school of thought came to challenge the fabric of community and language, oralism. In response to the increased immigration in the late 1800’s and the fear of ethnic, racial, and linguistic diversity, calls for limitations regarding the usage of languages other than English in schools were common (www.throughdeafeyes.org). “Education reformers urged schools for the deaf children to fundamentally change their teaching methods. Reformers wanted to eliminate “manualism,” the use of sign language, and replace it with “oralsim,” the exclusive use of speech and lipreading”(www.throughdeafeyes.org). Not only did the oralists want the deaf to learn lipreading and oral speech, “they opposed sign language, believing that it slowed the development of speech and set deaf people apart from society and invited discrimination. Oralists believed that speech was the way to ‘emancipate’ the deaf. Many deaf leaders profoundly disagreed, and portrayed oralists themselves as oppressors of deaf people” (www.throughdeafeyes.org). One of the foremost supporters of oralism was Alexander Graham Bell who is also well known as an inventor of the telephone. His strong push for and “support of oral education profoundly changed the way deaf children were taught” (www.throughdeafeyes.org). The deaf community did not turn over without a fight for the preservation of their preferred language. They pooled together and formed organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf beginning in 1880. They maintained that oral communication without the use of signing was inadequate. They struggled to keep hold of their language. During his presidency of the National Association of the Deaf (1907-1910), George Veditz “encouraged filming of skilled signers to preserve the language” (www.throughdeafeyes.org). “In the end, the oralists win, and sign is banned from most schools. ‘normal’ has become a synonym for ‘good,’ and deaf culture becomes [hidden]”(Hott, 2007) but maintains strength and momentum while continuing to forge clubs and activities together.
There have been a number of technological advances that have directly affected the deaf experience. The invention of the TTY, cochlear implant, subtitles and all deaf television programming are all examples.
“In 1964, Robert Weitbrecht, a deaf electronic scienties, developed and acoustic coupler that converted sounds into text” (www.throughdeafeyes.org). The TTY device made it possible for the deaf to place phone calls to other people with the same technology. “Before TTY’s, deaf people had to go in person to see if friends wsere home, make apointmens, or do any of the things hearing people did effortlessly by phone. For deaf people, TTY’s became a tool for change”(www.throughdeafeyes.org). Around that same year came the first dictionary for ASL and the national registry for interpreters. Another big step in the deaf community holding onto their language and communication.
Not all technology intended for the deaf person is as welcomed as the TTY was. The Cochlear implant has stirred much debate within and out of the Deaf community. Cochlear implants are a technology that includes electronic devices implanted inside the ear structure as well as external hardware in order to bring hearing to the deaf person. “The effectiveness and risks of the implants are a major part of the debate, but there is additional conflict between those who view deafness as an impairment and those who see it as a valued part of cultural identity” (www.throughdeafeyes.org). Furthermore, as the age of children receiving the implant gets younger and the instances of opting for the implants grow larger the debate moves toward the “type of support and educational services provided and the child’s exposure to visual language”(www.throughdeafeyes.org). The cochlear implants are not inexpensive. Even costing $45,000 for one of the two implants, it is a decision that many hearing parents of deaf children are still opting for in order to use hearing abilities as a way for them to communicate with their children. In many instances those parents intend to incorporate Deaf culture, history and Sign Language as a part of their lives as well (AP, 2006). Of the 100,000 worldwide cochlears’ implanted, about half was to adults and half to children (AP, 2006). Those that do decide to receive the surgery and the implants are up for scrutiny of those who are fundamentally opposed to the technology. Their oppositions come from fear that the implants “could eradicate a culture with its’ own language, customs and rewards”(AP, 2006). It could be explained from the Deaf persons’ perspective; “Deafness is not a disability, for them, It’s an identity”(AP, 2006).
While cochlears may not have been warmly welcomed by the whole of the deaf community, one other form of technology that was sought after was the subtitles. In 1988 came the “Television Circuitry Act that required all televisions with thirteen-inch screens and larger be equipped with a built-in decoder chip able to display the closed captions on television programs”(Campbell, 2001). Not only was it a progressive step for television viewing to be facilitated, it was important to recognize the portrayal of the deaf on the screen. “The image of deaf people, like that of other minorities, has long since been distorted by the entertainment industry…Hollywood, has dealt with deafness in a manner similar to its stereotyped treatment of ethnic and racial minorities” (Hott, 2007). Hott goes on to explain; “Now things have changed only a little.” There are still discrepancies in how the deaf are portrayed on screen and how their lives really are. One alternative to this problem is emerging through British television. Starting September 13th, 2007 “Britian’s 9 million deaf people [have] their own TV channel. Not just sign-presented or subtitled versions of existing programs, but entirely new content made by the deaf, for the deaf community” (Information TV, 2007). While the existence of deaf programming does not directly solve the problem of inappropriate portrayal of the deaf in mainstream television, it certainly speaks to the progress that is happening.
Additionally, there are ways that the deaf are striving to improve in order to better their own experience in spite of their discrimination. As late as 1982, the deaf community and sign language was not completely keeping up with societal changes. They had no universal sign for racism or feminism and had trouble grasping such monumental ideas. These challenges were there not because of a lack of intelligence or interest, merely, the words in their language had never existed before (Feld & Maeda, 1982). One other challenge that the deaf are facing still is the deaf experience in our criminal justice system. This challenge is two-fold. First the deaf are fighting injustices in how they are treated by professionals.
“These injustices result primarily from a lack of understanding of deaf
people on the part of the professionals working in the legal system…
However, it is the failure of criminal justice professionals to understand
the linguistic, educational, and cultural characteristics of the deaf population
that plays the greater role in perpetuating injustices (Vernon & Miller, 2005).
Secondly, there is also struggle to comprehend the legal language if there is nothing in their visual language to explain the information.
“ASL has no written form and is extremely constricted in its
vocabulary and uniquely different in syntax from English and other
oral languages. This is because ASL was suppressed for many years
by the American educational system and is still forbidden in some schools
and classes for deaf youth”(Vernon & Miller, 2005).
Two of the most monumental events in the deaf rights movement were the Disability act of 1990 and the Deaf community protests concerning the president of position in the only deaf college in the country. The Disability act of 1990 made it illegal for employers to discriminate against the deaf and “impact access to the telephone and public events such as festivals, tours, a nd plays. Interpreting services and captions became a requirement” in many instances (www.throughdeafeyes.com).
In 1988 the students at Gallaudet University staged huge protests to ensure that the next appointed president was a deaf one. “Founded in 1864, Gallaudet is the deaf world’s premier institution, and yet it had never been led by a deaf person”(Cloud, 2006). One protester was quoted as saying “In our world, we see Gallaudet as the Mecca.” This college is clearly a huge part of the Deaf community and many felt like the protests were “one of the critical moments in deaf history… [Their] civil rights movement”(Poppen, 2006).
In thinking of working with the deaf people as a human services professional, I would like to keep in mind that “people with disabilities are an oppressed group because they have not been allowed equal access to society’s benefits. They are a minority both in absolute numbers and in the political meaning of the word” (Mandell & Schram,2006). But in order to respect the population appropriately, I should realize that “some deaf people do not consider their deafness a disability because they are totally immersed in the Deaf culture and take great delight in it. They would consider it a handicap to be deprived of that culture” (Mandell & Schram, 2006). It is important to respect and support the accomplishments of the deaf in maintaining their identity. “The 300,000 Americans who are profoundly deaf really do share a distinct experience. No Handicaps here, just a ‘poetical’ language, a tight sense of community, and a growing pride that what once was segregated came to develop its own set of discrete characteristics worth preserving and celebrating” (Werts, 2007).
I remember during our class discussion about diversity we were exploring the best way to go about working with populations with disabilities. As a class we agreed that “we value honesty, sincerity and straightforward curiosity.” It is my intent to use that attitude whenever I find myself in the presence of someone who is deaf. Having learned so much about the Deaf culture and history, I feel an overall sense of awe in what the Deaf community has accomplished in maintaining their identity and pride.