Michael Fan
29 May 2016
Oralism and the Deaf Community
Sign language uses manual movements, facial expressions, and other means of
communication that don't involve speech. This, and its usage by the Deaf and
hard-of-hearing, is known by most people. Much less heard of is oralism, a
method of communication that, simply put, uses things like lipreading and mouth
mimicking to get as close to real speech as possible. Oralism and sign language
(also known as manualism) are the two sides of a heated debate that delves into
issues as complex as human rights and societal integration. The debate rages on
today, and has deep and sometimes disturbing roots and connections in history.
America's Deaf and hard-of-hearing community is large and generally unified and
very proud, which must be noted to understand the bigger picture. Most Deaf, if
given the opportunity, would not accept a cure (Solomon, 1994), predictably to
the surprise of many people. Indeed, the notion of deafness being a medical
problem (the "pathological model") is rejected by most of the Deaf community,
and instead, being Deaf is a culture and a source of pride (Solomon, 1994). Sign
Language is a part of that culture. Oralism, while not explicitly aiming to
"fix" Deaf people, is founded on ideals of integration and "normalcy" that run
directly counter to the Deaf community's sentiment. The history of oralism very
clearly reflects such ideals.
Oralism had always been around, but rose dramatically in popularity after
Alexander Graham Bell started publicly promoting it over sign language in the
1870's. Famous for the invention of the telephone, Bell focused most of his
efforts on the Deaf afterwards, attracting the support of politicians, teachers,
doctors and the wealthy, almost none of them deaf (Benito, 2014). The arguments
Bell used especially rang true with parents of deaf children, who, for the most
part, only wanted integration. In the harshly judgmental times of the past, sign
language was seen as low-class and came with strong racial overtones (Neisser,
1983). "Gesturing" was associated with Italians and Jews and Frenchmen; hearing
parents saw poverty in "gesturing". Meanwhile, oralism inspired hope and a
promise to "solve" deafness, and had both confidence in technology and roots in
the Protestant ethic of character strength. (Neisser, 1983). In his campaign,
Bell always travelled with deaf students who had learned speech, inspiring
further hope. This is, however, ignoring the fact that those successful deaf
students were rare; to actually succeed in oralism, it was later found, is
incredibly difficult.
Bell's personal life details and opinions are very revealing. In his later
years, Bell's wife--who was also deaf--suffered from the very pitfalls of oralism.
Bell's wife took articulation lessons throughout her life, but her speech was
never considered good. Yet Bell had no patience with complaints about this and
said it was "good enough" (Neisser, 1983), suggesting some form of denial, and
indirectly confirming that oralism may not be the way to go. Furthermore, Bell's
belief in oralism was tied to his belief in eugenics. Eugenics aims to improve
the genetic quality of the human population in sometimes forceful ways, and I
cannot help but be reminded of Hitler's attempts to limit the Jewish population.
Bell looked upon Deaf culture with distaste, and had this to say about the Deaf
community:
"Those who believe as I do, that the production of a defective race of human
beings would be a great calamity to the world, will examine carefully the causes
that lead to the intermarriages of the Deaf with the object of applying a
remedy." (Benito, 2014).
Bell's shocking claim that the Deaf are "defective" sums up his beliefs
concisely.
At the Congress of Milan of 1880, Deaf educators came together to decide the
future of Deaf learning. Bell presented on the benefits of oralism for three
days, while advocates of manualism were given only three hours to make their
counterpoints (Benito, 2014). At the end of the conference, every single
attendee--all of them hearing--passed a resolution to ban sign language and only
teach oralism, starting what was effectively a 100-year gag order on Deaf people
around the world. In America, ASL was secretly carried on behind closed doors,
while children didn't sign publicly for fear of getting their hands rapped.
Fortunately, this did not last; in the 1960's William Stokoe and others,
published revolutionary papers on linguistic structure and ASL that validated
manualism (Neisser, 1983) (Solomon, 1991). By the 1970-80's, sign language was
back in business, and slowly but surely recovering.
Though no side is "right" as with any debate, scientific evidence seems to favor
manualism. Teachers, who were trained in oral methods, were usually
unsuccessful; about 10 percent of Deaf students mastered intelligible speech,
and lipreading, with a success rate of only 4 percent, was exceedingly difficult
to teach (Neisser, 1983). By age five, children who grew up learning ASL had
vocabularies thousands of words larger than children who received oral
education. In addition, almost all students managed to learn ASL--during the ban
of ASL. They simply signed in secret, and from exchanges with other students,
familiarized themselves with a more efficient and more effective language (Neisser,
1983).
In validating ASL, Stokoe first focused on its resemblance to spoken language
(Solomon, 1991), before suggesting that language is not determined by physical
biological limitations, like speech and hearing. Rather, language by itself
seems to be an ingrained human trait (Neisser, 1983), and thus ASL, which
doesn't involve hearing or speech, still works to teach language. During the ban
of ASL, the emphasis on the use of the spoken word over written English further
hampered the linguistic education of the young Deaf. Only gifted children
succeeded in an education without signs or books. The rest, who bypassed the key
language acquisition ages without actually having learned anything, failed to
develop full cognitive skills for the rest of their lives (Solomon, 1991).
Oralism deprived Deaf children of both signed language and written language in
favor of a system that never really worked, and didn't stop until it was too
late for those children.
Today, oralism still exists. The Alexander Graham Bell Association advocates
for, among other things, early intervention, reminding us one of the reasons why
the issue is so touchy--it starts with the children. American Sign Language has
blossomed considerably since its ban, and is being taught in many universities,
high schools, and even online courses.
In the debate, the side you take usually depends on your ideology and how hard
you value integration, though this is not to say that the Deaf community shuns
integration. Things have come a long way since the lopsidedness of oralism's
popularity, but the debate continues on.
Works Cited:
Benito, Shandra. "Alexander Graham Bell and the Deaf Community: A Troubled
History." Pgs 1-2. Rooted in Rights. N.p., 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 May 2016.
Neisser, Arden. The Other Side of Silence: Sign Language and the Deaf Community
in America. New York: Knopf, 1983. Print.
Solomon, Andrew. "Defiantly Deaf." New York Times Magazine. Aug. 28 1994: 38+.
SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 23 May 2016.
Notes: Also see:
Oralism