See No Evil, Hear No Evil: The Integration of the Deaf Culture in the
Jessica McCloskey
Minorities and Society
“Blindness cuts people off from things; deafness cuts people off from
people.”
--Attributed to Helen Keller
It is the tendency of mainstream American culture to see deafness as a crippling disability. We tend to pity those who cannot hear and to applaud their efforts to assimilate with the majority. For the hearing, deafness can be nothing more than a cocktail question, “Which would you rather give up: your hearing or your sight?” Whatever the answer, the questioned gives a shiver of horror at the idea of waking up one day unable to hear the world around us.
It is because of this idea of deafness as a disability that we assume that all those who cannot hear wish that they could. We believe that a world in which you cannot hear is a diminished, sometimes frightening world. We often view sign language as a means of communication far below that of the spoken languages. Therefore, we applaud the efforts of the deaf to work within the hearing world. We assume that all deaf people will want to learn to lip read, and we especially applaud those deaf people who learn to use their voices to show how far they have come (consider the success of actress Marlee Matlin, a speaking deaf person).
With these prejudices, it often comes as a surprise to the hearing world that there is such a thing as a Deaf Culture. Here, deafness is not seen as a defect, but rather as a common trait that links a group of people together into a community. Within the Deaf Culture, their language is valued for its beauty and their visual literature, comedy and theatre enriches their culture. Here, a deaf person can take pride in their identity. They are not motivated to join the majority; rather, they embrace that which makes the different. Their community is a welcoming relief from the loneliness of trying to be a part of the hearing world. But there is more to the Deaf Culture than just a “support group” for those with a disability. Rather it is a whole rich culture of shared traits, desires, history and future where the deaf become the Deaf and proudly embrace their part of a community.[1]
What happens then when there is an attempt to assimilate the Deaf with the Hearing? When you weigh the considerations of integration of groups with the loss of cultural identity, which wins? As with any ethnic or religious or cultural group, there is always the question of what is best for the group and society as a whole. Do we want to live in a society where everyone is equal and similar or in one in which different groups are celebrated for their uniqueness?
The Pathological View of Deafness
This view of deafness has also been termed the “clinical-pathological” view or the “medical model”. At its most basic, this viewpoint starts at the assumption that that values and behaviors of those people who can hear are “the norm” or the “standard”. It then focuses on the ways in which deaf people deviate from that standard. For the most part, this is the view of the majority, the non-deaf who deal only with the deaf community in a professional basis. It can be said that this view-point is the “outsider’s view”—this is a view-point that for the most part sees all the differences between the hearing and the non-hearing and generally views the differences in a negative light. This is also the view that a deaf person has something wrong with them and should be “fixed”. While this for the most part considered the “outsider’s” view, it must be said that it is also held for the most part by a large group of deaf persons who choose to reduce their hearing disability through hearing aids or by cochlear implant. Those who stand by the pathological view may define the Deaf Community in the following way:[2]
a group of people whose hearing loss interferes
with the normal reception of speech;
a group of people who have learning and
psychological problems due to their hearing loss and their perceived
communication difficulties;
a group of people who are not “normal” because
they cannot hear.
Unfortunately, while this view is usually held by the majority, it is one that can lead to oppressive behaviors and attitudes towards Deaf people and can lead to discrimination. In recent years, this attitude that Deaf people are incapable of self-determination has led to it being called “audism”, because of the belief by others that this attitude is just as detrimental and causes as many problems as racism or sexism.
However, while this view may not win any points for being politically correct, it should be noted that it is this attitude that has led to greater discoveries in the medical field which have greatly improved the hearing of those who wish to have it improved. Hearing aids are now commonly used to increase the hearing of those who are becoming deaf (or in less common cases, those who have always had a degree of deafness), especially in the later years of their lives when it is less likely to be seen as a cultural identification. The cochlear implant, unthinkable just a few years ago, is now making it possible for those suffering from severe deafness to hear again. While it is arguable even within the Deaf Community whether this is a good or bad thing (with some Deaf persons feeling that to take the implant in order to hear is to deny the cultural identity of the Deaf), it is at least an incredible thing and offers more choices for those with hearing impairments.
The Cultural View of Deafness
At the other end from the pathological view is the cultural view of deafness. The cultural view comes in large part from findings in linguistic and sociological research, which identifies the Deaf Community as its own culture. This view recognizes that there is a great deal of complexity in determining all of the factors, which make up the Deaf Community. Because of all of the different factors involved, it can be a very complicated thing to define the Deaf Community, but for the most part, those who hold this view may embrace the following definitions:[3]
a group of persons who share a common means of
communication (sign language) that provides the basis for group cohesion and
identity;
a group of persons who share a common language
(American Sign Language) and a common culture;
those whose primary means of relating to the
world is visual and who share a language that is visually received and
gesturally produced.
It is this view-point that leads to more segregation of the Deaf Community from the Hearing Community. Those who hold this view usually also feel that there is a great deal to be gained by having Deaf children educated in schools for Deaf children, who are then surrounded either by other Deaf children or by educators and facilitators who sign and have some level of hearing impairment. Those who accept this view also feel that it is more important that Deaf persons embrace Deaf role models and ways of life and not to seek ways to change their Deafness (i.e. through hearing aids or cochlear implants) or to “blend” into the hearing world.
The History of Deaf
Culture and Deaf Education[4]
The existence of sign language has been proven as early as 422 B.C., as shown in the ancient records of Greek and Biblical writings. However, for many years, most people believed that deaf people were incapable of learning a language or of being educated.[5] Aristotle believed that those who were born deaf were also dumb, and as they could not speak, they could not learn a language.[6] Language and speech were seen as being synonymous. Unfortunately, many people still feel this way about communication to this day.
European
colonists, who had family members who were deaf, brought the genetic trait for
deafness to the
The first American school for deaf
children was developed in 1817 in
The
Although up until this point, the history of the education of deaf persons was characterized by the protection of sign language and the belief that it was important to have its use become more widespread, in the 1880s some educators began to worry that the use of sign language inhibited a child’s ability to speak and use English. By the early 20th century, this group of educators, known as oralists, was prevalent in certain schools. Oralists advocated the use of lip reading and speech training and in the banning of sign language. In schools led by the oralists, children were discouraged and punished for using sign language.
In 1913, the National Association for the Deaf attempted to combat the work of the oralists against sign language by having several motion pictures made of people signing.
The argument over this issue continues to this day. It is still not universally believed that all deaf children should learn and use sign language. Some parents of deaf children do not learn sign language themselves and send their children to regular schools so that they can learn to lip-read English instead. These children are not encouraged to learn about Deaf Culture; rather they are encouraged to work around their disability to become integrated with the hearing world.
Of course, sign language is used and accepted by many people. Deaf children are taught the visual language early on and even hearing children may learn to use sign language in high school in preparation of working with non-hearing persons or simply to learn a “foreign” language.
The Case for Integration
It has been argued that placing deaf children into special schools can lead to their segregation from their “non-disabled” counterparts. This can then prevent them from having everyday experiences with hearing children. It is feared that this segregation can lead to feeling as though they are different (read: not as good) as other children and feeling as though hearing children are their “enemy”.[7] From this, then, it is believed that integration will lead to achieving their full potential in a more normal educational and social environment. It should be understood that integration does not stop with putting the deaf child on a bus to a regular school. Instead, it is an ongoing process of learning to live with people who are different. This of course, involved increasing one’s knowledge of self and others.
It is believed that an integrated educational program (one with no special methods of dealing with the deaf child) prepares the deaf child for a life within the hearing community, where often there will be no special considerations for the deaf adult. A deaf child schooled in a deaf school does get to enjoy the feelings of community that come from being surrounded by those who are like the deaf child, but the child is also deprived of the social, business, and professional contacts that they may need later in life, that can only be made by having the effective language and communication skills that are taught in regular schools.
With this in mind, integration can be said to give the deaf child a greater foundation of speech and language skills. They can then use these skills to master new skills, to help them to strive for greater achievements and to help them to develop a more positive self-concept (that of a person overcoming a disability, rather than as a person who is deaf). It is also believed that because regular schools provide a more stimulating learning environment and has a much wider curriculum; deaf children will have to learn to cope in new situations every day, as a result, increasing their ability to cope in a hearing world.
According to Dalvi,[8] the success of a deaf child in the hearing world does not depend upon his or her severity of deafness as much as it does upon his or her intelligence, ability to lip-read, language skills and ability to cope in difficult situations. These are skills that can be gained by integrating the deaf child early into a regular school.
“People who aren’t completely deaf should
definitely be integrated. Often parents don’t know what to do with their
children and they put them in to special schools and leave them there. But at these special schools students often
don’t learn how to write or pronounce even their own name or address. Thus, they never find work or a place for
themselves in society and begin to view hearing people as their enemies.”
–Laura Ioana, social worker who works with
deaf people.[9]
The Case for Segregation
“Training in lip-reading and speech
generally fails with children who have never heard speech, and most of the deaf
children in school today have never heard speech”
--Lane, H. “The Mask of Benevolence:
Disabling the Deaf Community” 1992.
The case for segregation (or more precisely, against integration) is much easier to make if you first accept the cultural view of deafness. If you first look at being Deaf, not as having a disability, which needs to be overcome, but instead as something that makes you who you are, you are already halfway towards believing every deaf child should be sent to a deaf school.
According to Ernie Roszkowski, an eighth grader at the Lake Drive School for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children in Mountain Lakes, Deaf Culture is “the way people live including their beliefs, arts, customs, ideas and inventions [with] no difference between the deaf and hearing except the language each group uses.”[10]
Deaf people and hearing people often view segregation very differently. A great deal of that problem in communication stems from the hearing world’s inability to see deafness as anything other than a disability. Especially in the United States, where perseverance and the ability to overcome personal obstacles is highly valued, the idea of a deaf child entering a regular school and succeeding plays to our desire for everyone to achieve in the same way. From the perspective of a deaf child, however, the issue is about a great deal more than future contacts and developing skills and more about being thrown into a situation where they are surrounded by people completely unlike themselves.
“Imagine that you are a child again. Not just any child, but a deaf child, and
unable to communicate with anyone other than your deaf friends. You want to go to a school where everyone is
the same as you and the teachers, if not deaf, are fluent in sign language and
can empathize with your lot in life. But
the federal government comes along, and tells you and your parents, that it
knows better. So you are forced to
attend a school where you are mainstreamed with hearing children. You go—you have no choice in the matter—and
too bad if you don’t like it. An
interpreter helps you understand your class work. But you miss out on the spontaneity of most
conversations. The other students are
laughing at jokes that you can only understand after the joke is explained to
you and their laughter has long since died down. You become frustrated. Maybe you will use your sign language to ask
the interpreter, “What did he say?” but that soon becomes old. Feelings of isolation set in.”[11]
When Deaf children have the opportunity to grow up surrounded by other Deaf children, they have an opportunity to embrace their Deafness as a trait that joins them with a whole community. Within that community, they are taught about role models who are Deaf, about the issues of being Deaf in a hearing world, and how to live their lives appreciating all of their gifts. Whereas in the hearing world, they are left in a classroom of hearing students who view them as an outsider, within the Deaf world they are valued members. While the advocates of integration want to integrate to provide deaf children with self-confidence learned from acquiring new skills, those who want to segregate want Deaf children to learn self-confidence by learning that they are valued for who they are.
Conclusion
As with all minority groups, there is a question of how much value society places upon the unique culture of its smaller groups and how much value it puts on having a cohesive society that has integrated all of its groups into one. Unfortunately, with the complexity of trying to figure out what is best for the individual balanced by what is better for society in the long run, there are no clear answers.
It
can, and has been argued that for a deaf person to succeed, they need to
develop the skills that are valued in the majority culture. In much the same way that a person who speaks
no English is handicapped in the
While there might be costs to the state to accommodate deaf persons who do not integrate into society, there are also costs to deaf persons who decide to integrate. It must be understood that to become a part of the majority, the individual must let go of the security and support that comes from being a minority.
Just as has been argued with African-Americans (one can remember the effort to bring Ebonics to the school systems as an accepted language skill), Native Americans and other ethnic groups, a balance must be found between cultural identity and societal cohesion. With all of the hyphenated Americans, it may be time to find a place for Deaf-Americans.