Deaf

Culture in America

Deaf Culture in America Nicolas Sawicky SUNY Brockport

Deaf Culture in America One of the more widely known and understood disabilities that plague students across America is deafness. Most people believe the disability to be fairly cut-and-dry, people who are deaf cannot hear. They may or may not know that there are varying degrees of deafness, with

some individuals able to hear with the assistance of a cochlear implant. What seems fairly simple is really only the tip of the iceberg for this disability. When you explore deeper, you begin to understand that there is a complete society that operates under this disability. This deaf culture has a long and interesting history that contains some amazing achievements and times of darkness. A key factor into how this community operates is its opinion on how deaf people should communicate with each other and the rest of the world. There are also some interesting issues that are still affecting this community today. The deaf culture community saw itself put on the national stage during the now famous Deaf President Now protest in 1988. Even after that protest was resolved, there are still minor protests that this community acts upon, including one just a few years ago on the Rochester Institute of Technology campus. The disability of deafness has been around for as long as man, himself. It was not until 1817 that any real progress was made to help these unfortunate people. It was at that time that the first permanent school for the deaf was opened in the United States of America. This school helped create the foundations of deaf language, which would later become the American Sign Language or ASL, for short. The founders believed that sign language was best method for conveying abstract ideas and by which deaf people children could learn (Pray & Jordan, 2010). It was during this time period, from 1817-1880, that most deaf people consider the Golden age. The reason behind this was that teacher had full control of the education and could teach what was best for the deaf children (Pray & Jordan, 2010).

Deaf Culture in America

Then in 1880, the politicians stepped in and told the deaf community that they were

communicating in the incorrect manner. The Second International Congress of Education of the Deaf passed resolutions that outlawed the use of sign language in the education of deaf children in favor of the pure oral method (Pray & Jordan, 2010). This law followed the idea of oralism as being the best method for the deaf. So deaf children should be forced to communicate without sign language (Pray & Jordan, 2010). A strong supporter of the oralism method was the famous inventor, Alexander Graham Bell. Bell along with his peers had the intention of making deaf children as similar to hearing children as possible, to fit them into American society (Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989). This was a terrible time for the deaf community since they were not being given the opportunity to speak for themselves, but instead told what to do as if they were incapable of their own thoughts and opinions. Hearing parents also supported the method of oralism because they wanted their children to be normal (Pray & Jordan, 2010). This new method of communication unfortunately did not work as the oralists

envisioned. Instead of bringing deaf children closer to the rest of society, they were instead ostracized from both the hearing world and the deaf world. Despite this failed experiment, the method of oralism continued for almost 100 years, finally ending in the early 1970s. Until the mistake was fully realized, deaf children were punished if they were caught signing, due to the belief that sign language was nothing more than slang (Pray & Jordan, 2010). Despite the beliefs of oralism, there was one area of America that seemed untouched

by the failed experiment of oralism. Marthas Vineyard, an island off the coast of

Deaf Culture in America Massachusetts, that is only reachable by boat, became a safe haven for the deaf. Pray & Jordan (2010) describe it best: In the 1800s a large percentage of the population on the island was deaf and nearly everyone on the island learned sign language. People who where deaf signed to people who were hearing as well as to other people who were deaf. As Groce (1985) points out, Deaf people were fully integrated into the life of the

community. This integration of the deaf an hearing was supposedly going to occur thanks to the oralism method. As you have already read, this was not the case, but instead of realizing the success that occurred in Marthas Vineyard, the politicians decided to continue their method of forcing deaf students to be something they just were not. One final interesting aspect of the history of Deaf culture is the prevalence Deaf

clubs. Just like with any other group of people that share something in common, deaf students began forming Deaf clubs in the 19th century as a way to unite the Deaf community (Ladd, 2003). The success of these clubs in giving deaf children someone else to talk and relate to can be seen in this account by a deaf student named Albert: [The trips] were special times too because rather than just having four or five hours in the club, for a whole day you would be talking to people and you got to know each other much better. And sometimes those who were isolated in the club, nobody was isolated on the bus, because you would be sat to someone and talking away to them, and so on. And they would join the group when they walked around the place. Although it may be a little hard to understand what Albert is saying, his main message is that being a member of a deaf club gave him and his peers an opportunity to enjoy life without the hassle of fearing that he would not be understood. He had plenty of people that he could communicate with and enjoy being a kid.

Deaf Culture in America How deaf people communicate is a little more complicated then it sounds. Most

people have either heard of, or seen sign language before. ASL is not the only method for the death to communicate though. Thanks to modern technology, deaf people can now have a cochlear implant installed, which gives them at least partial hearing. The third option for the deaf population is to use simultaneous communicate, or simcom, for short, which is a combination of both methods. American Sign Language is the signed language of the Deaf-World in the United

States (Lane, Hoffmeister & Bahan, 1996). ASL is the language of a sizable minority, with estimates ranging from 500,000 to two million speakers in the U.S. (Lane et al., 1996). ASL is actually the leading minority language after Spanish, Italian, German, and French (Lane et al., 1996). ASL is spoken through the use the hands. Different motions, positions of the fingers, and where the hands are located all translate into how the language is read. For example, Thank you is as simple as placing your hand flat, facing you and touching your fingertips to your chin. These different signs add up to sentences, but are not spoken in the same order and context as normal English. Cochlear implants are a recent technology that strives to give people who suffer from deafness, the ability to hear. In more technical terms, a Cochlear implant is an implanted electronic hearing device, designed to produce useful hearing sensations to a person with severe to profound nerve deafness by electronically stimulating nerves inside the inner ear (Pray & Jordan, 2010). According to a study by the University of Belgrade, Cochlear implantation has statistically significant impact on speech and improves auditory skills and language development in the deaf children. There is an abstract words

Deaf Culture in America acquisition, with no statistically significant difference in vocabulary of the cochlear implanted and the deaf children with hearing aids, although the cochlear implanted

children show better overall scores of the described and defined words (Ostoji, Djokovi, Dimi*, Miki, 2010). This means that children that go through this elective procedure are able to enjoy music, watch TV without closed captioning, and understand speech without having to lip-read. Although these results are very promising, there are also eleven known risks when installing a cochlear implant: Injury to the facial nerve, Meningitis, Cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Perilymph fluid leak, Infection, Blood or fluid collection, Attacks of dizziness or vertigo, Tinnitus, Taste disturbances, Numbness around the ear, and Reparative granuloma (Pray & Jordan, 2010). Although there is always one of the above scenarios could happen when getting a cochlear implant, most would agree the gift of sound is worth the risk. Once a cochlear implant is installed, the person is able to communicate with anyone they chose too and still have the option to use sign language. The third and final option for communication is the use of simultaneous communication. This method is a system of communication compromise where people both sign and speak at the same time, allowing for the speakers deaf and hearing peers to understand them simultaneously. Although this method sounds like the best of both worlds, there is one large problem with it: the grammar and syntax of ASL are different from spoken English, thus, when using simcom it is possible to use individual signs and incorporate some features of ASL but not to use the language fully (Pray & Jordan, 2010). During my time at Rochester Institute of Technology, where the National Technical Institute of the Deaf is located, I experienced all three types of communication. Some

Deaf Culture in America students were completely deaf and had elected not to have a cochlear implant installed. These students were reliant on the interpreter to not only dictate what was being said in the class, but when they had a question or wanted to chime in on a discussion, they had to sign to the interpreter, so that their voice could be heard through that interpreter. I also experienced students who had cochlear implants installed at childhood and if you didnt notice the wire behind their ear, you would have not idea that they were completely deaf without it. The third type of communication is something that was also very common on RITs campus. I had numerous classes where students would make use of both sign language and the spoken word to communicate their thoughts. They would listen using both the interpreter and their partially functioning ears. When they had something to say, they would sign and try their best to speak. This is where each case differed. For some students, when they tried simcom, they had little to no trouble speaking English while signing to their deaf peers in the room. In other cases, their speech sounded like high-

pitched shrieks that to be honest, were not pleasant. Even with the unpleasant sounds, you had to respect the individual for trying to speak English when they could just take the easy road and communicate solely by ASL. Despite its small size in comparison to the rest of the United States, the deaf community has its fair share of issues. Two of the more prevalent issues that this community faces are its diversity and the debate over cochlear implants. The deaf community has a very diverse make-up. There are 5 subgroups to the deaf community. The first is people who are culturally deaf and use ASL as a primary language (Pray & Jordan, 2010). These individuals are the most cohesive due to their lack of other forms of communication, but they are not the largest group that makes up the entire deaf

Deaf Culture in America community. The next group are those not affiliated with deaf culture because they chose not to learn ASL, but instead use speech and speech reading to communicate (Pray & Jordan, 2010). Next are Deafened adults who had a previous identity as hearing people,

they are considered between worlds and either learn sign language or try their hardest to maintain a hearing identity (Pray & Jordan, 2010). The second to last subgroup of the deaf community are those who are hard of hearing. They are also between worlds and really do not belong to the deaf community or the hearing community (Pray & Jordan, 2010). The final subgroup of the deaf community is also a minority in the hearing world. People of color, just like in the hearing world, are struggling to have their voice heard in the Deaf community. Lack of representation of black members in the National Association of the Deaf lead to the formation of the National Black Deaf Advocates in 1982. This spin-off organization prides itself in its mission: to promote the leadership development, economic and educational opportunities, social equality, and to safeguard the general health and welfare of Black deaf and hard-of-hearing people (Pray & Jordan, 2010). More recently, the Latin American minority also formed its own spin-off organization because they too thought they were under-represented. These divides in the already small deaf community makes their mission for equality so much tougher. The largest point of contention in the deaf community is whether or not people who are born deaf, should have elective surgery to cure their disability with a cochlear implant. This controversy does not encapsulate all members of the deaf community. When obtained by late deafened adults, there has typically been no controversy because these are consenting adults who lived as hearing people prior to the onset of deafness (Pray &

Deaf Culture in America

Jordan, 2010). The controversy only comes into play when you are born deaf. Hagan (2004) reports, One man born deaf reported being ostracized soon after having his cochlear implant. This example of rejection is still only a small portion of the controversy surrounding cochlear implants. The real controversy surrounding cochlear implantation came when the FDA decided to approve the procedure for children (Pray & Jordan, 2010). Many members of the deaf community saw the growth of children with cochlear implants as a threat to Deaf culture and is even referred to the procedure as contributing to cultural genocide (Pray & Jordan, 2010). Deaf culturists argue that parents should leave the decision to get cochlear implants to their children when they become of age (Tucker, 1998). The problem with this recommendation is that early implantation is necessary for maximum effectiveness of a cochlear implant (Tucker, 1998). It is also necessary for a deaf child to learn English at an early age if they want to be able to speak it since ASL is fairly different than spoken English. Tucker (1998) really hits a home run in her argument when she states that: A child who is deaf who learns to speak and is part of the hearing world during childhood can learn to sign later in life and join the Deaf word if they so choose. This argument makes even more sense when you look at the statistics associated with deaf people in America: The average deaf person (without a cochlear implant) today reads at a fourth grade level. One in three drops out of high school. Only one in five who starts college gets a degree. Deaf adults make 30 percent less than the general population. Their unemployment rate is high, and when they are employed, it is usually in manual jobs such as kitchen workers, janitors, machine operators, tailors and carpenters, for which a strong command of English is not required. (Tucker, 1998)

Deaf Culture in America

10

There is just no logical reason to hold back from giving a child a cochlear implant if you can afford it. Cochlear implants give children a wealth of opportunities and will not deny them anything. They can still choose to be a part of deaf culture and learn ASL at any point. Despite the above argument, the leaders of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) claim that deaf people like being deaf and are proud of their so-called disability. They also believe that they have a right to their own ethnicity and language, which allows them to bond together (Tucker, 1998). What is really surprising is that deaf couples want their own children to be deaf and will sometimes invest in generic research to see if their children are likely to become deaf and if that is not the case, they very well may chose not to have children (Tucker, 1998). Critics retort that deliberately seeking to produce deaf children is a violation of that childs own autonomy and will narrow his or her choices when they grow up (Tucker, 1998). The deaf community has also had its won civil rights moment. This moment came in 1988 when Gallaudet University did not select a deaf president. Gallaudet University is considered the flagship educational institution for deaf people (Myers & Fernandes, 2010) and is probably even more widely described as a Mecca for the deaf community (Pray & Jordan, 2010). During the time of the presidential decision, the deaf community was at a crossroads due to the incoming threat of cochlear implants and the universitys push toward diversity outside of the deaf community (Pray & Jordan, 2010). The students and alumni thought that it was time that the school chose one of the highly qualified deaf administrators to take the open position of president of the University. When the selection came down to either two deaf men or a hearing woman, the community was anticipating a

Deaf Culture in America

11

victory for their cause. When the decision went toward the hearing candidate, the school was flooded with deaf protesters, which forced the school to close for an entire week (Christiansen & Barnartt, 1995). The protesters eventually got their way and the University saw its first deaf University president. Another controversy that banned the deaf community together happened in 2007 at Rochester Institute of Technology. RIT is home to the National Technical Institute of the Deaf and one of the dormitory names came under some scrutiny after people began to learn what side Alexander Graham Bell sat during the debate of sign language verses oralism. NTID was offended by Bell, because he was a eugenicist, an orlaist, and on the plaque in Bell Hall the last sentence says NTID follows [his] ideal, when we dont (Dehlinger, 2008). Just like with the Deaf President Now movement, the students of NTID quickly acquired 1,000 signatures to rename the dorm. The plaque was then removed and the building renamed. Both cases show that despite their disabilities, deaf people are just as capable as the rest of us to organize and fight for things to believe in. Just because they do not have a literally voice, does not mean they do not want to be heard.

Deaf Culture in America References

12

Christiansen, J. B., & Barnartt, S. N. (2003). Deaf president now!, the 1988 revolution at gallaudet university. New York: Gallaudet Univ Pr. Cleve, J. V. V., & Crouch, B. A. (1989). A place of their own, creating the deaf community in america. Gallaudet Univ Pr. Dehlinger, C. (2008, March 21). The renaming of bell hall. The Reporter. Retrieved from http://reportermag.com/article/03-21-2008/the-renaming-of-bell-hall Fernandes, J. K., & Myers, S. S. (2010). Inclusive deaf studies: Barriers and pathways. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(1), 1729. Groce, N. (1985). Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on martha's vineyard. New York: Pray, J. L., & Jordan, I. K. (2010). The deaf community and culture at a crossroads: Issues and challenges. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, Tucker, B. E. (1998). Deaf culture, cochlear implants, and elective disability. The Hastings Center Report,