| | The hard sell of oralism in the middle of the 20th century was something I grew up with. Hearing people have a natural bias; they cannot think of living in any other way same as we cannot think of living without our sight. Remember how salesmen would play on our weaknesses to sell us cars, furniture, clothing and jewelery? That is how the oralist group works--including the industries, the professionals, hearing evaluators, teachers using oral methods, principals. They play on the weakness of parents even to naming their schools. Take a look at Chattering children in Virginia, Hear-ME-Now! in Maine, Hearts for Hearing in Oklahoma, and Child's Voice in Illinois.
Teachers told us when we were young, "You talk so well. So perfect, perfect! Not like those people who use ugly sign language." (making grotesque wigglings with the fingers) Glossy, four-color brochures were found in offices and mailed to homes of parents touting the benefits of new hearing aids. They were the most glowing of junk mail, picturing delighted parents and happy babies all with their mouths open. One was expected to be convinced that the latest hearing aid was THE breakthrough that would miraculously result in talking children. Magazines of professional associations serving the deaf contained full-page, full-color hearing-aid advertisements. Daily newspapers invariably had one-column-by-three inches ads in boldface: "DON'T BE DEAF!" as if it were some terrible disease. (I grew up with an instilled horror of being considered one of those ignorant, weirdly flapping-hands people.)
  Among them would be expertly designed flyers and brochures from the AGBell association. They ranked right along with the John Tracy Clinic in information mixed with thinly disguised promotion of hearing aids and services. They contained pictures of sunny rooms filled with toys, happy children and smiling teachers. I used to feel slightly sick to my stomach on seeing these and my teeth hurt from their sweetness. If I expressed distaste, my parents would shame me out of it. "These are nice people who work hard at helping deaf children!"
Moving through school, I was barraged with a steady stream of "you are so smart, you're better than those others" always with a reward for talking. If I had any useful hearing, that would have been complimented like my better-hearing friends, but instead I received compliments on a shiny new hearing aid or new earmolds, or a new hearing aid holder. Some days the praise would be limited to the mere fact that I was wearing the thing. My parents were told in PTA meetings, "Never allow your child to sign or associate with those who sign. It will have a terrible effect." Warnings were repeated, "Sign language is of the past. Discipline in speaking is necessary for a successful future." "Do not sign or they will not learn to speak." What a burden to lay on parents, but they invariably bought it since they wanted their child to talk like an intelligent person.
Was it possible to enter a school for the deaf with a worse set of attitudes? I had no difficulty picking up fingerspelling, but had a priggish attitude toward signing that was fostered by a school that used the fingerspelling-only approach. This did not sit well with fellow students, for they signed behind the backs of the teachers and derided me for not doing it, too. My attempts to speak in class were made fun of even by students that could talk better. I had to fit in by learning that this was oralist philosophy--considered false, pretentious and never acceptable in the Deaf school community. My fellows saw through me and systematically knocked the oralism out of my head. Just as teachers mocked sign language to me, my Deaf classmates mocked me with gross-looking mouth flapping, too-intimate views of dental work and tonsils or lack thereof. When that wasn't exaggerated enough, forearms would be flapped together in imitation of hippopotamus mouths opening and closing. It took weeks to learn manual communication, but years to become a full member of the Deaf community.
That was for the lucky oral deaf people who eventually were accepted as part of the Deaf community. As I finished college and worked as a professional, I met more oralists who were still isolated in the Hearing community. They were afraid of offending their parents, some of whom were dedicated and aggressive. One parent slapped my desk when I used sim-com with her young adult deaf daughter and ordered me not to sign. Some young oral deaf went to work or a few went to hearing colleges, but hit roadblocks. I visited one who had difficulty at work because she did not know how to alphabetize files and thus refused to leave home. I taught her, through writing on paper, to fingerspell groups of letters and memorize them that way. A college student had social problems and expressed intense loneliness. I offered her support, but there was little to be done otherwise until she decided to transfer to another college that offered more services. Some oral deaf saw no future in the Deaf community, others needed to be introduced very slowly before they could overcome their bias against sign and be able to meet others like themselves.
At this point the most ardent supporters of the CI might say that they successfully integrate into the hearing community and thus have no need for sign or being part of the Deaf community. I have no problem with this, if it is true. For many, it is not, and these are lost people indeed. In talking up the benefits of aided hearing, one must never overlook those that it does not help.
The credo that AGBell and its subsidiaries pushed now seemed a travesty that suppressed the vitality of humanity and limited expression for too many Deaf people. The mistaken do-gooders fueled by philanthropic businesses obtained revenue in the belief they were saving deaf people from a life of isolation. The paradox is...it actually increased isolation and depression. What if benefactors focused instead on how deaf children can connect to the community, and considered any form of communication a success? That flexibility itself is a goal? What would have been the effect on the Deaf community? Instead of a deeply divided community, we would have a heterogenous, widely varied and mutually accepted people.
Consider the village of Chilmark, Mass. in the 19th century. There Deaf people were an accepted part of the community, everyone knew some sign and those that talked, mixed it with sign. To be Deaf there was to be a member of the whole community rather than a separate group. It is my argument that if not for Milan 1880 mounting an assault on sign language and a media war promoting oralism, our community would be more inclusive and more accepted in the hearing world.
There is work to do to recover from that historic setback. Begin with the parents in the maternity wards and welcome them into an all-inclusive atmosphere with options all equally acceptable. Mentor whole families to promote a Chilmark-like acceptance of everyone as equals. Fight the public misinformation from hardcore oral/aural adherents and uninformed media people. Teach deaf children that the hearing world is accessible and open to them. Promote schools that offer flexibility as part of their strategy. Save schools for the deaf and open them to include hearing siblings and community children. There is more to do, but only a few places to begin. One of them is to replace all oral/aural agencies eventually with more inclusive programs. In the light of new information and flexibility, such institutions will fade as did the Tyrannosaurus Rex.  
|
| | Posted 5/12/2009 12:41 AM - 467 Views - 2 eProps - 6 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
