We’re all familiar with the conflict; however, a brief glimpse of both arguments (aside from identity issues) by hearing parents wouldrobably cede victory to oralism. In light of this call for a protest at the AGBell Conference, ASL advocates may need to re-evaluate a broken public strategy. Especially if hey hope to have a breakthrough in the decision-making process of hearing parents who seek help from publicly available resources. One strike against the pro-ASLimovement is that AGBell has a strong, central organization to advocate its position while the ASL supporters, seemingly a ratag group, don’t have that advantage.

Two personal experiences formed my personalonclusion about both ideologies, which I reveal laterin this blog. One summer, I went to Clarke Camp at the renowne oral school in Northampton, MA. I actually signed with a good number of fellow campers. Several years later I attended the prestigious NAD Youth Leadership Camp (YLC) in Stayton, Oregon, which was conducted entirely in American Sign Language (ASL).

I experienced some duress at Clarke for signing. For example, I will never forget when the “hall maid” slapped my hands as I was signing. I thought those times had passed. Otherwise, there was some indirect propaganda about oralism and its virtues. There were some instances where I could not tolerate the condescending attitudes towards deaf people and sign language, thus earning me the “nonconformist” award at the camp’s closing ceremonies.

At YLC though, I experienced more direct propaganda. The most memorable was Charles Katz who sported a Rastafarian hat and told the story of Visma (he just set up shop at his blog). Katz’s story depicts Alexander Graham Bell (called “Dr. Volta”) as a criminal madman. Some YLC staff members shared his sentiment about anything that was not ASL. We had plenty of conflicts over what I perceived to be narrow-minded attitudes. This earned me the “punishment” of carrying a huge sign with the letter “R” and the word “Respect”.

Don’t get me wrong. Many of the lessons, workshops, and overall experiences at both camps were fabulous. Some staff members were open-minded; I would encourage children to attend both camps. The most valuable lesson learned: the choice of communication is not the crux of the problem, but rather, the attitudes and close-mindedness of the key individuals promoting their ideologies.

Neither ideology is mutually exclusive. I finally found a paper that somewhat reinforces my belief. “Oral Communication versus American Sign Language”, prepared by Kim Baker for the Interdisciplinary Research Conference, rationalizes the conflict in terms of philosophical theories. Baker makes a reasonable, moderate conclusion that communication methods should be tailored to the individual’s needs and that the deaf child should be exposed to both modes so the individual can decide which they want to continue to pursue later in life.

She compares the arguments in favor of oralism to the phenomenon facing Frankenstein, a hideous, unloved monster who yearns to conform to social norms.

…people wish for conformity or assimilation into the norm to avoid pain, segregation, and rejection. It is from these historical fears that Oralists acquire their fundamental value that assimilation into the hearing world is most beneficial for all involved.

On the other hand, Baker describes pro-ASL groups as those who highly value social-emotional benefits and the privilege to exercise human rights. She compares their philosophy to that of Thomas Hobbes, who said, “The first and fundamental law of nature . . . is to seek peace and follow it.” According to Baker, social-emotional stability is one way to be at peace with oneself. Connecting Hobbes with the civil rights protected by the Constitution, she concludes that:

Those who support ASL understand the privilege and compulsion to practice these natural laws, as they are rights that should belong to every human without question.

While oralism allegedly shuns visual and manual access to language, I’m not sure that protesting at the AGBell Conference with posters such as AGBELL’S IDEOLOGY HINDERS DEAF KIDS, MANY DEAF CHILDREN WERE DEPRIVED IN EDUCATION BY ORAL METHOD, or AGBELL WAS A PROUD EUGENICIST, AND SO WAS ADOLF HILTER would be effective. If anything, it may validate hearing parents’ fears of their children becoming angry deaf people who isolate themselves from society (an erroneous generalization, of course).

Fortunately, parents have the authority and freedom to choose their children’s communication at home and in the classroom (via Individualized Education Plans). This leaves it up to different, and often, competing ideologies to win the support of parents of deaf children. But why compete? Perhaps there is no “wrong” way to communicate with deaf children. Baker explains, “A solution to this debate has been long coming, and may never come, as the choice in communication methods for deaf individuals largely revolves around the fundamental values held by each individual.”

The people who intend to protest at the AGBell Conference will dig a deeper hole for pro-ASL supporters if they throw mud rather than take the higher road.

RSS feed

135 Comments