Deaf Culture
Background: Deaf Culture
The term “Deaf Culture” refers to the distinct composure of beliefs, norms, and behaviors shared by members of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community (Padden 2006: 1). In the deaf community, deaf culture incorporates a unique use of language, literary habits, public spaces, and institutions that are specifically accommodated to deaf abilities (Padden 2006:1). In the deaf community, the use of the word “culture” serves as a way to unify deaf individuals across race, gender, religion, etc. (Padden 2006:2). Deaf culture has become a source of identity for deaf people across the world, developing differently all over.
Generally, however, the deaf community rejects their characterization of ‘disabled’ by distinguishing between Capital “D” deaf (the use of the capital “D” in the word deaf) and Lowercase “D” deaf. Lowercase “deaf” refers to the actual physical hearing impairment (Lum 2010: 441). Uppercase “D” deaf, on the other hand, refers to Deaf Culture, and serves a unifying force for people with deafness. It removes the label of a disability, and instead replaces it with a culture and lifestyle that promotes a strong sense of identity (Lum 2010: 441). A key part of the culture is the use of American Sign Language in communication. It connects individuals in the Deaf community. Deaf individuals who do not choose to learn ASL often feel isolated within their own sub-culture in the Deaf community (Padden 2006: 145). Ultimately, hearing impairment has brought together deaf individuals from across the world, creating a community network that is separate and distinct from the hearing world. The concept that deafness does not require a cure- but a space for existence- has helped to develop this pride and unity among the deaf. This entry will specifically focus on American Deaf Culture, and its development in the US in recent times.
Historical Context
The development of deaf culture started as early as the 19th century with the uniform schooling for the deaf, which included the use of American Sign Language in instruction and recreation. However, in the early 1900s, Alexander Graham Bell circulated the idea that sign language was a primitive, atavistic form of communication and should therefore be eradicated (Parsons et al 2016). Bell believed that if you cannot speak, then you cannot think, disqualifying deaf people as human beings. Bell was an avid supporter of eugenic thinking, and promoted the use of “oralism” for teaching the deaf. Oralism is a pedagogical approach to speech training, that teaches lip reading. This was meant to eliminate the need for sign language, ultimately bringing deaf individuals into the hearing society (Parsons et al 2016).
The debate over oralism and modes of communication dates back all the way to the 16th century. In the mid-1550s, Spanish churches barred the deaf from entering their institutions and taking holy communion, because they could not confess their sins aloud. Other European countries followed suit, even going so far as to bar deaf individuals from inheriting family wealth and taking classes with hearing children (Parsons et al. 2016). With globalization inevitably came the dissemination of such discriminatory institutions to the United States,
However, in the 20th century, there was finally some pushback in defense of deaf culture by deaf boarding schools. They believed in the power of non-verbal communication forms like ASL and therefore introduced the concept of ‘manualism’ to their institutions. Manualism is a direct response to the oralist schools, policies and education that had characterized (and limited) deaf culture in the centuries prior. Edward M. Gallaudet led the movement towards manualism. He contended that forcing deaf students to embrace spoken communication is “tantamount to stripping them of their identity, their community and their culture” (Winefield 1987).
Galludet led the deaf culture’s rejection of dehumanizing, eugenic rhetoric aimed towards their community, encouraging schools to continue teaching sign language to their students (Parsons et al 2016). The school’s purposeful choice to teach ASL in schools was not only a symbolic resistance to institutional discrimination, but it also contributed to the creation of a deaf culture. This movement instituted feelings of unity and pride in their community members, and sought to create a haven for deaf students within the greater American population. After graduation, deaf students came together in deaf churches, schools, and other institutions (Parsons et al 2016). This voluntary gathering helped to define the deaf culture that flourishes today.
Today, deaf culture continues to thrive in the United States. They identify as a minority group in need of inclusion and support by their local hearing communities and policymakers. In 2006, The United Nations created the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in an effort to make meaningful change for Deaf Cultures worldwide. In Article 30, Paragraph 5 of the treaty, the UN recognizes Deaf Culture by stating that “Persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture.” This gave institutional recognition to people with all kinds of disabilities, not just deafness, ushering in diversity, activism, and value-based developments in Deaf Culture.
Controversies
Besides the aforementioned controversy between manualism and oralism that has existed for centuries, there are many conflicting opinions about Deaf Culture in the United States today. The main advocates for the advancement of Deaf culture are called “Deaf Culturists”. Deaf Culturists believe that “society should not focus on a cure for deafness but should accept Deaf people as a cultural minority and respect their right to live as a Deaf person” (Tucker 1997:24). Deaf Culturists are strong opponents of the instillation of cochlear implants on children whose parents are hearing (95% of deaf children are born to hearing parents) (Parsons et al. 2016).
However, Culturists have been known to express support for contradictory ideas. For example, while they do believe that Deaf people should have pride in their deafness, they also insist that deafness (the physical impairment) is disabling and that society should therefore provide compensation (Tucker 1997: 24). Their hope for accommodation prompted them to be major supporters of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This would allow deaf people and the hearing-impaired greater ease in everyday life and interactions. The most recent version of the ADA (2010) stipulates that title II (state and local governments) and title III entities (businesses and nonprofit organizations) must effectively communicate with people with disabilities, who may use alternate forms of communication. This includes providing a qualifying note-taker or interpreter when needed, having real-time captioning, written material or printed scripts of any relevant information and free telecommunications relay services (TRS) (https://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm). Such accommodations seem to contradict Culturists’ original views that deaf individuals should be left alone to their own cultures; the ADA attempts to draw a bridge between the hearing and deaf communities. Some Culturists believe that the ADA removes Deaf culture in their efforts to assimilate them into hearing culture (Tucker 1997:27).
Another source for conflict in the Deaf community, is the process of “intentionally choosing children with malfunctioning genes that produce disabilities” (Sanghavi 2006). Deaf couples can choose to select a deaf baby as a sense of preservation of the culture. The couple might also feel uncomfortable with a hearing child directly within the Deaf culture with deaf parents (Sanghavi 2006). For example, a deaf lesbian couple from Maryland specifically chose sperm from a deaf donor. Other deaf couples might choose to abort a baby once they find out that it will be hearing. The lengths that specific couples have gone to in order to ensure a close family bond can be seen as extreme. This has caused some questions of morality of Deaf culture.
Politics of Health
Because deaf people are now able to access equal rights under the passage of the ADA, a window of opportunity has opened for the Deaf community in terms of their relationships to the medical field. The hearing community usually perceive the Deaf community as “naïve, [and] that they could not enjoy life without sound, that their world was small, and that they struggle to accomplish the normal routines of everyday life in a hearing world” (Padden 2006:148). The ADA and the UN Convention treaty help policymakers and healthcare providers to understand the medical wants and needs of the deaf community.
This ultimately gives biological citizenship to Deaf people in the United States, through institutional means. Biological citizenship can be defined as a means of identification which will lead to medical resources or protection from discrimination provided by the government (Tomasek 2017). Hopefully government recognition will protect the Deaf community and prevent the embodiment of prejudicial policies in Deaf bodies of all races, religions and creeds.
Bibliography
Tucker, Bonnie Poitras. “The ADA and Deaf Culture: Contrasting Precepts, Conflicting Results.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 549 (1997): 24-36. http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/stable/1048084.
Carol Padden and Tom Humphries, Inside Deaf Culture (Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, 2006)
Doman Lum, Culturally Competent Practice: A Framework for Understanding (Brooks Cole: Cengage Learning
Darshak Sanghavi “Wanting Babies Like Themselves, Some Parents Choose Genetic Defects” NY Times Dec 5, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/health/05essa.html
Parsons et al, 2016, Body Politic: Deaf President Now; Back Story Radio, Virginia Foundation for the Humanities; http://backstoryradio.org/shows/body-politics-2016/ Mar 18, 2017
Winefield, Richard. Never the twain shall meet: Bell, Gallaudet, and the communications debate. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 1987.
« Back to Glossary Index