LITERATURE REVIEW
The ongoing debate between oralism and manualism in formal deaf education is one that traces all the way back to the 16th Century. Prior to the 20th Century, there was a strong preference for oralism due to an archaic view that signing equated to those from the lower classes and were intellectually challenged (Cohen, 1999). At the Second International Congress on the Education for the Deaf (ICED) held in 1880, this ideology was further enforced when renowned inventor Alexander Graham Bell declared that an oral education was superior to a manual one. As a result, schools across the United States and Europe banned sign language and switched to using speech and lip-reading. Unfortunately, the impact of this ban was not only confined to the classrooms. The following 100 years saw a rapid decline in the quality of life and education for the Deaf community and is often referred to as the “dark ages” (Wolkomir, 1990).
It was not until Miranda Pickergill and Susan Gregory published their revolutionary paper in 1998 titled “Sign Bilingualism: A Model” that significant positive changes started to happen in deaf education. Swanwick and Gregory defined a sign bilingual person as someone “who uses two or more languages in their daily life, at least one of which is a sign language”. The introduction of sign bilingualism prompted developments in sign language teaching and research. It was found in numerous studies that sign language, when used in conjunction with a spoken language and/or a cochlear implant, would support the language, social-psychological and cognitive development of deaf children (Humphries et al., 2012, Gerner de Garcia, 2003, Svartholm, 2010). In 2010, the 21st ICED board committee formally rejected all resolutions from the ICED of 1880 and issued a formal apology to the Deaf community (World Federation of the Deaf).
Despite a greater preference for sign language among the Deaf community, oralism still plays an important role. Pickergill and Gregory’s proposal also led to a gradual increase in the number of profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants (Swanwick and Gregory). In a TED talk given by Heather Artinian, who was born profoundly deaf and the subject of the documentary Sound and Fury (2000), she mentioned how getting a cochlear implant helped her navigate the hearing world and find her place in it.
“That was the best decision for me at the time, because, I wanted to keep on doing what I had been doing all along - going to speech [therapy] and just, building the bridges with people”
(Artinian, 2013)
Although Artinian’s story is triumphant in her ability to bridge the gap between the hearing and Deaf worlds, the fact that she had to choose the cochlear implant in order to achieve this demonstrates an enduring need for deaf individuals to make sacrifices in order to integrate with mainstream society. In this way Sound and Fury, while celebrated for its sensitive and balanced portrayal of Deaf culture within the context of the hearing world, is also criticised for not being representative enough of this culture, its richness and depth (Edwards, 2005). Such criticism links to a wider issue prevalent in public perceptions of the Deaf community: that deafness is viewed purely as a medical condition to be cured, rather than a cultural phenomenon that provides a sense of belonging and empowerment to those that identify as Deaf (Parks, 2014).
Napier makes the important distinction between the medical condition of deafness, and inclusion in the Deaf community, reflecting that a similar division can be made between Hearing people – people that live entirely in the Hearing world and are oblivious to Deaf culture – and hearers, who are able to empathise with and belong to the Deaf community despite not being deaf themselves (2002). By making this comparison, Napier effectively demonstrates the status of the Deaf community as a social construct from which an identity can be derived. However, this social construct is also limiting, often excluding those with hearing impairments from mainstream society and exiling them to this minority community:
“Pathological definitions [of deafness] have been disregarded in favour of social models of deafness, whereby it is purported that Deaf people are disabled by society in that they are not given access to information, rather than being regarded as people with disabilities.”
(Napier, 2002)
The attribution of Deaf culture to a minority community perpetuates discrimination against deaf individuals by fueling the misconception that they are disabled and unable to communicate with the hearing world because they can only use sign language. This process of institutionalised discrimination is termed audism, and is defined as "the notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear or to behave in the manner of one who hears." (Humphries 1977). Again, this definition highlights the sociological aspect of Deafhood by suggesting that those with a hearing impairment can escape discrimination by appearing to belong to the hearing world, thereby positioning themselves outside of the Deaf minority community. The issue of audism faced by Deaf individuals has been compared to the treatment of ethnic minority groups within a wider social paradigm (Lane 2005), has the effect of marginalising and silencing the Deaf community, such that they struggle to fight against the disadvantages they face.
The discrimination experienced by the Deaf community is multifaceted and relentlessly present in modern society, despite increased awareness of Deafness as a social concept, rather than a biological condition. Issues of ignorance, misrepresentation and exclusion permeate through literature that discusses audism, regardless of the context in which such discrimination is being analysed. In the world of art and culture, the minority status of Deaf culture has led to neglect in the face of the “sound-dominating mainstream audio-visual culture” (Tam 2015). Lack of representation is also a problem in academic literature; Ladd describes the historical lack of research into Deaf studies as an “oralist holocaust” (2003) repressed by the drive to force deaf individuals into mainstream society by any means possible, exemplified by international encouragement of cochlear implants and lack of support and funding for sign language interpreters and teachers (Ladd 2008).
Perhaps the most significant area in which audism has an effect is in the job prospects and educational attainment of Deaf individuals. Data published by the Census and Statistics Department of Hong Kong in 2013 as seen in the Background reveals how, compared with the Hong Kong population overall, those with any kind of hearing impairment:
- Have a lower socio-economic status
- Are more likely to be economically inactive
- Have lower-level or elementary occupations
- Earn Less
Altogether, these findings indicate that the job prospects available to the Deaf community in Hong Kong are very limited, both in terms of the level of responsibility given to them and the salary they can hope to earn. In correlation with this, the educational attainment of the Deaf community is much lower than that of the Hong Kong population as a whole, with only 6.1% achieving any kind of post-secondary-level qualification, compared with 25.5% of the overall population. Such disparity aids the explanation of deaf individuals’ restricted career prospects, but also sheds light on how overlooked Deaf people are in the education system, again illustrating the attitudes of neglect and ignorance towards the Deaf community by mainstream society.
The findings from the Hong Kong census data indicate that Deaf individuals begin to be marginalised and discriminated against from as early as primary-school, or age 6, leading them to reject academics in favour of more manual or elementary careers. This means that members of the Deaf community have lower literacy rates and a lack of higher qualifications, thus leading to disadvantages in all areas of life including education, employment and day-to-day life (Garberoglio et al, 2013). In a study conducted with the Deaf community in the USA, Schley et al found that achieving tertiary-level qualifications transformed the careers and indeed the lives of those with hearing impairments, arguing that it is in a government’s best interests to support education for the Deaf as it would save them from having to rely on Social Security disability programmes, which in turn cost the government.
“We find that those who graduate, even those who graduate with vocational degrees, experience significant earnings benefits and reductions in the duration of time spent on federal disability programs when compared with those who do not graduate with a degree.”
(Schley et al, 2011)
This demonstrates how the Deaf community have the potential to be accepted into mainstream society and achieve the same prospects and careers that are available to the hearing population, if given the right support and acceptance by the wider population.
Not only do the Deaf community experience discrimination in the form of audism from mainstream society, but this prejudice impacts upon their sense of their own identity, leading to acceptance of a marginalised social position and feelings of isolation and exclusion. In two perceptual studies conducted in Australia by Renée Punch PhD, it was found that Deaf students at high school and graduate level had many worries and gaps in their knowledge with regards to future career barriers and how these could be dealt with. While university graduates highlighted the importance of bicultural identity, namely being able to speak and sign, to overcoming obstacles in their work life (Punch et al 2007), high school students dismissed certain career pathways purely based on their hearing impairment (Punch et al 2006). These studies stress the different ways in which the public’s perception of Deaf culture can impact negatively upon those that engage with that culture, effectively preventing them from realising their potential by limiting their own sense of Self to that of a disabled person to which many opportunities are denied.
The identity of the Deaf community is constructed by the relationship between deaf individuals and mainstream society, creating a dialogue of perceptions and self-reflections that are sometimes misguided and frequently have negative consequences for the individual. The notion that deafness is equated with disability and incompetence compromises the opportunities available to the Deaf community in terms of education, careers and culture. By raising awareness of Deaf culture - the empowerment and strong sense of identity that can be derived from this label - there is hope that attitudes towards deafness and Deafness will change in mainstream society, creating a more inclusive community that enables individuals to fulfil their potential, free from prejudice.