Introduction.
Communication in the Deaf community is an extremely diverse topic. Most hearing people, however, believe that Sign Language is the only way to communicate with deaf people. By reviewing several pieces of Deaf literature, and doing observations on my own, I’ve come to find that this is far from true. I cannot stress enough the importance of educating people, especially hearing people, about this topic. Many hearing people believe that Sign Language is the universal language, and that knowing it will enable someone to communicate with people from different countries. This is one of the greatest misconceptions, and something that I am hoping to educate people on. According to Harlan Lane, Bob Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan, Sign Language is not the universal language. The Deaf community in the United States uses American Sign Language, which differs from British Sign Language, which differs from French Sign Language etcetera (Lane, Hoffmeister, Bahan 1996).
Rationale.
I believe that it is unacceptable to allow people to have such a narrow and naive view of a community and culture that exists within their own. The many different ways that deaf people communicate has an enormous impact on their culture and day to day lives. Being educated on this topic is important because the Deaf community is a part of the greater American culture, and lacking knowledge about their lives and communication can negatively impact how they are seen in the public eye. Misinformation can often lead to misrepresentation and the perpetuation of false stereotypes. Researching and examining communication in the Deaf community can help to combat that this by providing hearing people with a better lens through which to analyze the communities around them. Using an ethnographic stance, I was able to immerse myself in the Deaf community and observe, as well as participate in their various communication methods and cultural practices.
Data Analysis.
When Deaf people see each other out in the community they will more often than not walk up and introduce themselves. They recognize each other by noticing the use of American Sign Language. Thomas Holcomb notes that most hearing people in the US would not randomly introduce themselves to a stranger just because they share a common language, but Deaf people do because their community places a huge emphasis on interpersonal connections (Holcomb 2013). This is brought up several times by Holcomb, but I have also seen many personal examples, myself. While taking American Sign Language classes, I noticed that several Deaf people show up to observe and contribute to the lesson. At the end of one class I noticed
my friend Lacey (who is Deaf and uses American Sign Language) talking to an interpreter named Nicole. She had her arm draped around Nicole’s shoulders and they were chatting like old friends. When talking to Lacey later I asked how long she had known Nicole, and she replied that “[she] just met her today in class.” Being new to American Deaf culture, I was stunned because they seemed like they had known each other for so long. After reading Holcomb’s text, and several others, I began to understand that the Deaf community functions differently than my hearing community does. I also began to understand that the shared language was very important, because it allowed for communication and information sharing that the Deaf do not easily have access to in the hearing world. This example of Deaf culture helped me to understand why interpersonal relationships are so important. Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan outline that the Deaf community is not geographically bound, and so being able to talk to and meet other Deaf people is very important because it helps bring the community together from all across the country (Lane, Hoffmeister, Bahan 1996).
A point that I would like to make, mainly for the sake of clarity, is the difference between “deaf” and “Deaf.” R. A. R. Edwards points out that the term “deaf” refers to anyone who is physically unable to hear. The term “Deaf” refers to deaf people who use American Sign Language, and are active participants and contributors to the Deaf community. They strongly identify with Deaf culture and generally view the Deaf community as a cultural minority group (Edwards 2012). Many deaf people would consider themselves disabled, but referring to a Deaf person as disabled is extremely offensive to them because of the pride they have in their community, history, and culture which all function independently of the hearing world.
One of the most important aspects of any culture, including Deaf culture, is how members of that culture communicate. There are several ways that Deaf people accomplish this, but the main communication methods I researched are: American Sign Language (ASL), Seeing Essential English (SEE), the Rochester Method, and oralism. According to Thomas Holcomb, these methods all greatly differ from each other, but are all used not only in the education of the Deaf, but also in their everyday communication with each other (Holcomb 2013). American Sign Language, Seeing Essential English, and the Rochester Method all fall under the umbrella term of manualism. Historically, oralism has been the main downfall of manualism and the bi-bi approach to Deaf education. According to Edwards the bi-bi method refers to using American Sign Language to educate Deaf children in the English language. The hope was that they would be a part of the Deaf community and Deaf culture as much as they were a part of mainstream American culture. Edwards also tells us that oralism is the belief in educating the deaf with speech in order to have them “pass” as hearing and manualism is the belief in educating the deaf using visual and manual communication (Edwards 2012). John Van Cleve and Barry Crouch detail that oralists believed it was best for the deaf to assimilate as much as possible into the hearing world (Van Cleve, Crouch 1989). This approach had an extremely negative affect on Deaf culture because it attacked several of the fundamental values that the culture embraced. These values are summarized by Edwards and generally are: use of American Sign Language, education at a school for the Deaf, participation in Deaf social events, visual access to information, and open communication for all community members (Edwards 2012). Oralism tries to eliminate several of these points by trying to eradicate the use of American Sign Language in schools, attempting to pass the deaf off as hearing, and limiting the amount of information that the deaf can obtain by taking away the most widely used form of communication for them. While oralism is an important communication method to note for Deaf research, it is just as important to highlight the fact that a war between manualism and oralism still exists in the Deaf community, and especially in Deaf education to this day.
While doing an internship at READS Collaborative, a school for Deaf children in Bridgewater, MA, I was lucky enough to meet one teacher who was profoundly Deaf, but who was raised oral. R. A. R. Edwards’s work shows that being raised oral means that a Deaf child was not allowed to sign, but rather forced to read lips and receive extensive speech training instead. Edwards also states that this method was developed in the late 1800s to try and get Deaf people to be able to “pass as hearing” (p. 72). While being educated this way at a residential school for the Deaf, she was able to learn American Sign Language from other Deaf children who already knew it, and taught it to her in secret. Once she learned, she was astounded by how much easier and more efficient it was for her to communicate with her peers. For the first time, she was exposed to a language that allowed her to fully express herself, as well as understand what everyone else was saying to her. Because of the education that she received, she is able to speak and read lips fairly well, however she chooses to use American Sign Language because it is the best method of communication for her. This choice led her to a popular job in the Deaf community which is educating Deaf children. Her communication choice impacted how she identifies culturally, because she found more acceptance and support within the Deaf community due to their common language and cultural practices.
As Holcomb describes, Seeing Essential English is a form of communication that “borrows signs from American Sign Language” and applies them to English grammatical structure (p. 56). Personally, I have not met anybody who uses Seeing Essential English, but I have been formally educated about the topic in the Holyoke Community College Deaf Studies program. Because English and American Sign Language have very different grammar and syntax, taking signs and trying to apply them to English ends up not making a lot of sense. A great example that my Deaf Studies teacher provided was the term “butterfly.” In American Sign Language, there is one sign for “butter,” one sign for the verb form of “fly,” and one sign for “butterfly.” In Seeing Essential English, however, they combine the signs for “butter” and “(v)fly,” and the resulting concept is a stick of butter flying, instead of an insect. This happens often when people try to literally translate American Sign Language into English. Seeing Essential English is a very confusing language and scholars and educators have had a difficult time trying to make it work. It is, however, a form of communication that is used to educate deaf children. It has been seeing a decline in recent years and is almost completely obsolete now with more and more people understanding the problems with literal translation, but it is still important to note, because many members of the Deaf community have been educated this way.
A more popular method used by the deaf is the Rochester method which was developed in Rochester, NY. This method of communication relies on fingerspelling, and English. Fingerspelling is a system of hand shapes where each shape represents one letter of the English alphabet. Van Cleve and Crouch discuss the history of the manual alphabet and tell us that this method is derived from the Benedictine monks in Spain who developed the concept of fingerspelling to communicate with each other after taking vows of silence (Van Cleve, Crouch 1989). American Sign Language also uses limited fingerspelling for proper nouns, and some English language concepts that do not have equivalent signs, however the Rochester method uses only the fingerspelling of English words in order to communicate. This method is basically writing with the hands, as every single letter in the words being used has to be spelt out on the fingers. I have used this method before, and most people who are familiar with the manual alphabet would be able to understand someone using the Rochester method. It is very popular in Rochester, however I personally struggle with using it for a long period of time because it strains my fingers. Trying to spell out every single word is difficult, and trying to read those letters off of someone else’s hands is very hard to do visually. Most people who are familiar with another form of Sign Language prefer to use signs over fingerspelling because it is more fluid motion on the hands and requires less dexterity. This manual communication method is important to note however, because it is still used to this day in Rochester, NY, and also because it is a very basic way for people to communicate with the Deaf without having to learn anything more than the manual alphabet. The Deaf community in Rochester is very culturally similar to the Deaf community in the greater United States, they just have a different communication preference. Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan describe that this preference developed because of the schools for the Deaf which were founded there, and educated nearly all of the Rochester’s Deaf children with the Rochester method (Lane, Hoffmeister, Bahan 1996).
American Deaf culture is very different from American hearing culture, especially in the context of communication. As J. Freeman King states, “Sign language and spoken language should not be considered as mutually exclusive alternatives, but as potentially complementary strategies for encouraging language development in children who are deaf” (King 2013). The point that King is making here is that people do not need to choose one form of communication exclusively over another. Different communication forms can be integrated, or used at different times if preferred.
Often times, people choose to navigate life with feet planted firmly in both worlds. I King Jordan is a great example of this. Jordan lost his hearing at the age of 21, and since then has assimilated into the Deaf world, while also trying to preserve his hearing life and connections. Jordan learned American Sign Language, sometimes referred to as just “sign,” and went on to become the first Deaf president of Gallaudet University. Jordan was interviewed by Gerald McRaney at Ability Magazine and states that
“people have to communicate in a way that they feel most comfortable. There are people like [him] who can switch around, and if [he’s] in a group of just deaf people then [he] often [finds] that [his] voice will turn itself off without [his] thinking of it. [He] will be signing with people and all of the sudden [he] will realize that [he’s] not talking, [he’s] just signing. Other times [Jordan is] making a formal presentation to a mixed audience, and [is] very careful to try and sign clearly and also speak clearly. It’s just the way [he] [communicates]” (Ability 2013).
Jordan’s perspective offers a rare cross between the hearing and Deaf worlds. As a researcher, learning about Jordan helped demonstrate how communication methods throughout the Deaf community are not as exclusive as they may seem. In Jordan’s case, this is made apparent by his switching between using Sign Language and speech (sometimes both at the same time) depending on the audience he is addressing. While it appears more common for people, especially people who were born deaf, to choose one form of communication and stick to that, people like I King Jordan do exist who move fluidly through different forms of communication, and it is important to make sure they are represented in this type of research as well.
Jordan’s use of American Sign Language is an indicator of his membership in the Deaf community. The best way to tell whether or not a person identifies with the Deaf community and Deaf culture is whether or not they use American Sign Language. Edwards describes that American Sign Language is extremely popular among the Deaf because it is one of the few languages that was invented by the Deaf, and for the Deaf. American Sign Language was brought to America by a Deaf Frenchman in the 1800s by the name of Laurent Clerc (Edwards 2012). The importance of American Sign Language to Deaf culture cannot be overstated. Its creation enabled Deaf children to be properly educated for the first time, allowed Deaf people complete access to communication, was not based on English or any spoken languages, and survived the oralist attacks on the schools for the Deaf. The use of American Sign Language marks someone as either a member or an advocate for the Deaf community because it shows a respect for Deaf culture, and the history and resiliency of the community. For someone interested in learning the best way to interact with Deaf people, they will almost always be encouraged to learn American Sign Language. It is widely understood to be the best form of communication for the Deaf, backed by Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan emphasizing throughout their research that people educated using American Sign Language nearly always have higher literacy and comprehension rates than do deaf people educated any other way (Lane, Hoffmeister, Bahan 1996).
Coming strictly from my physical observations of the Deaf community at Deaf events, I have noticed several different ways in which communication methods have impacted the culture. Deaf events are generally gatherings of Deaf people and American Sign Language students. An example of a Deaf event would be an “ASL Social” where American Sign Language students are encouraged to meet and interact with Deaf people in the area. One of the most glaring examples of Deaf culture in this context is that of personal space, or lack thereof. While most hearing Americans follow an unspoken rule of not touching each other except when necessary, and maintaining a comfortable distance between one another, Deaf people do not. Because they cannot hear, calling someone’s name to get their attention is extremely ineffective. Therefor, they will usually tap someone on the shoulder or lightly touch them on the arm in order to start a conversation. It also appears that they are more likely to greet each other with a physical hug, or touch each other more often than hearing people do. I’ve noticed several times, at multiple different Deaf events, that hearing people who are new to the culture are a little bit surprised when they encounter more physical contact than they would in the hearing world. I believe that this behavior stems from the intense emphasis that is placed on interpersonal relationships in the community. Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan observe that because most Deaf people are born into hearing families, they lack easy flow of communication, and so their close friends and peers became more like family to them (Lane, Hoffmeister, Bahan 1996). Applying family values to friends appears to be why physical touch is regarded differently in Deaf and hearing cultures. Because the Deaf treat their friends as family, physical boundaries are different for them than they are for hearing people. I have also noticed that the Deaf people who choose to use American Sign Language over other forms of communication tend to be a lot more connected with the Deaf community than do people who lip read and speak (oralism), or use Seeing Essential English, for example. According to Deaf history by Edwards’ account, this is common because American Sign Language was used as the root of Deaf culture when it was first formed, and has usually been used as a way for Deaf people to recognize each other and distinguish each other as Deaf instead of just deaf (Edwards 2012).
Literature Review.
The most informative literature about the Deaf community and its communication methods comes directly from the Deaf themselves. A Journey into the Deaf World was co-written by Harlan Lane and Bob Hoffmeister who are professors at Northeastern University and Boston University respectively. Hoffmeister is Deaf and Lane is hearing advocate for the Deaf community. Ben Bahan also contributes to this text and his first-hand experience comes from being an ASL and Deaf Studies professor at Gallaudet University. Their work serves as an introduction to Deaf culture and the Deaf community, and is used in the Introduction to Deaf Studies course at Holyoke Community College. Another Deaf author, Thomas Holcomb, is also featured in the Holyoke Community College Deaf Studies curriculum. He authored An Introduction to American Deaf Culture, which focuses on a narrower sense of Deaf culture in America. In contrast to Lane, Hoffmeister, and Bahan’s work, it is a more specific and more in depth view of how Deaf culture functions within a predominantly hearing society. Words Made Flesh and A Place of Their Own cover similar ground in their explorations of the history of the Deaf community. This history, of course, is inseparably linked with the history of American Sign Language, oralism, and an impossibly long list of other communication methods. All of these books are texts used in the Holyoke Community College Deaf Studies curriculum and have been reviewed and approved by the staff there. They have also all been written by the Deaf, or at least consulted about with the Deaf. My research offers a perspective and evaluation based on a more relatable point of view as a hearing person who is learning about the Deaf community. I have taken my experiences as an observer in the Deaf culture and Deaf community and analyzed them with the content and ideas found in all of the texts listed above.
Conclusion.
I felt that the long-term exposure I have had with the Deaf community in social settings, school settings, and formal educational settings, allowed me a unique opportunity for an
ethnography. Ethnography requires the researcher to observe and immerse themselves into the culture that they are studying. Being an American Sign Language student, I have had several
opportunities to do this both at Deaf events, and in having daily interactions with members of the Deaf community in more casual settings. Having three years of American Sign Language classes to help me talk to the people I was interacting with certainly helped as well. Although I was not able to capture the complete experience of communicating in the Deaf community (because I am not Deaf) I am able to give as in depth and accurate information that I can from a participant-observer perspective.
Works Cited:
Edwards, R. A. (2012). Words made flesh: Nineteenth-century deaf education and the growth of deaf culture (1st ed., Vol. 1). New York: New York University Press.
Holcomb, T. K. (2013). Introduction to American deaf culture (2nd ed., Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.
King, J. F. (2013, February 2). The advantages of a visual pathway to learning: Suggestions for hearing parents of children who are deaf. The Exceptional Parent, 43-48.
Lane, H. L., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. J. (1996). A journey into the deaf-world (2nd ed., Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.
McRaney, G. (2013). Interview with Gallaudet University President I. King Jordan. Ability Magazine.
Van Cleve, J., & Crouch, B. A. (1989). A place of their own: Creating the deaf community in America (1st ed., Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.