In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Introductlon CAROL J. ERTING hat is the Deaf Way? For as long as Deafl people have formed communities, a Deaf way of life has been recognized by Deaf people themselves. These patterns of behavior, attitudes, beliefs , and values have been referred to in American Sign Language as "DEAF TEND (THEIRS)"2 and in English as the "Deaf world," the "Deaf community," or, more recently "Deaf culture." It has taken much longer for those who do not interact with Deaf people on a regular basis to see and to begin to understand that there are, indeed, vibrant, intricately structured, and richly elaborated Deaf cultures around the world. Perhaps they have been hidden from view because of the traditional labels applied to Deaf people-handicapped, disabled, hearing impaired-labels originating from a pathological, medical model rather than a cultural one (Woodward, 1989). This book and the event during which these papers were first presented are evidence that, after centuries of ignorance and oppression, things are changing for Deaf and hearing people alike. Progress is not uniform across the globe, and it is not always steady, but the Deaf Way-the language, culture, history, and art of Deaf people-is beginning to be recognized as the valuable resource that it is. Deaf people are eager to learn about their own heritage and take pride in their accomplishments , and ever-increasing numbers of hearing people are excited about entering into partnerships with them to work toward common goals. Over a century ago, following the infamous Congress of Milan in 1880 (Lane, 1984; Van Cleve and Crouch, 1989), the assault began in earnest against Deaf communities and their sign languages. Oralism was proclaimed the only acceptable method for educating deaf children since, it was argued, deaf people could only participate in society, develop morally and intellectually, and hold employment if they developed speech. Furthermore, spoken language was promoted as more precise, more abstract, and the only means by which equality with hearing people and communion with God could be achieved. Sign language was viewed as limited to concrete references, too imprecise to convey subtleties and nuances of thought, and incapable of promoting the development of the soul. It was seen as an inferior language in evolutionary terms, unfit for civilized human beings (Baynton, 1993). In addition, proponents of the oral method argued that 1 In the introductory portions of this volume, the editors have used "deaf" with a lower case d as an adjective referring primarily to the audiological condition of hearing loss and "Deaf" with an upper case D as an adjective referring to social groupings and cultural identifications arising from interactions among people with hearing losses. This distinction was explained in greater detail by Erting and Woodward (1979). Use of this convention in the papers in this volume occurs only when explicitly adopted by the authors. 2 This is an English gloss of signs from American Sign Language (ASL). Glosses are words from the written form of a spoken language, written entirely in capital letters to indicate that they are to be regarded as approximate translations of signs. xxiv THE DEAF WAY ~ Introduction signing served to set Deaf people apart from society and could not help them learn the written language. These were but a few of the arguments used against the languages and cultures of Deaf people during the Congress that, sadly, continue to be used today by some members of the medical and educational establishment. After the Congress of Milan deaf teachers were removed from the schools, and sign language was banned in the majority of schools for deaf children. In the United States, where Edward Miner Gallaudet, as President of Gallaudet College, was and continued to be an influential opponent of pure oralism and where the National Association of the Deaf had been established in the same year-1880-the effects of the resolutions passed in Milan were somewhat attenuated. Deaf teachers were not totally eliminated from schools; they were, however, usually assigned to teach older children who were labeled "oral failures," no longer pursuing academic subjects. Gallaudet College, then known as the National Deaf-Mute College, continued to endorse sign language as the appropriate way to teach deaf college students, although E. M. Gallaudet's compromise with the oralists earlier had resulted in his promotion of "the combined method"-oral education for those deaf students for whom it was possible, education through sign language for the rest. Gallaudet's formidable opponent, Alexander Graham Bell, campaigned vigorously for oralism and...

Share