Crossing the Divide: Representations of Deafness in Biography

3. Jean-Ferdinand Berthier: The Development of an Activist

32 3 Jean-Ferdinand Berthier The Development of an Activist Jean-Ferdinand Berthier (1803–1886) was a deaf militant before the age of militants, an ardent defender of sign language and a promoter of the emancipation of deaf people. He was, as well, a skilled writer of treatises, essays, and biographies. His life was spent in an effort to encourage deaf people to celebrate sign language, while at the same time inviting hearing people to share in this rich heritage. The desire to break down the barriers between the deaf and the hearing worlds was a constant in his life, although his thinking altered as to the best way to bridge the gap. In spite of his many talents and the seriousness of his concerns, however, Berthier’s life and work were forgotten by the larger public until recently.1 To understand this, we have to look at events in the age in which Berthier lived, particularly the role of the Congress of Milan in 1880. The focus of this international meeting was on eradicating the use of sign language in schools and classes for deaf children. Although the Congress did not have legal authority, it passed resolutions that had a profound impact on deaf people for most of the next century.2 The largest number of attendees came from Italy (157) and from France (67). (One deaf person, alone, was there, out of sixty-seven French Congress attendees, Claudius Forestier, a friend of Berthier’s, director of the Deaf Institute in Lyon.) Other countries had a very small representation. England had twelve delegates; Germany had eight; America had six, and there was one delegate from each of the following countries: Belgium, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Sweden.* The Congress declared the superiority of speech over signs in returning deaf people to society and in giving them a more perfect knowledge of Jean-Ferdinand Berthier 33 Jean-Ferdinand Berthier. Courtesy of Armand Pelletier and Yves Delaporte of the CLSFB. * There is some controversy over the number of attendees as well as over the number of attendees who were actual voting members of the Congress of Milan. But many language. The delegates overwhelmingly endorsed the use of the oral method in the instruction of deaf children. In effect, the resolution eliminated the use of sign language in all educational settings, leaving it to exist only in the community of deaf adults. The results of the Congress can be seen to have been politically orchestrated by the French and Italian delegates. France, after 1870, sought national and linguistic unity and did not want to support a deaf minority culture and language. Further, there was a desire for the establishment of smaller private schools for the deaf on the part of the bourgeoisie . They wanted smaller schools because they didn’t like the mixture of social classes in the larger institutions and thought their children would benefit more from smaller schools that would permit them to be day pupils. As these were created quickly to supplant the national institutions , there was no time to teach the instructors sign language. Oralism became the only viable alternative.3 The destructive effects of the rulings of the Milan Congress soon became evident. Deaf teachers all but disappeared from schools for the deaf. Instead of being better integrated into society, deaf people communicated less well with both hearing and deaf people.This led them to choose professions like gardening, carpentry, and shoemaking that could be done in relative isolation, while more intellectual and social opportunities for those so inclined were lost. It was not until thirty years later, in 1910, that there was a softening of the position on oralism in France. At the Institut National de Jeunes Sourds (National Institute for Deaf Children), where Berthier had spent his professional career, students were finally allowed to use sign outside of class again and a pedagogy developed that was based more on written language than on 34 Crossing the Divide French historians, including Christian Cuxac,wrote that 157 or 158 attendees came from Italy, and 67 came from France. Of these attendees, however, only between 164 and 167 delegates could vote. Fiftysix of these official delegates were French oralists, and 66 were Italian oralists. Together , the oralists from France and Italy represented 74 percent of the Congress. It was clear that the Congress was planned by a committee that sought to ensure the defeat of...