2 of 11

Write now Article Tools

"English Is Not My First Language":
The Manual/Oral Debate and the Historical Displacement of the Deaf

The oral/manual debate fundamentally rests on differences in articulating how the Deaf should be educated . Oralism suggests that an emphasis on assimilation within a hearing world is vital. In light of this, oralists argue that Deaf students should acquire as much spoken language skill as possible, which necessitates a focus on speech therapy and lip reading. Claiming to be morally driven, oralists feel that any alternative to spoken language only impairs the Deaf by distancing them from success in a generally hearing population. Additionally, oralism looks to technological advancements to supply enhancements to Deaf oral participation, which simultaneously discourages Deaf involvement in an inferior subculture and misleading identity.

Manualism, however, argues that the focus on a visually dependent language code should be the primary means of communication and instruction of the Deaf. To manualists, oralism does nothing more than place the Deaf as second-class citizens. Manualism sees aural and oral rehabilitation as an unqualified prolonged effort that leaves the Deaf student with no room for any other kind of intellectual development. Thus, manualists argue that a Deaf consciousness should not manifest in aural aspirations, but rather should seek solace in a cognitive expression that enables Deaf development independent of dominant hearing discipline. Manualism gave rise to these cognitive expressions: sign languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL).
Important to note, the definitive quality of being Deaf does not always mean the lack of the ability to physically hear (although this is where the idea of Deaf came from). Manualists like Karl Jaekel have argued that should the position of the Deaf become more socially regarded as an autonomous perspective, rather than a flawed existence as the culture of oral hegemony dictates, we will begin to see more and more that this is not the case . So, an important question arises: if Deaf doesn't mean "unable to hear," what does it mean to be Deaf?

The conflicting answers to this question are central to the oral/manual historiographical dispute. For centuries, historians have disputed how Deaf languages should be formed and the dispute of how the position of the Deaf is understood, as both the Deaf and hearing have understood it . This particular knowledge includes both the understanding of the Deaf experience

• 1
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 7
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Educating the deaf child?
We want to hear your view. Write now!