Manualism and oralism

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since April 2009. It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since April 2009. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2008.

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (October 2009)

This article's tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (April 2009)

It has been suggested that this article be split into articles entitled Manualism and Oralism, accessible from a disambiguation page. (Discuss)

Manualism and oralism are two opposing philosophies regarding the education of deaf people. Manualism and oralism were the products of two very different reform eras in American history, the time period before the Civil War and the time period after the Civil War. ^[1] Deafness, especially in America, is considered to be a cultural construction. As a result which means that the society’s view of deafness changes across time due to the events that have taken place during particular time periods.^[2]

Differences between manualism and oralism

Manualism

Manualism is the education of deaf students using sign language within the classroom.^[3] The type of manual language used in the United States is American Sign Language (ASL). The manual language, ASL, was considered a real language in the 1960s by William C. Stokoe. Stokoe invented five parts of the manual language which includes: handshapes, orientation, location, movement, and facial expression, in which all the meanings of the signs are portrayed through facial expressions.^[4] To the Deaf community, manualism is viewed as the most natural way of communication for deaf people and is viewed to be easily learned.^[5] Manualism is the traditional way of communication which makes sign language be considered as more natural and more expressive.^[6] Manualism is the technique and education for the deaf students that is mostly in use today.^[7]

Oralism

Oralism is the education of deaf students that came into popular use in the United States around the late 1860s with Clarke School for the Deaf in Northampton, Massachusetts being the first school in 1867 to start teaching in this manner. Oralism is the education of deaf students that uses spoken language consisting of lip reading, speech, the process of watching mouth movements, and mastering breathing techniques ^[8], with the restriction of sign language within the classroom. The time of oralism is considered by some to be the "dark ages for the deaf people in America".^[9] The Deaf community views oralism as a failure and believes it stunts the deaf people’s mental growth and achievements.

Since the beginning of formal deaf education in the 18th century in the United States, manualism and oralism have been on opposing sides of a heated debate that continues to this day. As a matter of fact, the whole debate of whether or how deaf children should be taught started way before by Socrates, Aristotle, and St. Augustine^[10], but it was not until later when the issue became a big debate in the United States.

Historical perspective

The forms of manualism and oralism education for deaf people could be considered to be due to the cultural constructs that were taking place during American history that changed the views on how the hearing community viewed deafness which in turn constituted how deaf individuals were to be educated.

Manualism

Before the 1860s and before the Civil War, manual language was very popular in the Deaf community and also supported by the hearing community.^[11] The hearing community viewed deafness as “[isolating] the individual from the Christian community”.^[12] At the time, American people were very religious (notably Christian), and the hearing-advantaged believed that sign language opened deaf individuals’ minds and souls to God^[7]. Through this, the hearing community believed that manualism brought deaf people closer to God and opened deaf people to the gospel, which brought manualism general acceptance. Prior to the 1860s, the American hearing community viewed manualism, sign language, as an art, and naturally beautiful.^[13] They also thought of deaf people who signed as being like the Romans because of the pantomimes that are a part of the language.^[14] As a matter of fact, even historical individuals favored manualism. A very important individual who was for the manualist argument was Laurent Clerc whom brought his signs to the American Deaf community. Two other important individuals for the manualist side were Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet and his son Edward Miner Gallaudet. In fact, Edward Miner Gallaudet strongly believed in the use of sign language and constantly argued with Alexander Graham Bell, an oralist.^[15] The first school for the Deaf community, opened by Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet with the help of Laurent Clerc, was in 1817, named the American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, at Hartford, Connecticut, which was a manualist school taught by mostly male teachers. Laurent Clerc was the “first deaf person to teach deaf students in the United States”.^[16] The teaching of manualism was continued to be used in the deaf schools up until the late 1860s.

Around the ending of the Civil War, in the late 1860s, the argument of “Survival of the Fittest” came about due to Darwinism perspective of Evolution.^[17] This movement made manualists argue their view of signs being closer to nature because the first thing babies do is gesture which is sign which makes them more natural.^[18] To the Deaf community, manualism was considered to be a gift from God which was thought that the deaf people were closer to creation.^[19] During this particular time in America, oralism was coming about which made manualism receive a negative view that it was not a real language.^[20]

Oralism

Oralism came about in the late 1860s after the Civil War had ended and the favor of manualism started to decrease. The hearing community was now in favor of the Evolutionary perspective which made deaf people who used manual language like “lower animals”.^[21] In fact, hearing people viewed speech as what separated humans from animals which in turn made manual language be viewed as un-humanlike.^[22] In the 1860s, manualism had a negative view and manual language was restricted because the American hearing society saw deaf people who used it as different, as foreigners, as a separate group with a separate language which made them threats to the hearing society.^[23] Members of the hearing community who were in favor of oralism hated that deaf people had their own group identity and that they refused to integrate within the greater community.^[24] Oralists believed that the manual language made deaf people different which then made deaf people be considered as abnormal and oralists believe that the teaching of oralism allowed deaf children to be somewhat normal.^[25] The American hearing community feared diversity and wanted assimilation which deaf people could not be a part.^[26] This helped with the increase in use of oralism education. Oralist strongly believed that deaf children are to put as much effort as possible in becoming more like hearing people who are a part of the hearing world and that is why oralist believe in the teaching of lip reading, mouth movements, and force of the use of hearing technology.^[27] Oralist also argued that if deaf people continued the use of manual language as their form of communication than they would never become integrated within the greater society, the hearing society.^[28]

A model figure for the oralists and against the usage of sign language was Alexander Graham Bell. Two other American hearing men who encouraged the start up of oralism schools in the United States was Horance Mann and Samuel Gridley Howe who went to Germany to see how their oral schools were set up and loved it.^[29] The first schools for oralism opened in the 1860s called, The New York Institution for the Improved Instruction of Deaf Mutes, and The Clarke Institution for Deaf-Mutes. The job of deaf educators for the oralist schools, which were mostly women, was to prepare the deaf children for life in the hearing world; this required them to learn English, speech, and lipreading.^[30] Oralism schools restricted the deaf students’ use of American Sign Language (ASL) in class and in public. If teachers or citizens of the community saw a deaf child use manual signs they were punished.^[31] One type of punishment that was used on deaf students was forcing them to wear white gloves that were tied together to disable the use of signs.^[31] As a matter of fact, in the late 1860s, the use of American Sign Language was outlawed all together.^[31]

Some deaf individuals' perspective of oralism

The deaf population in the United States opposed the oralist belief that deaf people should learn English, speech, and lip-reading.^[32] Leaders of the manualist movement, including Edward M. Gallaudet, argued against the teaching of oralism because it restricted the ability of deaf students to communicate in their natural language.^[32] Since the oralist wanted to ban the use of sign language all together because it prevented the deaf people from integrating with the hearing community. Deaf people hated this because, “attempts to eliminate sign language were tantamount to stripping them of their identity, their community, and their culture”.^[33] Also the manualist argued that “oralism sacrifices a degree of early communication”.^[34]

Even though the deaf students were not allowed to use manual signs within the classroom, most of the deaf students preferred manual signs and used them all the time in their dorm rooms.^[35] As a matter of fact, deaf people during this time had to hide signing behind closed doors even though it was the most efficient way of communicating. Eventually, oralism failed. The deaf children were considered as “oral failures” because they could not pick up the language and deaf individuals thought that oralism techniques actually limited them on what they were taught because they always had to concentrate on the way the words were formed, not what they meant.^[35] Many deaf students viewed oralism as frustrating, time consuming, a total waste of their education time, and worst of all discouraging.^[36] A mother of a deaf child commented on an oralist school, “All they did was work on speech. No history, social studies, or even math. Talking isn’t that important to me”.^[37] The really successful students in the oralism education were the “semi-mutes” who were individuals who became deaf late in life that had already had background knowledge of English and spoken language.^[38] Unfortunately, this unfavorable teaching technique for deaf people lasted until the 1970s. The way oralism began to decline was that “research found that oralism was a complete failure” ^[39] and now the teaching of manualism is more popular today but now with English coding.^[40]

The learning process debate

What really decided in the past and today on whether deaf children would go to a manualism school or an oralism school really depends on the child’s parents and the parents expectations of what their child can learn by the education.^[41] Other individuals who contribute on what is the correct use of education for deaf children are medical professionals who view deafness as a disorder, which they tend to side more with the oralist.^[42]

The manualists claim that the oralists neglect the psychosocial development of deaf children. In their zeal for training in articulation which requires long tedious practice, oralism leaves them with no time or energy to advance academically and socially. The oralism techniques consist of the deaf student touching the teacher’s face, throat, and chest to feel the vibrations of sounds and to watch the teacher’s lips move during each sound.^[43] On many occasions, during this teaching method, students would constantly mix up the letters being taught to them by the teacher which shows how hard oralism education was to the deaf students and many deaf students considered this teaching technique as pointless.^[44] The result is inadequate skills and often with poor speaking ability despite the great effort invested since the oral method works best with children who have lost hearing after already having learned to speak, these individuals are labeled as “semi-mutes”. Manualists feel nothing is more important than giving deaf children a visual-motor language they can truly master so as to enable their intellect and humanity to develop normally and that to not respect the whole child treats them as only a broken set of ears and is tantamount to neglect or even abuse.

The oralists claim that the manualists neglect the residual hearing in deaf children and their emphasis on sign language isolates them from the wider culture and hearing family members thus serving to inculcate them in a clannish subculture that leaves them unable to succeed in the general population. While this used to be true the general change in attitude toward Deaf and Hard of Hearing people, the advent of various alternative communication devices, as well as Federal and State laws protecting their rights have given rise to greater accessibility has meant greater inclusion in all areas of American life. They also point out that only a tiny percentage of the general population can use sign language, although some studies have shown that ASL (American Sign Language) is the third most used language after English and Spanish.^{[citation needed]} However it is a great achievement that many deaf children may not accomplish due to the great degree of time and effort involved. This may change with the use of new computer speech instruction methods with visual feedback capabilities that can assist the Deaf speaker's articulations and improve their sound production with much less time and effort involved. Similarly, Speech Reading (aka lip reading) can also be done with computer programs at greater efficiency. Either method, old and new, still requires a great desire on the part of the Deaf person to achieve much ability.

Further evidence

There has been previous research performed to evaluate deaf children’s learning abilities due to whether their parents were hearing or deaf.^[45] Deaf children of deaf parents tend to use the manual language and deaf children of hearing parents more than likely use techniques from the oral method. The research had the deaf children tested on their “intellectual functioning”, “communicative functioning”, and “social functioning”. The results concluded from the research that deaf children of deaf parents, who use manual language, tended to perform better in “speech reading ability”, “speech aptitude”, and “appropriate behavior” than deaf children of hearing parents. The researchers also included that manual communication does not prevent the learning of speech and lipreading in children but in fact could aid in the development of the two. The researcher further implies that the combination of oralism and manualism is an efficient way for the teaching of young deaf children and should be considered as an educational technique (Meadow, 2005).

References