Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Keywords
Ableism; Activism; Audism; Class; Education; History; Identity;
Language; Organizations; Science and Technology
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 5
3/23/2010 9:04:50 AM
Tavian Robinson
of citizenship and of ableism at the turn of the century as well as why deaf
and disability histories often seem at odds.2
Education was one important means for deaf people to assert their rights
and ensure their place in American society. Deaf advocates argued since
the early 1800s that education provided deaf people with the resources to
be politically active and engaged citizens.3 Thomas F. Fox, a deaf teacher,
cast schooling as a partial cure for deafness, which he viewed as a comparatively minor affliction. With the favoring circumstances of an education and good manners, he asserted in 1880, the misfortune of deafness
diminishes in its magnitude, till it takes its place among the many ills of
life, which, since they cannot be remedied, must be borne with patience
and fortitude.4 Good character accrued through good education, Fox implied, dissolved the differences between deaf and nondeaf people, and in the
process normalized deafness. Throughout the discourse within the deaf
community regarding deafness, the attitude was often that deafness in itself
was minor whereas the possession of other disabilities served as a barrier to
access, employment, full citizenship, and hence normalcy.5
Educators emphasized English-language literacy in deaf education.
Literacy as both a practical skill and symbol of enlightened citizenship became a defining feature of elite deaf identity between 1880 and the 1920s.
Literacy especially mattered to deaf people, opening access to most features
of mainstream society as well as facilitating relationships among other deaf
people and between deaf and hearing citizens. Some leaders, such as Alice
Terry, argued that applying literacy skills through various means was vital
for the overall success of deaf people. Practice in the printing trades, for
example, promoted a taste for reading and consequently their language
is improved and their general knowledge is broadened to a great extent.6 In
the minds of many deaf people, English-language literacy connoted intelligence and normalcy. Such fluency in English helped deaf people pass as
nondisabled, particularly distancing deaf people from those who appeared
most threatening at this time: the feebleminded (the term then used to describe people with cognitive and developmental disabilities as well as other
people deemed inherently defective). The rise of the eugenics movement,
which evaluated living creatures based on hierarchical notions of inherent
biological worth, villified the feebleminded through both rhetoric and
policies.7
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 6
3/23/2010 9:04:50 AM
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 7
3/23/2010 9:04:51 AM
Tavian Robinson
deaf workers set themselves apart from other defectives. Alexander Pach,
a leader in the deaf community and a successful businessman, modeled
this approach in 1893 in an essay about his own business successes. Pach
boasted to his peers that his flourishing photography business proves that
deaf men can accomplish as much as hearing men, and he expressed the
hope that modesty will not prevent [deaf people] from coming forward
to help dispel the popular prejudice that deaf men are little better than
cripples, lunatics and the blind.12 Many deaf advocates like Pach primarily emphasized positive qualities deaf laborers shared with hearing, ablebodied peers, offering contrasts to other people with disabilities as a means
of fortifying the commonalities between deaf and able-bodied people. These
representations often took the form of assertions that deafness was a minor
affliction in comparison to other disabilities. Virtually sneering at those
whom he considered inferior to deaf peoplecripples, lunatics, and the
blindPach affirmed deaf citizens normalcy by adapting ableist ideas
of worth to deaf and disabled people.
Other activists and laborers blamed public misperception and prejudice
as the key barriers hindering employment for deaf Americans. As one man
claimed in 1912:
All [we] ask is a fair chance. It is much to be regretted that in some
places discrimination has been thrown against the deaf for no other
reason than some of the hearing business men [seem] to have peculiar ideas that their deafness would necessarily render them incapable
of doing anything. How ridiculous.13
While deaf people confronted ableism from hearing people, they themselves practiced ableism and discrimination toward others as a strategy
of empowerment as they internalized broader attitudes about bodily and
mental differences. These strategies were an adapted notion of ableism
used by community advocates to protect deaf workers. The now famous
rhetoric that deaf people can do anything but hear appeared regularly in
speeches and publications during this period. Leaders commonly stressed
deaf peoples superior work ethic. Those organizing efforts to combat employment discrimination focused on these themes, intentionally avoiding
broader coalitions with disabled people and critiques of openly ableist sys-
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 8
3/23/2010 9:04:51 AM
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 9
3/23/2010 9:04:51 AM
10
Tavian Robinson
deaf people in turn disparaged as weak, dependent, and disabled those deaf
workers who did not do all they could to prove their worth as employees.
Of course, those who have weak lungs or kidney trouble should not work
there [Goodyear]. For the average able-bodied deaf, there is no better work
elsewhere. . . .16 The term disabled was used not only to distinguish deaf
people from other disabled people, but to distinguish the worthy deaf
from the unworthy deaf. This argument of an able-bodied work ethic was
also used in the deaf communitys efforts to eliminate beggary and peddling.
Public relations campaigns against beggarsthe symbolic opposite of
successful workersespecially highlight ableist assumptions. By the early
twentieth century, the NAD consistently encouraged members to reject deaf
beggars, whom they cast as dependent and pitiful. The national organization
admonished deaf people to engage in fruitful labor and otherwise portray
themselves as moral and hardworking citizens.17
No one claims that all the deaf in every line of work have proved
competent. Some have been lamentable failures. . . . Unfortunately,
it seems that the average man in business judges the deaf by a single
failure . . . the deaf beggar or impostor, or botch in workmanship
prejudices the public against all of the class of people whom the
world calls deaf and dumb.18
Many deaf people believed that begging diminished their status as independent and able-bodied; they, like most nondisabled people, explicitly equated economic self-sufficiency with bodily and mental wholeness.
Internalizing mainstream notions of civic fitness and normalcy, deaf leaders
conflated success with typical able-bodied behavior, such as maintaining
gainful employment, marrying and having a family, and playing sports.
Despite acknowledgement of nondisabled peoples prejudicial attitudes,
deaf leaders often blamed individual deaf people for undermining the communitys ability to gain equal status with able-bodied citizens.19 The passionate hostility expressed in deaf organizations and in the deaf media suggests
deeply entrenched notions of ableism that shaped deaf identity during this
period. While leaders pointed to language and auditory conditions as unifying features of deaf culture, internal boundaries delineated deaf membership
according to perceived and real economic and physical abilities. Enforcing
these boundaries often transformed political action into physical action.
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 10
3/23/2010 9:04:51 AM
11
Rank-and-file deaf people were called upon to actively participate in identifying, detaining, or chasing off beggars. Organizations such as the NFSD
encouraged the police to arrest deaf vagrants and peddlers under existing
vagrant and beggar laws. Others sought other legal technicalities to combat beggars and peddlers, such as tax evasion or proposed bills that would
make peddling under the pretense of deafness a crime.20 Deaf newspapers,
for instance, regularly informed readers when beggars had been spotted
and driven out; these news alerts of the vagabond evil sought to mobilize
deaf individuals to take independent action and assist in policing against
beggars.21 Francis P. Gibson, grand secretary of the NFSD, said in 1915
that, it is very rarely that a genuine deaf panhandler is seen. We get after
them harder than after the fakers.22 Adopting the role of citizen-police,
deaf individuals cast out deaf peers from the community, asserting their
own integrity and worth and reestablishing links to the dominant social
model of middle-class, nondisabled Americans. Between 1880 and 1920,
the beggar issue remained one of the most active fronts of the deaf communitys public relations campaign and represents one of the few instances
where deaf leaders encouraged deaf people to be seen publicly engaging
in direct action against other deaf people. The deaf communitys concern
with begging and peddling is an ableist concern grounded in notions of an
able-bodied work ethic.
More subtle forms of policing and cultivating deaf cultural identity
stemmed from ableist ideas as well. Membership requirements in associations such as the NFSD conflated civic and physical fitness. The NFSD explicitly admitted only deaf white men of sound bodily health, good moral
character, and industrious habits. Literacy likewise figured prominently, as
prospective members were required to be able to read the constitution and
bylaws of the society.23 This literacy requirement may have been in place to
ensure that members were not feebleminded, did not possess cognitive
impairments, and were able to otherwise pass as nondisabled. Although the
primary purpose of the NFSD was to provide assistance for its members in
times of economic hardship, the organization also emphasized physical and
intellectual improvement by encouraging its subdivisions to contain literary,
social, entertainment, or athletic sections that would improve the members
socially, mentally, and physically.24 Screening out deaf individuals based
on race, sex, and moral behavior, as well as by physical and mental ability,
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 11
3/23/2010 9:04:51 AM
12
Tavian Robinson
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 12
3/23/2010 9:04:51 AM
13
and hence deaf peoplewere public charges. Even when sponsored by the
state, education was cast as an act of charity or viewed as a form of welfare,
and schools for the deaf were classified along with asylums, prisons, and
mental institutions. Deaf schools, in other words, were often represented as
either a public-health undertaking or a charitable act. Deaf people wanted
their schools to be distinguished from institutions serving dependent and
defective people and to be identical to institutions serving nondisabled
students.26 Schools Are Not Asylums.Many people think of schools for
the deaf as something like asylums for the insane. This is a great mistake.
They are simply boarding schools, and should be classed with educational
institutions, such as seminaries, normal schools, and universities.27
Deaf people policed one another through cultural outlets like deaf newspapers, enforcing normalized labels for deaf people. In 1897, for example,
one Silent Worker contributor chastised another for referring to the deaf
school in Columbus with outdated terminology. This institution is not
an asylum. the author wagged. Its legal name is The Ohio Institution
for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb . . . if the legal name is too long,
we shall not object if you call it school for the deaf but at no time can
we accept the word Asylum. Clarifying the larger concern, the author
concluded that, This is strictly a school with as beautiful, bright, and good
children in attendance as can be found in any hearing school of the State
. . . an asylum is a place of refuge and has nothing to do with school.28
The widespread change in deaf institution titles between the 1880s and
the 1930s was a concerted effort on the part of the deaf community to alter
deaf peoples status in mainstream society. Specifically, it drew on ableist
arguments in order to distance deafness and deaf people from disabilities
and people with disabilities. Through the NADs continued efforts to disassociate schools for the deaf from charity and public-health programs
during the early twentieth century, members protested traditional classifications of deaf education that linked them to institutions for the feebleminded, epileptic, insane, incorrigible, physically deformed, and
the diseased. Deaf leaders also sought to separate schools for the deaf
from schools for the blind. In 1893, the Virginia Association of the Deaf
supported legislation for the separation of the deaf and blind schools.29
Deaf leaders feared that the classification of schools for the deaf with institutions and asylums for other people with disabilities carried an inherent
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 13
3/23/2010 9:04:51 AM
14
Tavian Robinson
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 14
3/23/2010 9:04:52 AM
15
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 15
3/23/2010 9:04:52 AM
16
Tavian Robinson
By emphasizing that some deaf people could speak, deaf elites downplayed
their defect and demonstrated that deaf people could, in principle and
practice, assimilate into hearing society.
This political positioning had a direct impact on the debates between
oralists and sign language advocates. Working to eliminate terms like dumb
and mute, and specifically collaborating with oral advocates, deaf leaders
such as George Dougherty found themselves in the unenviable position of
acknowledging oral values as potentially useful. These leaders had to concede the significance of including oral instruction and speech training in
deaf education. Deaf ally Warring Wilkinson, for instance, acknowledged
that oral deaf successes could enhance the image of deaf people everywhere
and counter negative attitudes. In 1883 he encouraged peers at the second
NAD convention to become familiar with modes of intercourse between
hearing people, so that they may enjoy such intercourse to advantage.35
Wilkinson and many others believed that such efforts moved the community as a whole closer to the norm where the opportunities and power
lay. Concessions to oralist advocates continued over subsequent decades,
including direct statements in Silent Worker editorials during the 1920s
that both sides [of the communications debate] believe in oral work.36
These concessions suggest that deaf leaders accepted the Combined System,
in part because oral training might enable some deaf students to pass as
able-bodied within mainstream society. In a similar vein, various leaders,
such as Theophilius dEstrella, encouraged deaf people to associate with
hearing people to kill prejudice and thus place deaf people, literally and
figuratively, alongside nondisabled peers.37
Ableist systems and values infused deaf leadership and outlooks in fundamental ways. Most leaders during this period were late-deafened and
capable of speech, which likely contributed to their willingness to engage
with oralists and to value spoken language skills as a mark of deaf successes
in the broader world. In this sense, these white, male deaf elites were closer
to their nondisabled counterparts than many rank-and-file deaf people. Not
surprisingly, they saw in themselves the models of worthiness and sought
to close the gap they personally experienced with their nondisabled hearing
peers. This inherent distancing from prelingually deaf peers, peers of color,
and others with disabilities sharply circumscribed the leaders abilityand
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 16
3/23/2010 9:04:52 AM
17
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 17
3/23/2010 9:04:52 AM
18
Tavian Robinson
twentieth century. Some of their strategies suggest that elite deaf people held
contradictory, or at least ambivalent, attitudes about their cultural position.
They celebrated and advocated deaf cultural membership, but also sought
ways to mirror able-bodied people and their values. The discourse and actions
of the American deaf cultural community from the late nineteenth century
through the first World War adds to our understanding of citizenship and
ableism at the turn of the century and explains why deaf and disability histories often seem at odds. It is important to understand the internalized, ableist
construction of deaf identity to understand why and how the deaf community has shaped its identity as a cultural, sociolingustic minority community
rather than as a disabled population that also is a minority cultural group.
These attitudes also shaped the deaf communitys approach to deaf and disability activism and to disability-rights legislation during the late twentieth
century. The practices and ideas embedded in early twentieth-century deaf
activism have fortified for many deaf elites today a belief in their inherent
superiority over disabled people. Internalized ableism has been and remains
a comparatively invisible but potent ideological underpinning of deaf culture. Such historically based attitudes also contribute to the intellectual and
topical chasm between deaf and disability studies scholarship. In addition to
negatively affecting deaf-disability relationships, these attitudes of ableism
also affected relationships among deaf people, namely those positioned as
unworthy or defective. By critically examining why and how certain deaf
people distanced themselves from others, we can see how important and
inherent links between identities as deaf and disabled emerge, challenging all
of us to consider the meaning of ability and how these attitudes about ability
shape communities and identity, and influence scholarship in the fields of
deaf and disability studies.
Notes
1. Personal Remarks Made in the Presence of the Deaf, Silent Worker
9 no.2 (October 1896): 20.
2. Although not initially created to do so, this essay in part responds
to questions within scholarly circles as to when deaf people began distancing
themselves from the disability label. For example, in his essay Beyond Culture:
Deaf Studies and the Deaf Body, Douglas Baynton asserts that this distanc-
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 18
3/23/2010 9:04:52 AM
19
ing prior to the 1970s was motivated by employment strategies rather than
cultural views of identity. He also found little evidence of deaf people drawing
clear boundaries between themselves and others labeled disabled, save for in
employment campaigns. I examined documents and other primary sources
from this period that showed numerous and clear examples of distancing that
extended beyond employment issues. This project seeks to draw attention to
these examples and also to reframe the discussion to consider how cultural
beliefs informed both strategic campaigns as well as self-representations. See
Baynton, Beyond Culture: Deaf Studies and the Deaf Body, in Open Your
Eyes: Deaf Studies Talking, ed. H-Dirksen L. Bauman (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 2008), 293312.
3. Thomas Francis Fox, Social Status of the Deaf, in Proceedings of the
Second National Convention of Deaf-Mutes (1880), 1316.
4. Ibid, 16.
5. In Do Deaf People Have a Disability, Harlan Lane argues that the
term deaf has positive meanings for deaf people. He also argues that deaf
people reject the suggestion that they have an impairment or a disability. My
essay complicates Lanes argument by showing that, at least during the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some deaf people did not associate
positive meanings with the term deaf; rather, they characterized their deafness
as an affliction. More precise descriptions of what disability means also matter.
The sources from which I draw demonstrated that some community members
felt that deafness was a minor affliction, that they did indeed see themselves as
disabled, but to a lesser degree in comparison to other people with disabilities.
This comparative and contextual understanding of disability is important for
understanding the fluid meaning of deaf as well as disability. See Harlan Lane,
Do Deaf People Have a Disability? Sign Language Studies 2, no. 4 (Summer
2002): 35679..
6. Industrial, Silent Worker 11, no. 3 (February 1893): 4.
7. For an excellent study of eugenics, see Elof Axel Carlsons The Unfit:
A History of a Bad Idea (Cold Spring: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press,
2001).
8. Susan Burch, Signs of Resistance: American Deaf Cultural History, 1900
to World War II (New York: New York University Press, 2002), 137.
9. Skilled Labor, Silent Worker 6, no. 10 (June 1894): 4.
10. Burch, Signs of Resistance, 138.
11. This essay seeks to complicate Paddy Ladds assertions of deafhood and
Ben Bahans Deaf world by exposing schisms within the deaf world. Ladd
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 19
3/23/2010 9:04:53 AM
20
Tavian Robinson
argues that deaf leaders fought to make life better for all deaf people, not just
for themselves. The evidence that some leaders sought to segregate non-white
deaf people and deaf people who had multiple disabilities from their deaf peers
demonstrates some of the limits of Ladds interpretation. See Paddy Ladd,
Colonialism and Resistance: A Brief History of Deafhood, in Open Your
Eyes: Deaf Studies Talking ed. H-Dirksen L. Bauman (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 2008), 4259.
12. Untitled, Silent Worker 5, no. 11 (February 1893): 4.
13. Aid Deaf to Get Work, Deaf Mutes Journal (7 March 1912).
14. Hope Deferred, Silent Worker 21, no. 10 (July 1909): 188.
15. Ibid.
16. Deaf Workers Wanted, Silent Worker 30, no. 10 (July 1918): 183.
17. Deaf-community publications frequently referred to impostors. These
impostors referred to beggars who pretended to be deaf in order to acquire
charity or money. For a detailed discussion of beggars, impostors, economic
citizenship, and the Deaf communitys response to beggaring, see chapters four
and five of Burch, Signs of Resistance.
18. The Deaf As Workmen, Silent Worker 29, no. 8 (May 1917): 140.
19. Fox, Social Status of the Deaf, 13.
20. Burch, Signs of Resistance, 150.
21. Newark, N.J., Silent Worker 11, no. 10 (June 1899): 149.
22. Faker Is the Target of the Deaf, Silent Worker 27, no. 10 (July 1915):
191.
23. Records of the National Fraternal Society of the Deaf, MSS 163.
Gallaudet University Archives, Washington, DC.
24. Records of the National Fraternal Society of the Deaf, MSS 163.
Gallaudet University Archives, Washington, DC.
25. Fox, Social Status of the Deaf, 1316.
26. Ibid.
27. Circular, in Proceedings of the Seventh Convention of the National
Association of the Deaf, (1904), 68.
28. Untitled, Silent Worker 9, no. 7 (March 1897): 103.
29. Thomas Francis Fox, The Status of Associations of the Deaf in
America, in The Proceedings of the Worlds Congress of the Deaf and the Report of
the Fourth Convention of the National Association of the Deaf, (1893), 31.
30. George Veditz, The Presidents Address, in Proceedings of the Eighth
Convention of the National Association of the Deaf, (1907), 1516.
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 20
3/23/2010 9:04:53 AM
21
31. Alexander L. Pach, Random Thinks, Silent Worker 26, no. 9 (June
1914): 172.
32. L. A. Palmer, Business Opportunities Open to the Deaf, in
Proceedings of the Worlds Congress of the Deaf and the Report of the Fourth
Convention of the National Association of the Deaf, (1893), 170.
33. Alexander G. Bell, Fallacies Concerning the Deaf, American Annals
of the Deaf 29, no. 1 (January 1884): 3233.
34. Report of the Committee on the Census, in Proceedings of the Third
Convention of the National Association of the Deaf (1889), 5962.
35. Mr. Wilkinson, in Proceedings of the Worlds Congress of the Deaf
and the Report of the Fourth Convention of the National Association of the Deaf
, (1893), 18.
36. The Old Controversy, Silent Worker 33, no. 9 (June 1921): 324.
37. Theophilius H. dEstrella, Deaf Societies within Hearing
Organizations in Proceedings of the Ninth Convention of the National Association
of the Deaf, (1910), 55.
38. Examples of this argument may be found in Susan Burchs monograph, Signs of Resistance.
39. Burch, Signs of Resistance, 138.
40. Ibid., 92. Although scholars have yet to examine the complexity of
race within the deaf world, there is clear evidence of the exclusion of AfricanAmericans in the South, and sources imply the exclusion of African Americans
in the North.
Burch_Part 1_01_Pgs_1-21.indd 21
3/23/2010 9:04:53 AM