Some Sociological Implications of Deaf Studies

Yerker Andersson

The emergence of minority studies has become an important trend in the United States and other countries. This new change suggests that minorities have not been recognized as human variations within a society until now. In fact, it is no longer possible for any modern country to maintain a single culture within itself. Pluralism, now an important sociological concept, has become a powerful force in almost all modern societies. Even Communist countries in Eastern Europe have acknowledged the existence of political, religious, and social differences within their own societies. This new phenomenon has apparently facilitated the acceptance of variations not only between but also within social groups. However, it is true that cultures or languages within a multilingual and multicultural society may become either strengthened or diffused, dominating or acquiescing, or co-existing or conflicting depending on their inter-group relations (Dahl, 1967; Douglas, 1971; Grove, 1977; Ross, 1930; Varenne, 1980). Nevertheless, my own observations in different countries where nationwide cultural uniformity or social control are emphasized is that these people in these countries likely face more discrimination and inequality man in countries where pluralism is accepted.

Recognizing the existence of pluralism, several residential and mainstream programs in the United States have added or are adding Deaf Studies as a separate subject to their curricula. A few European countries have also followed this new trend. For example, the Danish Federation of the Deaf last year proposed Danish Sign Language as a separate elementary school subject. California State University, Boston University, and Gallaudet University have already established Deaf Studies as either an undergraduate or graduate program. Stockholm University, Sweden, last spring decided to offer a professorship in Sign Language.

Thus, deaf people are facing a significant turning point in their heritage. For the first time deaf children and adults will have an opportunity to demonstrate their own heritage as a possible educational resource. Here we will examine what sociological implications Deaf Studies may have for the deaf world.

In the past it was assumed that hearing and speech were necessary for participation in society and equalization of opportunities. For this reason, educators and audiologists focused on ways to help deaf children improve their hearing and speaking abilities. Those accepting this oral approach ignored or were unable to appreciate the particular behavior patterns and language that have for centuries been found in the Deaf world. Some of these supporters went further by finding ways to thwart the development of Deaf culture. For example, they tried to discourage deaf people from marrying each other, to emphasize the negative personality traits of deaf individuals, or to downgrade the importance of Deaf culture, including sign language, for social and emotional maturity. Interestingly enough, a few cruel strategies such as hitting the hands of deaf children with a cane to suppress their use of sign language had been reported in almost all the countries where oralism was prevalent.

These oppressive efforts are based on the assumption that if a particular culture is found to be superior to other cultures, individuals are expected to make adaptations to the society where the particular culture is dominant. Our melting pot philosophy is a good example of this old belief. Sociologists would call this belief ethnocentrism. Consequently, Deaf culture and sign language have been regarded as inferior adaptations to society.

Scientists have now agreed that there is no such thing as a superior culture or a superior language. Instead sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists try to maintain cultural relativity as a guiding principle in their studies of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities and languages. This refers to the belief that the sociocultural dynamics of any distinctive human group is understood best in terms of that group’s own culture and language and its relationship to other groups.

The philosophy of Total Communication that later became a new trend in the education of deaf children would not be an example of cultural relativity. Although it accepted both oral and manual communication skills, it still overlooked sign language as a distinctive language or Deaf culture as another human variation.

My life-long involvement in the international affairs of deaf people has convinced me that there is no country, either developed or developing, where deaf people have no social life at all. In practically all the countries where education is available for deaf children, deaf adults have, like other human groups, developed a feeling that the sharing of ideas and experiences is necessary for human survival. Even in countries where there is no formal organization of the deaf, deaf people have regular informal meetings. Based on my casual cross-cultural comparisons, I have found that deaf people in most countries have a similar social life. This kind of social life, now defined as Deaf culture, is the most appropriate adaptation deaf persons can make for survival in society simply because their human senses and basic needs are different from those of other groups. Sociology would call Deaf culture and sign language “cultural universals” since they exist in all or most of the countries around the world. This important conclusion then behooves us to ask ourselves why educators and scientists have failed to consider the possible adoption of such universals for the training of deaf children.

The knowledge of organizations, championships in athletics and other games, cultural festivals, technological and business services, and religious services is essential for the appreciation of Deaf culture. These activities can also indicate a degree of cultural solidarity. They have been discussed in sociology (e.g., Andersson, 1981; Furfey & Harte, 1964; Higgins, 1980; Schein, 1968; Schein & Delk, 1974). It is my impression that they have rarely been covered in the elementary or secondary courses of history, social studies, or physical education for deaf children. Deaf people in at least 90 countries around the world have formed national organizations. Their local and national organizations arrange regular events such as congresses; festivals in arts, crafts, theatre, and other performances; and seminars. Deaf people in some countries have tried to expand their activities by organizing political clubs, dog shows, art clubs, women clubs, etc. Most of these countries also have local and national championships in athletic and other games every year. European championships in different fields are held every year. International organizations of the deaf have so far emerged in at least five different fields.

Endogamy or marriage within a social group has also been cited as an indicator of cultural solidarity. Based on statistical data in some countries and observations in other countries, the endogamy rate among the deaf population tends to be high in most countries. This is not surprising from the sociological viewpoint because mate selection is based on the abilities of potential spouses to share interest, world views, and life styles. This pattern is called homogamy. In several African countries deaf women still are considered worthless for marriage by deaf men because their cultures expect women to serve at the pleasure of their husbands. For this reason, endogamy may be rare among deaf people in Africa. A few countries still have laws specifically forbidding disabled people to intermarry but have never enforced such laws.

It may be difficult to understand how educators, scientists, and others could have overlooked such a rich cultural heritage as a possible educational resource, but we must again recall that most countries in the world shared the same assumption that the dominant culture was superior to other cultural variations. Following pluralism as a new trend, an increasing number of countries have accepted the existence of variations not only between but also within their human groups. It is my belief that if any educational program is intended to serve a specific human group (deaf people) or a specific community (a rural village), the program is obliged to provide information about the group or village heritage.

Teachers, interpreters, social workers, and other professionals specializing in deafness in both the United States and other countries have often shown a very limited knowledge of organizations of the deaf, regular events of the deaf, or available technical devices. The addition of Deaf Studies to undergraduate or graduate programs in appropriate professions may alleviate this serious weakness.

Most anthropologists and sociologists agree that no country can exist without culture and that every culture is vital for human survival.

Table I shows that culture functions as a dynamic process by which the values, norms, language, and technology are shared and transmitted from one generation to another by the family, schools, peer groups, and mass media within a given human group. Culture becomes a powerful reinforcement when human beings have successfully learned how to use their own culture for the training of children or what sociologists call early socialization. Culture is not a concrete thing; it is an abstract design that has characteristics frequently unrecognized by members of a social group. Culture becomes recognized, however, when it is subject to discussion, examination, or comparison with other cultures. Whenever the values and norms shared by a given group are similar, yet deviate somewhat from those of the society where that particular group exists, the group may be called a subculture.

The new sociological concept of pluralism has convinced sociologists and anthropologists that different subcultures or distinctive human groups exist in virtually every country.

I have used the more widely preferred term Deaf culture instead of Deaf subculture in my studies because I personally believe that scientists should respect and preserve any vocabulary developed and maintained by a particular human group. Scientists should, of course, be free to create new terms or categories for research or comparative purposes. We must also realize that those supporting the concept of Deaf culture to date are scientists, politicians, and leaders. Several years ago, Dr. Barbara Kannapell suggested on a TV program that the scientific term Deaf culture could have been used as a substitute for the older and more popular term Deaf world. Having read magazines for the Deaf in different countries since 1950, I have concluded that her suggestion deserves serious study. These terms (Deaf culture/Deaf world) both acknowledged the existence of particular behavior patterns, values, beliefs, and language among deaf people. The new field of specialization, Deaf Studies, will certainly encourage its students to analyze and compare the differences and similarities between such scientific and popular concepts.

The acceptance of Deaf culture as a human variation has helped parents and educators focus on the socialization of deaf children instead of on their communication skills. My sociological analysis of family interaction among deaf children of deaf and hearing parents (Andersson, 1978) suggests that deaf families have developed a much greater number of interaction strategies than hearing families.

Table II A shows that deaf families have developed a variety of interaction strategies such as person-to-person, person-to-group, group-to-person, and group-to-group relations. During early childhood—a crucial period for socialization—these children become oriented to the roles of their deaf relatives or adult friends in different social situations. Since these groups use the same language and the same culture, the unlimited number of interaction strategies gives these deaf children an excellent chance to compare, determine, and prepare for the appropriate future roles they will follow when they enter adulthood. Such cultural enrichment has apparently been lacking among deaf children of hearing parents because their interaction has been mostly restricted to person-to-person situations. (See Table II B.)

Even oral communication or limited sign language proficiency is not enough to extend family interaction beyond such one-to-one social relationships. Only free, unforced, and spontaneous communication can multiply the number of interaction strategies.

Sociological literature (e.g., Inciardi & Rothman, 1990) has repeatedly pointed out that exposure to group interaction is vital in the socialization process. Furthermore, the experiences of deaf undergraduate students, whom I have taught for more than 25 years, have tended to support my conclusion that day students had experienced fewer interaction strategies than residential students. Residential students already have several well-defined groups to depend on for emotional and social security before they can attempt to join new groups for further personal growth. This process, or what sociologists call resocialization, has not occurred among day students. They may have a greater number of groups to consider for joining but rarely remain in a well-defined group long enough to have stabilized their emotional or social maturity before exploring other new groups. Sociological and psychological studies (Meadow, 1968; Moores, 1971, 1976; Stevenson, 1964; Vernon & Koh, 1970) have consistently confirmed that deaf children of deaf parents are superior in academic achievement, language abilities, and social and emotional maturity to those of hearing parents.

This important conclusion suggests that deaf families have successfully used their own culture as an alternative for the training of their deaf and hearing children. (See Table III.)

We must, however, realize that the majority of deaf children are born into hearing families. Schools and other educational programs for the deaf and local and state associations of the deaf must, therefore, find a way to work together to create a more appropriate and more meaningful program to assist hearing parents in the training of their deaf children. As I believe that Deaf Studies alone is not enough for the socialization of deaf children, deaf children must simply have many more opportunities to interact with deaf adults.

In Sweden, local deaf clubs offer courses in sign language to parents of deaf children. Ms. Shawn Davies (1990), who has spent several months studying the implementation of a two-language philosophy in Sweden, reports:

[The Swedish Federation of the Deaf] has impressed upon its network of deaf clubs that they have a responsibility to ensure a better future for deaf children. To this end, many local deaf clubs host sign language classes and parents’ association meetings, and plan social activities in order that hearing parents of deaf children may interact with deaf families and their hearing and deaf children. (p. 18)

Schools for the deaf also encourage the parents to form a section within the deaf club and to meet on a regular basis to share their experiences. A day care center for deaf children is strategically located next to the deaf club in Stockholm in order to give deaf children and their hearing parents an excellent chance to meet and talk with deaf adults. In this way Deaf culture becomes a facilitating resource for deaf children and their parents. This process in sociology, called acculturation, will certainly help parents and their deaf children improve their sign language proficiency and increase their number of interaction strategies. Although it is still too early to evaluate the Swedish approach, my initial impressions of interaction among hearing parents of deaf children and daily interaction at the day care center and among deaf children at a school for the deaf during my sabbatical leave in Sweden have been very favorable.

Sweden is the first country in the world to have declared sign language as the first language of deaf people. Deaf children in Sweden are required to master Swedish Sign Language before learning spoken or written Swedish. It is assumed that the mastery of Swedish Sign Language will eventually enable deaf children of hearing parents to acquire spoken or written Swedish as a second language, just in the same way deaf children of deaf parents have learned. Swedish educators and linguists have called this approach a two-language system, not the now international term bilingualism. Certain countries have preferred the term “natural language” or “indigenous language” to “first language” because the countries have presumed that deaf children should learn both sign language and spoken or written language. Sweden would probably interpret this approach as an attempt to combine two different cultures into a single one instead of accepting deaf culture as another human variation. The Swedish government has decreed that the views of the Swedish Federation of Disabled Persons must be prevailing in all disability-related issues. For example, the Swedish government has recently requested the federations of the deaf, the hard of hearing, and parents of deaf and hard of hearing children, not professional organizations, to evaluate its audiological services.

The European Community Regional Secretariat of the World Federation of the Deaf has successfully persuaded the European Parliament to pass a law requiring every member country to recognize the linguistic status of sign language. By gaining such a recognition, deaf people in any member country will no longer fear any suppression of their sign language. This significant achievement will certainly give an impetus to the development of Deaf Studies as a new educational topic.

Biculturalism is another popular term in the United States. Unlike bilingualism, this term has not been as widely accepted in other countries. Sweden has deliberately used “monoculturalism” because all deaf and hearing children are expected to share the same basic Swedish culture. This unusual term may be unacceptable here in our country as our cultural, ethnic, racial, and religious diversities are much greater than in Sweden or other countries. The concept of Deaf culture has, however, repeatedly been acknowledged in foreign magazines for deaf people.

The creation of new categories or terms and the use of slogans may suggest that educators, scientists, and leaders in both the United States and most other countries either still are unwilling to adopt the existing terms and sign language as used by deaf people or are hoping that their new terms or slogans would permit them to retain the control of education of deaf children. These educators, scientists, and leaders seem to have difficulty accepting, without reservation, Deaf culture and sign language as used by the majority of deaf people in any country. In fact, educators and scientists know very well that they cannot attempt to modify, alter, or manipulate the linguistic, cultural, or social variations within any human group for political purposes. Instead, Deaf Studies should help us explore different ways to give deaf children more opportunities for interaction with deaf adults and appreciate what deaf people have done.

In summary, the addition of Deaf Studies to the curriculum for deaf people and to training programs for professionals desiring to work with deaf children or adults has many purposes. First, Deaf Studies may facilitate the socialization of deaf children. Second, it may prepare deaf adults to help parents of deaf children to accept Deaf culture as another human variation in society. Third, it may enable researchers and professionals to develop a multi-disciplinary approach to the understanding of deafness. It may also help them to focus on socialization instead of communication skills or pathological aspects. This shift is consistent with the current emphasis on holism in medicine, psychology, and related fields.

As history suggests, any outside attempt to modify or alter Deaf culture or sign language just for educational purposes or to create new slogans, categories, or terms just for the purpose of making more desired changes in the Deaf world will in the long run provoke negative reactions from deaf persons. If we agree that changes within the Deaf world must be initiated by deaf individuals themselves, the development of Deaf Studies as a subject must then be based on cooperation between educational programs for deaf children and local and state organizations of the deaf. Local and state organizations of the deaf should be actively involved in the process of making educational policies for deaf children. These organizations should also assume the responsibility for persuading deaf adults to talk with both deaf children and their parents and professionals desiring to specialize in deafness. Undergraduate and graduate students taking Deaf Studies should be encouraged to meet and talk with deaf adults in natural surroundings, not in their classroom. In fact, these admonitions are not new as an outstanding deaf educator, Schuyler Long, has already suggested:

The place to test the success of an educational system is not in the schoolroom nor in conversation over the social teacup, but out where men toil and earn their daily bread.

(Cited in Crammatte & Friedman, 1941, p. 407)

About the Presenter

Dr. Yerker Andersson, a professor of sociology at Gallaudet University for 28 years, was born in Sweden. His Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Maryland focused on cross-cultural comparative studies of deafness. He is currently president of the World Federation of the Deaf and co-chair, with Dr. William Stokoe, of the Gallaudet University Task Force on American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. This task force has been charged with making recommendations regarding the establishment of an academic Department of American Sign Language and Deaf Studies at Gallaudet University.

References

Andersson, Y. (1978). Family interaction and personality development. Paper presented at the International Symposium: Personality Development and Speech for Deaf Children, Leipzig, German Democratic Republic.

Andersson, Y. (1981). A cross-cultural comparative study: Deafness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Andersson, Y. (1984). The deaf child becomes an adult. Paper presented at the UNESCO Consultation on Alternative Approaches to the Education of the Deaf, Paris.

Andersson, Y. (1989, July). A case study: The Stockholm Deaf Club. Paper presented at The Deaf Way Conference and Festival, Washington, DC.

Berger, P. L. (1973). The homeless mind; modernization and consciousness (1st ed.). New York: Random House.

Bergman, B. (1974). Teckensprakets lingvistiska status. Rapport Nr. III. Stockholm: Stockholm University.

Crammatte, A., & Friedman, M. (1941). What of the products. American Annals of the Deaf, 86(5), 407–419.

Dahl, R. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Davies, S. (1990). Two languages for deaf children in Denmark and Sweden. Ideas—Portfolio II. International Rehabilitation Review, XLI(2–3), 17–18.

Douglas, J. D. (1971). American social order; social rules in a pluralistic society. New York: Free Press.

Furfey, P. H., & Harte, T. J. (1964). Interaction of deaf and hearing in Frederick County, Maryland. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

Gannon, J. R. (1981). Deaf heritage: A narrative history of deaf America. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.

Glazer, N., & Moynihan, D. P. (1970). Beyond the melting pot (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

Greenbaum, W. (1974). America in search of a new ideal: An essay on the rise of pluralism. Harvard Educational Review, 44(3), 411–440.

Grove, D. J. (1977). A cross-national examination of cross-cutting and reinforcing cleavages. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 18(3–4), 217–227.

Hertzler, J. O. (1965). A sociology of language. New York: Random House.

Higgins, P. C. (1980). Outsiders in a hearing world: A sociology of deafness. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Inciardi, J. A., & Rothman, R. A. (1990). Sociology: Principles and applications. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Joutselainen, M. (in press). WFD survey on deaf people in the developing world. Helsinki, Finland: World Federation of the Deaf.

Kallen, H. (1944). Americanism and its makers. Bureau of Jewish Education.†

Keddie, N. (Ed.). (1973). The myth of cultural deprivation. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Meadow, K. (1968). Early manual communication in relation to the deaf child’s intellectual, social, and communicative functioning American Annals of the Deaf, 113(1), 29–41.

Moores, D. (1971). Recent research on manual communication. (Occasional Paper No. 7). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped.

Moores, D. (1976). A review of education of the deaf. In L. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), Third review of special education (pp. 19–52). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Padden, C. (1980). The deaf community and the culture of deaf people. In C. Baker & R. Battison, (Eds.), Sign language and the deaf community: Essays in honor of William C. Stokoe (pp. 89–103). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.

Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ross, E. A. (1930). Principles of sociology. New York: Century.

Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The sociology and social psychology of disability and rehabilitation. New York: Random House.

Schein, J. D. (1968). The deaf community: Studies in the social psychology of deafness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.

Schein, J. D., & Delk, M. T., Jr. (1974). The deaf population of the United States. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.

Schermerhorn, R. A. (1978). Comparative ethnic relations: A framework for theory and research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Spradley, T. S., & Spradley, J. P. (1978). Deaf like me. New York: Random House.

Stevenson, E. (1964). A study of the educational achievement of deaf children of deaf parents. California News, 80, 143.

Stokoe, W. C., Jr. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics (Occasional Paper No. 8). Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.

Supalla, T. (in press). A survey of sign languages. Helsinki, Finland: World Federation of the Deaf.

Tomasson, R. F. (1970). Sweden: Prototype of modern society. New York: Random House.

Varenne, H. (1980). La vie en Appleton. In D. Popenoe, Sociology (4th ed.) (pp. 125–127). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Vernon, M., & Koh, S. (1970). Early manual communication and deaf children’s achievement. American Annals of the Deaf, 115(5), 527–536.