Deaf Studies in the ’90s: Meeting a Critical Need

MJ Bienvenu

It is indeed a great pleasure to be here to speak to you on the topic of Deaf Studies and its importance to us as teachers, members of the Deaf¹ community, Deaf children, and parents. It is especially thrilling to present before an audience of peers, pioneers and fellow risk-takers.

Before I begin, I feel it is important to agree on a definition of “Deaf Studies.” For guidance, it may be beneficial to look at other cultural course studies for a model.

Most colleges, universities, and even secondary schools offer courses in Black Studies, Jewish Studies, Women’s Studies, etc. These courses are designed to teach students to recognize a given group of people as a minority culture and to learn about the group’s heritage. In a variety of contexts, one learns of the oppression with which members of certain cultures have learned to live, and how our role in society maintains or resists that oppression. A course in Women’s Studies helps people understand women’s role in society, diagrams the degree of powerlessness with which women function, and applauds those who have been able to overcome the barriers set in place by a male-dominated world. Black Studies courses discuss oppressed/oppressor dynamics, delineate cultural norms, and promote the heritage of many Black Americans whose contributions are often belittled in American History classes. Jewish Studies courses offer a greater understanding of Jewish heritage, including the role that religion plays, how the community in Israel has changed over the years, and how members of the culture have fought oppression and survived.

All these courses offer opportunities to learn about famous people who were members of an oppressed minority, yet overcame the odds to lead brilliant careers as explorers, politicians, inventors, and leaders in a countless variety of fields. The study of a minority culture also contributes an important function by helping to dispel myths about given cultural groups. The content of these courses shares a common thread—each minority culture has survived and sometimes flourished, despite the lack of understanding and support of the majority who hold power within society.

The following examples are taken directly from some educational catalogues:

Black Studies: “The purpose of the Center is to acquire and disseminate information on and related to the global Black experience. Emphasis is placed on material that is reflective of the progressive movements in the world today.”

Jewish Studies: “The purpose of the Jewish Studies Program at Maryland is to offer instruction and conduct research in the civilization of the Jewish people from earliest times to the present day in all dimensions of its creativity: religion, literature, language, law, philosophy, and social, political, and economic organization.”

Women’s Studies: “Women’s Studies courses challenge students to question traditional knowledge about women and men and to examine differences among women. Students gain an understanding of and respect for difference in their lives as they encounter issues of diversity—age, ability, class, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation—in the classroom and the curriculum.”

People may ask why we need Deaf Studies. Our response should be a resounding “Why not?” The time is right—we now have ample materials for Deaf and non-Deaf people, from kindergarten through college.

Before I address what a Deaf Studies program might include, I would like to take a moment to discuss what should not be included in the curriculum. Deaf Studies is not about “deafness.” It is not about the inability to hear, nor is it about the deficiencies of Deaf people. It is neither about curing deafness nor helping Deaf people to become hearing.

Deaf Studies is about Deaf people’s lives, their accomplishments, their language and culture, how they contribute to the improvement of education for Deaf children, and how they continue to contribute to the community of Deaf and non-Deaf people. I have noticed that people tend to confuse the term “Deaf Studies” with the “study of deafness.” They are not at all similar. The latter focuses on the pathological view of “deafness” and it is completely different from the cultural view that we promote.

For many years (and regrettably, even today), people have viewed Deaf people as a group of disabled people who need help, who need to be cured, who lack language, who have emotional problems, etc.

People with this perspective often categorize Deaf people by their decibel loss. Baker and Cokely (1980, p. 54) illustrate this point further:

… we might categorize some of these specific definitions of the Deaf Community as follows:

(1)Clinical-Pathological

(a)an audiologically definable group of persons whose hearing loss is sufficient to interfere with but does not preclude the normal reception of speech (Schein, 1968)

(b)a group of hearing-impaired persons who have learning and psychological problems due to their hearing loss and communication difficulties (Altschuler, 1964; Davis & Silverman, 1960; Levine, 1956; Myklebust, 1960; Rainer et al., 1963; Rainer & Altschuler, 1966)

(c)a minority group composed of hearing-impaired persons who are treated in certain negative ways by the hearing majority (Vernon & Makowsky, 1969).

Often those who view Deaf people from the pathological perspective focus on their ears and voice, maintaining that they must be “fixed” and altered in order for the person to become “normal.” Harlan Lane (1988) in his lecture “Is There a Psychology of Deafness?” noticed that non-Deaf people tend to label Deaf people from two extremes, e.g., Deaf people are “aggressive and passive” or “emotional and emotionless.” Unfortunately, many educational institutions hold a pathological perspective of Deaf people and carry out the unstated goal of trying to make Deaf children look and act as “hearing” as possible. In the process, they are depriving the children of a language that they could easily master and are damaging their identity by treating them as deviants. This results in a regrettable delay in their linguistic and cognitive skills. These are the same educators who develop “early intervention programs,” which result in Deaf children being fitted with hearing aids, being taught oral and signed English at a young age, and miseducate parents in dealing with their children’s tragic “loss.”

Needless to say, the cultural perspective offers a very different set of beliefs. Deaf people are considered normal people who lead normal lives, have their own language, ASL, and do not need extra assistance in order to survive. Indeed, Deaf people are members of a minority culture. The ultimate goal of a Deaf Studies program is to promote this understanding of Deaf people as an accurate reflection of their own sense of identity and culture.

Now that I have made the distinction clear, I will discuss what would be appropriate to include in a Deaf Studies curriculum.

Deaf Culture

What are the norms and values of Deaf people? Why do they act the way they do? Are Deaf people rude, or is tact defined differently in their culture? Deaf culture is one area that is often omitted from programs, sometimes intentionally. There are numerous print and video materials on Deaf culture that are currently available. This is very important, because so many deaf students who have left school (particularly those from mainstream programs) emerge into the adult world unsure of their identity; they are often lonely and confused. They need to know about the extraordinary network of family and friends in the Deaf community who get together often at various events, such as athletic games and tournaments, conventions, clubs, and Deaf associations (at the local, state, or national level), among others. I have heard too many stories about younger deaf children who believed that, upon graduation, they would become hearing because they had never been exposed to a Deaf adult. A program in Deaf Studies would surely help to dispel these myths and misconceptions.

The same thing is true for parents who often do not realize what information is available. Their only experience with “deafness” is from the so-called experts at their child’s school, including audiologists, speech therapists, interpreters, and teachers. Parents need to know that deaf people do indeed lead normal lives, and that it is healthier for their children to be bicultural than to be semi-cultural (meaning they do not fit well into either culture). Often parents of deaf children have never had the opportunity to meet Deaf adults. Learning about the culture and language will facilitate meeting Deaf adults, which will allow the parents to see first-hand that their children can grow up to become healthy adults.

Deaf Identity

Who are Deaf people? How Deaf people label themselves and how these labels differ from those created by non-Deaf “experts” is significant. We need to study why and how this discrepancy occurred. Identity is one of the most powerful concepts in our lives, so it is important to examine what it means to be Deaf—from a Deaf perspective. Is identity as a Deaf person based on decibel loss, or is it more contingent on one’s attitude? This area of the program is important, since identity as a Deaf person leads to cultural membership. Dr. Barbara Kannapell (1985, 1989a, 1989b), among others, has conducted important research on the identity of Deaf and hard of hearing people.

Traditionally, the term “deaf” has been defined as the inability to hear. Audiologists have categorized people based on their audiograms, although some have categorized us based on our speech skills. Schools for the Deaf often separate the children who cannot hear from those who have partial hearing. Unfortunately, none of them view the children from a cultural perspective.

The power which comes from names and naming is related directly to the power to define others—individuals, races, sexes, ethnic groups. Our identities, who and what we are, how others see us, are greatly affected by the names we are called and the words with which we are labeled. The names, labels, and phrases employed to “identify” a people may in the end determine their survival. (Bosmajian, 1983, p. 5)

“Deaf” is a label we have given ourselves, and it is a label we are quite proud of. Contrary to what many believe, we are not very concerned about a person’s lack of hearing. What is important is how we identify each other, and the way in which we see ourselves. Many deaf children graduating from mainstream programs have no identity. Unfortunately, approximately 90 percent of Deaf people grow up unsure of their identity. The remaining 10 percent who have Deaf parents are clear about who they are because they were born into a culture and have had a strong sense of identity from the start. Deaf children whose parents are hearing tend to struggle with identity issues. If they do not attend a school for the Deaf, discovery of their true identity gets delayed much longer. A Deaf Studies program would help these deaf students to clearly understand who they are. Through a course in “Identity,” the Deaf students could examine the reasons for their identity confusion and ultimately develop pride and self-esteem.

Labels such as “profoundly deaf,” “deaf and dumb,” “hearing impaired,” and others should be discussed in terms of what they mean to both cultural members and outsiders. Not only is it critical for the Deaf child to have a healthy identity, but it is also important for the parents. Mislabeling disguises the truth, and it leads to unhealthy expectations and unnecessary pain. Parents can learn to accept their children’s identity more easily if they verbalize the simple fact that their child is “deaf,” rather than using euphemisms and pathological terms that hide the truth. From that point, parents can learn to respect their child, with a realistic impression of his/her future. With the identities of each person firmly in place, the parent and child can work toward making their ongoing relationship a healthy one.

American Sign Language

When we discuss any cultural group, we cannot exclude examining their language. Students need to understand some of the linguistic principles of ASL, as well as some common patterns of discourse, and some of the variety of registers in ASL. The importance of ASL cannot be overemphasized. It is the language of Deaf people—a complete language with its own structure and vocabulary, independent of English grammar. Because Deaf people are also an oppressed group, they tend to code-switch; this means they switch from ASL to a form of signing influenced by English syntax and semantics. We need to discuss and understand why Deaf people code-switch, and in which situations this is most likely to occur.

In this course, skills should be developed, if necessary, and students should achieve some degree of proficiency in ASL. Ideally, the students will be taking ASL from kindergarten through college. Because this is a new concept, some people may be asked to validate the need for such a comprehensive study of ASL—after all, many Deaf students already know how to sign. As we all know, non-Deaf Americans take required English classes from the moment they enter the school system and throughout their education, even though they are native English speakers. Deaf people need ASL courses to enhance their understanding of their own language. The confidence that comes with native language fluency will provide incentive to further their studies of English as a second language, as well as other academic disciplines. There should also be ASL classes specifically designed for parents.

Deaf Literature/Art

There are many forgotten or hidden works by Deaf people expressing their experiences and feelings about being Deaf. Experience with oppression is often shown through art and poetry. Storytelling is one of the traditional forms of ASL literature and folklore. For many years, Deaf people have provided storytelling in schools for the Deaf, theaters, and in clubs of the Deaf, yet research on this art form has only recently begun. In this course, ASL poetry, literature, and art should be studied.

One study of Deaf literature was conducted by Dr. Jane Kelleher (1986) as part of her doctoral work. I want to clarify the distinction between literature and art by and about Deaf people/culture, and the non-Deaf work of Deaf people. We want to focus on the art that reflects the Deaf experience, not simply any works by people who happen to be Deaf. One of the most well-known Deaf artists is Dr. Betty G. Miller. Her work is strongly symbolic of deaf people’s experience in education, where ASL was forbidden in the classroom and oralism was forced upon the children. Other Deaf artists such as Guy Wonder, Harry Williams, and Paul Johnston also need to be recognized. Studying Deaf art will certainly encourage Deaf children to develop their own talents and contribute to the possibility of a growth in the number of Deaf artists. Likewise, knowledge of ASL poetry is spreading, and more children are being exposed to the natural artistic expression of several esteemed Deaf poets.

Humor in Deaf Culture

Through humor, many important cultural values are reflected. It plays an integral role in our lives and clearly should be included in a Deaf Studies curriculum. I have studied the relation between humor and culture and have spoken on this topic many times. Dr. Susan Rutherford (1983) has also studied Deaf humor and has accumulated a wealth of information. Humor helps pull us through the bad times, helps unite us socially, and helps to ease the stress of being an oppressed minority. Each culture has its own brand of humor. Although some cultures may share certain types of humor, some forms of “inside humor” cannot be translated across cultural boundaries. Often jokes that are culturally bound are difficult to understand by non-members; they may even be misinterpreted as offensive. The more we understand Deaf humor, the easier it is to understand members of Deaf culture.

Heritage/History of Deaf People

The history of famous Deaf people who have succeeded must be included in this program. However, this does not mean we should teach about the accomplishments of anyone who has a hearing loss; rather, we should focus on the contributions of culturally Deaf people. People cannot know who we are today without understanding where we came from. The history of many famous and/or successful Deaf Americans has been overlooked for too long.

Children and adults, Deaf and hearing alike, need to know about our Deaf leaders of the past in order to set goals for the Deaf children of the present. Jack Gannon’s (1981) book Deaf Heritage has some useful information. The 1988 Gallaudet revolution has made an impact on the lives of many Deaf people, and it is now part of our history. Most of the people who lived through that milestone are here to tell about it, to share their feelings and insights, and to educate people about what led to the movement and what helped them succeed. One book that discusses the revolution, The Week the World Heard Gallaudet, also by Jack Gannon (1989), could be used as a textbook for a course in Deaf History. It would be wonderful to see important cultural information included, such as the history of various schools for the Deaf, when they were established, by whom, etc. Most people are aware of the historical importance of Thomas Gallaudet and Laurent Clerc, but that is not enough. What happened between 1815 and the present needs to be shared in the classroom. Stories that have been passed down through the Deaf community must be included, such as the infamous example of A. G. Bell, who proposed a ban on marriages between Deaf people in order to prevent future generations of Deaf children. Realizing the historical attempts at genocide of the Deaf community, even by well-known people such as A. G. Bell, would certainly give students of Deaf Studies a critical lesson in the seriousness of their past and the importance of their survival. We cannot afford to overlook either the positive or the negative events which led Deaf people to the point we are at today.

Deaf People as a Minority

Deaf people need to be understood as a minority group who are being oppressed by a non-Deaf society. Oppression in the areas of education, employment, and entertainment must be examined; this will lead to perception into how Deaf people may become empowered.

Some of the invented methods to teach English—and why they don’t succeed—and their impact on the community should also be covered here, as an example of linguistic oppression. Often, the behaviors of Deaf individuals are criticized by non-Deaf people when, in fact, the behavior in Deaf culture is perfectly acceptable. This is an example of “behavioral oppression.” In these courses, we will also explore other minority groups and make comparisons with Deaf people.

Black Deaf People

We need to understand the feelings and experiences of Black Deaf people. When you have a group that consists of more than one minority, such as the Black/Deaf, the question always arises: Does the person consider him/herself to be more Deaf or more Black? Perhaps the person belongs to a subculture of both Deaf and Black cultures. With this included in the curriculum, we might be able to expand our knowledge of people within our own culture.

I would like to credit Carl Moore, the president of Black Deaf Advocates, who provided me with materials on the history of Black Deaf people. Perhaps if I had already taken this proposed course in Deaf Studies, I would be more sensitive to the needs of Black Deaf people and more aware of this minority within a minority. There are several books about Black Deaf people, including, Black and Deaf in America, by E. Hairston and L. Smith (1983). How many people know the significance of Andrew Foster? Linwood Smith? Carl Moore? Carolyn McCaskill? A. Foster was the first Black Deaf graduate of Gallaudet University; L. Smith was a famous poet; C. Moore is the current president of BDA; and C. McCaskill was the first Black Deaf woman to be Miss Deaf Gallaudet. Within this course, notable Black people will become more prominent and better respected as legends in the Deaf community.

This course would also carry important historical content, such as the segregation of white and Black Deaf schools. I remember once conversing with Joe Sarpy, a Black Deaf man, formerly an actor with NTD. I asked him where he was from, and it turned out he was also from Louisiana. Coincidentally, he was from Baton Rouge, which was my home town. I asked if he went to Southern School for the Deaf, which he did. When he told me he graduated from SSD in 1969, I was even more stunned—that was the very same year I graduated from the Louisiana State School for the Deaf. This is a clear example of just how deeply the segregation was entrenched; it was only 30 miles between the two schools for the deaf, yet we had never met until decades later. The history of schools for the Black Deaf should be shared, as they are an important aspect of Deaf Studies.

Deaf Women

Deaf women are also a minority group within a minority. Deaf women have been organizing to work for equality in the Deaf community and also for the recognition of famous Deaf women. Sharon Kay Wood and Mabs Holcomb (1989) have written a book on Deaf women’s contributions and successes, Deaf Women: A Parade Through the Decades. We can look to Women’s Studies courses for models to adapt to the study of Deaf women. Successful women like Agatha Tiegel Hanson and Gertrude Scott Galloway are good examples of Deaf women who became successful. Roz Rosen, current president of NAD, and Barbara Kannapell, well-known sociolinguist, are two more examples. There are several famous Deaf actresses, such as Phyllis Frelich and Freda Norman.

There is a nationwide conference, Deaf Women United, that has already met several times. Women have organized workshops to share their experiences as Deaf women. Are their stories similar to what hearing women might discuss, or are Deaf women’s life experiences much different? These questions and many others must be researched. Deaf women’s accomplishments in the Deaf community should be taught as a part of a standard curriculum as the role of Deaf women in our culture is further explored.

Other Minority Groups

There are other ethnic, racial, and religious minorities in the Deaf community. For example, there is a national Deaf Jewish organization, the National Congress of the Jewish Deaf, which meets every four years. Students can learn how Jewish Deaf people are different from non-Jewish Deaf people (e.g., use of language, religious traditions, and customs) and compare their similarities as well. This course should include other Deaf minority groups, such as Native American, Mexican American, Japanese American, and so forth. This will provide opportunities to better understand the unique cultural views of a minority community within the Deaf community.

International Deaf Community

Deaf people all over the world do not share the same language, culture, or values, despite the fact that they are Deaf. Being Deaf often draws people from all over the world together and creates an immediate rapport, yet we are different in many ways. The Deaf Way is one excellent resource for a course in the “International Deaf Community,” as the proceedings and videotapes from the conference could be used in this unit. We also could use the valuable resources from the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) and numerous international conferences to assist us in understanding Deaf people from other nations. This course would provide deeper insight into languages, and it would help Deaf students in other academic areas, such as history, geography, art, and so on. This is one important opportunity to expand general knowledge.

This course would encourage Deaf children/adults to explore fluency in different sign languages, learning through videotape, or perhaps even becoming an exchange student, immersed in the sign language of a given country. It is possible that in the future we will have Deaf interpreters at the WFD, or World Games for the Deaf, interpreting from their second sign language into their native sign language—which would give the Deaf community more independence from the hearing society.

Social Changes

This course would address the laws and policies that affect the lives of Deaf people. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93-112), Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (PL 101-336) could be examined in depth, with a discussion of both the positive and negative impacts on Deaf people. This unit should also help in developing general awareness of how such laws are enacted and exploring ways in which Deaf people could have more input into the process. Lobbying for and the political representation of culturally Deaf people are very underdeveloped, and this course could assist students in understanding the system that makes critical decisions that affect us. This may open up careers for Deaf people in the political arenas and in government, at both the state and federal levels.

Deaf Education

This area should deal with the impact of education on Deaf people, both currently and prior to the time formal training for deaf people was instituted. It is my contention that Deaf Education courses should be part of a Deaf Studies curriculum, rather than the other way around. For years, people in “Deaf Education” have perpetuated pathological models of Deaf people, rather than teaching from a cultural perspective. The goal of training in Deaf Education programs apparently is to make Deaf children more “hearing” upon graduation. The Deaf Studies approach could not be more different.

This course should begin with the study of Gallaudet and Clerc, and include information on the founding of Gallaudet College, and the history of schools for the Deaf across the country. Other content areas would include: history of education of the Deaf (e.g., percentage of Deaf teachers in the 1850s compared with current statistics), how manualism vs. oralism has been a constant battle in the schools, the pros and cons of the Total Communication philosophy, the benefits and pitfalls of the bilingual/bicultural approach, etc. This course should also explore ways to improve current Deaf Education programs.

Technology in the Lives of Deaf People

This unit might seem inappropriate in a Deaf Studies program, but technology has changed deaf people’s lives in many ways. This course should include information on the development of hearing aids and cochlear implants and examine their impact on deaf children and adults. The implications of cultural genocide must be debated.

Positive perspectives of technology should likewise be discussed, for example, the development of the acoustic coupler for telephone communication, television caption decoders, and door light systems, etc. These technological advances have contributed to a greater independence in the Deaf community, and these advantages can be highlighted.

Research

There has been substantial research conducted in the areas of American Sign Language (ASL), American Deaf Culture, oppression, and education. Students need to analyze the findings of current data, as well as identify areas for future study. If the Deaf Studies program is part of a graduate (or upper-level undergraduate) program, there should be an emphasis on research.

The concept of Deaf Studies is not new, nor is it old. I recall a meeting back in the early 1980s, in which a group of faculty and staff at Gallaudet tried to brainstorm ideas for a Deaf Studies program. Although the group was diverse—Deaf and non-Deaf, American and foreign-born, black and white, women and men—we all agreed on the critical need for a program of this nature. There was disagreement about the scope and content. For example, we argued about who should be considered “famous Deaf people”—discussing the issue of hearing loss or cultural membership as criteria. Nevertheless, we all agreed on the importance of such programs for our children and their families, as well as students of education and other related fields. We felt that Deaf people and curious non-Deaf people of all kinds would benefit greatly from these classes.

Imagine the effect on Deaf people, Deaf children, parents, teacher trainees, and others after participating in a course or program on Deaf Studies. It would have a tremendous impact and alter the way people currently view Deaf people. Many parents believe that their children have no future unless they have oral training or unless they become more like hearing people. Deaf Studies for parents will certainly help them broaden their perspectives and realize that their children are members of a culture with a rich heritage, and that there is a bright future for their children—which even a parent would be proud of.

Many Deaf children, especially those in mainstream programs, have grown up imagining that they would outgrow their deafness, or that they would die upon graduation. It may seem unbelievable, but since few Deaf children are exposed to positive models of Deaf adults, it is often the case. Deaf Studies would give them an opportunity to learn about other Deaf people, from Jean Massieu to Gary Malkowski. With a Deaf Studies course, students would also have the opportunity to meet invited Deaf guests, providing role models and normal cultural/linguistic interaction. Research has shown that Deaf children in general suffer from low self-esteem. A program in Deaf Studies would undoubtedly improve these statistics. Deaf children, like any oppressed minority group, need to see successful Deaf adults who have shared the same childhood experiences and survived. The stories of these Deaf adults are important, and we need to disseminate their truths to Deaf children, just as Black people cherish the legacies of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks, among many other Black leaders. Deaf students must all know the important contributions to Deaf culture made by Deaf people before them, such as Dr. Frederick C. Schreiber, Linwood Smith, and Sophia Fowler. Deaf children must know that they, too, can grow up and contribute something to the Deaf community, and to the American community at large. This would greatly impact the expectations of not only the Deaf children, but their parents as well.

The contributions made by Deaf Americans to society are often overlooked by people, Deaf and hearing alike. I will now list a few powerful examples of how the culture of Deaf people has contributed greatly to society. Let us begin with an examination of the linguistic community.

For many years, linguists were under the mistaken notion that language must be sound-based. Gradually, the idea was proposed and developed that the definition of language should be changed from “sound-based units” to “signal-based units.” From that point on, researchers began to recognize ASL and other foreign sign languages as complete languages that met the linguistic criteria.

Another important contribution brought to light by the Deaf community is the anthropological definition of “culture.” It was previously believed that children must be born into a culture. Yet, Deaf people have proven that theory invalid, as Deaf children born of hearing parents flourish as members of Deaf culture (Marie Jean Philip, personal communication, October 1988).

Another example of positive influence by the Deaf community can be reflected in the closed-captioning technology. In the beginning, closed-captioning was implemented as a way to give Deaf people access to information and entertainment. It has evolved, however, into an educational tool for many non-Americans (e.g., Japanese-speaking or Spanish-speaking citizens) to develop English reading skills (Ramon Rodriguez, personal communication, May 1988).

Another important scientific advance was initiated during the study of Deaf ASL language-users at Salk Institute. One goal of the neuroscience research conducted by Dr. Ursula Bellugi (e.g., Damasio, Belugi, Damasio, Poizner, & Van Gilder, 1986; Stiles-Davis, Kritchevsky, & Bellugi, 1988) was to detect exactly which hemisphere of the brain was used during the process of signing ASL. She studied Deaf people who had suffered strokes, either on the right or the left side, to detect whether or not there was a noticeable difference in the language use of these people (in terms of the non-manual aspects of ASL). Her research led to the startling discovery that those who had a stroke in the right part of their brain were able to maintain their non-manual grammatical aspects but lost their emotional facial expressions and those who had a stroke on the left lost the grammatical markers but maintained the flexibility to show emotions with expression. This and many other studies of ASL and Deaf people have contributed greatly to the body of research, encouraging higher levels of accuracy in awareness of human physiology.

It is my belief that a presentation of these and other contributions to American society in a Deaf Studies program would give Deaf children well-deserved pride in their heritage and hope for their future. It would allow their parents and others interested in working with Deaf people, as well as those who are simply interested in studying culture, the opportunity to get a taste of the interesting history and legacy of the Deaf community.

For non-Deaf people who might want to work with Deaf people in educational settings, audiological/speech training, social work/counseling settings, or in-service agencies, this course would also contribute a great deal to their understanding of Deaf people and help to dispel myths about Deaf people and their language.

We still have a long way to go in drafting a curriculum, and it is probably best to start from scratch. We can gather material from different programs throughout the country that already present similar programs and develop an appropriate model. It would be most sensible to have a majority of Deaf people working on the development of a curriculum for this field of study. Deaf people know what it is like to be Deaf and would therefore be able to construct the content of the course from a culturally Deaf perspective. This is crucial in the development of an appropriate curriculum. Courses could be developed for students from kindergarten up to graduate-level work, with the content focusing on use of language, heritage, humor, literature, and culture. We need to develop courses that deal with basic information for elementary levels, as well as graduate-level material which deals with complex theoretical issues. For the advanced pre-college programs, areas such as minority group comparisons and scientific studies may be addressed. For college-level instruction, research and the political and pathological aspects of the culture should be covered.

Curriculum cannot be set in stone and should be flexible enough to develop while the courses are being taught. One reason many educational programs for both Deaf and hearing students have failed is because a group of experts assumed they could disassociate themselves from a classroom and develop a curriculum without really knowing the student population. It has been my experience that the most successful curricula come from development while the course is being taught.

A healthy curriculum is critical in the development of a Deaf Studies program; therefore, it is very important that we devote our time and energy to creating something truly representative of our community. We anticipate confrontations, both political and personal, because there are still many areas of Deaf Studies that people do not understand, or which people have been taught to devalue.

In reaching our goal to have a well-developed curriculum, we must have a working committee with a majority of Deaf people who are already aware of their language, culture, and heritage. We also need leaders in the fields of related studies (Black Studies, Women’s Studies, etc.) as consultants. We will need to have some hearing people who work with Deaf people and understand some of the dynamics in our community as consultants, in order to see the issues from a different perspective.

It is important to support conferences such as this and to recognize the need for this course of study. Yet, in addition to recognition, we need to spread awareness through a more positive, cultural perspective. The traditional pathological perspective views Deaf people as people with a hearing loss, labels people as inanimate by using terminology such as “deafness,” and fosters a rigid stereotype of Deaf people as suffering and abnormal.

Yet, in the 1990s we all know differently, and we can change the world’s archaic perspective of Deaf people through a progressive program in Deaf Studies. I would like to ask everyone to try to visualize what Deaf people will be like in the year 2020, 2025, or 2030. Imagine how they will feel each day as they awaken, with positive self-esteem and a bright outlook on their future. And this will all happen because of the Deaf Studies program that we are envisioning today. It is up to us to make it happen!

Summary: What to Include in a Deaf Studies Curriculum

• Deaf culture

• Deaf identity

• American Sign Language

• Deaf literature

• Humor in Deaf culture

• Heritage/history of Deaf people

• Minority status of Deaf people

• Black Deaf people

• Deaf women

• Other minority groups

• Deaf foreigners

• Social changes

• Deaf education

• Technology in the lives of Deaf people

• Research

About the Presenter

MJ Bienvenu is a co-director of The Bicultural Center in Riverdale, MD. Born Deaf into a Deaf family, she graduated from Gallaudet University with a B.A. in English and an M.A. in linguistics. She is a strong advocate for the recognition of Deaf people as a linguistic and cultural minority.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101.

Baker, C., & Cokely, D. (1980). American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource text on grammar and culture. Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers.

Bosmajian, H. (1983). The language of oppression. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Damasio, A., Bellugi, U., Damasio, H., Poizner, H., & Van Gilder, J. (1986). Sign language aphasia during left-hemisphere Amytal injection. Nature, 322(6077), 363–365.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1401.

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

Gannon, J. (1989). The week the world heard Gallaudet. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Hairston, E., & Smith, L. (1983). Black and deaf in America: Are we that different? Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers.

Holcomb, M., & Wood, S. (1989). Deaf women: A parade through the decades. Berkeley, CA: DawnSignPress.

Kannapell, B. (1985). Language choice reflects identity choice: A sociolinguistic study of deaf college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Kannapell, B. (1989a). Inside the deaf community. In S. Wilcox (Ed.), American deaf culture: An anthology (pp. 21–28). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.

Kannapell, B. (1989b). An examination of deaf college students’ attitude towards ASL and English. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the deaf community (pp. 191–210). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kelleher, J. (1986). Literature by deaf Iowans: Linguistic form and social function. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Lane, H. (1988, February). Is there a psychology of deafness? Paper presented at the Dr. Doctor Lecture Series, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, 29 U.S.C.S. §794.

Rutherford, S. (1983). Funny in deaf—not in hearing. Journal of American Folklore, 96(381), 310–322.

Stiles-Davis, J., Kritchevsky, M., & Bellugi, U. (Eds.). (1988). Spatial cognition: Brain bases and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press.

1. Many authors use capital “Deaf” to refer to those who are members of the American Deaf culture and lowercase “deaf” to refer to the audiological conditions.