Book Reviews
A review of Forbidden Signs: American Culture
and the Campaign Against Sign Language, by
Douglas C. Baynton, University of Chicago
Press, 1996 $27.50 (hardback).
Reviewed by Tom Humphries
In the introduction to his book, Douglas
Baynton (visiting professor of history at the
University of Iowa) reiterates the most
important idea to emerge from 25 years of
rapidly expanding consciousness about the
relationship of hearing people to deaf people
in the United States. "Deafness is a cultural
construction as well as physical
phenomenon," he writes, and goes on to say
that Forbidden Signs: American Culture and
the Campaign Against Sign Language is about
the way that hearing people "think in
metaphors" about deaf people.
This is an excellent thesis to explore and one
that offers a fresh and revealing way to
examine American cultural history. Baynton
has accomplished this especially well in two
of his six chapters. In a chapter on the
feminization of the teaching profession, he
details how oral ideology and cheap labor
converged in a capitalist society to promote
one method of instruction (oral) and suppress
another (manual). He also includes a good
discussion of the similarity of women and
deaf people as "voiceless" groups in American
society.
But he doesn't quite establish that women
identified with deaf people in any
subconscious way. There is ample evidence of
the opposite—that women, by serving their
own interests and becoming oralist teachers in
droves, ignored the voice of deaf people who,
in general, opposed oralism.
In another chapter he discusses the debate
over "natural" language that has plagued
American thought about signed languages
throughout history. As hearing people
struggled to define for themselves the nature
of humanness and of signed language, their
numerical and social dominance pulled deaf
people along a tortuous path of conflicting
ideologies about what is natural.
The epilogue unfortunately is not up to rest of
the book. It is too broadly painted after the
detailed discussion of the earlier chapters,
and connections between past and present are
too casually made. Baynton seems to suggest
that deaf people's adoption of ethnicity as a
metaphor for their own self-identification and
political advancement may not be such a good
idea. He writes that "an association with
ethnicity can in nativistic times turn quickly
against deaf people, as it did at the end of the
nineteenth century" (referring to the rise of
oralism). But he does not say what it is deaf
people are supposed to do instead, for he
argues that adopting a metaphor of disability
also has disadvantages.
Baynton asserts that "the deaf community is
not quite like any ethnic group" and goes on
to say that "education for deaf children is not
the same matter . . . as bilingual education for
children from Spanish-speaking homes." He
does not establish for us a confidence in his
understanding of bilingual education practices
for deaf children, though, so we are left
wondering how he arrives at this conclusion.
More disturbing is that Baynton does not take
the opportunity here to say that deaf people
are, in fact, an ethnic group despite whatever
metaphor is used in the social and political
arenas. He leaves us with a vague sense that
the deaf person is a unique human being, the
very thesis he seems to be arguing against in
his book.
The focus of this epilogue is that
mainstreaming is the new oralism. He argues
that mainstreaming is the latest manifestation
of the "deafness as disability" cultural hangup
of hearing people and blames it on
paternalism. In making complex arguments
about how hearing people construct deaf
people out of their own belief systems about
human nature and how other cultural
imperatives drive the behavior of hearing
people toward deaf people, Baynton seems to
be oversimplifying. The paternalism he
describes seems to me to be, at a more
fundamental level, ethnocentrism. He does
make clear that he considers it unfortunate
that in pursuing mainstreaming, hearing
people are once again ignoring the desires of
deaf people, who have little faith in
mainstreaming as public policy.
Forbidden Signs firms up the ground
established by others that hearing people's
notion of deaf people is an abstraction—a
cultural construct—created out of their own
history, and one having little to do with deaf
people's own notion of themselves. Perhaps
the book should be read for what it tells us
about hearing people's models of themselves.
In addition, Baynton provides rich detail on
the historical evolution of oralist thought and
how it persists today. It is a little like walking
through the mind of the oralist of the past
century. It is doubtful that people advocating
an oral philosophy today will look kindly upon
this history, but it is equally doubtful that
they will be able to escape the spotlight of
this interpretation.
Tom Humphries, Ph.D., '68, G-'72, is a
professor with the Department of
Communication and Teacher Education
Program at the University of California, San
Diego.
Last revision: 26 August 1997
Copyright © 1997 All Rights Reserved
This page is maintained by the staff of Gallaudet
Today.
URL: http://www.gallaudet.edu/~gtweb/index.html
E-mail: gtweb@gallux.gallaudet.edu
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002-3695
Book Reviews
Suggestions for books to be reviewed can be sent to
gtweb@gallux.gallaudet.edu.
Forbidden
Signs
American
Culture and the
Campaign
Against Sign
Language
A review of Forbidden Signs: American Culture
and the Campaign Against Sign Language, by
Douglas C. Baynton, University of Chicago
Press, 1996 $27.50 (hardback).
Reviewed by Tom Humphries
In the introduction to his book, Douglas
Baynton (visiting professor of history at the
University of Iowa) reiterates the most
important idea to emerge from 25 years of
rapidly expanding consciousness about the
relationship of hearing people to deaf people
in the United States. "Deafness is a cultural
construction as well as physical
phenomenon," he writes, and goes on to say
that Forbidden Signs: American Culture and
the Campaign Against Sign Language is about
the way that hearing people "think in
metaphors" about deaf people.
This is an excellent thesis to explore and one
that offers a fresh and revealing way to
examine American cultural history. Baynton
has accomplished this especially well in two
of his six chapters. In a chapter on the
feminization of the teaching profession, he
details how oral ideology and cheap labor
converged in a capitalist society to promote
one method of instruction (oral) and suppress
another (manual). He also includes a good
discussion of the similarity of women and
deaf people as "voiceless" groups in American
society.
But he doesn't quite establish that women
identified with deaf people in any
subconscious way. There is ample evidence of
the opposite—that women, by serving their
own interests and becoming oralist teachers in
droves, ignored the voice of deaf people who,
in general, opposed oralism.
In another chapter he discusses the debate
over "natural" language that has plagued
American thought about signed languages
throughout history. As hearing people
struggled to define for themselves the nature
of humanness and of signed language, their
numerical and social dominance pulled deaf
people along a tortuous path of conflicting
ideologies about what is natural.
The epilogue unfortunately is not up to rest of
the book. It is too broadly painted after the
detailed discussion of the earlier chapters,
and connections between past and present are
too casually made. Baynton seems to suggest
that deaf people's adoption of ethnicity as a
metaphor for their own self-identification and
political advancement may not be such a good
idea. He writes that "an association with
ethnicity can in nativistic times turn quickly
against deaf people, as it did at the end of the
nineteenth century" (referring to the rise of
oralism). But he does not say what it is deaf
people are supposed to do instead, for he
argues that adopting a metaphor of disability
also has disadvantages.
Baynton asserts that "the deaf community is
not quite like any ethnic group" and goes on
to say that "education for deaf children is not
the same matter . . . as bilingual education for
children from Spanish-speaking homes." He
does not establish for us a confidence in his
understanding of bilingual education practices
for deaf children, though, so we are left
wondering how he arrives at this conclusion.
More disturbing is that Baynton does not take
the opportunity here to say that deaf people
are, in fact, an ethnic group despite whatever
metaphor is used in the social and political
arenas. He leaves us with a vague sense that
the deaf person is a unique human being, the
very thesis he seems to be arguing against in
his book.
The focus of this epilogue is that
mainstreaming is the new oralism. He argues
that mainstreaming is the latest manifestation
of the "deafness as disability" cultural hangup
of hearing people and blames it on
paternalism. In making complex arguments
about how hearing people construct deaf
people out of their own belief systems about
human nature and how other cultural
imperatives drive the behavior of hearing
people toward deaf people, Baynton seems to
be oversimplifying. The paternalism he
describes seems to me to be, at a more
fundamental level, ethnocentrism. He does
make clear that he considers it unfortunate
that in pursuing mainstreaming, hearing
people are once again ignoring the desires of
deaf people, who have little faith in
mainstreaming as public policy.
Forbidden Signs firms up the ground
established by others that hearing people's
notion of deaf people is an abstraction—a
cultural construct—created out of their own
history, and one having little to do with deaf
people's own notion of themselves. Perhaps
the book should be read for what it tells us
about hearing people's models of themselves.
In addition, Baynton provides rich detail on
the historical evolution of oralist thought and
how it persists today. It is a little like walking
through the mind of the oralist of the past
century. It is doubtful that people advocating
an oral philosophy today will look kindly upon
this history, but it is equally doubtful that
they will be able to escape the spotlight of
this interpretation.
Tom Humphries, Ph.D., '68, G-'72, is a
professor with the Department of
Communication and Teacher Education
Program at the University of California, San
Diego.
Last revision: 26 August 1997
Copyright © 1997 All Rights Reserved
This page is maintained by the staff of Gallaudet
Today.
URL: http://www.gallaudet.edu/~gtweb/index.html
E-mail: gtweb@gallux.gallaudet.edu
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002-3695
Book Reviews
Suggestions for books to be reviewed can be sent to
gtweb@gallux.gallaudet.edu.
Forbidden
Signs
American
Culture and the
Campaign
Against Sign
Language
A review of Forbidden Signs: American Culture
and the Campaign Against Sign Language, by
Douglas C. Baynton, University of Chicago
Press, 1996 $27.50 (hardback).
Reviewed by Tom Humphries
In the introduction to his book, Douglas
Baynton (visiting professor of history at the
University of Iowa) reiterates the most
important idea to emerge from 25 years of
rapidly expanding consciousness about the
relationship of hearing people to deaf people
in the United States. "Deafness is a cultural
construction as well as physical
phenomenon," he writes, and goes on to say
that Forbidden Signs: American Culture and
the Campaign Against Sign Language is about
the way that hearing people "think in
metaphors" about deaf people.
This is an excellent thesis to explore and one
that offers a fresh and revealing way to
examine American cultural history. Baynton
has accomplished this especially well in two
of his six chapters. In a chapter on the
feminization of the teaching profession, he
details how oral ideology and cheap labor
converged in a capitalist society to promote
one method of instruction (oral) and suppress
another (manual). He also includes a good
discussion of the similarity of women and
deaf people as "voiceless" groups in American
society.
But he doesn't quite establish that women
identified with deaf people in any
subconscious way. There is ample evidence of
the opposite—that women, by serving their
own interests and becoming oralist teachers in
droves, ignored the voice of deaf people who,
in general, opposed oralism.
In another chapter he discusses the debate
over "natural" language that has plagued
American thought about signed languages
throughout history. As hearing people
struggled to define for themselves the nature
of humanness and of signed language, their
numerical and social dominance pulled deaf
people along a tortuous path of conflicting
ideologies about what is natural.
The epilogue unfortunately is not up to rest of
the book. It is too broadly painted after the
detailed discussion of the earlier chapters,
and connections between past and present are
too casually made. Baynton seems to suggest
that deaf people's adoption of ethnicity as a
metaphor for their own self-identification and
political advancement may not be such a good
idea. He writes that "an association with
ethnicity can in nativistic times turn quickly
against deaf people, as it did at the end of the
nineteenth century" (referring to the rise of
oralism). But he does not say what it is deaf
people are supposed to do instead, for he
argues that adopting a metaphor of disability
also has disadvantages.
Baynton asserts that "the deaf community is
not quite like any ethnic group" and goes on
to say that "education for deaf children is not
the same matter . . . as bilingual education for
children from Spanish-speaking homes." He
does not establish for us a confidence in his
understanding of bilingual education practices
for deaf children, though, so we are left
wondering how he arrives at this conclusion.
More disturbing is that Baynton does not take
the opportunity here to say that deaf people
are, in fact, an ethnic group despite whatever
metaphor is used in the social and political
arenas. He leaves us with a vague sense that
the deaf person is a unique human being, the
very thesis he seems to be arguing against in
his book.
The focus of this epilogue is that
mainstreaming is the new oralism. He argues
that mainstreaming is the latest manifestation
of the "deafness as disability" cultural hangup
of hearing people and blames it on
paternalism. In making complex arguments
about how hearing people construct deaf
people out of their own belief systems about
human nature and how other cultural
imperatives drive the behavior of hearing
people toward deaf people, Baynton seems to
be oversimplifying. The paternalism he
describes seems to me to be, at a more
fundamental level, ethnocentrism. He does
make clear that he considers it unfortunate
that in pursuing mainstreaming, hearing
people are once again ignoring the desires of
deaf people, who have little faith in
mainstreaming as public policy.
Forbidden Signs firms up the ground
established by others that hearing people's
notion of deaf people is an abstraction—a
cultural construct—created out of their own
history, and one having little to do with deaf
people's own notion of themselves. Perhaps
the book should be read for what it tells us
about hearing people's models of themselves.
In addition, Baynton provides rich detail on
the historical evolution of oralist thought and
how it persists today. It is a little like walking
through the mind of the oralist of the past
century. It is doubtful that people advocating
an oral philosophy today will look kindly upon
this history, but it is equally doubtful that
they will be able to escape the spotlight of
this interpretation.
Tom Humphries, Ph.D., '68, G-'72, is a
professor with the Department of
Communication and Teacher Education
Program at the University of California, San
Diego.
Last revision: 26 August 1997
Copyright © 1997 All Rights Reserved
This page is maintained by the staff of Gallaudet
Today.
URL: http://www.gallaudet.edu/~gtweb/index.html
E-mail: gtweb@gallux.gallaudet.edu
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002-3695
Book Reviews
Suggestions for books to be reviewed can be sent to
gtweb@gallux.gallaudet.edu.
Forbidden
Signs
American
Culture and the
Campaign
Against Sign
Language
A review of Forbidden Signs: American Culture
and the Campaign Against Sign Language, by
Douglas C. Baynton, University of Chicago
Press, 1996 $27.50 (hardback).
Reviewed by Tom Humphries
In the introduction to his book, Douglas
Baynton (visiting professor of history at the
University of Iowa) reiterates the most
important idea to emerge from 25 years of
rapidly expanding consciousness about the
relationship of hearing people to deaf people
in the United States. "Deafness is a cultural
construction as well as physical
phenomenon," he writes, and goes on to say
that Forbidden Signs: American Culture and
the Campaign Against Sign Language is about
the way that hearing people "think in
metaphors" about deaf people.
This is an excellent thesis to explore and one
that offers a fresh and revealing way to
examine American cultural history. Baynton
has accomplished this especially well in two
of his six chapters. In a chapter on the
feminization of the teaching profession, he
details how oral ideology and cheap labor
converged in a capitalist society to promote
one method of instruction (oral) and suppress
another (manual). He also includes a good
discussion of the similarity of women and
deaf people as "voiceless" groups in American
society.
But he doesn't quite establish that women
identified with deaf people in any
subconscious way. There is ample evidence of
the opposite—that women, by serving their
own interests and becoming oralist teachers in
droves, ignored the voice of deaf people who,
in general, opposed oralism.
In another chapter he discusses the debate
over "natural" language that has plagued
American thought about signed languages
throughout history. As hearing people
struggled to define for themselves the nature
of humanness and of signed language, their
numerical and social dominance pulled deaf
people along a tortuous path of conflicting
ideologies about what is natural.
The epilogue unfortunately is not up to rest of
the book. It is too broadly painted after the
detailed discussion of the earlier chapters,
and connections between past and present are
too casually made. Baynton seems to suggest
that deaf people's adoption of ethnicity as a
metaphor for their own self-identification and
political advancement may not be such a good
idea. He writes that "an association with
ethnicity can in nativistic times turn quickly
against deaf people, as it did at the end of the
nineteenth century" (referring to the rise of
oralism). But he does not say what it is deaf
people are supposed to do instead, for he
argues that adopting a metaphor of disability
also has disadvantages.
Baynton asserts that "the deaf community is
not quite like any ethnic group" and goes on
to say that "education for deaf children is not
the same matter . . . as bilingual education for
children from Spanish-speaking homes." He
does not establish for us a confidence in his
understanding of bilingual education practices
for deaf children, though, so we are left
wondering how he arrives at this conclusion.
More disturbing is that Baynton does not take
the opportunity here to say that deaf people
are, in fact, an ethnic group despite whatever
metaphor is used in the social and political
arenas. He leaves us with a vague sense that
the deaf person is a unique human being, the
very thesis he seems to be arguing against in
his book.
The focus of this epilogue is that
mainstreaming is the new oralism. He argues
that mainstreaming is the latest manifestation
of the "deafness as disability" cultural hangup
of hearing people and blames it on
paternalism. In making complex arguments
about how hearing people construct deaf
people out of their own belief systems about
human nature and how other cultural
imperatives drive the behavior of hearing
people toward deaf people, Baynton seems to
be oversimplifying. The paternalism he
describes seems to me to be, at a more
fundamental level, ethnocentrism. He does
make clear that he considers it unfortunate
that in pursuing mainstreaming, hearing
people are once again ignoring the desires of
deaf people, who have little faith in
mainstreaming as public policy.
Forbidden Signs firms up the ground
established by others that hearing people's
notion of deaf people is an abstraction—a
cultural construct—created out of their own
history, and one having little to do with deaf
people's own notion of themselves. Perhaps
the book should be read for what it tells us
about hearing people's models of themselves.
In addition, Baynton provides rich detail on
the historical evolution of oralist thought and
how it persists today. It is a little like walking
through the mind of the oralist of the past
century. It is doubtful that people advocating
an oral philosophy today will look kindly upon
this history, but it is equally doubtful that
they will be able to escape the spotlight of
this interpretation.
Tom Humphries, Ph.D., '68, G-'72, is a
professor with the Department of
Communication and Teacher Education
Program at the University of California, San
Diego.
This page is maintained by the staff of Gallaudet
Today.
URL: http://www.gallaudet.edu/~gtweb/index.html
E-mail: gtweb@gallux.gallaudet.edu
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002-3695