when was deaf culture 'discovered'

[Interpretrator]

Those who are born deaf all become senseless and incapable of reason

Okay, I know this is going to be unpopular, but I believe there is a germ of truth in this obviously ridiculous statement. When this belief was held, there were no efforts made to provide any kind of real language to deaf people. Language is a necessary tool for humans to be able to process the world and for normal mental and emotional development. When language is withheld entirely, this development can be stunted.

So deaf people may not have been provided with the necessary tools to be able to process information in a normal way -- i.e. language -- and so they were literally retarded in their mental development. Compare the cases of "feral children" who were either not raised with humans or were raised in horrific situations of abuse where they were not exposed to human language; in many situations they were never able to function normally.

Thus I think that statement was a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that deaf people were expected to be stupid, and so no one bothered to provide them with language, and so their mental processing suffered.

 

[Grummer]

hmmm yeah i agree with ya, terp,

Thus I think that statement was a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that deaf people were expected to be stupid, and so no one bothered to provide them with language, and so their mental processing suffered.

good observation

well that's an interesting way to look in 'history' , and totally would agree with it, seem very plausible for sure.
I like your thoughts

 

[Grummer]

hmmm yeah i agree with ya, terp,

Thus I think that statement was a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that deaf people were expected to be stupid, and so no one bothered to provide them with language, and so their mental processing suffered.

good observation

well that's an interesting way to look in 'history' , and totally would agree with it, seem very plausible for sure.
I like your thoughts

 

[jillio]

Okay, I know this is going to be unpopular, but I believe there is a germ of truth in this obviously ridiculous statement. When this belief was held, there were no efforts made to provide any kind of real language to deaf people. Language is a necessary tool for humans to be able to process the world and for normal mental and emotional development. When language is withheld entirely, this development can be stunted.

So deaf people may not have been provided with the necessary tools to be able to process information in a normal way -- i.e. language -- and so they were literally retarded in their mental development. Compare the cases of "feral children" who were either not raised with humans or were raised in horrific situations of abuse where they were not exposed to human language; in many situations they were never able to function normally.

Thus I think that statement was a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that deaf people were expected to be stupid, and so no one bothered to provide them with language, and so their mental processing suffered.

That's it in a nutshell, Interpretator!

 

[Kaitin]

Okay, I know this is going to be unpopular, but I believe there is a germ of truth in this obviously ridiculous statement. When this belief was held, there were no efforts made to provide any kind of real language to deaf people. Language is a necessary tool for humans to be able to process the world and for normal mental and emotional development. When language is withheld entirely, this development can be stunted.

So deaf people may not have been provided with the necessary tools to be able to process information in a normal way -- i.e. language -- and so they were literally retarded in their mental development. Compare the cases of "feral children" who were either not raised with humans or were raised in horrific situations of abuse where they were not exposed to human language; in many situations they were never able to function normally.

Thus I think that statement was a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that deaf people were expected to be stupid, and so no one bothered to provide them with language, and so their mental processing suffered.

Interpretor: I don't know anything about history really. But when was "When this belief was held, there were no efforts made to provide any kind of real language to deaf people."?

From Sign language: its history and contribution to the understanding of the biological nature of language.
Ruben RJ.

Sign languages of the deaf have been recognized since at least the fourth century BC. The codification of a monastic sign language occurred in the seventh to eighth centuries AD. Probable synergy between the two forms of sign language occurred in the 16th century. Among other developments, the Abbey de L'Epée introduced, in the 18th century, an oral syntax, French, into a sign language based upon indigenous signs of the deaf and newly created signs.

So some sign language has history for more than a thousand years. So for many years deaf have "real language", right?

And "so they were literally retarded in their mental development." Maybe deaf brains develop less in some areas than hearing but more in other areas?

From Neural systems underlying British Sign Language and audio-visual English processing in native users.
MacSweeney M, Woll B, Campbell R, McGuire PK, David AS, Williams SC, Suckling J, Calvert GA, Brammer MJ.

The influence of hearing status on the recruitment of sign language processing systems was explored by comparing deaf and hearing adults who had BSL as their first language (native signers). Deaf native signers demonstrated greater activation in the left superior temporal gyrus in response to BSL than hearing native signers. This important finding suggests that left- temporal auditory regions may be privileged for processing heard speech even in hearing native signers. However, in the absence of auditory input this region can be recruited for visual processing.

---

Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing.
Bavelier D, Brozinsky C, Tomann A, Mitchell T, Neville H, Liu G.

This functional magnetic resonance imaging study investigated the impact of early auditory deprivation and/or use of a visuospatial language [American sign language (ASL)] on the organization of neural systems important in visual motion processing by comparing hearing controls with deaf and hearing native signers. - First, the lateralization of MT-MST was found to shift toward the left hemisphere in early signers, suggesting that early exposure to ASL leads to a greater reliance on the left MT-MST. Second, whereas the two hearing populations displayed more MT-MST activation under central than peripheral attention, the opposite pattern was observed in deaf signers, indicating enhanced recruitment of MT-MST during peripheral attention after early deafness. Third, deaf signers, but neither of the hearing populations, displayed increased activation of the posterior parietal cortex, supporting the view that parietal functions are modified after early auditory deprivation. Finally, only in deaf signers did attention to motion result in enhanced recruitment of the posterior superior temporal sulcus, establishing for the first time in humans that this polymodal area is modified after early sensory deprivation. Together these results highlight the functional and regional specificity of neuroplasticity in humans.

---

From The morphometry of auditory cortex in the congenitally deaf measured using MRI.
Penhune VB, Cismaru R, Dorsaint-Pierre R, Petitto LA, Zatorre RJ.

The results of the manual volume measures were supported by findings from voxel-based morphometry analyses that showed increased grey-matter density in the left motor hand area of the deaf, but no differences between the groups in any auditory cortical region. This increased cortical density in motor cortex may be related to more active use of the dominant hand in signed languages. Most importantly, expected interhemispheric asymmetries in HG and PT thought to be related to auditory language processing were preserved in these deaf subjects.

I am not offended or mean to fight. I don't understand the brain and neurology words enough to understand most articles, but wonder about these questions.

Thank you.

 

[Chase]

Grummer, as an old college prof, I can infer from your partial reading list that you're headed in the right direction with research, but I'm wondering if you're listening carefully to what you read. A couple of clues I'm getting that you may not be listening is the continual complete misuse of some words . . . and almost rampant impatience. Both speak of not getting the idea, maybe even fighting it.

A research hint that Interpretrator tried to give and you completely blew off: Never tell people you ask for help that you expect better after they try to give you their honest best. When researchers come at me with attidudes, I usually send them along the most winding road possible. In other words, let them do their own research without shortcuts.

 

[Interpretrator]

Interpretor: I don't know anything about history really. But when was "When this belief was held, there were no efforts made to provide any kind of real language to deaf people."?

Right, I'm distinguishing between the history of sign language and the way deaf people were treated by hearing people. True, when deaf people got together they were able to communicate in either a codified or nonce form of sign language, but I'm thinking more of a deaf child born to an average hearing family in the 1600s. That hearing family wasn't about to make the effort to teach the child anything -- especially if it was a noble family, as those families tended to hide away any children with any kinds of deformities, disabilities, whatever. Deaf people ended up in mental asylums just to spare the nobility the embarrassment of their existence.

My point is purely sociological here, in other words.

And "so they were literally retarded in their mental development." Maybe deaf brains develop less in some areas than hearing but more in other areas?

Most definitely, but totally irrelevant to my point. It makes no difference whatsoever what kinds of special skills deaf or any people have, if they do not have the capacity to relate to their world using language. The lack of that capacity was assumed, in the past, to be stupidity caused by deafness. Today we know that a total lack of language provided before the critical age does result in many different kinds of problems with mental processing.

I apologize for not meeting your citations with citations of my own, since you researched your post so well, but I just don't have the time right now.

I am not offended or mean to fight.

I didn't take it that way at all. Your post was very well reasoned. It's just not quite the point I'm making about the situation most deaf people were in hundreds of years ago. Linguists now can look back at incidences of sign languages but for the most part, the average deaf person did not have access to these.

 

[Kaitin]

My point is purely sociological here, in other words.

Most definitely, but totally irrelevant to my point. It makes no difference whatsoever what kinds of special skills deaf or any people have, if they do not have the capacity to relate to their world using language. The lack of that capacity was assumed, in the past, to be stupidity caused by deafness. Today we know that a total lack of language provided before the critical age does result in many different kinds of problems with mental processing.

I apologize for not meeting your citations with citations of my own, since you researched your post so well, but I just don't have the time right now.

I didn't take it that way at all. Your post was very well reasoned. It's just not quite the point I'm making about the situation most deaf people were in hundreds of years ago. Linguists now can look back at incidences of sign languages but for the most part, the average deaf person did not have access to these.

Thank you. When reading your first post I knew I don't understand your point really. I don't think you are negative about deaf/HoH, but I couldn't "put all together" - my problem, not you. Now I don't know if I do, but I understand more probably. And no need for "I apologize for not meeting your citations with citations of my own". I use article quotes because articles 1) explain better than me and 2) for facts evidence instead of opinoin - if I read a reply "sign language has history for more than a thousand years" I don't trust 100% as fact without article so I try not to write somethings without article as evidence.

I am interested in this thread because the questions are different way of thinking I think. "When did deaf culture begin" - First I didn't understand. Deaf/HoH always exist, so the answer is "always"? Then I read and now I understand the question is: "When is "deaf culture" first a "subculture" - deaf as identity and not just lack of hearing, right? Similar: "When did scholars start studies of "deaf culture"?" Not when did deaf have a community, have sign language, power etc. But in the big sense - "Culture". (Interpretor - you wrote about the big sense, sociological, not personal, right?) In science this thinking is like "when was gravity discovered"? Always because people alway know that objects fall down? No, the answer is: the idea "gravity" is newer and start with Newton really (I think). So "Gravitational force = (G constant) (mass1) (mass2) / (distance between mass1 and mass2) squared" and not "objects fall down"........maybe more confusing then before and should stop the :P)

From Deaf/Hearing Cultural Identity Paradigms: Modification of the Deaf Identity Development Scale

- Deaf people have had a sense of community for a long time, but the academic concept of a Deaf culture was nonexistent until the 1970s. Humphries conceptualizes the implications in terms of an emerging voice that encompasses cultural explicitness, self-consciousness, and a centeredness around a signed language that was not previously reflected in the self-perceptions of deaf individuals.

Why do articles write "conceptualizes the implications" etc? And - other point - "emerging voice" for Deaf culture? :roll: But better explanation than me anyway - "academic concept".

I can't find the history of the word "Deaf" (not "deaf"). Anyone know?

Because of this thread I am working on Humanities independent study on deaf culture history. I need to decide focus more. Interesting topic, Grummer.

 

[Grummer]

Grummer, as an old college prof, I can infer from your partial reading list that you're headed in the right direction with research, but I'm wondering if you're listening carefully to what you read. A couple of clues I'm getting that you may not be listening is the continual complete misuse of some words . . . and almost rampant impatience. Both speak of not getting the idea, maybe even fighting it.

A research hint that Interpretrator tried to give and you completely blew off: Never tell people you ask for help that you expect better after they try to give you their honest best. When researchers come at me with attidudes, I usually send them along the most winding road possible. In other words, let them do their own research without shortcuts.

Hi Chase,
I have to say that Im fairly embarrassed with my post. I agree with your assertion. You are right that I am struggling though I am not trying to cheat, and indeed there was no shortcut, even if i attempted to make one, it always ends up being from the long routes. There might faster routes maybe, however it always catches up later if you have missed something....

Glad initiated this thread with an interesting subject that many of us enjoyed sharing. Indeed I was curious so raised this question I just happened to wonder if anyone might have something to say or perhaps knows where 'Deaf culture' have a significant political component - just to merely nurture the culture where in I am also slightly skeptical that there may not be any other 'motives', that is, 'the rights issues' and so forth. Just couldn' help feeling like that, like there's something not 'complete' in the overwhelming numbers of explanations regarding Deaf cultures.

I will try use more tact and be more polite, Chase

I did appreciate your understanding.

 

[Grummer]

No. Deaf culture, like many other cultures, arose from a shared language and a shared situation of oppression. The fact of being visual people who shared a visual-spatial language combined with the sense of being patronized and marginalized by the hearing majority produced what is in the most neutral sense, Deaf culture.

Deaf culture's position in politics is an entirely separate conversation from the sociolinguistic aspect.

I don't believe there was a specific date on which Deaf culture was "discovered" as in "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" but I'll leave that to the historians to prove me wrong.

Hi Interpretator,
Chase sort off told me off, so i decided to rectify this with you.
Sorry If I fobbed you off right at the beginning of this thread, I mean this was a good reply, admitting it wasnt exaclty I hoped for, becuase I have always believed culture doesnt just appear out of thin air without any forms of consent or coercion, void of these 'forces' -seen or unseen - just can not guarantee group agreement to mandate certain behaviours, forming a unity. That is just me. I will try more tactful. Historians are clever buggers arent they? I admire them.

 

[Chase]

Tactless prof

Thanks for your polite response, Grummer, more polite than I deserved, because my own tact could use a major overhaul.

I do understand impatience. When finishing a master’s dissertation at Idaho State University, I was already too hard of hearing for effective telephone interviews, and I needed conformation of data from a surviving family member of Ernest Hemingway. It was in the dark days before the internet, and his widow, Mary, would not respond to letters. His granddaughter Margaux suffered from dyslexia and could neither read nor write, but she called my department at ISU and offered a phone interview.

Delighted at a model and movie star's generousity to a lowly student, yet frustrated at the impasse, I bundled my mass (mess) of papers and drove across Idaho to Ketchum to barge in on them. When I explained my need and handicap, they didn’t call the sheriff, and both truly beautiful and genteel ladies spent two days going over my notes with me, culling fact from gossip, and I left with more than confirmation. My thesis was practically edited to final shape for me. What I’m trying to say is we deafies in particular do need to ask for assistance (accommodations).

That’s really what you were asking for.

A footnote is that encroaching deafness so greatly hampered gathering anecdotal historical data for my intended doctoral dissertation that I had to scrap it and begin another Ph.D. project, one of creative fiction, rather than factual history. Thanks to that fork in the road, I learned to write other than textbook style, and I think it’s paying off for me in my old age.

I know you’ll keep up the struggle, and somehow it’ll all be worth while.

Your tactless friend, Chase

 

[deafbajagal]

"Rudolphus Agricola, 1443-1485, was interested in the Deaf and wrote a book "De Inventione Dialectica". He wrote that a person who is born Deaf can express himself by putting down his thoughts in writing. The book was never published till a 100 years later."

Quote from Deaf History - 1400's-1600's.

That's the earliest date that I know of that someone had made a written record regarding deaf people. Most early accounts such as this one focused on the education (usually for religious purposes) aspects, not so much on the way of life. You might want to look into a book titled Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha's Vineyard. There were numerous articles published in Boston that were fascinating. I suggest the article: "A Silent Culture with a Strong Voice," from the Boston University alumni magazine, Bostonia. (Published in 2001 I believe).


Hope I helped some .

 

[Grummer]

thanks deafbajagal i know where to get "Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha's Vineyard" but right now I'm reading about dogs for a change. and I will look at the link sometimes soon
Thanks

 

[Tousi]

I just remembered something....Plato was born somewhere in the 420's AD and he made an observation about the deaf. He said that, yes, the deaf have a manual language that meshed with the spoken equivalent...something like that....dunno if this means anything re: deaf culture but I'd surmise there was one way back then.

 

[jillio]

I just remembered something....Plato was born somewhere in the 420's AD and he made an observation about the deaf. He said that, yes, the deaf have a manual language that meshed with the spoken equivalent...something like that....dunno if this means anything re: deaf culture but I'd surmise there was one way back then.

I oweuld tend to agree with you, Tousi. As long as at two deaf individuals have existed, and developed a method of communication between them, Deaf Culture has existed.

 

[shel90]

I believe that there was a Deaf culture going back hundreds of years but I think with the establishment of residential deaf schools, it evoluted to a more organized culture.

 

[jillio]

I believe that there was a Deaf culture going back hundreds of years but I think with the establishment of residential deaf schools, it evoluted to a more organized culture.

Absolutely. With the greater availability of contact with other deaf individuals, the culture grew and was influenced by contact with various other home cultures of the individuals. Plus, the influence of langauge and deaf needs created a more specific way of thinking and believing. From this developed specific values and norms.

 

[Fraoch]

True, when deaf people got together they were able to communicate in either a codified or nonce form of sign language, but I'm thinking more of a deaf child born to an average hearing family in the 1600s. That hearing family wasn't about to make the effort to teach the child anything -- especially if it was a noble family, as those families tended to hide away any children with any kinds of deformities, disabilities, whatever.

Your wrong at least in one instance, James I of Scotland and his wife Joan Beaufort had a daughter Joan who was born deaf, like her sisters she was sent to France to nunnery for her education. At the age 18 she returned to Scotland and married a Scottish nobleman, James Douglas, 2nd Lord of Dalkeith, who upon the marriage was belted the Earl of Morton. Some might say that was because he had a defective bride, clearly others felt she was because this their second attempt to find her husband. However, she and her husband went on to have four living children, and she was known to have a sign language of sorts that she used in public to communicate with those around and in her community. She and her husband have their effigies in the parish church of St Nicholas, and this effigy is thought to be the oldest monument of a known deaf person.

What makes her remarkable other than the fact that she was clearly deaf and was able to communicate, was that her 5 sisters all married well above her in the noble social ladder and yet of her five sisters she was outlived by only one, Isabella who died at age 70 and Joan lived to be 58. Her other sisters 3 younger and one older died much younger than she. And of her five sisters she had the most surviving children of the group (4). Not bad for a deaf women given that this was the 15th century.

I think that it seems unrealistic to make such a statement that the nobles were more likely to shut away such children. Also it seems that because there were groups already engagining in "silent languages", it seems over simplistic to think that parents of deaf children wouldn't figure out their children couldn't hear and create some simple form of communication. Compassion or nurturing of children wasn't absent in the 15th century.

Clearly the tide was turning within the fields of learned men in the late 15th century when it came to the idea that a person who was deaf was also dumb (dumb in reference of an inability to speak not mental capacity) who were creating ways to communicate with the deaf. That it didn't catch on was probably because of the political and religious upheval of the Reformation's effect on the study of medicine.

 

[Bebonang]

to AllDeaf, Fraoch. When you mention about a deaf woman who was put into the nunnery (convent for the nuns). Normally, not all deaf people are put into the nunnery or alysum to hide their child or children who had deformed, blinded, deaf, and disabilities. The normal hearing and sighted people don't know how to take care of them and often they are scared because they thought they were being punished by God. For the Deaf, the hearing people think it is a sign of sin or bad about not having no sound or could not hear at all. Anyway, Joan (deaf woman) then came back to Scotland to try to get married to a nobleman. If she is capable of signing her sign language, then she is part of the Deaf Culture. This is what make history of all deaf people are derived or a better word like established into the Deaf Culture which is about us with our sign languages and who we are in our successful careers or had done a remarkable works. It stood out as noticeable if we can read about the Deaf people who are ASL users but the hearing people never noticed them or don't know about them, usually don't want to know about them.

It is the same like Black History Month which is a Black Culture to know about them as an individuals and being noticeable that they have been successful and to fight oppression while trying to achieve their goals.

Thank you for giving me the history about the deaf Scottish woman in the 15th Century.

 

[Fraoch]

to AllDeaf, Fraoch. When you mention about a deaf woman who was put into the nunnery (convent for the nuns).
Thank you for giving me the history about the deaf Scottish woman in the 15th Century.

Actually noble women of this period both hearing and in this case deaf were sent to nunneries for education as this is where women of noble birth and in later cases of wealth were educated. They weren't sent there to be punished or put aside. The point I was trying to make was that she was treated just like her sisters who also were educated as such. That she was beyond the normal age for marriage which was usually between 13 to 15 and she I believe was 18 shows that despite her father/mother's acceptance the world was not as accepting but the man she married, though he came from a father who was thougth to be insane, he and Joan made a good marriage and he was not hindered in anyway politically or culturally by having a wife who was deaf. Their children who survived to adulthood made good marriages, and Joan's mother was Joan Beaufort, the granddaughter of John of Ghent who was of the royal line of England provided her with important anteceedants that the average person who was deaf didn't so people probably could look beyond her being deaf as if were to be avoided.

Actually my interest in the Deaf Culture comes about from my daughter who did her masters degree at Galuadett in Deaf Studies. Visiting this school as a parent of a hearing student was a real eye opener and I find that people aren't really ignorant of the deaf culture they just dont' know how to break down the barriers. That is why I am writing this paper on Joan Steward because she was a woman who stood out in an otherwise sparse forest of accounts of women of the period but even though she was remarably different there is little know about not because she was deaf but because she was a woman.