Chapter 4: Establishing a Hegemonic medical discourse of Deafness: A History of Deaf Education

This chapter examines how a hegemonic medical discourse of deafness was first established in the history of deaf education.  Many things happened together in the 17th century in Europe that gave rise to the subjectification of DHH people.  The state was becoming increasingly influential in the lives of citizens, the role of the religious faith was starting to decline while the birth of science and rational thought was on the rise.  Philosophers and scientists were becoming interested language, and found DHH people’s perceived lack of language, and their use of unconventional language (sign language) particularly interesting. At the same time, literacy was gaining new importance as a symbol of civilization and progress, though the phonetic basis of literacy made it difficult for many DHH people to acquire. Institutional spaces were established in the late 18th and early 19th centuries for those considered pathologically different. At this time, schools for the deaf were opened in abundance throughout Europe and America, many of which were under the patronage of religious orders. This period marks the first stage in the subjectification of deaf people through the use of dividing practises.

Deafness, at this time, was considered a threat to morality as it impeded one’s ability to hear the gospel. Catholic clergyman Charles Michel de l’Epée opened the world’s first state-sponsored school for the deaf, The National Institute for the Deaf (hereafter, The Institute) in Paris circa 1760. In 1783, Thomas Braidwood’s Edinburgh-based school for the deaf was moved to London, whereupon it received patronage from the King of England. In America, Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, supported by Frenchman Laurent Clerc, and John Braidwood (grandnephew of the aforementioned Thomas), began establishing schools for the deaf through the beginning of the 19th century. Until the beginning of the 20th century, sign language was, internationally, the primary (but not the only) means of instruction in these schools.

The second stage of subjectification, scientific classification, was heralded by the introduction of the physician into the field of deaf education towards the end of the 18th century. Here we see deafness became pathologized in finely measured deviations from what was established as the hearing norm. The appointment of Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard as resident physician to The Institute in 1800 was indicative of the emergence of a hegemonic medical discourse of deafness. Under Itard’s residency, power shifted from anatomo-politics to biopolitics by transitioning from externalized control using dividing practises, towards internalized control through subjectification. Itard established a systematic approach towards assessment, classification, and intense oral instruction to teach speech to six children in The Institute. Because he recorded his assessment and treatment methodologies meticulously, his expert authority transcended spatio-temporal barriers whereby his methods were replicated in other institutions. Itard disseminated his findings to the wider medical field and mobilized the support of medical authorities to verify his authority. Though he had no experience of sign language, and thus could not scientifically compare oralist and manualist methodologies, he favoured complete isolation from sign language. He used his authority as physician to supersede the authority of teachers to promote speech as the new goal of deaf education. Simultaneously, he established a negative discourse around sign language claiming it would hinder spoken language development. 

With Itard, we see the focus of education move from the content to be learned, to the child who is the learner. By devising targets that focussed on specific areas in need of remediation, Itard helped develop a view of DHH children as, what Foucault would later term, docile bodies. Meanwhile, the wider socio-political context of the 19th and 20th century began to view sign language in a negative light. The colonial agenda of the time viewed native languages of the colonies as inferior. Over the course of a century, these social factors, supported by the authority of the physician, led to the demise of manualist philosophies of deaf education throughout America and Western Europe. This ultimately led to the subjectification of the deaf person.

The same philosophical change did not occur in a widespread way in Ireland until the 1940’s, but when they did, they happened much more quickly. Charles Edward Herbert Orpen opened the first school for the deaf in Ireland in 1816, The Claremont Institute, supported with funding from the Protestant Archbishops. Later, larger Catholic schools opened in 1846 (St. Mary’s School for Deaf Girls) and 1847 (St. Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys) in Dublin. Though Claremont transitioned to an oralist approach by the end of the 1800s, likely influenced by similar changes taking place in Britain at the time, the Catholic residential schools were influenced more by Catholic schools for the deaf in France and America, than they were by their Protestant neighbours in Claremont.  Thus, manualist philosophies remained in the larger Catholic schools until the next century. The Dominican Sisters that ran St. Mary’s school maintained thorough records document the shift from manualist to oralist philosophies in this school. The Sisters were aware of the international move towards oralism, and, though they implemented articulation classes in the early 1900’s, manualism prevailed.  Leadership changes within the Dominican Sisters during the 1940’s instigated great changes in St. Mary’s. Oralism was adopted in response to international trends, parental desire for oralist methods, and the concern that Catholic children from Ireland were travelling to Protestant schools in England to achieve an oral education. Here, the authority of the religious institution became an important tool in establishing an oralist philosophy. In the latter part of the 1940’s, St. Mary’s used dividing practises to separate ‘partially’ deaf from the ‘profoundly’ deaf children who signed. The two groupings wore different uniforms and were educated and boarded separately. This practise was to ensure that the success of the oral learners was not ‘undermined’ by exposure to sign language. The children were scientifically classified by audiological assessments and placed appropriately. In 1972, the Committee on the Education of the Hearing Impaired advised the continuation of this spatial and temporal segregation. Coercive modalities of power were used to discourage signing. In addition to segregation and discipline, signing was aligned with sinfulness, and older students were encouraged to report on younger students caught signing. By diminishing their need for external control, the DHH children subjectified and self-disciplined themselves. A negative discourse towards sign language further subjectified these children by instilling a sense of shame and inferiority in sign language users. 

The 1972 report (Department of Education 1972) examining deaf education in Ireland also paved the way for mainstreaming.  The mainstream environment, under this philosophy, would provide the opportunity for complete segregation.  By removing DHH children from their DHH peers altogether, and immersing them in a full oral/aural environment, Sign Language could be replaced with speech indefinitely.  Thus, the legacy of this period is strongly felt in the current system.