Deaf geographies, and other worlds.
An article published in The Rebuttal has caught my eye… for its use of a euphemism… I don’t know if “the Auditory Verbal (AV) approach” is exactly the same as Oralism… but it certainly sounds like it.
Note, not ‘oral’ – this is pretty clear from the AV approach to eradicating all exposure to non-oral communication. History suggests that until the choice of ‘oral’ or ‘sign’ became an all or nothing exclusive, then most DEAF people liked the idea of also being ‘oral’ and supported the idea that if DEAF people could learn to speak, then they should… certainly this was a widespread situation until about 1870 and even after that, many DEAF people believed that they could convince the Oralists to soften their approach to this end.
Note also, not ‘oralism’ (which I would define as a scientific and pedagogical approach that prefers hearing and speech as the best ways to educate deaf children)… oralism is (I think) forgiveable, if seriously misguided – it’s an informed stance that is only party informed and should… should be open to an unbiased discussion of the evidence. Actually… just for interest, a really good example of this exists at the 1905 ‘Free Congress’ in Liège, where some of the stalwarts of the 1880 Italian ‘oralist’ approach (Ferreri amongst others) actually converted to supporting sign language because of the evidence offered to them by the then DEAF community… But there’s no arguing with an AV ‘zealot’.
No… not ‘oralism’, but ‘Oralism’ (which I would define as the same as oralism, except that it’s based on nothing but imagination and fear of the Other)… History suggests that there are two kinds of this Oralism:
The Auditory-Verbalists that the Rebuttal talks about appear to be of the second type…
… unfortunately, as the article proves… it seems to still be a habit of stupid government to gift both types of Oralists with the recognition that they so crave, which simply reinforces them in their blindness and power.