It’s a gray, rainy morning in D.C. Not the kind of day to make the commute to work! But for many of us here, our commute consists of taking the elevator downstairs. We’ve had our final breakfasts, and talked about what we were up to last night, whether watching “Through Deaf Eyes,” taking in the revival of “Sign Me Alice,” catching up with friends, or simply sleeping the sleep of the dead.

But I digress: this morning, we’re here for the final keynote speech, by Paddy Ladd. Ladd’s discourse today is titled “Deafhood: Reflections and Future Directions.”

John Van Cleve is on stage. He first mentions his role as head of the University Press. He wants to take a moment to thank some of the people responsible for making this event possible. The first person is Wendy Grande, who coordinated all the arrangements behind the scenes. The second person is the conference chair. This is especially wonderful, because the person in question is a former student of mine, a friend, and a colleague in the History department. I’d like to recognize Brian Greenwald. The support that the Press has from the administration is equally important, and so I’d like to recognize my boss, Paul Kelly. Thanks to everyone who has helped make this conference a reality, and thanks to you as well, the audience, for being a part of this.

Joseph Murray will introduce Paddy Ladd. He says that today we are celebrating 150 years here on Kendall Green. But when the next 150 years are celebrated far in the future, Dr. Ladd will surely be one of those influential individuals from our era who is recognized. Murray continues to introduce Ladd and his background.

The ASL interpreter for Ladd fell sick this morning, so M.J. Bienvenu has graciously agreed to step in at the last minute. Padd is going to present in BSL, so the audience will be looking at Bienvenu, but also at the PowerPoint which is above Ladd. Definitely a stretch for the eyes for the People of the Eye!

Ladd: My aims this morning are to briefly survey the history of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) through Deafhood, with particular reference to Gallaudet; to suggest some ways forward at this critical time; to touch on guiding principles, including the work of Bourdieu; the responsibility of academics to use reflexivity to examine the sources of their own privileges; and lastly, how each generation has to continually break through the glass ceiling and build on the work of the past.

Deafhood is a complex concept; it can take some time to work through it properly. Thus the last point is very important: we need to join in discussions and conversations about many things. We’ll be setting up a Master’s degree at CDS Bristol in Deafhood starting this fall. I welcome each and every one of you to the university to take courses, if not attain a degree.

Yes, Deafhood is complex, but it is also evolving. It is not a rigid idea of what should be; it’s a personal exploration. To understand who we are now, we must look to where we have come from. I caution you to be very careful about settling for simple and simplistic definitions here. Deafhood offers an alternative narrative; it is intended to replace the term “Deafness,” and is a holistic concept.

Deafhood is not about defining who is or is not culturally deaf, or using little “d” or big “D;” it’s about exploring one’s self and their history. It’s about reflecting on what it means to be a Deaf person in the world. Deafhood can be considered the collective sum of positive Deaf experiences.

Moving on, to talk about the idea of colonialism, Deafhood has strong ties to colonialism: you cannot disregard the impact of colonialism on the Deaf experience. Yes, there are positive aspects of Deafness and Deafhood, but we also cannot turn a blind eye to the oppression that we have experienced. Sign Language Peoples around the globe do share things in common, we do share similar experiences, not just on a personal individual level, but collectively.

Let’s take an example; let’s say that there was never a rise in oralism. What would the Deaf community look like? Can you imagine what it would be like if the concept of oralism had never existed? Now, to understand what happened to Deafhood because of oralism, we first have to understand Deafhood or the Deaf community sentiment prior to the emergence of oralism. Looking back to the 1700s, we see the French philosophers and Deaf people pondering what deafness meant at that time. Desloges, Massieu, Clerc, Mottez, de Labedat, Berthier, Forrestier, and others.

Now, eight precepts of Deafhood:

1) SLPs have the gift of languages because they can communicate in ways in which spoken languages cannot. The converse is true for spoken languages.

2) Are ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘artificial languages.”

3) These languages are even more special because they can be adapted for worldwide communication (unlike spoken languages).

For example, Sovage talks about the existence of natural communities as well as natural languages.

4) SLPs model in potential the ability to become the world’s first truly global citizens.

5) Deaf people were intentionally created on Earth to manifest these qualities.

6) Most hearing people are thus in effect ’sign-impaired” persons.

7) Sign languages are therefore offered as a gift to hearing people to assist them in becoming more “complete.”

8.) Deaf leaders should not place themselves above their fellows, but should work to ensure all Deaf people have access to their own privileges.

[DSE here: I hope I got all of these eight! Feel free to correct me.]

Now– how many of these precepts have survived oralism?

My ideas about all this started during DPN, when Dr. Allen Sussman stated, “The time has come for the plantation mentality which has for so long controlled this institution and others ’serving’ the deaf, to end.” However, despite the public perception that Sussman first used the words “plantation mentality” in reference to the administration and Board, the exact term and comparison was originally made by Dr. Joseph Kinner.

I feel this quote accurately reflects our awakening and enlightenment about our own oppression. I should add that my own personal journey was influenced by Gallaudet University. I have been here countless times, served as the Doctor Chair, but also because of the university’s existence and influence in the world.

Now, colonialism: it is a system, not just isolated examples of oppression. It can be linguistic, cultural, social, welfarist, and economic. This includes colonization of the body, but above all, of the mind. This colonialism of the mind is the worst form. Also, colonialism can be internalized.

Once an individual has internalized colonialist beliefs, it can influence them to such a degree that it eradicates who they are as individuals and people. You see this with Native Americans, with aboriginal peoples.

Yesterday’s presentation about double-consciousness fits in neatly here. This concept reinforces a message that the only way for Deaf persons to succeed is by denying their identities, roles, and responsibilities as members of a collective group. This can result over time in a minority society which possesses what could be termed “cultural schizophrenia.” In summation, SLPs cannot fully become themselves until colonial influences are fully removed.

No one person or institution is exempt from the ravages of colonialism. Let’s look at Gallaudet, for example. Is Gallaudet a colonialist institution? Or is it a reflection of the impact of colonialism? How has Gallaudet contributed to or resisted, notions about and instances of colonialism?

Language is also impacted: the use of such systems as “Sim-Com” and Signed English. This really parallels the “mulatto” status in other minority groups. There’s a lack of understanding that Deaf cultures are collectivist, and that U.S. hearing culture is individualist. Also, this all works both ways. The Deaf community may react to newcomers with suspicion. There’s no separate community to be part of, if people don’t find acceptance within the hearing or the Deaf communities.

Deaf discourses: here, there’s much work to be done. What do we know of the views of subaltern (”ordinary”) Deaf people in history? There’s a need for research. To what extent were their voices discouraged or censored? The use of English is a marker as well, with perfect English prized. Where are the examples of “Deaf English”? These and other questions are important.

We need to understand where audism exists and how it exists in order to best control it. We also need to understand and overcome the struggle with racism in the Deaf community. It’s not unique to hearing cultures, and that Deafness alone unites us. We need to understand cultural and racial differences and recognize them. For example, the experiences and trials of the Black Deaf community.

There is a need for Gallaudet to research its own place in U.S. Deaf cultural history. Gallaudet is an ideal place for such work, but as Douglas Baynton has noted, we need to be careful not to assume we’re in a “Golden Age.”

Since the 1970’s, we’ve seen a resurgence in our Deaf communities, the growth and flowering of linguistic recognition, the arts, and other elements of our history and culture.

However, we need to recognize and study the similarities of other minority experiences. There are common threads and study of these should identify these commonalities and be implemented in Deaf education. But we also need to get rid of the notion that we already know about our history and culture. Are we committed to serving subaltern communities, rather than using our knowledge as a covert way to gain personal power? As Marie Philip and others noted, young members of modern deaf families feel little or no responsibility to the community at large. We also need to be aware of the general tendency in the U.S. towards insularity as compared to internationalism.

We must be careful; for example, mainstreamed deaf had their rights to their own heritage and language severely damaged, then they are rejected by their “own people.” We also need to look to other minority groups and compare and contrast experiences in order to better understand our own.

The Deafhood movement is about decolonization, and about the need to understand what has happened to us, to encourage the study of how we have become stuck in a vicious cycle, and enable individual study of our own personal inner divisions en route to embracing our fundamental identities. There’s also the need to better understand gender issues, not just race. If we don’t understand all this, we won’t be able to recognize these factors and elements in our own lives we must be willing to reflect on our own experiences and share with each other. Decolonization also means the search for deaf epistemologies, pedagogies, spiritualities, etc.

Jane Norman introduced me to Howard University and that influenced my thinking as I saw the parallels between the black and deaf experiences. So that’s equally important too.

Really, all of us have to change. None of us are exempt here. The traditional elite need to understand how they have come by their own positions and privileges in relation to the colonial process. The mainstreamed deaf need to understand that without the struggles in the Deaf community, there’d be nothing for them to join. We must understand these things, but also develop more compassionate perspectives across the board.

Gallaudet needs to decide if it should lead by developing a Deafhood vision, or be content to let other U.S. institutions lead the way. Since deaf cultures are collectivist, Gallaudet and other deaf institutions need to be run on collectivist cultural principles. There need to be ongoing, clear, calm discussions of the roles of hearing allies in all the above and more. There needs to be similar discussions of everything, really.

We can either be stuck in a cycle of chain reactions, or we can explore Deafhood and break the cycle and achieve true self-actualization.

Q & A

Jessica Lee: I’m asking about intersectionality; each individual has their own identity; there’s a national identity, an individual identity, and so you have to figure out which of your identities is more important at a specific time. So I’m asking which identity is important. also the globalization. How do we achieve that.

Ladd: Great question. I can’t answer it in a brief manner, but that is the next step. We talk about our multiple identities we need to look at all of them and examine them as parts of who we are.

Question: In terms of point number five, you talk about sign being a gift, and that hearing can learn to sign and accept that gift, but then they turn around and make it into a product that’s marketed and exploited. So how do we stop that? Is this something we should work on? Also, international sign languages are greatly influenced by the West– where’s Asian influences? how do we make it more global?

Ladd: About exploitation, this is where we can examine the parallels with other minority communities. The resolution is to examine ourselves, then engage in dialogue. Because of time limits, hard to fully answer these wonderful questions. Along with the WFD [World Federation of the Deaf], we are now considering the ownership of our culture, our language. This is an international discussion. Who is it that owns a culture? Who owns a language? it’s an interesting question. In England we talk about BSL and struggle over the ownership of it.

Question: A lot of powerful ideas here. But the context of a larger world and related to the protest the concept of “not being Deaf enough” spread back then — it does make people in the mainstream fearful that they can’t enter this group. So how can we change the perceptions that this is a safe place to explore Deafhood?

Ladd: Last year, we learned many difficult lessons. DPN in 1988 was not easy either. we need to look to other minorities– their struggles were long and difficult, and we’re not going to get off easy. The media doesn’t really pay attention to the intricacies around all of this. They’re interested in simplistic narratives. One solution is to make more films and develop our own media messages to counter the misinterpretations out there. To portray who we are as a people through the arts, film, theater. We need to change our point of view from a defensive to a celebratory one.

My Commentary: This was a speech with a lot of powerful concepts. I haven’t finished Ladd’s book, nor have I had time to sit down and digest everything he said, so my commentary here will be somewhat limited and measured. I did have some immediate reactions that I then formulated into questions to ask Ladd during an interview, if we can arrange one (Dr. Ladd is leaving this very afternoon for Merrie Old England!). Unfortunately, we ran out of time this morning– Ladd’s timekeeper, the inestimable Mr. Murray, kept him on schedule once he started. So I never really heard (nor did Ladd have the time to expound on) about the “responsibility of academics to use reflexivity to examine the sources of their own privileges.” As a once (and future?) academic in a room filled with quite a few academics, this would have been fascinating to hear.

I’m not so sure about Precept #5 myself: “Deaf people were intentionally created on Earth to manifest these qualities.” I guess it’s the skeptic in me regarding spirituality and religion, but I don’t think any particular “peoples” were being created for any one specific purpose. But since Ladd just introduced the concept, I’m betting there’s a more full explanation in his book. I’ll have to finish it, as I said, then I’ll expound on my thoughts and reactions elsewhere later.

I find it interesting Paddy Ladd’s moment of “awakening” was during DPN; I remember a discussion I had once with others, and the prevailing thought was, “The only person or persons who benefited from DPN was I. King Jordan.” I disagreed with that at the time, and I feel a bit justified now!

I agree that to an extent the community as a whole has gotten stuck in “a vicious cycle.” To WHAT degree, I’m not sure.

I do wish that, unlike the other keynote speeches, Dr. Ladd had presented at the end of the conference, and not at the beginning of the last day. For one thing, some of the concepts and examples he touched on this morning were echoed in later presentations (such as Victor Vodounou’s talk in the afternoon sessions, where he shared that a good number of African Sign Languages owed quite a bit to ASL, thanks to Andrew Foster’s influence. This tied in with the question from one individual about the Western influences on non-Western Sign, and Ladd’s response about ownership), and it would have been interesting to see how Ladd tied these other papers into his own work.

Regardless, Ladd’s keynote speech still left many of us talking even after the conference concluded.

CORRECTION: I somehow missed Dr. Ladd saying this, but the term,”plantation mentality,” was first stated by Dr. Joseph Kinner, not Dr. Allen Sussman. I have since rectified the error above in my summary. This just highlights that these posts are NOT verbatim transcripts, and should not be used as such.