The interviews with our previous keynote speakers, Dr. James M. McPherson and Dr. I. King Jordan, were successful, with both conversations allowing deeper examination of their respective keynote speeches, as well as some insights into the speakers and their thoughts on Deaf history.

Now I wish to present the final keynote speaker interview: my conversation with Dr. Paddy Ladd. Paddy Ladd himself needs no introduction, but some of you may not be familiar with his background or career. Again, the program book tells us more about the keynote presenters. In Dr. Ladd’s case, this is what the program book had to say:

Paddy Ladd co-founded the Deaf group NUD, which fostered TV programs in British Sign Language (BSL) and approaches to Deaf education that emphasize bilingualism. He then founded the London Deaf Video Project for Deaf People and advocated the use of BSL videos for translating government information. He held the Powrie V. Doctor Chair in Deaf Studies at Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C. in 1992-93. He also founded the FDP in 1998 to replace the NUD, and created the Blue Ribbon ceremony at the World Federation of the Deaf in 1999. He is the author of numerous research articles, and published his book In Search of Deafhood: Multilingual Matters in 2003. At present, he is the Director of Research Programmes at the University of Bristol, Clifton, Bristol, U.K.

Because the conference was drawing to a close, and we both had obligations, we agreed to conduct this interview on-line, rather than in person. Thus, without further ado, here is “A Conversation with Paddy Ladd.”

David S. Evans [DSE]: Thanks so much for being willing to spare some time to talk with me! I was able to interview Dr. McPherson and Dr. Jordan, so it’s nice to have interviews with all three keynote speakers.

My first question is this: Deafhood has been all the rage over the last few months here in the United States. I’m curious: what do you think of all this? Do you think we Americans are fully grasping the concepts you’ve outlined? Or are we simply at the very beginning of our journey?

Paddy Ladd [PL]: First, let me begin by thanking the History Department at Gallaudet for inviting me to give the paper; that was a brave move in the present climate, and I appreciate them taking that step. I also appreciate the fact of the conference itself, which was overflowing with good papers, many of which opened new doors.

You said it - we are indeed at the beginning of the journey, all of us, in the USA and elsewhere. Of course the discussion, “What does ‘Deaf’ mean?” is as old as the hills (or their first Deaf inhabitants!), but most of those discourses, because they have been in Sign and not in print, are not recorded.

I see the Deafhood concept as an opportunity to collect and situate those kinds of discussions within a framework of post-colonial studies, which gives us, as indeed the equivalent ideas do for other colonised societies, the opportunity to cast the net as widely as possible, within information pertaining to the past, present, and future. I can tell you that the take-up of the concept has been far greater in the USA than elsewhere (Germany seems to be the second most involved country as of this moment), for which much credit is due, both to the enquiring nature of US Deaf people, and to the efforts of David Eberwein, Ella Lentz, Genie Gertz, and Joey Baer in undertaking this task, as well as to the various pioneering bodies which have asked them to speak on the subject.

How do I feel about this? Very humbled and gratified. It also feels strange, as if it is happening to someone else, rather than myself!

DSE: Many of us really enjoyed your presentation this morning, but there was quite a bit jammed in there, and quite a bit left out due to time. What would you say is the single most important concept for someone to bring away from your keynote presentation? If you only had five minutes rather than over an hour, what would you want your audience to remember most?

PL: That’s an almost impossible question to answer! It was incredibly difficult to reduce it to 45 minutes as it was. I guess that I hope an audience could see the necessity of asking ourselves the questions above, and that the concept is intended to bring about unity and reconciliation over time by realising that we have all been damaged by oralist and other forms of colonialism; that not even Deaf families are exempt. I would hope also that we become clear about the need to respect Deaf traditions and cultures, and the need to prioritise Deaf subaltern experiences, especially those who are functionally monolingual. But at the same time we need to recognise that from this base we then go beyond these, strong enough in our self-respect that we can embrace mainstreamed Deaf people, hearing people of Deaf children, CODAs, etc., firm about some of the basic principles for which we stand, yet open to having others become allies and participants once they are clear about these relatively firm positions.

DSE: I was thinking about your presentation overall. Deafhood has quite a few universal themes. In a way, it almost seems like a utopian concept, an idealistic view of the world. Some might even say it carries theological and moral tones, in the vein of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Is it realistic to expect people to fully set aside their prejudices and their preconceived notions of who they are and where they fit in? Do you view Deafhood as the epitome of what we can be as Deaf people, as a utopian goal to achieve, or merely as a guidepost to aspire to?

PL: Deafhood is not an absolutist concept; it’s a journey and a process. To stop simply at what is presently understood as a “Big D” position is to replicate some of the problems we already have. And it certainly is intended to have spiritual overtones– asking why Deaf people exist, and/or should be ‘allowed’ to continue to exist (cf the genetics debate) can bring us to a place of spiritual intentionality, whether that higher power is ‘God’, ‘Allah’, ‘Jehovah’ or the Gaian principle (which itself is the nearest thing to the 19th-century French Deaf position of Clerc, etc., regarding “Nature.”) We cannot assume that this is “correct.” At the same time, it cannot be disproved either.

DSE: Ok, that’s interesting. A lot of this is covered in your book, I’m sure. Speaking of your book, a lot of people here in the U.S. have cautioned that your book is not an easy one to read. Your discussion during your presentation used a lot of scholarly and sometimes abstract ideas. In your talk, you said that there is a need to engage subalterns and reach out to them and include them in the larger community. How do you plan to make Deafhood accessible to the community as a whole, not just the educated Deaf people here at Gallaudet and around the globe?

PL: The book had to be written at the level it is because it is intended to match the highest discourse levels of present “hearing” scholarship. It’s easier to show this in sign language than in English. I sign it as a way to “shield” Deaf people from oppression, a kind of “This is their wisdom and experience– now respect it and stop oppressing them” stance. Having established that position, the aim of subsequent books is to then use simpler English because the position has been established.

I try to encourage people to use the book as a resource. Dip into the chapters that are easiest to read, e.g. chapters 7, 8, and 9, and take it from there.

But, yes, I am very concerned re: accessibility. I simply don’t have the time or energy to make the necessary DVDs, and I get rather fed up with people saying I should be the person to do this alone. I would much prefer people to come to me and say, “Hey, we want to put your book onto a DVD– can we set up a team to do this?” The www.deafhood.com site will help when it is opened– the English is simpler there… But it still needs people to sign the work. I am happy to see the U.S. Deafhood study groups growing, especially when they make sure they bring along other Deaf people to take part in that process.

DSE: In my interview with keynote speaker James McPherson, I asked about where he felt Deaf history should fit in with history in general. I’d like to ask you a variation on this question. In what direction do you think Deaf history should go? What role, if any, should Deafhood play in future research and publications?

PL: I think almost all Deaf history research can be framed in Deafhood terms — i.e. in respect of finding out more about what “Deaf” has been, and how that relates to the various patterns of wider histories. I have to run now, so I can’t go into this in further depth. But I would stress how vital it is to film and archive Deaf materials, especially with older people. I (and many others) were really dismayed to find that the conference not only did not want to film any of the presentations and discussions (especially given the importance of “oral” histories and of the need to archive materials). Not only that, but they then forbade others to do so. I may be wrong, but at regular hearing conferences, I think speakers are audio-recorded by audience members without problems.

There was a suggestion that this was because of the interpreters’ demands. For one thing, interpreters should not have that power over sign communities. But also, filming could have been done without sound.

However, this problem also occurred at the last two Deaf History International [DHI] conferences too, which were Deaf-run, which is even worse.

I recall one Deaf teacher being very upset because he could not bring back anything of those conferences to show and inspire his Deaf students with. That said it all for me.

So you can see this problem is even bigger than Gallaudet. There may be other issues I’m not aware of regarding the filming and recording of conferences. Again, it would appear that this issue of interpreting “permissions” is far wider than what we witnessed at this conference. Given that it affects the filming and dissemination of Deaf people’s information, we need, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, some serious, clear, setting down of the various issues that have to be considered, so that solutions can be more swiftly found.

Failing to ensure, or suppressing the circulation of signed information, given how much we have to catch up with hearing people’s information, is very much an anti-Deafhood thing for me.

Finally, to end on a happier note, I understand that following “DPN2,” there was a big increase in the number of Deaf students for Deaf history courses. This seems to be a remarkable statement about the importance of history in our present-day lives, actions, and self-concepts. The more that we press for what we feel, intuitively if not verbal-eloquently, are deeper Deafhood issues, the more we can spark the interest and consciousness of both Deaf and hearing people. So this is something we could give more attention to in future priorities for Deaf research.

DSE: Thank you for your thoughts, Dr. Ladd. I really appreciate your taking the time to do this interview. Best of luck with your research and work, and hope to see you next time you’re on this side of the pond!