Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language

by Douglas C. Baynton

Forbidden Signs explores American culture from the mid-nineteenth century to 1920 through the lens of one striking the campaign led by Alexander Graham Bell and other prominent Americans to suppress the use of sign language among deaf people.

The ensuing debate over sign language invoked such fundamental questions as what distinguished Americans from non-Americans, civilized people from "savages," humans from animals, men from women, the natural from the unnatural, and the normal from the abnormal. An advocate of the return to sign language, Baynton found that although the grounds of the debate have shifted, educators still base decisions on many of the same metaphors and images that led to the misguided efforts to eradicate sign language.

"Baynton's brilliant and detailed history, Forbidden Signs , reminds us that debates over the use of dialects or languages are really the linguistic tip of a mostly submerged argument about power, social control, nationalism, who has the right to speak and who has the right to control modes of speech."—Lennard J. Davis, The Nation

" Forbidden Signs is replete with good things."—Hugh Kenner, New York Times Book Review

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Education, Disability, Academics

235 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1996

Reviews

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book took me quite awhile to read through. While the subject matter is fascinating, the author did not write it in a way that would keep my attention. The first half of the book I could only get through about 2 pages at a time before falling asleep or losing interest. The second half of the book did finally grab my interest. If you enjoy Deaf culture and history, I recommend it.

[skein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh, lovely. Not only a study of the role of signed language in American culture, 19th-century to vaguely-present-era - it's also a considered exploration of prejudice - the why and how and institutionalization thereof - the construction of normalcy as a shared ideal (!!)
and there are FOOTNOTES! So many footnotes! Oh, so many first-person accounts! and photographs! and and and ... !

This is one of those books that I read cringingly for the first hundred pages because I was waiting for the author to fuck up and insult me - it didn't happen and didn't happen and didn't happen - and he kept surprising me. Er, in a good way? Like making a distinction between "sign language" and "signed language", his (and my) preferred term. Like not ever using man-as-default. Like being consistently thoughtful and respectful of the people he was writing about - even the bigoted jerks. Noted his lack of knowledge (mostly, lack of sources), especially as regards to the schools for black students - and how difficult it is to understand past culture, how tempting it is to pretend we know.

Oralism, sign language, oralism, sign language -- back and forth and back and forth, and the debate has been controlled (and is still controlled) by hearing persons, who just don't have a high stake in the matter. It's easy to be Rational and Logical when it's not your life.

Um.

The deaf (and Deaf) people I know were taught oralism. They've got more than five decades in age difference -- a significant range, I think ... I do not know a single d/Deaf person who learned sign at a young age, or whose family knew more than a few signs, or who had a supportive school environment. Supportive, hell - most of them were taught to lip-read and forbidden or just strongly not encouraged to use sign.

It's not a wonder to me that hearing people think they know more about deaf people, and Deaf culture, than deaf people know -- that's just natural, isn't it? Don't the privileged always have a better perspective than the minorities? It's none of that annoying life experience for them, no sir! just logic-logic-logic, all the way down.

What boggles my mind is that they care.
It's as though deaf signing is offensive - simply because hearing people do not share it.
How typical. How prejudiced. How snotty.

And the pendulum is swinging further to the right yet again: with typical prejudiced snotty hearing-culture self-righteousness, well-meaning parents are giving their children cochlear implants and forbidding them from learning sign language, because their child must not be one of those awful icky deaf people, dear god no, my child will be JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
Gee! Prejudice! HOW REFRESHING.

I need to go hug my deaf friend now and apologize for every appalling hearie mistake I've ever made and all the ones I'll make in the future. Christ! This is a horrible world!

[Olivia Thames · Rating 4 out of 5]

A profound Ph.D dissertation turned vital reading material for those who are ending any field working with or for the Deaf community, "Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign Against Sign Language" by Douglas C. Baynton should go on every advocate's To Read list regardless of what they are advocating for.

Discussing, deciphering, and debating both sides of the methods that go into Deaf education (the sign language supporting manualists, and the speech and lip reading preference of oralists), Baynton leaves it up to the reader where they could land when it comes to the topic of the (almost) eradication of sign language from the American Deaf community. Even students and scholars of the controversial topic might jump between the reasons both groups support when they least expect it.

I was one of them, even though I am more a manualist with a modern sense of the state of Deaf education, and the Deaf community's desires.

There were numerous sections of the book I could quote regarding every chapter, and every topic they individually discussed. A handful of important ones that summarize the book are:

"(Manualists and oralists) both could not but fail, for equality cannot be achieved without attention to difference, and difference is not safe when it is accompanied by inequality." (148).

"(In both cases of pure-manualism and pure-oralism), activists push a total solution based on abstract ideals." (154)

"Regardless of efforts to do so -- regardless of how hearing people try to imagine, re-imagine, and reconstruct deafness -- ASL and the Deaf community, it would seam, will not be undone." - Douglas C. Baynton (163)

I find myself incredibly fortunate to be a growing part of the field I am entering, and have the superb support of my family, friends, and boyfriend. Andrew gave me this book for Christmas, and donated to a Deaf organization in my name. His encouragement, and this gift, fuel the fires of motivation as I enter my DIS/ITP practicum this year, and my goals as an ally and advocate!

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this book is incredibly important. It covers the Oralism Movement that began in the early 1900s and lasted all the way through the 1960s. Baynton uses empirical data to show that Oralism (lipreading) just doesn't work on its own without sign language. Parts of this book are heartbreaking because so many lives were ruined by a lack of access to language development, but I think it is very important to know that this happened, because it is still happening, in the form of mainstreaming.

Baynton covers both the Oralist and Manualist sides of the argument, bringing in the historical context, the pseudo-scientific explanations and the major players that coalesced to create this dark period of American Deaf history. I think everyone should read this book, if only to understand why it is ableist to ask "well, can't they just read lips?"

[Cody · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marvellous and detailed description of the tides of opinion in how to educate D/deaf children. An important read for anyone who area about equality and equal access

[Natasha Yankaskas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing and eye-opening; a must read to understand this community

[Emilie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting but depressing. It told the story of the views of many hearing educators of deaf students from the 1860s to the early part of the 20th century. Many tried to eradicate the use of sign language and only have the students learn to speak and lipread. Deaf adults for the most part strongly opposed this trend. It turned out to be a failure, but at the cost of what could have been much better educations for many deaf children. What would become American Sign Language, Deaf culture and a knowledge of Deaf history survived despite the efforts of those teachers, which was a positive thing.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a compelling, thoughtful and detailed argument for the use of ASL in the education of deaf children. I had a rough idea of the history of signing in America, and who the main protagonists were, but this book brings an in depth look at the social changes that not only turned America and being “American” on its ear, but nearly threw ASL out the window. It may be a tad dry for those not interested in the subject, but coming from someone who has difficulty focusing and becoming immersed in reading, this book held me all the way through. The book could use an update, since it was written in the mid-1990s, but its central message still holds very true today. I would highly recommend this to anyone wondering how the oralist movement got started, how ASL was nearly lost, and how a similar movement to oralism may unfortunately be on the rise again.

[Tamra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Details the switch from manualism (the use of ASL in deaf education) to oralism (teaching spoken English and lip-reading), and places it in historical and cultural context.

Seeking out historical context is something that I do for fun, so this book was perfect for me. I was delighted to be able to see something deeper than “Oralism is evil” and “Manualism is wonderful.”

Word of warning, though: Like most books in the Understanding Historical Context Genre, this book is really wordy. If you enjoy in-depth history books with too much detail, then you won’t mind. If that’s not your gig, then don’t bother.

[Stephanie Chang · Rating 4 out of 5]

I struggled to read it a bit because it does have a textbook feel. However, the information in the book is amazing and eye opening. Many times there is not enough class time to delve into the history and its players, the origins of conflicts etc. I knew oralism was bad but I didn't understand what factors produced such a ridiculous idea until i read this book.
I recommend the book for those studying Deaf Culture as it explores how hearing people reacted to deafness, however the year is 2016 and i would love a follow up book. Where are we now in regards to understanding and respecting Deaf people and their needs?

[Jessiane · Rating 3 out of 5]

That people who are not directly involved with a disability (ie, either have it themselves, have a child or have a sibling who has it) do not know what is best for people with that disability. Also with deafness there are varying degrees. I would not force a completly deaf person to read lips and speak. I would not force a slightly deaf person to just sign. It is good. Very insightful into how people like Alexander Graham Bell were very deprimental in the development of real ways to help the deaf

[Jacqueline115 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good for Deaf Culture or Culture Studies course as well as for anyone that wants to know more about ASL as a language & its history.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really wanted to like this book, but couldn't hold my attention. Started as a paper, and continued to keep that "feel" of a book. I'm sure it's great historical reference.

[Diana · Rating 2 out of 5]

This reads purely like a text book. I expected it to be more engaging.

[Missvandort · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book, good research and interesting view.
The epilogue is brilliant.
A must have for all Deaf Studies enthusiasts.

[Emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did I actually read every word of this book? Well, no.
Did I read enough that I feel validated in marking it as read? Heck yes.