Is oralism still a thing?

Of course oralism is still a thing. It hasn’t gone away. But is it still prevalent? Is it still having an effect? Hence ‘Is oralism still a thing’ was asked to several AI Chat engines. There isn’t a particular order to this. Its done in order of whichever AI Chat had first came to mind and the question thus posed.

Mention must be made of the fact that each and every one of these chat engines seem to have somehow missed the mark on oralism in a number of ways. The concepts behind the doctrine of oralism have been laid out quite well (bar those from Deep AI and Gening AI which gave quite short and piss-poor answers – and those two have been excluded from this post).

However its done in what is essentially a considerably miss affair because even though each says oralism still exists yet not so prevalent. It is quite prevalent still – just not in ways that humanity itself would recognise therefore AI has also adopted essentially what can be said to be a compromised view of oralism. Essentially its very hard to eliminate an ideology completely and when its one that’s potentially the business of the entire world, the ideology will doubtless be found in every single corner of the planet. Its certainly there even though the extent of persuasion isn’t as evident as it once was.

Chat AI, Google AI and Grok managed to conclude that audism and oralism were basically one and the other. Grok when prompted concluded oralism came from audism and the latter was ‘a broader societal attitude of prejudice or discrimination against deaf people, while oralism is a specific pedagogical approach focused on communication methods.’

Surprisingly Chat AI came up with the assertion that ‘Audism and oralism are two distinct concepts related to deafness and Deaf culture, but they are often interconnected in practice.’

Google AI also did a good job by explain that ‘audism is an attitude of prejudice, and oralism is a specific method or practice that stems from and reinforces that audist mindset.’

That is exactly how audism and oralism work. They’re essentially partners in crime. The subject is discussed in a further article to be published.

Evidently a hearing society has a two pronged approach. In historical terms oralism was the first on the scene – but audism has always existed in one way or another, even in Roman times. Its much like fascism and its relevant regalia that can also be traced back to those days more than two centuries ago. The reason audism became a thing was because Tom Humphries saw there was distinct level of oppression at work. He explained there was a need to have a term that closely paralleled that of racism. See Humphries’ explanation of why that was necessary. In any event its clear both audism and oralism are subservient to each other. Essentially one cannot exist without the other.

As mentioned, the discussion on audism/oralism is continued in a second part.

Here are the AI Chat results. The question was ‘Is oralism still a thing?’

Perplexity:

Oralism—the education approach emphasizing speech and lip-reading over sign language—still exists, though it is much less dominant than in the past and is widely debated within deaf education and culture today. cbc+2

Modern Status of Oralism

Oralism is no longer the standard or sole method in most Western countries, but remnants of the philosophy remain, particularly through methods like Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) and programs emphasizing cochlear implants and speech training. wikipedia+1
Some schools and therapies continue to offer oral-only or speech-focused instruction, sometimes at parental request. wikipedia
The use of sign language is no longer widely forbidden in educational environments, and students and families are often encouraged to choose between different communication methods. cbc+1

Current Controversy and Criticism

Many in the deaf community criticize oralism for being rooted in the idea that speech is “better” than sign language, which is seen as harmful and culturally insensitive. reddit+1
There are concerns that exclusive oralist approaches can result in language deprivation, social isolation, and harm to cognitive and cultural development if sign language is withheld. wikipedia
Despite changes in policy and attitudes, the “ripple effects” of oralism—social, cultural, and educational—are still felt. varsity+1

Where Oralism Persists

Some specialized schools and centers for deaf and hard-of-hearing children remain focused on spoken language acquisition, sometimes as the primary mode of instruction. wikipedia
In families and communities, especially where parents wish their deaf child to integrate with the mainstream hearing population, oralism is often chosen. wikipedia

Evolution of Deaf Education

Current best practices in deaf education include giving children and families informed choices about communication methods.
The integration of sign language, spoken language, and assistive technologies (like cochlear implants) provides a more balanced, individualized approach. cbc+1

In summary, oralism is still present but now exists alongside and often in tension with sign language-based and bilingual approaches, rather than as a universal standard. varsity+2

Google Gemini AI:

Yes, while the original, strict form of oralism is less common, the underlying philosophy continues in modern deaf education through Listening and Spoken Language (LSL) approaches, which emphasize auditory perception through hearing aids and cochlear implants to promote speech. This evolution represents a continuation of the oralist focus on speech acquisition, but it is often more nuanced than historical oralism, which strictly prohibited sign language.

How modern approaches incorporate oralist principles:

Emphasis on hearing technology:Modern techniques focus on helping deaf children perceive auditory signals from devices like hearing aids and cochlear implants.
Developing spoken language:The goal remains to develop a child’s ability to use spoken language, even though it is recognized as a difficult process.
Parental involvement:Families play a crucial role in supporting their child’s auditory and spoken language development.

Historical context and modern evolution:

Historical oralism:In the past, strict oralist methods were enforced, which involved a significant emphasis on speech and a strict prohibition of sign language.
Shift in philosophy:The modern approach, often known as LSL, has evolved from historical oralism to a more inclusive and technological focus, acknowledging both the benefits of hearing technology and the challenges of speech acquisition for many deaf children.
Continued debates:The debate between oralism and other methods, including sign language, is not fully resolved, with some individuals still advocating for a return to stricter oral methods.

Microsoft Bing Chat:

Oralism is still a significant aspect of deaf education, although its practices have evolved over time. Historically, oralism emphasized the use of speech and lipreading as the primary means of communication for deaf individuals, which has been criticized for its potential harm to the Deaf community.

Alexander Graham Bell was a prominent advocate for oralism, believing that speech was superior to sign language, which has led to ongoing debates about its effectiveness and impact on Deaf education.
Contemporary views increasingly recognize the importance of both oralism and American Sign Language (ASL) in Deaf education, promoting inclusive communication methods that respect the diverse needs of the Deaf community.
The debate continues, with some advocating for a blend of both methods to better support Deaf individuals in their communication and identity. In summary, while oralism has its roots in the past, its relevance and practices are still being shaped by ongoing discussions and educational practices today.

(NOTE: The first is from Wikipedia. 2 is from Preserve Rhode Island. 3 is from Gallaudet University.)

Chat GPT:

Yes, oralism is still a thing, but it’s much more controversial and less dominant than it once was.

🔹 What is Oralism?

Oralism is a method of teaching deaf individuals to use spoken language and lip reading instead of sign language. It often involves speech therapy and discourages or outright bans the use of sign language.

🔹 Is Oralism Still Used Today?

Yes, but in different ways depending on context:

In some schools and programs, especially ones emphasizing integration into the hearing world, oralism is still promoted—especially for children with cochlear implants or residual hearing.
Some parents opt for oral-only education for their deaf children, especially if they believe it will help them communicate more easily in a hearing-dominant society.
Speech therapy is still common for many deaf and hard-of-hearing kids, often in combination with sign language.

🔹 Why Is Oralism Controversial?

Oralism has a painful history, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries:

Sign language was banned in many schools after the 1880 Milan Conference, where oralism was officially endorsed.
Many deaf children were punished for signing, and denied access to Deaf culture and their natural language (sign language).
It led to generations of deaf people growing up linguistically isolated and struggling to communicate effectively.

🔹 What’s the Trend Now?

The modern trend is more toward bilingual-bicultural (Bi-Bi) education, which teaches both:

Sign language as the primary language
Spoken/written language (e.g., English) as a second language

This approach supports full language development while still providing access to the hearing world.

✅ Summary

Yes, oralism is still practiced, especially in certain educational or medical contexts.
But it’s no longer the dominant or unquestioned approach, and it’s been heavily criticized by the Deaf community.
There’s a growing recognition of the value of sign language and Deaf culture, and more emphasis on choices tailored to each individual deaf person or child.

If you’re asking this in a specific context (like education, policy, or personal experience), I can tailor the answer further.

Grok xAI:

Oralism, the educational approach that emphasizes teaching deaf children to communicate exclusively through spoken language, lip reading, and speech production while suppressing sign language, remains a significant and controversial practice in deaf education as of 2025. While it has declined sharply since its peak in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—particularly after the 1880 Milan Conference that endorsed it and banned sign language in schools—it has not disappeared. Instead, it persists in various forms, often rebranded or integrated with modern technologies like cochlear implants and hearing aids.

Historical Context and Decline

Oralism gained dominance in the U.S. and Europe around the 1860s–1880s, promoted by figures like Alexander Graham Bell, who argued it would better integrate deaf people into hearing society. Schools like the Clarke School for the Deaf (founded 1867) pioneered “pure oralism,” focusing on speech therapy and lip reading over signs. However, studies later showed it was largely ineffective: only about 10% of deaf students achieved intelligible speech, and lip reading succeeded for just 4%, often leaving children linguistically deprived and hindering cognitive development. By the mid-20th century, backlash grew, leading to the rise of Total Communication (combining signs and speech) and bilingual approaches (sign language as the primary mode). The 1960s–1970s marked a shift, with sign language gaining recognition as a full language.

Current Status

Today, oralism is far from universal but is still actively used in many settings, especially for young deaf children with access to amplification devices. Key points from recent data and discussions:

Prevalence in Schools: Approximately 90% of deaf institutions worldwide retain some oralist elements, though 60% now blend them with manual (sign-based) methods. In the U.S., a majority of deaf students receive mediated education (e.g., via interpreters or captions), but many are still enrolled in oral programs, particularly those tied to cochlear implants.
Modern Evolution: Oralism has evolved into “Listening and Spoken Language” (LSL) approaches, which prioritize auditory access through implants and hearing aids alongside speech training. This is common in early intervention programs, where parents are often advised to enforce device use 24/7 and avoid signs to prevent “dependency.”
Regional Variations: In places like India, deaf students are routinely forced into oralism, denying them sign language development. In Scotland, historical oralist policies are critiqued for undermining local sign languages, with recent debates highlighting its resurgence in education. In the U.S., segregated Black deaf schools historically resisted oralism longer, preserving sign language (e.g., Black American Sign Language) and providing better linguistic access in some cases.

Aspect	Oralism’s Role Today	Evidence/Examples
Support	Used for integration into hearing environments; seen as empowering with tech like cochlear implants.	Clarke School continues oral education; LSL programs in U.S. pediatric audiology clinics.
Criticism	Causes language deprivation, trauma, and lower academic outcomes; ignores deaf cultural identity.	Reddit discussions (2025) note oral-only schools still exist, with parents warned signs make kids “unsuccessful”; leads to “passing as hearing” over real learning.
Alternatives Gaining Ground	Bilingualism (sign + spoken language) and Total Communication in ~40% of programs.	Gallaudet University promotes sign-based education; recent shifts in non-oral schools emphasize signed language acquisition.

Ongoing Debate and Concerns

The deaf community largely views oralism as oppressive, with recent X posts (as of September 2025) decrying it as a “huge, avoidable barrier” that traumatizes children by prioritizing speech over natural sign language. Advocacy groups push for sign language rights, but hearing parents and some educators still opt for oral methods, influenced by medical advice. While progress is evident—e.g., more schools adopting bilingualism—oralism’s legacy endures, affecting an estimated majority of deaf children’s early education and sparking heated discussions on platforms like Reddit and X.

In short, yes, oralism is still very much “a thing,” though it’s increasingly hybridized and contested. For deaf families, choices often depend on access to sign-language resources and cultural priorities.

The featured image is from the rehearsals for Samuel Beckett’s Not I. The image was adapted from a ResearchGate document on sensory deprivation. There’s no doubt this famous monologue (or whatever it is meant to be) is one of Beckett’s celebrated works and its a work of art that is highly esteemed by linguists and of course its adored by those who do hear and speak. It is a significant step in terms of artistic or acting recognition for those who undertake to perform the very difficult monologue that is required. Not I is a huge sell-out whenever it is performed. It features a woman who is virtually mute and when she does manage to utter something, its quite incoherent. The mouthing is meant to signify a release from torment and repression.

In personal terms, Not I is one of the most obnoxious and vulgar displays of oralism – as simple as that. Not I is about sensory deprivation and that is exactly what a number of techniques in oralism involves. The anger for some Deaf victims that comes from the repression incurred by oralism is simply unquantifiable. The film brought back so many bad memories I had to leave the lecture because the showing of Beckett’s film utterly sickened me. The degree subject being studied in University at the time was linguistics and I promptly transferred the subject to one of sociology instead. Whenever oralism gets raised in any context – even here on Deaf21 – Not I is a particular abject and sickening image that regularly comes to mind.