Is oralism racist as well as wrong?
Its wrong! But sadly there are millions, billions, even who think its right. In that case then, colonialism is also right and racism is also right and war is also right and fascism is also right.
This is the classical trick that’s played upon the Deaf. They are led to think they are the ones in the wrong. They have to acquire speech and communication in order to fit into a hearing society. Even just a few months ago I went to my audiology department and practically the first thing that was conveyed to me (it had no doubt been formulated upon a quick glance of my audiogram) was:
‘I think you need to have cochlear implants.’
Straightaway that was the iron fist of oralism at hand and very clearly at work!
How could audiologists advocate such a move straight off the bat? Well there’s much thinking now that cochlear implants can benefit those whose hearing is way off the scale. And when I say way off the scale, I don’t mean that its super hearing – its fucking, fucking, way off the scale. In other words the audio graph drops very suddenly. Basically what that means is I haven’t got an iota of hearing in fact! And yet they think by some magical decorum I can become hearing and fully assimilated into society.
It took me sometime to convince them I simply didn’t not want a cochlear implant, and essentially all I wanted was for them to just do an audiogram which I needed (you know, that clever little diagram without which many Deaf are not able to get certain things even because you know, well, we need to be labelled and controlled, pigeonholed, whatever.)
I had not gone to the audiology department for a lecture on why I should consider full assimilation into hearing society. The question is why would oralists/audiologists think in such terms? For a start there’s paternalism. They whole system benefits from profits and gains in converting the Deaf. Its strange that racism is wrong but oralism is right. Essentially one wont find modern oralists saying ‘our system is right’ but its there nevertheless.
Take a walk past a certain institution in London and one will find a poster that advocates that hearing and speech and their training/instruction is, from an audiologist’s view, something that’s necessary in order to survive in society. Its what they deem to be the REAL WORLD.
But what the fuck is the real world? Is it war? The holocaust? The horrific genocide in Gaza? The decimation of billions of animals daily? There’s a long list of things the hearing world does that are wrong, bad, evil, but it takes a certain magnifying glass to examine these things and even so, many who speak will advocate support for the ‘right’ in practising these insidious systems whilst many others will speak against these abjectly insidious systems.
The problem with the hearing world is it has evolved many things that are simply awful. Absolutely horrific. The whole issue with Gaza is the constant justification (almost daily on an oral basis, and no doubt full of of what can only be deemed as evil rhetoric, sheer and abject nationalistic pride etc) that an entire peoples deserve to be wiped out. Its also the same with Ukraine, Sudan, and so many other countries. There’s even this thing where many believe amounts to the the hand of some deity ‘instructing’ them to carry out such endeavours because they’re the ones in the right and the others are in the wrong.
The entire political, societal, moral, and legal playbook is almost entirely based upon hearing and speech. Thus hearing people can play around and spaff up the wall should they wish to. And many chose to do so. There’s loads of instances where hearing people continue to choose to exclude the Deaf or even to use terminology against the Deaf. Its not even a system of any natural order that proposes this abject ideology – and that even though many do think that hearing and speech are natural – and signing isn’t.
I mean one can argue what is natural and what is not. In the truest sense little in terms of humanity is natural. The human world is essentially man made right down to the rivers, the forests and the seas. Even coastlines have been shaped and lands reclaimed from the sea in order to expand the human empire. Countries have been altered beyond recognition by this human world in order to suit its desires. Cites, transport, roads, theme parks, and whatever. Vast swathes of forests have been cleared (take the Amazon for example) in order to procure the meat industry. But by setting foot in certain burger joints and restaurants and institutions, there is no doubt millions are voting with their feet that certain atrocities can be perpetuated without so much as an inkling of opposition.
You know something? Speech was essentially the thing by which humans could grow so big and as a result of that trample all over nature. Yes in a sense the fact humans merely exist can also be said to be a huge reason why nature suffers so much. Humanity is undoubtedly the greatest destructive force on Earth! Nowadays its hard to see a relation between speech and all these destructions. And yet even racism happens to be a product of speech. I have argued that it parachutes from speech. No doubt many will disagree – and that would no doubt be what one would describe as a natural inclination. If only!
Racism basically did not exist until the Europeans began to venture across the seas during the 15th century in the search for new lands and new wealth (even El Dorado where vast amounts of gold were said to exist) and yet the people who were discovered living in those new countries were deemed to be savages. All of that would have occurred around the time Columbus and others had set out for the new world and returned with stories of their discoveries. Almost all of that story telling was done orally. Even in those days reading, even the production of books, was very limited. Both Johannes Gutenberg (1440) who invented the printing press and William Caxton who introduced the machine to England (c1475) are both important figures of the 15th century – but even their attempts to produce books simply meant a slight few more learned people could hope to acquire and read books. The printing press was not a great leveller of any sort for another two centuries.
In terms of the dearth of the printed page, few explorers from these proto-colonial empires could see printed reports of their encountering people of colour. Some wrote letters, even short pamphlets, but that was about it. There no doubt those who had returned to their home lands with glorious tales of new empires had also spoke of the barbarians and savages that lived in these far off lands. Speech was undoubtedly the factor that propelled racism. Explorers spoke of these savages and devised terminology that wasn’t exactly endearing in terms of how the Europeans saw these others. And there was agreement that these natives had to learn the European lingo, to become assimilated, to become followers of the European church and not to the spirits the natives had strongly believed in.
Few people could read but practically everyone could speak! Racism undoubtedly originated at a time when that was very clearly the case. Therefore the medium by which racism grew and perpetuated has to be because of speech (not forgetting hearing as the aural receptor for the oral medium). Some of the few learned, as has just been mentioned, may well have written books or even had books to hand which illustrated the natives’ characteristics and social life in an abjectly negative way.
Given that just a small number of the populace could read (somewhere around 5%) these learned gentry were no doubt pretty well spread out – for example in monasteries or specialist centres (such as libraries or places of commerce – and not the general markets that were to be seen everywhere). Those were places that were out of reach of the general populace. Thus there is no doubt that racism had to be largely propelled by way of speech as the communication medium. Insidious terms and descriptions developed and these soon became regular tools by which racism could be practised.
Even in the 18th and 19th Centuries – this is after industrialisation had begun to take a foothold and books and newspapers were being printed en masse, huge swathes of the populace still could not read. In the 18th century around one in ten could read. Still not a lot in fact. Curiously it was the learned who were dictating the requirements for what can only be racism – and that through slavery, exploitation, exhortation, the conquest of other lands and so on. And many of those figures were given statues for having made some sort of contribution to society – often on the backs of slavery and the propelled intents of racism.
Even by the mid 18th Century slavery was still a thing. Doubly too at the same time, the populace had a very low reading skill profile. By this time perhaps 50% of the population in England could read. Its only by this time that slavery begins to be seen as bad practice. This was the period of what one would call the Enlightenment with Rousseau, the Quakers and others criticising the practice of slavery. In both Britain and the States movements began to grow which campaigned for the abolition of slavery.
Its so easy to write a convincing case why racism arose. That being due to the use of speech – that lovely oral medium so many are imbibed by! The curiosity is quite why basically no-one has used this glaring evidence. Its probably because of cognitive dissonance – or perhaps its that no-one wants to state the obvious. Not even the anti racists. This being the glorious art form of speech indeed constitutes a massive oppression. Now we know why the oralists and audists very interestingly look the other way when extolling the advantages of their ‘system’ against that of the Deaf! There can be little doubt its the very existence of this machinery is why so many tend to look the other way. Its an inbuilt cognizance.
Curiously oralism headed in the opposite direction. It was touted as a world good. Again a simple factor of looking the other way while touting what were patently ridiculous claims. You know, its the same exact playbook that was used against the natives. They were criticised for being savages, barbarians and so on by way of having simple, uncomplicated lives. Yet the colonialists, the white settlers too were savages, barbarians. They brought guns, rifles, cannon with which to conquer the natives. The settlers simply could not see the wood for the trees. They were too big for their own boots.
One could argue the need for slavery was being replaced with some other nefarious need where the practice of submission and coercion of something could be continued. Again a complete failure to see the wood for the trees. Hence no-one was going to argue that it was wrong to see the Deaf as a fresh target for such endeavours. In a sense, it was something that followed the Europeans’ desire to ‘rescue’ the natives from what they thought was a life of despair and needless poverty. This was achieved by converting them to great house of Christianity or whatever – and where at least a kinder God would give them greater benefits.
This is exactly the same playbook used against the Deaf. ‘Let’s lift the deaf and the dumb out of their misery with speech!’ There’s no doubt those with speech and hearing were a miserable lot of fucks who needed some sort of reason for their own sordid existence. Exactly the same playbook used on the natives. The Deaf’s apparent backwardness (or their being classed as being of the same house as the animals because they had gestures and not speech) could only in the eyes of those with speech and hearing be resolved by way of also being offered to the house of God. That because it was often thought the Deaf had been cast out in to the wilds as a punishment. Thus the hearing people, indeed their missionaries, were attempting to ‘restore’ the Deaf’s speech (and ennoble a greater use of any residual hearing), thus enabling their assimilation into society. In that sense then, the punishment was over – and the Deaf were no-more – for they had become hearing. Yay! Everyone is now hearing! What’s there not to like about that?
There were many failures however. Those that failed they were locked up caged, punished, sentenced to death even. There was little recourse against the vast power of a speech society. And its that medium which sought to envision new ways of assimilation and coercion. The same playbook that had been used in racism was now being used for the newly found doctrine of oralism. Oralists and other speech ennoblers had to recourse to more desperate ways to achieve assimilation. Milan 1880 and the comprehensive banning of sign language was merely a start. It would eventually transpire into Eugenics and also a dress rehearsal for the eventual Holocaust by way of the Deaf being the Nazis’ very first appointed victims in 1933. The Deaf were classed as ‘biologically inferior and useless eaters’. This motive was established in order to prevent the Deaf from having children and passing on their ‘defects’.
Racism, nay even oralism, is not about being in a forest where, because of the lack of presence of people, no-one can hear the sound being made by trees which happened to fall. Racism and oralism were indeed a forest where many trees were deliberately felled in the presence of the Europeans or those who wanted a speech supremacy. Many could hear those trees being felled and they spread the message forth orally. Each of those trees that were felled was yet another confirmation that people of indigenous origin and even the Deaf ought to be seen in a negative light. There’s absolutely no doubt this is how racism started and its too how oralism sustained its sordid game long after racism had been challenged and considerably brought to book.
The other problem in terms of the spread of information (and the horrific attitudes the ensued – this was the same for other unfortunates such as women accused of witchcraft – as I have written elsewhere) was, even if books and pamphlets were printed en masse, basically the entire populace couldn’t read anyway. Even though its already been said, it must no doubt be stressed quite strongly because its evidence enough that societies spoke and its by the medium of speech that racism developed. That even though it could also be depicted in print too when people learnt to read and books and newspapers eventually became mass produced.
Even to fully implement the horrors of the world wars it was found that skilled oration and rhetoric was the effective medium. Authoritative speech has considerable impact and its even more so when delivered with a certain skill. Its why such works as Orwell’s 1984 constitute a dire warning about communication and how it can be used to coerce and brainwash vast swathes of the population – largely achieved by means of Newspeak and clever delivery by means of oral dictation through mass rallies and media devices placed in everyone’s home. These devices operated as surveillance too which was necessary in order to ensure everyone duly complied with Big Brother. 1984 basically shows speech could indeed be a load of sheer kerfuffle and a ridiculous, ironic, but quite clearly insidious rhetoric too. Oceania’s rhetoricians no doubt desired an impact that was intended as being massively serious – but not only that, there was danger too for those who chose to disregard the constantly relayed messages being broadcast.
The seriousness of speech alone is why people pay to hear politicians or other noted people give talks, lectures, at gatherings, rallies or even those upper class after dinner speeches. To this day there is no doubt a copious amount of messaging (and even indoctrination) is still delivered largely by speech. In fact it is still by large the most effective method of disseminating ideology. Speech is very clearly the opium of the hearing world.
The reason that people are better educated on racism nowadays, as well as being more aware of equality and rights – is because it has taken a long time to get to this point. Its taken centuries to undo the damage speech had done. The irony is speech has had to be used to illustrate how a great wrong had been done. Even so, speech can easily cause even more greater wrongs – and we see so many examples of that even to this day.
Few try to see how history has largely been controlled by speech as a doctrine delivery system. In a sense many do not want to know – because if speech gets blamed well its pretty much the fault of the entire world! Its often why supremacies often try to avoid scoring their own goals. What is worse even is the fact few equate this modus of speech with the doctrine of oralism. People either don’t know (because in large society as a hearing medium doesn’t want to know) or they choose not to know because they think speech and hearing is superior. The Deaf and the animals don’t speak therefore they’re not privileged to enjoy the benefits a speaking/hearing society has. In much the same way animals are fenced in and kept in cages, the Deaf too are firewalled and excluded, and its a means by which the supremacist society maintains its status.
What is now known as oralism, as already mentioned, had began roughly around the same time as that of racism. The notion of the other was no doubt responsible for this. In an overall sense, some form of oralism/audism has existed for nearly as long as speech has existed. I don’t mean oralism existed the very moment speech took off or that oralism/audism was even a thing. It wasn’t. But certainly elements of it did exist. There’s no doubt speech took a long time to reach a point where began to develop ideas beyond a very simplistic sense. It would have been about then that people were reasoning, deducting, even, that those without speech were savages.
You see, the racism playbook (and indeed that of oralism) was being rehearsed many centuries before either had even became a substantial force. Its said speech had developed possibly 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. No-one knows exactly when of course. But is it important to have a rough idea. That is good enough for this discussion. Let’s say 75,000 years ago? In those days (or eras more like) things were slow. Exceedingly slow in fact. No books, no television for a start. A bit like Plato’s cave. People existed but everything in terms of any sort of greater developed knowledge was merely shadows on the walls of the cave. People could see the sun, the moon, the stars, but beyond that it was a total mystery – and basically no-one questioned anything. Its only in the last three to four thousand years (that’s forty centuries ago) that the earliest recognisable developed human societies began to form. The Sumerians, Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley were the first apparently. These were times when speech and knowledge could be used to devolve what were essentially structured societies. There were questions, debates, logic, structural formulations, and even defined boundaries. But lest not forget Deaf people existed in those days too and they used sign language. And let’s not forget too that when the first Europeans invaded the Americans (or elsewhere) often the natives were found to be using sign language as well as speech.
As structured (indeed civilised) society advanced, speech (the art of talking, oration, discourse, debate, philosophical retrospection etc) began to ensure that only those with speech were indeed part of a greater intelligence. Speech was seen as the litmus by which intelligence, indeed superiority (and control and mastery of a society and its very governance) could be defined. Not only that power of any sort too could only be trusted to those with speech and hearing. Those without speech (or even used what were the sign languages of the time) were seen as outsiders basically. When one considers outsiders, well that is what the Deaf were. They didn’t fit in. Those with speech and hearing looked to each other and said ‘these without speech and waving their hands about they’re not much use are they?’ (I don’t know if that’s what they said but we can imagine it was likely something of that sort).
The efforts of the missionaries and learned gentlemen soon saw to it that the Deaf ought to learn to speak – otherwise they ought to be cast out from society for ever. In a sense speech was developing what can only be seen as indifference. The separation of others from the main body of society. There’s no doubt people opposed ideas and debated and even groups of people gathered to oppose what they thought was a wrongful notion. This happened in these early societies, even in the Hellenic societies (Greece for example). Very clearly there was right there was wrong. And people indeed opposed what they thought was wrong.
But when it came to the Deaf, there is certainty that very few thought that being Deaf was right. Many thought it wrong. It was assumed it was a punishment from the Gods that prevailed in the skies (or in peoples’ minds rather) therefore to be Deaf and to not have speech was very clearly a punishment. In other situations it was though the evil spirits had cast spells on the babies that were born to mothers and fathers. Hence the presence of a Deaf baby was also seen as a punishment to the parents concerned. Even in those cases it was thought the hearing had done some sort of wrong and that is why their siblings were Deaf. Surprisingly its an attitude that still pervades today.
Very clearly there’s right and wrong. Those with speech were right. Those without were wrong. God gave those speech because speech was a gift. God took speech away from those who did not have it because it was a punishment. A punishment is effected invariably because people think the deed was wrong or evil. Its almost as if society thinks some had opted to be Deaf! In a sense its also why there was this racist view against the natives whose countries were colonialised. Their being-in-the-world was seen as a complete wrong and its why such horrific attitudes evolved which led to racism and worse. There’s no doubt a large amount of rhetoric about the Deaf has too evolved by way of good versus bad – with the Deaf being on the side of bad. Today many still think – hearing/speech equates right and Deaf/Non-verbal/Signing means wrong.
The notion of Deaf people has therefore been seen as one of wrongness. Hence for the last twenty, thirty even forty centuries or so – to be Deaf has been seen as something that has not been right. And even now its still in a large sense not seen as being right. In this same intervening period, racism, which can too be considered a leaf out of the hearing playbook used against the Deaf, basically emerged within the last FOUR centuries. Not forty. Four! Racism too was thought to be right. What were deemed to be ‘undeveloped peoples’ (indigenous people in fact) had to be controlled, forced into coercion and assimilated. They were in the way of progress just as the Deaf too were. Few batted an eyelid. Slavery became endemic as the quest for colonialisation took hold. It was horrific.
Its taken two centuries or so to put right the wrongs of racism. Even so, there are still many wrongs that are being perpetuated. One however can be said to be in no doubt that if any racist ideology was clearly to be seen, great opposition would soon be encountered, which is a good thing. How could the existence of others be even seen as a great wrong? This is why racism has to be challenged – and that because it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. Yet in terms of oralism, that too is a sort of racist endeavour. However its not challenged, not even on the scale that racism is challenged. That strangely because oralism/audism and the notion the Deaf are inferior and this view is still held substantially as a right that many choose to embrace.
Hence the Deaf have classically been seen as outsiders. This is what the notion of racism originally espoused. Those outside of European society were outsiders, and savages, barbarians and whatever. They need to be challenged, assimilated, vanquished even. This is what occurs with the Deaf. Society has no doubt moved on a bit – but overall the major inclination is to still think Deaf equates inferior. Being outside of and not being able to exist with the main body of society. That is the notion of oralism (and indeed of audism). Its all of the things that can be found in the racist playbook. What’s more surprising is how much longer it has perpetuated and how much lesser even to this day it is challenged. In a sense it can be said humanity practises what can only be a proto-form of racism when it comes to the Deaf.
In an overall sense there’s every indication society wants to nip one attitude completely because its seen as wrong, offensive, and even oppressive. That is racism. In the same sense however society wants to encourage a similar attitude because its right, its appropriate, and more importantly, forcibly inclusive. Assimilation in other words. That is oralism/audism. Society can’t have it both ways. One wrong should not ever mean another wrong is right. One cannot have something that is very clearly seen as a mighty wrong – and yet practice a form of that wrong as if its an unabated right. This is the proto-racism that exists under the label of oralism.
I wrote this in the space of a few short hours. Its no doubt a personal view and its one that’s highlighted with a certain amount of knowledge or understanding I had gleaned over the years. I thought about illustrating it with pictures as well as linking to a number of references. In the event it was deemed best not to do this because the work was essentially flowing from my fingers and I didn’t really want to stop typing.
Absolutely no AI has been used – except for the main feature image.
