Kannapell’s 1993 Paper Revisited
Hi All,
This blog entry is to follow up with Ann_C’s i.Reflections blog entry that was posted today. Ann_C used one of the commenters’ comment from my blog discussing about the published papers by Dr. Jane K. Fernandes and Dr. Shirley Shultz Myers.
Hope this isn’t getting too long, but I want to share one story. Twenty years ago almost to the day, I attended a deaf culture workshop at Gallaudet. A famous Deaf presenter showed a pyramid of the hierarchy of Deaf culture, with ASL-using Deaf of Deaf at the top, then deaf of hearing who use ASL, then oral deaf, and then hearing. The Deaf of Deaf at the top, of course, are the most valued by the Deaf community because they are presumed to transmit Deaf cultural values from one generation to the next.
Another pyramid showed the hierarchy of hearing people, with hearing at the top, then oral deaf who speak and hear pretty well, then signing deaf who speak somewhat but don’t hear, and last, deaf who don’t sign or speak. At the time, I accepted that information as God’s honest truth. But now, I’m rethinking that whole concept. Deaf of Deaf on top — says who? Says them. I never even questioned it! Now, especially after working in the field for 20+ years, and seeing the diversity of deaf people, I have lots of questions. And I see those Deaf of Deaf people on the vlogs every day, and I have to wonder if they are really representing *my* best interests, or if they are more interested in preserving their positions of authority at the top of the hierarchy.
The presentation was from Dr. Barbara Kannapell in early 1990’s.
I wanted to give you an opportunity to revisit the paper done by Dr. Barbara Kannapell. Dr. Kannapell is one of the earliest scholars focusing on the area of Deaf Studies. Kannapell earned a doctorate degree in Sociolinguistics from Georgetown University in 1985. Kannapell’s dissertation title was “Language Choice Reflects Identity Choice: A Sociolinguistic Study of Deaf College Students”
I consider Kannapell as one of the most important pioneers in Deaf Studies.
In 1993, Dr. Kannapell wrote a paper, “The Power Structure in the Deaf Community” that was published in Deaf Studies III: Bridging Cultures in the 21st Century, Conference Proceedings (Washington, DC: College of Continuing Education, Gallaudet University, 1993).
My thoughts about this paper:
This paper was very controversial at that time, and some people think this paper can cause division within the Deaf Community. Remember, it was in 1993, and it was 16 years ago.
A lot of things had happened within 16 years, and several factors may cause significant changes within our Deaf community which are different educational opportunities, access to early intervention programs, general acceptance of American Sign Language as a bona-fide language, and technological advances provided for Deaf people.
Right now, we need to let go of so-called hierarchy within our Deaf community, and allow us work together to focus on the value of American Sign Language as signing community.
This paper, “Power Structure In The Deaf Community” is published on Seattle Central Community College’s website. The link is here. Please go to this website to read the whole paper.
Here are the excerpts:
To work together successfully at the political level in the American mainstream society, we first need to understand ourselves in relation to the power structure in society and in the Deaf community.
Who has more power in the Deaf community: native ASL users or signed English users? Deaf adults with Deaf parents or hearing parents? Deaf people from mainstream schools or Deaf schools? Those who choose to use speech or those who don’t choose to use speech? Born-deaf or deafened people?
I propose that there are two hierarchies of status and power in the Deaf community. One hierarchy represents status in the community of hearing people from the educators’ point of view; the other hierarchy represents status in and access to the Deaf community. The second hierarchy is the direct opposite of the first one.
The hierarchy to get into the Deaf community is quite the opposite of the hierarchy to get into the hearing community. To be successful in the Deaf community, you must know ASL and Deaf culture and have experiences of growing up in Deaf School.
Deaf people in America face a competition between two languages and two cultures. Once we understand why this happens in the Deaf community, we begin to break away from old definitions of ourselves. If we succeed, we experience a paradigm shift.
To understand Deaf people as an oppressed group, we must look at the historical development of the dominant paradigm used to define Deaf people. Once conscious of our oppression, we can redefine ourselves and shift to an alternate paradigm.
The understanding of the hierarchies of status and social identity and the dynamics of power and oppression gives Deaf people tools for self-understanding and community building. With a clearer and stronger sense of their individual and community identity, they can go far in empowering other Deaf people. They can take control of the education of Deaf children and create a system that eliminates the ambivalence and power struggle between the two hierarchies. That’s why it is very important to place the study of the power structure in the Deaf community in Deaf Studies programs.
Amy Cohen Efron here:
I understood about hierarchies of status and social identity, and my question is what kind of tools that will help for community building?
Talking about taking control of the education of Deaf children, is one of the tools?
That is going to be very difficult because…
Many schools are struggling to recruit highly qualified Deaf teachers and administrators, and the job market are very competitive for a Deaf person. Some Deaf people did not want to become educators, and they want to become entrepreneurs (i.e. VRS industry). The pool of qualified Deaf teachers and administrators are shrinking and the population of Deaf children are very different compared to Deaf children in 1970’s and 1980’s. Current education laws which made difficult for ANY teacher to maintain their certification with so many hoops to jump across throughout their career. Generally, educators are underpaid, under-appreciated and overworked. Job turnover is quite high too.
Then, the tool is to market American Sign Language? Yes. That’s something we, as the Deaf community, can do.
Best,
Amy Cohen Efron
August 16th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Amy Cohen Efron says: Deaf people in America face a competition between two languages and two cultures. Once we understand why this happens in the Deaf community, we begin to break away from old definitions of ourselves. If we succeed, we experience a paradigm shift.
To understand Deaf people as an oppressed group, we must look at the historical development of the dominant paradigm used to define Deaf people. Once conscious of our oppression, we can redefine ourselves and shift to an alternate paradigm.
To get a vivid piture, would you be so kind as to give an example of the last line of each paragragh — i.e.;
lst ¶ “If we succeed, we experience a paradigm shift” 2nd ¶ “Once conscious of our oppression, we can redefine ourselves and shift to an alternate paradigm”
Have we seen any paradigm shift since the paper was written in 1993? If so, for example? Is the said paper in agreement with or a conflict with the Fernandes-Nyers paper?
August 17th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Hello Amy:
Yes, we can market ASL and benefit from it.
Thanks for sharing Barbara’s reports. I remember them.
We need to deprogram the deaf adults from years of cognitive control by audists.
=)
August 17th, 2009 at 2:38 am
Because so many Deaf children are now mainstreamed using interpreters, and because state-run schools for Deaf children are shrinking and even disappearing, the schools do not seem to be “struggling to hire highly qualified Deaf teachers and administrators.”
Indeed, education as a career, particularly administrative careers, is becoming less of an option for a Deaf person, however well qualified. Immediately after DPN in 1988 there was an upsurge. At one point there were 14 superintendents who were themselves Deaf. How many are there now?
August 17th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Hi Jean,
These excerpts are from Dr. Kannapell’s paper, and these are not my words.
Were you able to check the link I provided for you to read the whole paper?
Thanks
Amy
August 17th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Currently there are many DOD that are mainstreamed. Times have changed. I think typical Deaf hierarchy isn’t automatic in many areas. In WI, for example, you will find many DOD being in the power of their deaf organizations. However, in IL, especially Chicago area, the hierarchy isn’t based on the expected model.
Even after almost 20 years, we are seeing the tide shifting a bit…if not much, but it shifted.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I speak as an employee at one of the “bi-bi” schools for the deaf. At my school, the majority of people in administrative positions are Deaf of Deaf. One school year, ALL of the new teachers that were hired were deaf. I’m not sure the current percentage of deaf to hearing teachers, but it’s probably 50% or more. The language of instruction is ASL exclusively.
Sounds good, right? Well, some of these Deaf of Deaf administrators would like to, or are actively trying to eliminate aspects of the program having anything to do with speech and hearing, and anything that smacks of the medical model of deafness, such as assessments and IEPs. Our superintendent has talked for years about establishing a CI program, but it’s not happening. My personal opinion is that Deaf of Deaf educators want total control of schools for the deaf so that they can recreate deaf education like it used to be in the glory days before Milan 1880 when, supposedly, every deaf person was literate in English and was employed in a skilled vocation.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of ASL as the language of instruction for SOME deaf students. Based on my experience, I just don’t believe it should be the only option. By not accommodating deaf students with different needs and abilities, such as those who have speech, hearing, and/or CIs, I fear that student populations using ASL exclusively will continue to shrink, and deaf schools will continue to close. My school has a job opening for which no one from outside the school applied. Is it because some qualified applicants are hearing, fluent in ASL, but think they won’t be hired because they are not deaf? Is it because a qualified deaf person thinks because s/he does not have deaf parents or go to a deaf school is not deaf enough? Is it because Deaf politics are not so friendly any more?
The problem as I see it is that most Deaf of Deaf know only their own world. They are very insular and very ethnocentric. Insularity and ethnocentrism are the problems, not the individuals we all know and respect, if not love. The tools are communication, a willingness to examine oneself, and engage in dialogue, in whatever language, not just ASL.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I’m Deaf and a native user of ASL. I’m the furthest biased. I don’t like non-Deaf in charge of anything Deaf if they don’t know what they’re doing. On the other side there’s Deaf-centric operations there’s a need to look at the long-avoided issues: cronyism, favoritism, nepotism to name three of many more underling issues the Deaf community needs to attack, address and make concessions. Aforementioned issues neglected by the Deaf will result in the Deaf community losing credibility.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Secondly, many Deaf of Deaf who were mainstreamed (specifically in classes with hearing pupils) don’t talk much about it especially on the “academic” side of this because they fear insulting Deaf schools in general.
The Deaf Schools vs. Mainstreaming debate is a sham because it often excludes the deaf in truly mainstream settings NOT self-contained classes for the Deaf.
Mainstreamed Deaf Students are those who attend classes with interpreters. Period. NOT those who attends Self-Contained Classes for Deaf students in non-Deaf schools.
(MOST DEBATED)
Deaf Schools vs. Self-Contained Deaf in non-Deaf Schools (wrongfully lumped nowadays as mainstreaming)
(OFTEN AVOIDED BY DEAF SCHOOLS)
Deaf Schools vs. Mainstreamed Deaf Students in non-Deaf Schools.
(A DEBATE I’D LOVE TO SEE)
Self-Contained Deaf in non-Deaf Schools (wrongfully lumped nowadays as mainstreaming) vs. Mainstreamed Deaf Students in non-Deaf Schools.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Jay (#3), It is simply not true to say that state-run schools for the deaf are disappearing. In the last eight years ONLY ONE school was closed (one of two schools in Virginia). The Scranton school was not closed, but simply turned into a quasi-governmental school.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Just because someone is deaf — in any flavor — does not make them qualified. Assuming a hearing person is fluent in ASL, I would choose a qualified hearing person over an unqualified deaf person. Damage has occurred in schools and agencies because of unqualified deaf people getting positions on basis of their position on the Deaf power structure.
Deafism is just as bad as audism, if not worse, because deaf people will put their trust in another deaf person assuming s/he will do the right thing because s/he is deaf too. Instead of looking at someone’s position on the power structure, I look at them as human beings. What are their qualifications, experiences, knowledge, skills, reputation, integrity, and moral values? Track record as an administrator, teacher, etc.? Those are the things that really matter. It’s ironic to me that Deaf of Deaf put boxes around their ears just as much as they accuse hearing people of doing.
I do agree with Mr. Hawkins that I do not like hearing people who know nothing about deaf people or deaf education making decisions about our schooling without any input from trained specialists such as are available at residential schools for the deaf. Hopefully that is one of the things that has changed since 1993.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Input needs to be most objective as in unbiased. I can’t at all say for many representing various sides in the spectrum of Deaf Education. The Federal government needs to publish data for all to see.
That way schools will no longer be able to skirt and hide statistics and resort to smoke screens (e.g. claiming to use the county public school curriculum but not actually applying the rigors across the board).
This includes comparisons of not two but three different basic settings: Deaf Schools (with a sub-category for ASL / Bi-Bi); Self-Contained Classes in non-Deaf schools; Real Mainstreaming only in the core areas of academics within non-Deaf schools.
WIthin and across above comparisons there’s a need to publish data by methodologies used within each component of Deaf Education.
One word for you: transparency. It’s pointless debating without hard data.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
By methodologies I meant which mode of communication: Real (not grassroots) American Sign Language and other sign systems (SEE, etc.), Cued Speech/English, Aural and so on.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 am
To Robert Hawkins:
Federal Government already did research on deaf education twice:
1965 – Babbidge Report on oralism failures
1988 – Commission on Education of the deaf – again oralism failures
What does that entail?
Why is everyone sticking their heads in grounds like ostriches?
Time to stop audism!
September 15th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I think Kannapell’s paper is interesting. Some of the heirarchy categories I could argue with a bit, especially ones that lie right next to each other.
Also in the Deaf community heirarchy, I think that sign skill is just as important as hearing status. So where she has hearing people at the bottom (and does not mention CODAs, so I am not sure if she included CODA in her thinking of hearing people?), I would argue that a hearing person with native or strong ASL might have more power in the Deaf community than a deaf or hard of hearing person who is in one of the lower categories or less fluent in ASL. This is why we have some hearing and interpreters who seem to consider themselves more deaf or their opinions worth more to the deaf community than some deaf or hard of hearing.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Dear Madeam,
Hello, I am at Beijing,China. I still attend to Action Aid.
I have read your article which is interesting to me.
I would like to ask you some questions:
1. Do you know any Career Self-Assessments for the Deaf online free?
I would be grateful if you could give some details.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you,
Bushra Khan