<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Definite must for all who become involved with the deaf.
Review: As a deaf person who has struggled long and hard to get my PhD in science and science education, this book with its history comes as no surprise to me. Harlan Lane is a hearing person who has taken up the cause of those in the deaf world with a vengence, and I do mean with a vengence! Dr. Lane has a tendency to write with immense vigor and sometimes his books tend to go overboard in stating the case. However, this book is a classic and is definitely one of his best written ones. The history of the deaf in the United STates is strewn with great minds and small minds. We have had people who supported our education, and those who mistakenly viewed us as being less worthy of the normal needs and desires of life. This includes having a life, getting an education, living in society, being able to find gainful employment, getting married, and having children. The research of Dr. Lane is impeccable, and I have found it useful to refer to him in papers and use his references/bibliography for my own work on discrimination against the deaf in science education. Even if I sometimes do not agree with Dr. Lane's biased outlook on history of the deaf, I certainly appreciate all that he has done to bring the sometimes terrible prejudices and misdeeds to the attention of the hearing public. Yes, the deaf were and continue to be discriminated against, just as other differences are whether a disability or racial/cultural minority. Those who wish to understand the extent to which this discrimination went, should definitely read this book. To an extent, those of us with life-long hearing differences are learning to advocate for ourselves, and take pride in our accomplishments. It is thanks to people like Dr. Lane that we have been able to reach this point over the past 40 years. Karen Sadler, Science education, University of Pittsburgh
Rating:
Summary: What truly handicaps the deaf? Hearing people!
Review: Harlan Lane has presented a detailed history of the education of the deaf. While many other books about deafness mention Gallaudet, Clerc, and Sicard, these giants of deaf education are brought to life in this novel. Lane has assumed the figure of Laurent Clerc, the deaf man who helped Thomas Gallaudet form the first deaf school in America. More important than the history, however, was the sense I was given of what really handicaps deaf education--the refusal of hearing people to allow deaf persons the use of sign language. While Clerc's life experience and description of his fellow deaf clearly shows the superiority of sign language for the deaf, he also helps us to see the motivation of those who oppose sign. My blood was boiling as educator after educator made the use of sign appear inferior. As the parent of a deaf child, this book opened my eyes to where the deficit really lies for my son--in the perception of culture towards deafness. Understanding the world as described by Clerc, I am ready to embrace American Sign Language and to grow in my understanding of Deaf Culture. Anyone with ties to a deaf person, and educators in particular, should make a serious reading and reflection of this book a high priority
Rating: 
Summary: Who are the deaf?
Review: Harlan Lane has written another great book (see also his "The wild boy of Aveyron" and "The mask of benevolence"). The author traces the history of the education of the deaf, since the heroic efforts of Epee in the 18th century to educate the deaf by means of their natural sign language, to the disgraceful Congress of Milan late in the 19th century in which sign language was banned in favor of vocal speech. Lane's richly documented historical narrative forces upon the reader a shocking conclusion: Hearing people have rarely listened to the deaf. Were it not also full of tragic consequences, particularly for deaf children, this fact would be quite ironic, for it reminds us of those teachers who profess great love for their pupils and yet ignore systematically what the pupils say. Lane writes with clarity and grace; his arguments are carefully constructed, and throughout his style is lively. A must read!
Rating:
Summary: Who are the deaf?
Review: Harlan Lane has written another great book (see also his "The wild boy of Aveyron" and "The mask of benevolence"). The author traces the history of the education of the deaf, since the heroic efforts of Epee in the 18th century to educate the deaf by means of their natural sign language, to the disgraceful Congress of Milan late in the 19th century in which sign language was banned in favor of vocal speech. Lane's richly documented historical narrative forces upon the reader a shocking conclusion: Hearing people have rarely listened to the deaf. Were it not also full of tragic consequences, particularly for deaf children, this fact would be quite ironic, for it reminds us of those teachers who profess great love for their pupils and yet ignore systematically what the pupils say. Lane writes with clarity and grace; his arguments are carefully constructed, and throughout his style is lively. A must read!
Rating:
Summary: Everyone should read this book
Review: I picked this book up after reading Oliver Sacks's When the Mind Hears, and I am very glad I did. Without it, I might very well be blind to one of the world's most infuriating injustices: the attempt to gloss over deafness and discredit sign language. Moreover, the book is beautifully written and provides tons of information on the people and places involved. Everyone should read this book, because everyone who does will be motivated to help right the situation.
Rating:
Summary: Wow.
Review: I'm sorry, but after having read this masterpiece for the second time (I started it right after I finished it), I can't think of a better title. While this book is obviously scrupulously researched, it reads like first-rate fiction: insightful, well-paced and -plotted, with fully fleshed-out characters. Plus, it lacks the heavy-handedness which occasionally marred _Mask of Benevolence_. I've got to find another book this good soon, before I start it a third time!
Rating:
Summary: Quite an argument
Review: This book is a historical exploration into the question of how the deaf should be educated, through sign or through oral speech. I wouldn't call it "a comprehensive history of the deaf" as advertised on the back of the book, and I wouldn't even call it "the history of relations between the society of hearing-speaking people and the community of deaf-signing people" as Lane suggests in his foreword. The book stays almost exclusively on the topic of education for the deaf, which in itself is quite interesting. To me, the book had a unique and rather odd approach, in which the author related the history through the vantage point of Laurent Clerc (the French deaf teacher brought to the US by Thomas Gallaudet). Throughout the first part of the book, the story is told entirely in the first person, as if Clerc wrote it, and Lane simply was the translator. But judging from the extensive footnotes, only a 20th century author could have had access to so many primary sources, so Lane must have been the author after all. But I was never 100% certain about the authorship, and that was a bit annoying. In addition, if Clerc wasn't the author, then Lane stretched his historical research a bit far in projecting attitudes and opinions into Clerc's voice that we really have no way of confirming, and would probably be unlikely for people in the 19th to have. Overall, the historical details are incredibly rich, often perhaps too much so, yet there is not a great focus on dates or chronology, making it difficult in places to identify when specific events took place. The book makes an extremely strong argument for educating the deaf through sign rather than orally. More than that, the argument is that the deaf are best educated in residential signing schools, at least from a 19th century vantage point. It would seem that Clerc would most likely argue against modern-day mainstreaming as well. I think most deaf people who read this book would agree that sign language is extremely important for all facets of life, especially education. Nevertheless, hearing parents of deaf children who are trying to decide how to educate their children may still cling to the idea of oralism in the hopes of helping their child better adapt to majority society. But as argued in this book, a deaf child who is mainstreamed and taught lip reading is handicapped, having curtailed abilities to interact with peers. Meanwhile, a deaf child who attends school with other deaf children is completely normal within deaf society. The choice between oralism or sign is really no less than choosing between making the child normal or handicapped - which would you want for your child? As a hearing person, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to do a college exchange at a school which had a large number of deaf students. In fact, most of the students in my dorm were deaf. Almost immediately upon arrival, I began to observe the importance of sign language for communication. Deaf students who had not been exposed to sign language until their teenage years had obvious communication difficulties, and I was told that many of them probably never would develop the language skills that native signers had. It was obvious to me how much the deaf students at the school enjoyed being there and succeeded in their studies because they were supported with sign. These experiences convinced me that the best place for a deaf child to study is in a school with many other deaf children to sign with. On this point, I agree completely with Lane (and Clerc).
Rating:
Summary: Quite an argument
Review: This book is a historical exploration into the question of how the deaf should be educated, through sign or through oral speech. I wouldn't call it "a comprehensive history of the deaf" as advertised on the back of the book, and I wouldn't even call it "the history of relations between the society of hearing-speaking people and the community of deaf-signing people" as Lane suggests in his foreword. The book stays almost exclusively on the topic of education for the deaf, which in itself is quite interesting. To me, the book had a unique and rather odd approach, in which the author related the history through the vantage point of Laurent Clerc (the French deaf teacher brought to the US by Thomas Gallaudet). Throughout the first part of the book, the story is told entirely in the first person, as if Clerc wrote it, and Lane simply was the translator. But judging from the extensive footnotes, only a 20th century author could have had access to so many primary sources, so Lane must have been the author after all. But I was never 100% certain about the authorship, and that was a bit annoying. In addition, if Clerc wasn't the author, then Lane stretched his historical research a bit far in projecting attitudes and opinions into Clerc's voice that we really have no way of confirming, and would probably be unlikely for people in the 19th to have. Overall, the historical details are incredibly rich, often perhaps too much so, yet there is not a great focus on dates or chronology, making it difficult in places to identify when specific events took place. The book makes an extremely strong argument for educating the deaf through sign rather than orally. More than that, the argument is that the deaf are best educated in residential signing schools, at least from a 19th century vantage point. It would seem that Clerc would most likely argue against modern-day mainstreaming as well. I think most deaf people who read this book would agree that sign language is extremely important for all facets of life, especially education. Nevertheless, hearing parents of deaf children who are trying to decide how to educate their children may still cling to the idea of oralism in the hopes of helping their child better adapt to majority society. But as argued in this book, a deaf child who is mainstreamed and taught lip reading is handicapped, having curtailed abilities to interact with peers. Meanwhile, a deaf child who attends school with other deaf children is completely normal within deaf society. The choice between oralism or sign is really no less than choosing between making the child normal or handicapped - which would you want for your child? As a hearing person, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to do a college exchange at a school which had a large number of deaf students. In fact, most of the students in my dorm were deaf. Almost immediately upon arrival, I began to observe the importance of sign language for communication. Deaf students who had not been exposed to sign language until their teenage years had obvious communication difficulties, and I was told that many of them probably never would develop the language skills that native signers had. It was obvious to me how much the deaf students at the school enjoyed being there and succeeded in their studies because they were supported with sign. These experiences convinced me that the best place for a deaf child to study is in a school with many other deaf children to sign with. On this point, I agree completely with Lane (and Clerc).
<< 1 >>
|
