Finnish and Irish Sign Languages: An egalitarian analysis of language policies and their effects. John Bosco Conama, M.Litt (TCD), BA. The thesis is submitted to University College Dublin for the degree of PhD in the College of Human Sciences. January 2010. Equality Studies Centre, School of Social Justice Head of School: John Baker Supervisor: Professor Kathleen Lynch. 1 Acknowledgement I would like to thank a number of people who have encouraged me to write this thesis; foremost, I must thank my wife, Audrey, for her patience, support and forbearance whilst I have spent years working on it and had her listening to me and discussing the issues arisen in this research with me. I would like to acknowledge the huge debt I owe to Professor Kathleen Lynch. I have learnt much under her supervision and she provided advice, critique, guidance, insights and inspirations. I also would like to thank the staff, students and researchers at the Equality Studies Centre, in particular the roundtable sessions down the years. The staff and students at the Centre for Deaf Studies, Trinity College Dublin should be mentioned here as they provided invaluable support. More importantly, the thesis would not be possible without the cooperation and willingness of interviewees and agencies in both countries, Finland and Ireland. I am also indebted to the Deaf-led organisations in both countries: Finnish Association of the Deaf (FAD) and the Irish Deaf Society (IDS) as they provided necessary materials and support for this work. Ms. Kaisa Alanne proved a very valuable contact in Finland and through her; I was able to contact key stakeholders there. Regular contact and discussion with academics in the Deaf Studies field proved very beneficial. My apologies if I have inadvertently omitted anyone to whom acknowledgement is due. To all the above individuals, and to several colleagues whose names I cannot continue listing and who have assisted one way or another, especially in challenging me with alternative views, I feel very much indebted. The thesis was made possible by the scholarship scheme under the National Disability Authority and the career break granted by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The Disability Support Service in UCD ensured the provision of Irish Sign Language / English interpreters at the roundtable sessions, meetings and courses. Indeed, these support enabled me to complete this research. John Bosco Conama September 2009 2 ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to advance academic understanding of what equality of condition (Baker, et al, 2004) would mean for Deaf people in relation to the recognition of signed language in both education and access to information in particular. It set out to test the hypothesis that the social model of disability is necessary but not sufficient for realising equality of condition for Deaf people because it does not take sufficient account of the importance of either culture or language to Deaf people. Deaf communities identify the status of their signed languages as the indicators of their social standings therefore egalitarian measures must be intertwined with the status of signed languages (Lane et al 1996, Ladd, 2003, Batterbury et al, 2007, Bauman, 2008, Emery 2009) To achieve its goals, a comparative study of signed language policies and practices in both Finland and Ireland was undertaken, two countries that are seen to be more advanced (Finland) and less advanced (Ireland) in terms of the equality of condition for Deaf people. The goal was to establish if Finland had actually moved towards equality of condition by comparison with Ireland with respect to the education and public information access of Deaf people. The research process involved the compilation of a range of data including the analysis of: (a) the general political, social and economic contexts of both countries, (b) the wider legislative contexts affecting languages in both countries, (c) the specific language policy contexts of both countries, (d) short study visits to Finland and similar visits to institutions in Ireland and (e) interview data from 29 people (14 Irish people and 15 Finnish people, of which 3 Irish and 7 of Finnish respondents are Deaf). The study concludes that in terms of language policy on sign languages, at least on paper, Finland appears to be more advanced than Ireland. However, on the ground, the attitudes and responses to the language policy measures were very similar. Underlying assumptions that signed languages are a compensatory tool often influences the attitudes and responses. Hence, the signed languages in Finland and Ireland are subjected to economic considerations (availability of resources) and political prioristation (depending on goodwill) rather than legislative enforcement. As a consequence, those Deaf people who regard signed languages as their first language; do not enjoy the level of equality experienced by the majority society. This study proposes that a Deafhood framework should be applied to guide the language policy orientation in order to achieve the equality of condition for the Irish Deaf community. The concept of Deafhood was first termed by Ladd (2003) though its practices and norms are used for decades. 3 Prologue Positioning myself in the thesis This prologue outlines the background information which locates me in the thesis and it also includes the language issues arising from translating from Irish Sign Language to written English. I come from a farming family in West Roscommon and, as there was no history of deafness in my family, my deafness was a mystery to my parents. Following the audiological test process in St. Mary’s, of which I do not have any memory, I was referred to a school for Deaf boys in Beechpark in South Dublin at almost four years old. Interestingly, I learned much later from my aunt that during this process, she and my mother were advised not to learn or pass on sign language to me. My aunt recalled how bewildered they were at this advice but given the conservative cultural norms in the late 1960s, the general tendency was not to question the professional wisdom. As result of this advice, my family never learned, nor were they encouraged to learn, sign language. Despite this, I do recall on many occasions that my siblings and I developed home-based signs but they were limited to superficial conversation. These signs were sufficient for a very young boy but became insufficient in later years when we became older. As a consequence, my family members and I struggled to understand each other and communication ended frequently in frustration on both sides; I felt the most of burnt. We resorted to writing as a resort for vital communication or specific instructions. On a number of occasions, my father seemed to ignore the conventional wisdom and asked me to teach him a few signs. However, I refused as I was indoctrinated for years that signing was inferior. Of course, in hindsight, I wondered how wise he was or how desperate he was to communicate. Within this context, I arrived at the school with no functional language apart from unintelligible home-based signs. This school, run by the Daughters of the Cross nuns, was strictly oralist1 and any use of signing would be met with harsh physical punishment2. Despite the fears of being punished, and the absence of role models played by Deaf signing adults, we developed our own signing system in some kind of underground activities. On reminiscence, we realised that despite our innocent years and years of immersing ourselves in the oral education, the signing was basically sophisticated to name our worldviews and often done in discrete ways. On the positive side, this school facilitated the cluster of young peer Deaf boys with whom I developed solidarity and relationships. As part of this development, I began to develop a strong affinity for signed language and Deaf community. 1 Oralist refers to an adjective which describes an institution or a person who champions the oralist philosophy that forbids the use of signing. 2 The author is disappointed but not surprised to see the continual denial by the religious order in question regarding the punishments when this issue was investigated by the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse (Ryan Report, 2009 chapter 16, 557-560 http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/CICA-VOL2-16.PDF). 4 As Wrigley (1996) observes, this clustering of young Deaf children into a single location had brought unforeseen and completely unintended consequences – an increased hostility to oralism while championing signed languages. Ladd (2003) describes such incidents as one of ‘1,001 victories’. At ten years of age, I was transferred to a different school for Deaf boys in North Dublin. This school, St. Joseph’s, was oralist but was less strict than the former school. It was run by the Christian Brothers. The less strict attitude towards signed language in that school was sometimes said to be reflective of the working class nature of the Brothers; they were seen to be less focused on middle class ambitions, at least for Deaf boys, and this involved oralism (Crean 1997). However, for many boys, some of whom are friends of mine, the experience at St. Joseph’s was horrendous as they have testified in the Ryan Report (2009). Out of respect for them, and while not wishing to trivialise their experiences, my experience there was not as difficult as theirs although it was a period of continued frustration. Education there tended to be patronising and involved a lot of spoon-feeding. The fact that the school was classified as a National (primary) school reflected a widespread view in society that Deaf children only needed primary education (although the school did Leaving Certificate subjects). No real free thinking or motivation for further learning or debate was encouraged.