105

Refections on Reframing Language Through Signed Signs and Deaf Gain

Mary McLevey up a particular (and by no means exhaust- Western University ive) set of it, namely, Deaf Studies’ attention to the question of language via refections on Jamie Rooney’s “‘You Can Make (hereafter ASL). Words Mean So Many Different Things’: A First, I consider responses from Deaf Studies to Study of Homesign” strings together, among Derrida’s grammatological project and its other things, research from Goldin-Mead- efforts to take up what Derrida leaves out. ows, a direct response to work on home- Second, I consider the concept of “Deaf Gain” sign by Endre Begby, and maxims from An- and the reframing of “deaf” beyond the par- glo-American philosophy of language, all ameters of individual bodies and signing com- with an eye to radically heterogeneous forms munities. I will thereby emphasize the social of communication and a designation of ges- and political implications of the privileging ture in “speech.” The complexity of his argu- of speech in hearing-dominant societies, as ments and his attention to both the details well as highlight some of the alternative con- of existing homesign research and larger cepts and questions that signed signs bring questions on the nature of communication is to communication. both compelling and thought provoking. But his article raises a couple of questions for Audism and Embodied Signs me: If Grice’s English-spoken philosophy of language provides the tools for a study of To begin, it is essential to explain the homesign, what do insights from signed lan- term “audism” and its relationship to Derrida’s guages contribute to theorizing beyond tacit critique of phonocentrism. In his article “Aud- assumptions about the nature of language? ism: Exploring the Metaphysics of Oppres- What of conceptions of communication that sion,” H-Dirksen Bauman gives a brief hist- are distinctly non-voiced, that is, what of the ory and explication of the “maturing concept” theory of viva non-voce? There is no shortage (240) of audism, a term gaining use in Deaf of such thinking, and in what follows I take Studies classrooms and that will hopefully

Word of Mouth 106 Te Word Hoard Refections on Reframing Language

become more recognized in other disciplines all levels lock gears with Derrida’s critique and inquiries into the nature of language. Gen- in a way that makes clear the “historical, in- erally, audism refers to against stitutional site of his project” (Bauman, “Lis- eaf eole ut more secicall the concet tening to Phonocentism,” n.p). Each of these names instances of in the lives of dimensions of audism provide insight into the deaf and hard of hearing people, as well as way that the supposedly exclusive relation- wider structural found through- ship between speech and language is enforced out hearing dominant society. Critiques of within hearing-dominant societies. The arbi- individual audism emphasize the way that trary authority of “speech” is, in these con- deaf and hard of hearing people are subject to texts, undone through the centering of non- and micro-aggressions from hear- voiced and strictly gestural languages. ing people who assume that hearingness is Deaf perspectives open up to scrutiny better than and preferred to deafness and deaf several new dimensions of the relationship ways of life. Critiques of institutional audism between language, subjectivity, and every- link individual experiences of oppression with day life. An emphasis on the spatial aspect of wider matrices of power—such as those con- gesture, for example, raises a set of practical nected to education or medicine—that encour- questions about communication. DeafSpace is age and reward hearingness and hearing ways an approach to design and planning that aims of life.1 Metaphysical audism, a term coined to make spaces better suited for signing lan- by Bauman himself, traces the way that the guages and deaf ways of being. DeafSpace above levels of oppression are underpinned by considers factors of interpersonal visibility longstanding metaphysical assumptions about (such as the amount of lighting in an area and the nature of human subjectivity—particularly the number and height of walls in a room) as “the orientation that links human identity and essential conditions for communication. For eing ith language ene as seech example, outlines six Meditating on the connections between the components of DeafSpace on its Campus De- philosophical privileging of speaking subjects sign and Planning webpage: sensory reach, and the realities of individual and institutional mobility, proximity, light, color, and acoustics audism, Bauman points out that Derrida’s cri- (“What is DeafSpace?”). As these priorities tique of phonocentrism is of invaluable import imply, the question “what does another person to Deaf-centered projects that aim to end phon- need from me in order to communicate?” can ocentric violence and to re-frame “language” be usefully re-situated and re-contextualized to as a matter of more than words and mouths. account for physical space and location. Rob- While, importantly, Derrida never explicitly ert Sirvage’s work on Deaf Walkers expounds takes up Deaf History, critiques of audism on on this connection between space and lan-

Issue 4, 2015 McLevey 107 guage, analyzing the norms and responsibil- The physicality of ASL, the renova- ities between signers when they are engaged tion of language to include three-dimensional in both conversation and walking.2 As ASL sace infuences ones orientation in com- requires direct eye contact with another, sign- municative social life as well as one’s orienta- ers keep a peripheral eye out for obstacles in tion in the more critical and imaginative realm the way of their conversation partners, alerting of one’s reading life. Accordingly, theory them to possible obstacles and shifting and philosophy, too, are opened up by signed positions as needed (Bauman and Murray perspectives. In his essay “Listening to Pho- xxv-xxvi). nocentrism with Deaf Eyes: Derrida’s Mute In this context, Begby’s notion of Philosophy of (Sign) Language,” Bauman “non-bidirectionality” and Rooney’s notion recounts an interaction he had, in his role as of “bidirectionality” (as well as the latter’s a Gallaudet ASL and Deaf Studies professor, emphasis on communicative responsibility) with a student struggling to read Foucault: take on alternative meanings: direction is im- mediately relevant in the sense of orientation e the stuent rst signe that it as if- and movement and responsibility involves cult to read, with his left hand representing both participating in social norms and active the book, open and facing him, and his involvement in the safety of another person right han as in a shae the to nger (Rooney 100). If these categories of linguis- tips representing his practice of reading, tic analyses are stretched through such an an- rereaing an then nall his ngers got alogy, then a stretch is part of the point, for closer to the oo an nall mae con- signed perspectives open up the meaning of tact; at this point, the eyes of the V shape words to the breadth of their contexts. While then became a digging apparatus, digging Rooney emphasizes the normative relation- deeper into the text. He then reached in be- ship between guardian and child as well as the teen the lines of the age no signie minimum conditions necessary for pragmatic the oen ngers of the left han an communication, an analysis of communicative began to pull ideas and new meanings from relationships need also consider street signs, underneath the text. The notion of read- passersby, and physical bumps on the path of ing eteen the lines gaine fesh as the communication. Even in the less motion-ori- hands literally grasped for buried mean- ented example of DeafSpace, relationships ings. The result of reading Foucault, he lie those of elo room an light ture said, changed his thinking forever, inspir- position become essential points of consider- ing him to invent a name-sign for Foucault. ation for the question of what we might make The sign he invented began with the signed words mean. letter “F” at the side of the forehead, and

Word of Mouth 108 Te Word Hoard Refections on Reframing Language

then twisting outward, showing the brain al import (“Deaf Studies” 9). Attention to the undergoing a radical reorientation. In a complexity of iconicity in signed languages concise image, the philosophy of Foucault renders patently false the too-familiar as- is given an iconic shape that is not one of sumption that iconicity is indicative of lesser mere mime—for it would be unintelligible cognitive functioning. Further, to name a more to a non-signing audience—but imbued concrete social gain, this complexity makes with the metaphorical iconic performance an argument for the importance of publica- of the ramications of stuing oucault tions such as the Deaf Studies Digital Journal and the circulation of video articles in ASL. While some nuances of some of the signs de- scribed may be lost to a reader not familiar Deaf Gain to ASL, two details here are worth hovering over. First is Bauman’s characterization of In an effort to tie together some of iconicity as the site of expressive possibility the above thoughts, we might say that per- and depth.3 Second, and less obvious, are the haps what the social and political dimen- implications of iconicity for embodied rela- sions of audism make most clear for theory tionships to texts, intimating a proliferation about speech and gesture is the need to make of relations and concepts that all follow from unfamiliar those relations between words and the modality of signing as gestural and visual meaning that seem most obvious. Indeed, the as opposed to spoken or written. The qualita- privilege of words, their obvious meaning- tive difference between words and signs (in fulness, strikes one as ‘obvious’ precisely in this example, the difference in their respective the context of speech-oriented theory in hear- iconic potentiality) suggests not only that Deaf ing-dominant societies. My gesture here is perspectives in theory are essential—the core in part one of defamiliarization for the sake implication of this very response—but also of decentering speech, but it is also one that that signing offers a dimension of experiment takes seriously questions about communica- and expression that spoken or written modal- tion raised in the context of signed languages. ities of language do not. Elsewhere, Bauman What follows are new concepts essential for and Murray similarly wonder about the gain inquiry not only into language’s social and to be had from using ASL or other signed lan- political dimensions but also into its sensory guages to explain concepts such as Foucault’s dimensions. An appreciation for the particu- more spatial notion of the “microphysics of lar sensory nature of signed languages leads power” or the process of cellular mitosis. They us to a framework upon which this essay has conclude that the three-dimensionality of depended and whose name I have stepped signed languages is of invaluable pedagogic- around until now: Deaf Gain.

Issue 4, 2015 McLevey 109

As Bauman and Murray, the editors of humanit an more secicall its assertion the collection Deaf Gain: Raising the Stakes that deaf people might make “contributions of Human (2014), phrase it: “Deaf to humanity” (Bauman and Murray, “Deaf ain is ene as the reframing of eaf as Gain” xxxix). While such terminology might a form of sensory and cognitive diversity that suggest that Deaf Gain is simply another has the potential to contribute to the great- liberal humanism of sorts, it is important to er good of humanity” (“Reframing” 3). Or, note that eaf ain is rml roote in critiques simply, it is the re-framing of “deafness” as of normalcy. More clearly, its critical heritage a marer of gain an enet as oose to marks its distinction from what might be more loss or lack. But, importantly, Bauman and secicall ientie as nostalgic longings Murray’s emphasis on “sensory and cognitive for the humanist past” (Braidotti 45). Indeed, diversity” (“Reframing” 3) aligns Deaf Gain Deaf Gain’s alignment with stud- with movements such as those advocating for ies—particularly the latter’s emphasis on the and biodiversity, distinguish- body as a site of possibility rather than a site of ing the term from notions of “deaf” as mere- essential limits—oppose it to familiar human- ly a cultural or linguistic marker. If “deaf” as ist assumptions. If Deaf Gain were reconcil- marker begs questions such as “What is deaf?” able with liberal humanism, its “gain” might then “Deaf Gain” emphasizes the value of dif- simply mean an individual’s “getting ahead” ference across cultural, creative, and cognitive in a current system—that is, capitalizing lines (Bauman and Murray, “Deaf Studies in on difference within audist hearing worlds. the 21st Century” 6-12). English glosses for the The radical re-framing that Deaf Gain at- signed concept of “Deaf Gain” provide further tempts, however, challenges traditional aud- semantic nuance here: DEAF INCREASE, ist connections between subjectivity and lan- DEAF BENEFIT, and DEAF CONTRIB- guage and opens up new ways of theorizing UTE.4 These signs emphasize the introduc- subjectivity. In fact, I am inclined to read tion or emergence of something new, some- Deaf Gain along the lines of Walter Mignolo’s thing that was not there before, an alternative “epistemological disobedience:” Deaf Gain, a of eing in the orl that is qualiel that is, as a decolonial gesture that resists distinct from ways of being that are oriented narratives of self-presence and coming-to- toward hearing and speech. This alternative be through speech, a radical “changing [of] a of eing is oviousl signicant on the the terms” (Mignolo 4) of language level of deaf and signing communities, but it and communication. While maxims also has implications for other language users. from an Anglo-American philosophy of One of the more immediate themes language indicate the rules of a in Deaf Gain scholarship is its appeal to speech-based game, Deaf Gain and concepts

Word of Mouth 110 Te Word Hoard Refections on Reframing Language

drawn from signing contexts initiate in part a abundantly clear: namely, that linguistic an- shift in the terms of theorizing communication. alyses need to engage discourses of power and oppression, that they need space for physical Conclusion and historical contexts, and that they need to take sensory and other dimensions of differ- Neuroscientist Laura-Ann Pettito’s ence into account. or rovies a secic eamle of the a While Rooney’s methodological that Deaf Gain is characterized by concretely choices do not highlight the social priorities social and political priorities. Pettito is part of of a Deaf Gain framework, I do not say that a group of scientists who ask questions about his work is disconnected from an essential the nature an enets of sign languages to effort to question assumptions about the na- human neural development. In “Three Revo- ture of language and meaning-making. His lutions: Language, Culture, and Biology,” she refections on the comleit of homesigning outlines her efforts to scienticall isrove relationships and his convincing concept of audist assumptions that underlie the privil- homesign-as-arbitrary are not only highly ori- eging of seech ettitos nings inicate ginal contributions to the little examined ques- “[i]n early life the human brain will not dis- tion of semantic meaning in homesign, they criminate between speech and sign but pro- also challenge familiar habits of thought re- cesses them identically, with biological equiv- garding the relationship between gesture and alence,” and so she concludes that “speech speech. In response, I have used his emphasis and language have now been biologically de- on the heterogeneity of communicative forms coupled. Speech is not language” (73). This as a starting point to consider ways that Deaf research highlights Deaf Gain’s priorities in Studies and ASL perspectives generate new to as rst as ettito goes on to mae concepts and terms in relation to language. clear, it has implications for , My aim here has been to present histories public policies affecting deaf people, and the and concepts that situate Rooney’s engaging importance of deaf children’s access to signed work amongst other theoretical inquiries into languages in early years. Second, it notes “speech” by way of signs-as-signed. My iter- that signed languages contribute to the neur- ations of words that have been said about how al development and literary and reading skills signs are important—they are a mouthful. in both deaf and hearing children; therefore, My point is a singular one: thinking along- there is value in any child—whether deaf, hard side language that is not of words or mouths of hearing, or hearing—learning sign (71- is instrumental to the effort of thinking about 72). The above priorities reiterate the points communication and social relationships in about language and theory that the concepts alternative ways. of audism, DeafSpace, and Deaf Gain make

Issue 4, 2015 McLevey 111

1 Bauman points out the way that the concept of “audism” takes as its model analyses of oppression via the concepts of individual and systemic racism (“Audism” 240-241). 2 Sirvage’s work is available on video the journal Deaf Studies Digital Journal, in the peer reviewed article “Navigational Proxemics of Walking Signers: A Paradigm Shift in Methodology.” His article is in ASL and does not have an Eng- lish translation m refections here are ase on Bauman and Murray’s summary of Sirvage’s work in their introduction to Deaf Gain. 3 Sarah Taub’s book Language From the Body (2001) is an oft-cited and invaluable analysis of iconicity in American Sign Language. 4 Here I borrow Harlan Lane’s explanation: “English glosses for American Sign Language (ASL) are conventionally written in capital let- ters. Hyphens connect glosses that are one word in ASL. They are not translations” (5). Glosses, rath- er are more often ene as transcritions imi- lar to the occurrences of an italicized non-English word in English texts or a collection of hyphenat- ed words in a translated text, glosses here index a situation where the original language presents a concept for which there is no word in the second language context.

Word of Mouth 112 Te Word Hoard Refections on Reframing Language

Works Cited Gallaudet University. What is Deaf Space? N.d. 11 Aug 2015. Bauman, H-Dirksen L. “Audism: Exploring Lane, Harlan. The Mask of Benevolence. New the Metaphysics of Oppression.” Deaf York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Print. Studies and Education 9.2 (2004): 239- Mignolo, Walter D. “Epistemic Disobedience, 246. Web. 4 Sept. 2014. Independent Thought and De-Colonial ----. “Listening to phonocentrism with deaf Freedom.” Theory, Culture & Society eyes: Derrida’s mute philosophy of 26.7-5 (2009):1-23. Web. 10 August (sign) language.” Essays in Philosophy 2015. 9.1 (2008): np. Web. 8 Aug. 2015. Pettito, Laura-Ann. “Three Revolutions: -----. “On the Disconstruction of (Sign) Language, Culture, and Biology.” Deaf Language in the Western Tradition: A Gain: Raising the Stakes for Human Reading of Plato’s Cratylus.” Open Diversity. Ed. H-Dirksen Bauman and Your Eyes to Deaf Studies Talking. Ed. Joseph L. Murray. U of Minnesota P, H-Dirksen L. Bauman. Minneapolis: 2014. 65-76. Print. U of Minnesota P. 127-145. Print. Rooney, Jamie. “‘You Can Make Words -----. “Toward a Poetics of Vision, Space, Mean So Many Different Things’: A and the Body: Sign Language and Study of Homesign.” Word Hoard 4 Literary Theory.” The (2015): 93-104. Print. Studies Reader. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. Taub, Sarah F. Language From the Body. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2006. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. 355-366. Print. Print. Bauman, H-Dirksen L., and Joseph J. Murray, ed. “Deaf Gain: An Introduction.” Deaf Gain: Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2014. xv-xlii. Print. ----. “Deaf Studies in the 21st Century:: ‘Deaf Gain’ and the Future of Human Diversity.” The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education 2 (2012): 1-19. Web. 8 Aug 2015. ----. “Reframing: From Hearing Loss to Deaf Gain.” Trans. Fallon Brizendine and Emily Schenker. Deaf Studies Digital Journal 1 (2009): 1-10. Web. 10 July 2015. Braidotti, Rosi. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013. Print.

Issue 4, 2015