Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 2013 "individual yet as one": Performing Deafness and Performing Community in Mark Medoff 's Children of a Lesser God Mariah Crilley Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Crilley, M. (2013). "individual yet as one": Performing Deafness and Performing Community in Mark Medoff's Children of a Lesser God (Master's thesis, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/443 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “individual yet as one”: PERFORMING DEAFNESS AND PERFORMING COMMUNITY IN MARK MEDOFF‟S CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD A Thesis Submitted to the McAnulty College & Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By Mariah Crilley May 2013 Copyright by Mariah Crilley 2013 “individual yet as one”: PERFORMING DEAFNESS AND PERFORMING COMMUNITY IN MARK MEDOFF‟S CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD By Mariah Crilley Approved April 2nd, 2013 ________________________________ ________________________________ Laura Engel, Ph.D. Greg Barnhisel, Ph.D. Associate Professor of English Professor of Physical Therapy (Committee Chair) (Committee Member) ________________________________ ________________________________ Magali Michael, Ph.D. James C. Swindal, Ph.D. Chair, English Dean, McAnulty College and Graduate Professor of English School of Liberal Arts Professor of Philosophy iii ABSTRACT “individual yet as one”: PERFORMING DEAFNESS AND PERFORMING COMMUNITY IN MARK MEDOFF‟S CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD By Mariah Crilley May 2013 Thesis supervised by Laura Engel, Ph.D. In this thesis, I examine the relationship between deafness, women, and performance in Mark Medoff‟s Children of a Lesser God. The play was a massive popular success, both in its run on Broadway and its movie adaptation. Deafness and deaf people had never been so visible in American hearing culture. More importantly, the play coincided with civil rights movements by people with disabilities, which culminated in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Disabilities, including deafness, were called into being as part of a national identity. These movements posited self- determination but ultimately relied and thrived on a communal and relational sense of identity. I argue that the play challenges individualistic modes of identification through its protagonist, Sarah, a deaf woman whose “voice” is always translated through the audience. The play overtly and politically calls for a reconceptualization of American iv identity along the lines of deaf or disability and female identity theories, which typically value community and interdependence over individualism. Moreover, the genre amplifies this call for community. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to offer my immense appreciation to all involved in the creation of this thesis. First, I would like to thank Duquesne University, McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts, and the English Department for helping me pursue graduate studies in literature. Without your gracious funding, I would not have been able to advance my education and without your academic integrity, I would not have been given the freedom to pursue my own research interests. To my first reader, Dr. Greg Barnhisel, I would like to say thank you for taking the time to read this colossal project and for offering clear and candid suggestions for this work and my writing in general. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Laura Engel, my director. Dr. Engel has supported me in my interests since I began at Duquesne, and, despite being ridiculously busy, guided me through this process with encouragement and advice. Thank you to all. vi Table of Contents Page Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: “As if there were no I”: Deafness, Ind/Interdependence, and National Identity .......................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2: “created in my image”: Disability, Gender, and Subversion .......................... 52 Chapter 3: “individual yet as one”: Genre, Audience, and Community .......................... 81 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 110 Works Cited ................................................................................................................ 114 vii Introduction In the spring of 1988, Gallaudet University, the world‟s only liberal arts institution for deaf students, hired a new president. Dr. Elisabeth Zinser, a Ph.D from the University of California at Berkeley (Green), spent years in “helping fields,” such as “nursing and educational psychology,” (Mask 187), was “an expert on language and communications” (Piccoli), and had previously held the prestigious position of vice- chancellor at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro (“Elisabeth Zinser”). By all rights, Dr. Zinser was more than qualified for the position and should have been welcomed by students, faculty, and staff alike at Gallaudet. Within the day of her appointment, however, she was being burned in effigy. Unfortunately for Dr. Zinser, Deafness was not counted among her list of accomplishments. She was hearing. Unwittingly, but perhaps all the more dangerously, Dr. Zinser had accepted a position in an already volatile environment with little understanding of Deafness, its complex cultural aspirations, historical subjugation, resistance to a disabled identity, and, most importantly, its tongue, American Sign Language (ASL). Even before Dr. Zinser‟s official appointment, Gallaudet‟s campus was ripe with indignation. Despite going 124 years without a deaf president, the University‟s board seemed to be leaning towards the only hearing candidate of the remaining three potentials. Gallaudet‟s students, staff, and alumni were discouraged by the University‟s blatant paternalism—after all, these students were being taught to be self-sufficient and professional, “to excel in work and life” (Piccoli). The appointment of yet another hearing person to a position of power over some of the brightest Deaf people in the 1 world, to a position that should have always belonged to a Deaf person but never had, quite visibly demonstrated just how very little their higher education stood for when threatened by impenetrable misapprehensions and simple yet lethal stereotyping. Even in the 80s, the Hearing world still considered the Deaf unfit to manage their own affairs. In defense of the assignment, the chairman of the board said “„deaf people are incapable of functioning in a hearing world‟” (qtd. in Mask 188). While the “chairman later claimed that her interpreter had misconstrued her statement” (Mask 188), the fact remains that the chairman needed an interpreter. Despite being the head of the only liberal arts college for D/deaf people in the world, she did not know ASL, and therefore could not communicate with those who she represented. In 1988, Deaf students at the premier—really the only— higher education institute available to them, couldn‟t carry on a conversation with their chairman. So, they revolted. After the announcement, students poured into the streets of D.C., illegally marching to the hotel where the board was meeting. The police attempted to halt the deaf students‟ actions, but their dissent quite literally fell on deaf ears. The outraged students organized and effectively shut down the school‟s campus, barricading entrances with school buses on flattened tires (Mask 188). They boycotted classes, held rallies, burned imitations of Dr. Zinser and the chairman of the board, and rallied for a “Deaf President Now!”—the eponymous battle cry of the revolution, often shortened to DPN. Led by Greg Hlibok, student body president, the students drew up a list of demands, which included, 1. Resignation of Dr. Zinser and selection of a deaf president. 2 2. Resignation of Mrs. Spilman [the chairman of the board, a hearing woman] and election of a deaf chairperson of the Board. 3. Change of the composition of the Board to a majority of deaf and hard of hearing persons. 4. Guarantee of no reprisals against the faculty, staff, administration, or students for their participation. (“DPN Fact Sheet”) The administration eventually implemented all of these reforms. Dr. Zinser stepped down after a massive media blitzkrieg, the chairman resigned, Dr. I King Jordan was appointed President, the board was reorganized, and students suffered no repercussions (Mask 191). In part, the success of the movement was directly contingent on media coverage and an overwhelming support from the public. The vast majority of America considered the Deaf students‟ revolt just and necessary and support surged in from all over the country. Students marched with a “We have a dream!” banner, uniting the DPN protests with the Civil Rights Movement (Mask 190). In fact, many of the protests directly borrowed rhetoric, strategies, and goals publicized by Black Americans in the 1960s. The protests were not a matter of childish rebellion intended to miss a few classes, but a