February 26, 2019

Kolja, or: how deaf people can be super spies

by Corrie Tijsseling


The Dutch novelist Arthur Japin recently wrote a book with the title Kolja. “Kolja” was the pet name of Nikolaj Konradi (1868-1922), a Russian child who is said to have been born deaf and trained to speak. Or, as the author writes himself: “who was deaf-mute and who miraculously learned to speak”. Kolja was the pupil of Modest Tsjaikovski (1850-1916), the brother of the musician Pjotr Tsjaikovski (1840-1893). Modest was hired by the wealthy parents of Kolja as a guardian and supervised him during his education at the French school of doctor Jacques Hugentobler (1844-1924) in Lyon.

Book cover: Kolja by Arthur Japin.
Book cover: "Kolja" by Arthur Japin.

“Deaf-mute”
Arthur Japin is a renowned author and again managed to write a story that kept my attention till the last page. However, as a deaf historian who specializes in deaf education, I had my doubts when I started to read; would a hearing novelist be able to write an historically and politically correct story about a deaf person? This initial reserve grew after the author and I had an intense debate over the word ‘deaf-mute’. At that moment, I did not know that the author elaborates in his book on the meaning and effects of this word, in which he was advised by a deaf person who gave feedback on the manuscript and had explained that deaf people consider this word as offensive comparable to the effect that the N-word has to black people. The publisher however, had used the word ‘deaf-mute’ in the promotion of the book and this prompted me to post a tweet to both the publisher and the author in which I requested to remove that word.

The author contacted me through the Direct Message-section of Twitter, where one can send private notes to contacts, telling me that he did respect the wish of deaf people but insisted that he needed a word that described a person who is not able to speak, as in ‘mute’. I tried to explain him that ‘mute’ is correct but that a word that connects ‘not being able to hear’ to ‘not being able to speak’ is redundant to deaf people, and even ableist as it expresses what the dominant group considers as ‘normal’. After all, I am convinced that deaf people do communicate, though their language has been denied for many centuries by the phonocentric Western societies that only consider spoken languages as true and meaningful languages, resulting in excluding words like ‘deaf-mute’ and horrific speech training methods such as the method Hugentobler which Japin describes so vividly in his book.

In the end Arthur Japin and I agreed to disagree and the word ‘deaf-mute’ was removed from all communication by the publisher. But damage had been done already: the emphasis on the magnificent speech skills of Kolja resulted in the frequent use of the word ‘deaf-mute’ in all of the book reviews that I have read.

Super spy
Japin’s story starts with the death of Pjotr Tsjaikovski. By that time, Kolja was already an adult and had ended his relationship with Modest, apparently over financial matters. The death of Pjotr turns out to be a suspicious death and it is here that super spy Kolja is introduced. He reads the speech, and the emotions and thoughts of every person that approaches him, even persons he has never met before, with hardly any effort. Or as Japin himself describes it on the cover of the book, Kolja is: “… als geen ander in getraind het ongehoorde te doorgronden” (… who like no one else was trained to fathom what cannot be heard).

In order to fully understand the fictitious nature of this sentence you probably must be deaf. Just as you have to be deaf to understand that the author needs this myth of deaf people’s supernatural speech reading skills and powers of emotion reading and vibe feeling, for developing the story plot. In real life, deaf people have to ask other people continuously to repeat what they said as well as do hearing people often complain that deaf people are rude, ignorant, and cold (though, the same is said about hearing people by deaf people). This I would say is the first myth that is being used by Japin in order to seduce his readership.

It took a while before I was able to identify myth #2, but eventually it popped up halfway through the book: this time the author turned towards the supposedly extraordinary sexual experiences of deaf people. The idea that deaf people experience sexuality in an extraordinary way then is explained by referring to the fact that they miss one sense and that the other senses compensate for the loss. So, someone who cannot hear is considered to have extraordinary visual and tactile experiences. A myth that especially hearing adolescents are eager to test for themselves with deaf adolescents, in a way that can be described as sexual harassment. Apart from these two myths, the author must be applauded for his eminent descriptions of the experiences of being deaf, in which I fully recognize my own experiences. For example on page 138, where it is described that being deaf means that one has to register, interpret, conclude, deduce all kinds of elements of information in order to make sense of it all. And: to be persistent as each withdrawal or failure puts yourself offside. As Japin writes: “Ons hele begrip hangt af van op te lossen raadsels” (Our complete understanding depends on riddles to be solved).

The different meanings of “deaf”
How about the historical aspects of the book? Regarding the lives and times of the brothers Tsjaikovski, I dare not to give my opinion as I lack knowledge on this matter. Regarding the history of deaf people and their education, however, there are several things that can be mentioned. First of all, there is the question of what “deaf” actually means? And secondly, related to the previous comment, what is understood by “education”? According to the author, Kolja was born deaf and learned to speak. I would like to reframe this as “Kolja, the boy of whom it is thought that he was born deaf, and who was trained to speak”.

Classroom scene
Classroom scene.

Kolja was born in 1868 and in that time, it was not possible to measure hearing loss. The profession of audiology only started hesitatingly in 1920 with the first audiometers (Sente, 2004). It was only after WWII when audiometers could reliably measure hearing loss in magnitude (dB) and frequency (Hz). And it is then that the categories of mild, moderate, severe and profound hearing loss were created. This means that, before WWII, anyone with any amount of hearing loss which formed an obstacle for informally perceiving and learning a spoken language, was labeled ‘deaf’. In fact, there are very few people who hear nothing at all as most deaf people have some hearing residues - though most are not aware of it. However, these residues do help in learning a spoken language.

Another aspect is that we only know since the start of audiology that it matters when the deafness started. The first three years of life are known as the prelingual period, in which the fundaments of language acquisition are laid. It does not matter if this is a sign language or a spoken language, but it does make a difference if there is a rich language input. As mentioned, we do not know if Kolja had a mild, moderate, severe or profound hearing loss but we also do not know when this hearing loss had started: at birth, in his early years or later in his childhood? The story suggests that Kolja has been able to hear for some time, and had an awareness of sound, as he clung to people and pianos, and searched for rhythms and patterns.

Post card view of the Hugentobler Institute
Post card view of the Hugentobler Institute.

Education, or modeling?
As Kolja’s parents were very wealthy, they were able to send him to the Hugentobler Institute in Lyon, where he was trained in the oralist method in which the use of signing was strictly prohibited. The method controversy in the education of deaf people reached its climax in 1880, when the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf (ICED) decided that the pure oral method was preferred over the combined method in which speech was combined with signing (Brill, 1984; Beelaert, Bruyneel & Leeman, 2009). The oral method was at its best a training method, but definitely not an education method. One of the goals of education is individuation in which a child becomes a free, independent and autonomous person. In the time of Kolja, this process was known as ‘Bildung’ but this word was not used in deaf education. Here, a different kind of ‘forming a person’ took place, that is: ‘modelling’, to shape deaf children in the form of hearing people (Tijsseling, 2014). Many books on deaf education describe how to train deaf children to sit and stand without moving (instead of waving arms and hands and move heads), to communicate only with the mouth (instead of using your hands and facial mimics), and to walk correctly (instead of shambling and pounding).

Rigid measures and strict discipline were used to make deaf children speak. Japin describes the method of Hugentobler very well but this is just one of the many oral methods of that time. The psychologist Vygotsky (1896-1934) valued the oral method as it made it possible for deaf people to communicate with hearing people (and not only to communicate among each other, as they did and do) but it could not be regarded as social education as it was so hard to learn deaf children to speak that it turned out as a form of disciplining and conditioning (Tijsseling, 2014). Vygotsky also gives a horrific image of this “education”: “When forcing a pupil to master a difficult sound, the teacher could knock out his tooth and, having wiped the blood from the hand, he would proceed to the next sound.

To conclude, “Kolja” offers an insight in the life and education of a deaf son of wealthy Russian parents at the end of the 19th century but it is recommended to read the book for the suspense story about the Tsjaikovski brothers while ignoring the extraordinary supernatural talents of Kolja, that are necessary to reveal the truth.




Corrie Tijsseling is a research coordinator at GGMD - a Dutch non-profit organisation for Deaf people. In 2014 she defended her PhD on the history of education for the Deaf in the Netherlands.
______________________________________

References
Beelaert, B., Bruyneel, C. & en Leeman, K. (2009) Vive la parole? Milaan 1880 als scharniermoment in het dovenonderwijs. Gent: Fevlado-Diversus.

Brill, R.G. (1984). International Congresses on Education of the Deaf. An Analytical History, 1878-1980. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.


Sente, M. (2004). The history of audiology. Medicinski Pregled 57(11), 611-616. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2298/MPNS0412611S


Tijsseling, C. (2014). “School, waar?” Een onderzoek naar de betekenis van het Nederlandse dovenonderwijs voor de Nederlandse dovengemeenschap, 1790-1990. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.


Vygotsky, L.S. (1925). “Principles of social education for the deaf-mute child”, in: Bieber, R.W. & Carton, A.S., (Eds). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 2 The Fundamentals of Defectology (Abnormal Psychology and Learning Disabilities), ed. R.W. Bieber & A.S. Carton. New York/London: Plenum Press, 1993, 69.


Recommended citation:
Corrie Tijsseling (2019): Kolja, or: how deaf people can be super spies. In: Public Disability History 4 (2019) 3. 

February 3, 2019

Dis/ability History as a Subject of Teaching and Learning: A Lab Report

by Cordula Nolte & Sabine Horn

Dis/ability History as a Subject of Teaching and Learning: A Lab Report
[german version]

In recent years, we have seen many processes set in motion that share an aim to widen participation in society: inclusive schools and lessons, disabled access to public buildings, the media and educational and cultural events, dis/ability studies and dis/ability history as new, international research fields that have now also made their way into the German academic system. Hitherto, however, there has been little overlap between inclusive practice at schools and university-based dis/ability research in historical subjects such as history, archaeology, art history, literary history and language history. The obvious idea of linking the inclusion practised in history lessons with dis/ability as a topic, for example, has only been discussed occasionally in didactics, even though this approach would constitute “inclusive learning” in a double sense, both in regard to the learning environment and in regard to the topic of learning. History teaching has not embraced dis/ability history yet, despite this programme’s ability to link a range of different school subjects. By contrast, formats that convey knowledge and science outside school settings are already tapping into dis/ability studies’ and dis/ability history’s potential to establish creative cooperative endeavours, as blogs, podcasts, performances and exhibitions such as the participative projects LeibEigenschaften (Bremen 2012) and Touchdown (Bonn 2016/17) show.

The historical sciences at Bremen University recently used the findings of the interdisciplinary network “Homo debilis. Dis/ability in der Vormoderne” (“Dis/ability in the Premodern Era”) to test ways in which current research approaches could be translated into new teaching concepts. The university’s history didactics and historical science departments both agree on what up-to-date teaching programmes should aim for: both teacher training and MA students should engage with the socially topical and scientifically innovative theme of dis/ability. In doing so, students should explore this field as independently as possible, in line with the ideal of learning through research. They should prepare their findings either to be shared in school lessons or to be disseminated through scientific communication outside school, developing suitable formats for conveying their work to different public spheres and audiences. This will provide students with competencies that are key in a wide range of different jobs.

These reflections formed the basis of an experiment. A pilot module (“Dis/ability History - A New Perspective in the Historical Sciences”) consisting of two closely intertwined seminars was taught in cooperation between historical science and history didactics, further supported by a survey carried out by the inclusive pedagogy department. The historical science seminar taught the basic content and methods of dis/ability studies and dis/ability history from an interdisciplinary perspective and spanning various historical time periods. The aim here was to show first and foremost that abilities and disabilities are fluid phenomena that change over the course of history. Different concepts, ascriptions and practices existed and continue to exist in different cultures, social milieus and discourse communities. At the same time, the examples of selected thematic fields such as work, family relations and religion showed vividly how useful a tool the analytical category of dis/ability is: dis/ability – especially in conjunction with other categories such as gender – is a convenient lens through which to focus both on society as a whole and on its various facets. In the historical science seminar, the students developed their own topics and questions, which they aimed to research and prepare for selected target audiences (such as school classes, teachers, interested “laypeople” such as museum visitors or film audiences, or recipients with specific disabilities such as reading difficulties).

Screenshot of one of the explanatory videos.
Screenshot of one of the explanatory videos.

The result was a whole gamut of multilayered, original work. In their projects, the students enquire into the ways science fiction films negotiate “normality”, “being different” and “special abilities”, examining the scenario of a society made up of mutants and non-mutants. They investigate the implications of epithets and nicknames such as “the mute” or “the beardless”, from which some contemporary family names derive, in various medieval cultural spheres. They discuss ways in which medieval texts’ and images’ contradictory information on the compatibility of “dis/ability and rulership” can be used in school teaching, also touching upon the expectations we have of politicians and those exercising power today. They cast light upon the beginnings of a psychiatric institution near Bremen, using an individual patient record to show how diagnoses such as “moral idiocy” or “hysteria” were constructed around 1900. They discuss the functions and significance of prostheses in past, contemporary and future societies, from wooden legs to cyborgs. They portray the American writer Helen Keller as a political activist. They dispel myths about the supposed causes of autism. And they enquire into the contemporary challenges of the inclusive school system by critically outlining the development of special schools.

Screenshot of one of the explanatory videos.
Screenshot of one of the explanatory videos.

The history didactics seminar, where these projects were developed, served as the module’s real “laboratory”. It was decided that the students’ final “product” would be a blog page containing not only text but an explanatory video about the respective topic selected. This rendered the research findings more visible. At the same time, this public exposure encouraged the students to focus on presenting their findings to their target addressees in a manner appropriate to that audience. Beyond the topic of dis/ability, it has been useful for students to engage analytically with the innovative medium of the explanatory video (which also competes with classic lesson formats). Questions concerning the videos’ function (introducing viewers to a topic, enlarging upon or discussing it) and technical possibilities on the one hand and appropriate forms of expression on the other hand were the subject of intense debate.

Initially, all of the students saw developing a blog page with an explanatory video as an unusual, challenging and time-consuming form of “exam”. In the end, however, they were all pleased to have produced something that makes scholarly research more accessible to wider circles. The work presented gave rise to further discussion at the well-attended blog release party.

The project detailed in this report was funded as part of the federal and state governments’ joint “Teacher Training Quality Initiative” by funds of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, funding code 01JA1612. The content of this publication reflects the views of the authors.
________________________________

Cordula Nolte is professor for Medieval History at the University of Bremen. Sabine Horn is leader of the Department for History Didactics at the University of Bremen.

Recommended citation:
Cordula Nolte / Sabine Horn (2019): Dis/ability History as a Subject of Teaching and Learning: A Lab Report. In: Public Disability History 4 (2019) 2.

 



Dis/ability History als Lehr- und Lerngegenstand: ein Bericht aus dem Labor

Inklusive Schul- und Unterrichtsformen, barrierefreie Zugänge zu öffentlichen Bauten, zu Medien und zu Bildungs- und Kulturangeboten, Dis/ability Studies und Dis/ability History als neue, internationale Forschungsfelder auch im deutschen Wissenschaftssystem: In den vergangenen Jahren sind viele Prozesse in Gang gekommen, deren gemeinsames Leitmotiv die Gestaltung gesellschaftlicher Teilhabe ist. Allerdings berühren sich schulische Inklusionspraxis und universitäre Dis/ability-Forschung in den historischen Fächern wie Geschichtswissenschaft, Archäologie, Kunstgeschichte, Literatur- und Sprachgeschichte bisher recht selten. Der naheliegende Gedanke, zum Beispiel im Geschichtsunterricht praktizierte Inklusion mit der inhaltlichen Thematisierung von Dis/ability zu verknüpfen und somit „inklusiven Unterricht“ im doppelten Sinn zu gestalten, nämlich hinsichtlich der Lernumgebung und hinsichtlich des Lerngegenstandes, wurde in der Didaktik erst vereinzelt diskutiert. Überhaupt ist Dis/ability History als ein Programm, das sich ideal für die Verknüpfung mehrerer Schulfächer eignet, noch nicht im Geschichtsunterricht und in verwandten Fächern angekommen. In außerschulischen Formaten der Wissens- und Wissenschaftsvermittlung wird das Potential von Dis/ability Studies und Dis/ability History hingegen schon kreativ für Kooperationen genutzt, das zeigen Blogs, Podcasts, Performances und Ausstellungen wie etwa die partizipativen Projekte LeibEigenschaften (Bremen 2012) und Touchdown (Bonn 2016/17).

Ausgehend von den Erträgen des interdisziplinären Netzwerks „Homo debilis. Dis/ability in der Vormoderne“ wurde in der Geschichtswissenschaft an der Universität Bremen kürzlich erprobt, wie aktuelle Forschungsansätze in neuartige Lehrkonzepte überführt werden können. Die dortige Fachdidaktik und Fachwissenschaft sind sich einig über die Ziele zeitgemäßer Lehrprogramme: Lehramts- und Masterstudierende sollen sich mit dem gesellschaftlich aktuellen und wissenschaftlich innovativen Themenfeld Dis/ability auseinandersetzen und dabei, dem Ideal des forschenden Lernens entsprechend, möglichst auch selbstständige Erkundungen unternehmen. Sie sollen die Erträge für den Schulunterricht oder für die außerschulische Wissenschaftskommunikation aufbereiten, das heißt geeignete Vermittlungsformate für verschiedene Öffentlichkeiten und Publikumskreise erarbeiten und somit wichtige Kompetenzen für verschiedenste Berufsfelder erwerben.

Aus diesen Überlegungen heraus wurde ein Experiment unternommen. Als eine Kooperation von Fachwissenschaft und Fachdidaktik der Geschichtswissenschaft, flankiert von einer Erhebung seitens der Inklusiven Pädagogik, fand ein aus zwei eng verzahnten Seminaren bestehendes Pilotmodul (Dis/ability History - eine neue Perspektive der Geschichtswissenschaft) statt. Das fachwissenschaftliche Seminar vermittelte inhaltliche und methodische Grundlagen von Dis/ability Studies und Dis/ability History, und zwar in epochenübergreifender und interdisziplinärer Perspektive. Hier ging es vor allem darum zu zeigen, dass es sich bei „Behinderung“ und „Nichtbehinderung“, Abilities und Disabilities um fluide, historisch wandelbare Phänomene handelt. In verschiedenen Kulturkreisen, sozialen Milieus und Diskursgemeinschaften bestanden und bestehen unterschiedliche Konzepte, Zuschreibungen und Praktiken. Zugleich erfuhren die Studierenden anschaulich anhand exemplarisch gewählter Themenfelder wie Arbeit, Familienbeziehungen und Religion, welch brauchbares Instrument die analytische Kategorie Dis/ability ist: Dis/ability ist eine geeignete Linse, zumal in Verknüpfung mit weiteren Kategorien wie etwa Gender, um das gesellschaftliche Ganze mit seinen vielfältigen Facetten in den Blick zu nehmen. In dem fachwissenschaftlichen Seminar entwickelten die Studierenden eigene Themen und Fragestellungen, die sie erforschen und für ausgewählte Adressatenkreise (beispielsweise Schulklassen, Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, interessierte „Laien“ als Museumsbesucher oder Filmpublikum, Rezipienten mit spezifischen Beeinträchtigungen wie etwa Leseschwäche) aufbereiten wollten.

Screenshot aus einem der Erklärvideos.
Screenshot aus einem der Erklärvideos.

Daraus entstand eine Reihe vielschichtiger, origineller Werke. In ihren Arbeiten fragen die Studierenden danach, inwieweit Science Fiction-Filme den Umgang mit „Normalität“ und „Anderssein“ sowie mit „besonderen Fähigkeiten“ im Szenario einer aus Mutanten und Nichtmutanten bestehenden Gesellschaft verhandeln. Sie untersuchen die Implikationen von Beinamen bzw. Spitznamen wie „die Stumme“ oder „der Bartlose“, auf die manche heutige Familiennamen zurückgehen, in verschiedenen mittelalterlichen Kulturkreisen. Sie erörtern, wie man im Schulunterricht die widersprüchlichen Informationen mittelalterlicher Texte und Bilder zur Vereinbarkeit von „Dis/ability und Herrschaft“ behandeln und dabei heutige Ansprüche an Politiker und Machtausübende thematisieren kann. Sie beleuchten die Anfänge einer psychiatrischen Einrichtung nahe Bremen und zeigen anhand einer individuellen Patientenakte, wie dort um 1900 Diagnosen wie „moralische Idiotie“ oder „Hysterie“ konstruiert wurden. Sie diskutieren die Funktionen und Bedeutungen von Prothesen in vergangenen, heutigen und künftigen Gesellschaften, vom hölzernen Stelzfuß bis zum Cyborg. Sie porträtieren die amerikanische Schriftstellerin Helen Keller als politische Aktivistin. Sie räumen mit Mythen über die angeblichen Ursachen von Autismus auf. Und sie fragen nach heutigen Herausforderungen eines inklusiven Schulsystems, indem sie die Entwicklung der Förderschule kritisch nachzeichnen.

Screenshot aus einem der Erklärvideos.
Screenshot aus einem der Erklävideos.

Als eigentliches Labor, in dem diese Projekte erarbeitet wurden, diente das fachdidaktische Seminar. Festgelegt wurde als Produkt die Erstellung einer Blogseite, die neben der textuellen Darstellung ein Erklärvideo zu dem gewählten Thema enthält. Hierdurch wurde die Visibilität der Forschungsergebnisse erhöht. Zugleich sahen die Studierenden aufgrund dieser Öffentlichkeit angeregt, sich mit der Adressatenangemessenheit der Präsentation ihrer Ergebnisse auseinander zu setzen. Jenseits des Themenfeldes Dis/ability hat es sich als sinnvoll erwiesen, dass sich die Studierenden mit dem innovativen (resp. mit dem klassischen Unterricht teilweise konkurrierenden) Medium Erklärvideo analytisch auseinandersetzten. Die Fragen nach der Funktion der Videos (Einführung in ein spezielles Thema, dessen Vertiefung oder Diskussion), nach technischen Möglichkeiten auf der einen Seite und angemessenen Ausdrucksformen auf der anderen wurden hier ebenfalls intensiv diskutiert.

Eine Blogseite mit einem Erklärvideo zu entwickeln, nahmen alle Studierenden anfangs als eine ungewohnte, anspruchsvolle und aufwändige „Prüfungsform“ wahr. Am Ende waren alle zufrieden etwas geschaffen zu haben, das Wissenschaft für breitere Kreise zugänglich macht. Bei der gut besuchten Blog Release Party regten die vorgestellten Werke zu weiteren Diskussionen an.

Das diesem Bericht zugrundeliegende Vorhaben wurde im Rahmen der gemeinsamen „Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung“ von Bund und Ländern mit Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung unter dem Förderkennzeichen 01JA1612 gefördert. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt dieser Veröffentlichung liegt bei den Autorinnen.
____________________________

Cordula Nolte ist Professorin für die Geschichte des Mittelalters an der Universität Bremen. Sabine Horn ist Leiterin der Abteilung für Geschichtsdidaktik an der Universität Bremen.

Empfohlene Zitation:
Cordula Nolte / Sabine Horn (2019): Dis/ability History as a Subject of Teaching and Learning: A Lab Report. In: Public Disability History 4 (2019) 2.