Update Article: 99

Original Title

Sanitized Title

Clean Title

Source ID

Article Id01

Article Id02

Corpus ID

Dup

Dup ID

Url

Publication Url

Download Url

Original Abstract

Disabilities affect the lives of people worldwide in the present and in the past. Hearingimpairment is one rather common disability, yet it is largely misunderstood and stigmatized. InMexico, hearing-impaired persons are still denied many rights able-bodied people possess.Contemporary views of deafness in Mexico have tended to emphasize the biomedical model,which recognizes deafness as an impairment and something that requires fixing. To this end,oralism, hearing aids, and cochlear implants are standard. Framed within disability studies, thisresearch project is an effort to understand and challenge this ableist perspective that persists inMexico today through an interdisciplinary study of Deaf Mexican history. One of the main goalsfor this paper is to demonstrate that ableism and the biomedical model of disability derive from along history of Western, Christian thought which was imported to Mexico by the Spanish startingin the early 16th century during colonization. In the pages ahead, this paper explores influencesof Catholicism and Spanish colonial structures in perpetuating ableism and the biomedical modelof disability through close analysis of historical theological commentary and Indigenous,Spanish, and Mexican interpretations of deafness and disability

Clean Abstract

Tags

Original Full Text

UC RiversideUCR Honors Capstones 2023-2024TitleDEAFNESS, CATHOLICISM, AND COLONIALISM IN MEXICOPermalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/9h0993zhAuthorHouser, MadelynPublication Date2024-07-24eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of CaliforniaDEAFNESS, CATHOLICISM, AND COLONIALISM IN MEXICOByMadelyn HouserA capstone project submitted forGraduation with University HonorsNovember 10, 2023University HonorsUniversity of California, RiversideAPPROVEDDr. Jennifer Scheper HughesDepartment of HistoryDr. Richard Cardullo, Howard H. Hays Jr. ChairUniversity HonorsTable of ContentsAbstract…………..………………………………………………………………………………..2Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………3Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..4The Method………………………………………………………………………………………..6Village of Chícan: Indigenous Interpretations of Deafness……………………………………….7Early Christian Theological Thought on Deafness and Disability.………………………………10Theological Interpretations of Embodied Difference in New World Missionary Practice………13Juan Pablo Bonet and Deaf Education in the 17th Century..…………………………………….15Contemporary Mexican Deaf Experiences..……………………………………………………..18Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………21References………………………………………………………………………………………..221ABSTRACTDisabilities affect the lives of people worldwide in the present and in the past. Hearingimpairment is one rather common disability, yet it is largely misunderstood and stigmatized. InMexico, hearing-impaired persons are still denied many rights able-bodied people possess.Contemporary views of deafness in Mexico have tended to emphasize the biomedical model,which recognizes deafness as an impairment and something that requires fixing. To this end,oralism, hearing aids, and cochlear implants are standard. Framed within disability studies, thisresearch project is an effort to understand and challenge this ableist perspective that persists inMexico today through an interdisciplinary study of Deaf Mexican history. One of the main goalsfor this paper is to demonstrate that ableism and the biomedical model of disability derive from along history of Western, Christian thought which was imported to Mexico by the Spanish startingin the early 16th century during colonization. In the pages ahead, this paper explores influencesof Catholicism and Spanish colonial structures in perpetuating ableism and the biomedical modelof disability through close analysis of historical theological commentary and Indigenous,Spanish, and Mexican interpretations of deafness and disability.2ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis research project would not have been possible without the incredible support andencouragement I received in both my personal life and from my academic advisors. I am verygrateful to my faculty mentor Dr. Jennifer Scheper Hughes for always pushing me to dig deeperand having faith in my abilities as a budding historian. The University Honors Program alsodeserves recognition for their continual commitment to support and facilitate undergraduateresearch. Without the Honors Program and its resources, this project would not exist. Lastly, Iam eternally thankful to my parents who largely inspired this project. Living as Deaf people in aworld geared toward the hearing is not an easy task. I am constantly inspired by their strengthand resilience.3INTRODUCTIONDisability studies is an emerging academic discipline that has produced much importantknowledge over the past fifty years. However, there is still so much more to be done. While notalways visible, disabilities exist in every part of the world, affecting the lives of millions ofpeople. Disability studies seeks to analyze the meanings, consequences, and lived realities ofdisability to increase visibility and awareness. Much of the work already done has challengedexisting perceptions and legislation concerning disability, which has gone to great lengths toimprove the lived experiences of people contending with disabilities. This positive impactdisability studies can have on people today highlights the importance of continued academicattention. This paper looks to contribute to the growing interdisciplinary discourse of disabilityin history and in religious studies with a specific focus on deafness.Hearing impairment is one rather common disability, yet it is largely misunderstood andstigmatized. In many countries worldwide, including Mexico, hearing-impaired persons are stilldenied many rights able-bodied persons possess, such as obtaining a driver’s license. I take aparticular interest in studying Deaf history since both of my parents are Deaf/Hard of Hearingand I identify as a CODA, a child of Deaf adults. Growing up, I was exposed to American Deafculture and I have witnessed my parents struggle daily to access a world meant for the hearing.Through my own life experiences as a hearing person with a foot in the Deaf world, deafness asa disability and Deaf culture in America are very familiar and known to me. This researchproject began when I started to question what the Deaf experience was like in other countries. Iwas particularly interested in deafness in Mexico because I have grown up in SouthernCalifornia, just hours away from the Mexican border. I wondered, despite the proximity, if Deafexperiences in Mexico differed from Deaf experiences in the United States and, if so, how? My4expectation was that the experiences would differ, but that much would still be held in commondue to the similar barriers Deaf people face.The scope of this paper is shaped by my own curiosities and explores themes, ideas, andevents that influenced my understanding of Mexican Deaf history. As the title of the paper“Deafness, Catholicism, and Colonialism in Mexico” indicates, I am interested in understandinghow the Catholic religion and its institutions, as well as Spanish colonial structures, affectedDeaf Indigenous Mexican lives. I also investigate the legacy of Spanish imperialism and thoughton contemporary Deaf Mexicans, and how this may be connected to current legislation thatdenies deaf people the same access as hearing people. As I dug more into the sources, I realizedhow complex and understudied this history is. The Deaf experience in Mexico has not receivedsufficient scholarly attention prior to the founding of the Escuela Nacional para los Sordomudos(National School for the Deaf-Mutes) in 1869. Deafness in the early colonial period isessentially untouched. This is likely due to a lack of archival work surrounding deafness anddisability. The depth of this research has certainly been limited by the lack of sources.Hopefully more attention is paid to these topics in the future as this work can potentially havepositive impacts on Deaf people living in Mexico today.For centuries, Deaf identity and meaning has been renegotiated and rethought.Contemporary views of deafness have tended to emphasize the biomedical model, whichrecognizes deafness as an impairment and something needing to be fixed. Oralism, hearing aids,and cochlear implants are standard. The biomedical, ableist approach we see today largelyderives from a long history of Western thought. Throughout this paper, I investigate how deafableism has manifested in Mexico through its experience as a Spanish colony and interactionswith Roman Catholicism.5THE METHODWith this framework in mind, I dove into the sources eager to build my knowledge. Myfirst task was to identify keywords that would aid in my search of both primary and secondarysources. When searching Spanish sources for relevant content, I looked for words such as“sordo” (deaf), “mudo” (mute), “sordomudo” (deaf-mute), “oír” (to hear), and “oreja” (ear). Iassume that many of these keywords might appear obvious with the exception of “mudo” (mute)and “sordomudo” (deaf-mute). The inclusion of these words are a result of a tendency toperceive hearing-impaired persons as mutes because they usually do not acquire spoken languagenaturally. Thus, muteness is often connected with deafness and could signal discussions ofhearing loss in the sources. This strategy of keywords allowed me to select sources thatspecifically mentioned deafness in either Spain or Mexico.Since I also looked at larger themes of how disability was perceived in Catholictheologies and Spanish colonial structures, I searched for additional sources that were notconnected specifically to deafness. The difficulty of investigating disability history, however, isthe changeability of terminology. Our modern concept of “disability” did not exist a fewcenturies ago. Yet, there have always been people living with impairments. Dr. Mary Dunnidentifies that there were many ways to refer to impairments in the past such as infirmity,affliction, monstrosity, and deformity.1 While outdated terms, these words and others indicatethe historical presence of those with impairments. In this paper, I will follow Dr. Mary Dunn byoften referring to those we would consider having impairments or disabilities as those with“embodied difference” in an effort to be more inclusive.22 In her book Where Paralytics Walk and the Blind See: Stories of Sickness and Disability at the Junctureof Worlds, Dr. Mary Dunn prefers the phrase “embodied difference” to challenge semantic boundaries andcapture various experiences with differences.1 Mary Dunn, Where Paralytics Walk and the Blind See: Stories of Sickness and Disability at the Junctureof Worlds, 1st ed., (United States: Princeton University Press, 2022), p. 5.6VILLAGE OF CHÍCAN: INDIGENOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF DEAFNESSDuring my search for Indigenous perspectives on deafness, I was quickly directed to theYucatec Maya village of Chícan. This traditional village located southeast of Mérida has anunusually high occurrence of deafness in the population. In most parts of the world, deafnessoccurs in about 1 in 1,000 people whereas in Chícan the rate is approximately 30 in 1,000.3Upon further research, I learned that every resident of the village, hearing and deaf alike, usessign language. Rather than using LSM (Lengua de Señas Mexicana), the official sign languageof Mexico, the residents use LSMY (Lengua de Señas Maya Yucateca), an Indigenous signedlanguage.4 Chícan piqued my interest for its intersection between local Indigenous populationsand the Mexican nation. Chícan presented itself as an ideal starting point to frame my research.There have been a few significant research investigations done by other researchers whohave also taken an interest in Chícan for its continued use of Indigenous sign language and itsdynamic between hearing and deaf villagers. Dr. Robert E. Johnson, Chair of the Department ofLinguistics and Interpreting at Gallaudet University, proposes a compelling argument based onhis observations of the deaf in Chícan and in industrial societies like urban Mexico and theUnited States. Johnson argues that since Chícan identity lies first with the family and the village,“. . . deafness itself does not appear to have coalesced a strong ethnic group within the society ofthe village not to have become politicized in the form of solidarity.”5 This argument is intriguingto me because it is the beginning of an answer to a question that I held prior to conducting thisresearch. I had wondered if hearing-impaired persons are more readily accepted in smaller, rural5 Robert E. Johnson, “Sign Language, Culture & Community in a Traditional Yucatec Maya Village,” SignLanguage Studies, no. 73 (1991), p. 469-470.4 Chícan is not the only Latin American community using Indigenous signed languages. Erich Fox Treehas identified a Mesoamerican sign language he calls “Meemul Tziij” that is widely used in Mayancommunities in Guatemala.3 J. Paige MacDougall, “Deafness and Sign Language in a Yucatec Maya Community: EmergentEthnographic Practice,” Annals of Anthropological Practice 39, no. 2 (2015), p. 151.7societies where the community relies on each other for survival. My own experience living in anindustrial, capitalist nation and witnessing people with disabilities such as my parents facediscrimination has shown me that urban societies might not be as accepting of those withdifferences.Like Dr. Robert E. Johnson, sociocultural anthropologist Dr. J. Paige MacDougallobserved a non-discriminatory attitude towards the deaf residents of Chícan while carrying outher doctoral field research there from 2007 to 2009. During this period, MacDougall observedthat the majority spoken language was Yucatec Mayan, but all 612 members of the communityalso signed LSMY (Lengua de Señas Maya Yucateca).6 Out of the 612 villagers, 18 wereconsidered deaf. This is a surprising instance where the language of the minority group is usedby the entire community. In a society where identity and belonging is defined by relationships tofamily and the community as a whole, the community of Chícan promotes equal access to socialparticipation. As one community leader explained, “. . . everyone uses sign language becausedeaf individuals operate in the community in the same way as hearing people.”7 As MacDougalland Johnson observed, Chícan residents do not perceive hearing loss negatively.Unfortunately, the majority of people worldwide do not share the same perspective onhearing impairment. Hearing loss is widely understood as the lack of something, as somethingneeding to be remedied. While conducting her field research in Chícan, Dr. J. Paige MacDougallencountered several individuals and groups who visited the community attempting to “fix” thedeaf problem. MacDougall documents groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the non-profitMexican Association for Persons with Auditory Disability who tried to introduce LSM (Lenguade Señas Mexicana) to the deaf Chícan residents.8 LSM, the official sign language of Mexico,8 MacDougall, p. 159.7 MacDougall, p. 152.6 MacDougall, p. 151.8was presented as the superior sign language and thus undermined the Chícan usage of IndigenousLSMY. Also, in 2007, the Mexican government provided hearing aids to all deaf Chícanresidents but did not provide instructions on how to use them.9 While these people weremotivated by good intentions, their help may have been counterproductive and even harmful. Byasking deaf Chícan residents to conform to the national Deaf Mexican identity, the IndigenousDeaf identity is disregarded and considered inferior. Interestingly, MacDougall likens thisprocess to European colonialists imposing their foreign ways onto Indigenous peoples.10The importance of the village of Chícan is that it offers an alternative, Indigenous,non-ableist perspective of deafness that demonstrates the success and benefits of the socialmodel of disability. The social model is one that practices accomodation and seeks to changesociety, not the disabled, so that those with disabilities can participate. In Chícan, for instance,every resident can communicate using sign language regardless if they are hearing or deaf. Onthe other hand, the biomedical model advocates for assimilation of the differently abled intosocieties structured around “normal” bodies. Concerning deafness, the biomedical modelpromotes oralism, hearing aids, and cochlear implants so that Deaf people can interact withhearing people. By providing hearing aids without proper instruction to deaf residents of Chícan,the Mexican government emphasizes the biomedical model over the social model of disability.Thus, national perspectives of deafness are in conflict with local, Indigenous perspectives. Intrying to understand why ableism and the biomedical model of disability is so pervasive inWestern and Western-influenced nations today, I turned to the historical commentary on deafnessand disability. Much of this commentary was found in Christian theological contexts, which Iinvestigate in the next section.10 MacDougall, p. 159.9 MacDougall, p. 161.9EARLY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT ON DEAFNESS AND DISABILITYBefore modern science explained the causes of hearing loss, deafness was understoodthrough religion and philosophy. The religion I am most concerned with for the purposes of thispaper is Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism, as this was the predominant religionintroduced by Spanish colonizers to Latin America. There is a surprising amount of Christiantheological commentary on congenital disability,11 and deafness especially. It was thinkers suchas Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas whose powerful ideas influenced Westerndiscussions of embodied difference for centuries.Saint Augustine of Hippo is perhaps the most pervasive theological commentator ondeafness and disability. This 4th century Christian theologian and philosopher theorized that thepresence of congenital disabilities such as blindness and deafness were the result of original sinpassed down by the parents.12 Saint Augustine, like many others, considered deafness a form ofpunishment for sinful human nature. These thinkers considered deafness a negative occurrenceand that God would not allow such a trait in His creations unless He was punishing them forsomething. These ideas were supported by Biblical evidence, such as Exodus 4:11. In thisexcerpt, “The Lord said to [Moses]. ‘Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes themdeaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?’”13 Alsonoteworthy are instances of the deaf being “healed” in the Bible. In Mark 7, Jesus encounters adeaf and mute man in Decapolis. Jesus heals this man so that he can hear and talk. Is it notsignificant that it is the son of God who restores hearing to the deaf? The existence of people13 Exodus 4:1112 Jenni Kuuliala and Reima Välimäki, “Deafness and Pastoral Care in the Middle Ages,” In Disability inMedieval Christian Philosophy and Theology, 1st ed., (Milton: Routledge, 2020), p. 181.11 Congenital disability refers to structural or functional anomalies that are present at birth.10with congenital disabilities was evidence for people like Saint Augustine that humans were sinfulcreatures and only divine intervention could cure them.Interestingly, Saint Augustine also argued that the ability to hear is a prerequisite forreligious understanding and salvation.14 It is unclear whether he meant that faith comes from theliteral hearing of the word of God, or if he simply conflated hearing with understanding. Since atleast Aristotle’s time, there was a preconception that to be deaf is to be dumb. Most people areborn hearing so the conventional method of learning is through hearing spoken language.Spoken language is usually not naturally acquired by hearing-impaired persons so differentforms of learning and communication are required. This is why signed languages are common inDeaf communities. However, because deaf persons do not acquire language and understandingwith the same ease hearing people do, many consider deaf people dumb even when there is nocognitive impairment. The phrase “deaf and dumb” is still tossed around even today. Eitherway, through the pervasiveness of this thinking, deaf persons were considered inferior to hearingpeople in their understanding of Christian faith, and were essentially doomed to damnation.Many deaf people were likely denied access to religion as a result of this conviction and becauseof communication obstacles between the hearing and the deaf.However, there were a series of Christian theologians and philosophers in medievalEurope who did think about congenital disability (which includes deafness) beyond explanationsof sin. The most notable of these were Albert the Great and his pupil Saint Thomas Aquinas.Albert the Great, a German bishop, philosopher, and scientist, took a methodological approach tocongenital disability that was influenced by Aristotle’s natural philosophy. (It is important tonote that although Aristotle predates Christianity, his ideas and the philosophical traditioninspired by him continued to influence intellectuals for centuries after.) Like Aristotle, Albert14 Kuuliala and Välimäki, p. 181.11the Great believed that congenital disabilities were due to variations in the biological process.15For the most part, Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed with his teacher that there were natural causesfor embodied differences. However, Aquinas, more than Albert the Great, also believed theremay be some connection between sin and the congenital disabilities he (and many others) calledmonstrosities (monstra).16 While Albert the Great and Saint Thomas Aquinas thought aboutdisability beyond sin, their ideas of biological variations are still ableist. For something to beconsidered a “variation,” there first has to be a concept of what is normal or standard. For thesethinkers, able-bodied people are considered nature’s normal, and even its goal. Thus, disabilitywas defined in contrast to able-bodiedness and, to an extent, was considered to be nature’s failureto achieve normativity.For contemporary readers with the benefit of hindsight and a modern understanding ofdisability, the historical theological commentary on embodied difference is riddled with harmful,ableist language. Yet, these thinkers and their ideas still pervade Western academia today. Forexample, St. Thomas Aquinas college in New York is named for the medieval philosopher andtheologian in recognition of his brilliant mind and influential ideas. While Saint ThomasAquinas and others were indeed gifted intellectuals and in many ways contributed positively, it isstill important to recognize that many of their ideas are flawed and constrained by the times inwhich they lived. Whether thinking about disability through the lens of religion or biology, thesemedieval intellectuals promoted perspectives that in no small part contributed to the legacy ofableism in Western societies. In the next section, I investigate how this legacy manifested in the16 Scott M. Williams, “Introduction,” In Disability in Medieval Christian Philosophy and Theology, 1st ed.,(Milton: Routledge, 2020), p. 8.15 Gloria Frost, “Medieval Aristotelians on Congenital Disabilities and Their Early Modern Critics,” InDisability in Medieval Christian Philosophy and Theology, 1st ed., (Milton: Routledge, 2020), p. 64.12“New World” through European colonization and Catholic missionary practice, bringing ourdiscussion closer to contemporary Mexico.THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF EMBODIED DIFFERENCE IN NEWWORLDMISSIONARY PRACTICEIn “New World” missionary encounters, the experiences of able-bodied people are oftenemphasized over experiences of people with embodied differences. Herein lies one of the maindifficulties in studying disability history. Those who live with embodied differences often do notget to tell their own stories. This denial of historical agency makes it near impossible for adisability historian to study the lived experiences of embodied difference. So, instead oftheorizing what the lived realities were for the differently abled in places like colonial Mexico, itis much more productive to critically examine what disability meant to those who could writeabout it, such as the missionaries.For many Christians, including missionaries who traveled to the “New World,” thepresence of disabilities signified a divine demonstration, and so the differently abled wereviewed as “fulfilling an extrinsically ordained divine purpose.”17 Dr. Mary Dunn, a professor oftheological studies at Saint Louis University who takes a special interest in early modernCatholic Canada under French rule, argues that, for the Jesuits of New France, sickness anddisability were made meaningful and acted as the “handmaids of mission.”18 Taking care of thesick and disabled Indigenous allowed the Jesuits to gain converts, practice acts of charity, andcultivate their Christian virtue.19 Sick and disabled people were perceived as opportunities formissionaries to gain spiritual capital. While this perspective on disability is arguably better than19 Dunn, p. 46.18 Dunn, p. 30.17 Frost, p. 53.13others because it includes genuine care for those with embodied differences, it is still problematicand ableist. Those who are sick or disabled are set apart from the rest of the population becausetheir difference is recognized and emphasized. This perspective also denies the sick and disabledhistorical agency as they are relegated to the care of others. In “New World,” encounters withsickness and disability, the historical narrative largely focuses on the missionary figure ratherthan on the lived experiences of those with embodied differences.Some parallels between Dunn’s research in colonial French Canada can be seen in LatinAmerica under Spanish colonial rule. Like the Jesuits of New France, the Spanish missionarieswere also very preoccupied with Indigenous bodies and souls. While sources detailing Spanishmissionary interactions specifically with disability are limited, much can still be learned aboutembodied difference through sources connected to sickness and epidemics, of which there areplenty. For the Spanish Catholic missionaries, the conservation of Indigenous lives was at theforefront of their evangelizing mission. This idea of conservación de Indios20 was widespreadthroughout colonial Mexico in particular. There are many accounts of Spanish missionaries whowere genuinely concerned with saving Indigenous bodies and souls and even experienceddistress at perceived failures to do so. After the devastation of the cocoliztli epidemic in 1581,for example, Bishop Medina Rincón wrote the Spanish king asking to be absolved of his dutiesas bishop in Mexico.21 The extreme nature of this request illustrates Medina’s anguish overfailures to save Indigenous lives and bodies through medicine and physical care. Many ofMedina’s contemporaries felt the same. Like in French Canada, tending to the physical needs ofthe Indios allowed Spanish missionaries to cultivate Christian virtues and a sense of “spiritual21 Jennifer Scheper Hughes, The Church of the Dead: The Epidemic of 1576 and the Birth of Christianityin the Americas, (New York: New York University Press, 2021), p. 61.20 In Spanish sources, Indigenous Americans are often referred to as Indios.14and social jurisdiction over Indigenous bodies and lives.”22 Failure to save Indigenous bodiesdeeply impacted and discouraged many Spanish missionaries.As indicated previously, the major drawback to researching disability (deafness inparticular) in colonial Mexico is the lack of accessible historical sources that reference it, againhighlighting the need for further research and archival work of this period. To circumvent theabsence of sources but still touch on issues relevant to this paper, I have looked to Dr. MaryDunn’s groundbreaking research on embodied difference in colonial French Canada forreference. While comparative analysis comes with caveats, the similarities between colonialCanada and colonial Mexico are striking. Both territories were colonized by Western CatholicEuropean powers and run mostly by missionaries of Catholic religious orders who migrated tothe “New World.” Dunn’s claim that sickness and disability were “handmaids of mission” inFrench Canada may be more relevant to colonial Mexico than we currently recognize. Again,more research is needed on this topic.JUAN PABLO BONET AND DEAF EDUCATION IN THE 17TH CENTURYWhile missionaries were contending with sickness and disability in the “New World,”intellectuals were grappling with it back in Europe. Spain in particular saw a surge in interest indeafness and deaf education during the 16th and 17th centuries. In the mid-1500s, the success ofBenedictine monk Pedro Ponce de León in teaching his deaf pupil Don Francisco who was born“dumb by nature” to speak “by the ingenuity of man”23 spread through intellectual and religiouscircles.24 Teaching the deaf how to speak had previously been thought to be an impossible feat.24 A. Farrar, “Historical Introduction,” in Simplification of the Letters of the Alphabet and Method ofTeaching Deaf-Mutes to Speak. By Juan Pablo Bonet, (1890): p. 24.23 Again, the able-bodied person is emphasized over the differently-abled person. The “genius” of Poncede León is given more attention than the accomplishment of Don Francisco learning spoken language.22 Hughes, p. 57.15Ponce de Leon’s unprecedented success motivated other Spaniards like himself to research andimplement methods to teach speech to deaf individuals. One of these individuals was Juan PabloBonet, who is considered a pioneer of deaf education. His 1620 treatise Reducción de las letrasy arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos25 included a manual alphabet26 that could be used tocommunicate with the deaf through signs. This is perhaps the first documented manual alphabetfor the purpose of deaf education. In this work dedicated to the Spanish king Philip III, Bonetidentified himself as “Confidential Servant of His Majesty, Attendant on the Person of theCaptain-General of Artillery of Spain, and Secretary to the Constable of Castile.”27 To thisresume we can also add Spanish priest. Juan Pablo Bonet was an interesting, well-educated, andwell-traveled individual. As a Spanish Catholic priest concentrating on deafness during the 17thcentury when Spanish colonial presence in Mexico was still strong and education was stillmostly accessed in religious settings, the ideas presented in Bonet’s book are hugely relevant tothe themes explored in this paper.The bulk of Bonet’s treatise reads like an instruction manual. The first part is mostlyconcerned with individual letter breakdown in which Bonet describes in depth the sound, tongueplacement, and breath technique required for correct pronunciation. Bonet includesrecommendations for instructors, such as using a leather tongue model that can be used todemonstrate the correct position without having to invasively manipulate the deaf-mute’s tongue.(In the original Spanish, Bonet referred to the deaf as “mudos,” or mutes. In the 1890 Englishtranslation of Bonet’s treatise that I used alongside the 1620 original, Hugh Neville Dixontranslates “mudos” as “deaf-mutes.” For sake of clarity, I have opted to use “deaf-mutes” here.)27 Title page of the 1890 translated version by Hugh Neville Dixon.26 It is not believed that Bonet created this manual alphabet. He was probably just the first to publish it forwidespread use. This indicates sign language was being used in Spain to some extent at this time,another potential area of continued research.25 Translation: “Simplification of the Letters of the Alphabet and Method of Teaching Deaf-Mutes to Speak”16Bonet also emphasized that for deaf-mutes to master speech and language, constant practice andcorrection by hearing people was necessary. An additional recommendation was that in homeswhere there is a deaf-mute, all those who can read should be familiar with the manual alphabet inorder to converse with the deaf-mute.28 This refreshing sense of accomodation appears to placethe successful learning of the deaf person as the main concern. Consistency and accuracy werekey to the success of Bonet’s method of teaching the deaf to speak.Beyond getting the deaf to speak, Juan Pablo Bonet was also concerned with genuineunderstanding and intelligible communication. Bonet’s treatise contains several sectionsdedicated to methods of teaching the deaf proper grammar and structure of the Spanish language.In one section, Bonet emphasizes the importance of correctly teaching abstract nouns so that thedeaf can fully understand matters such as religion. For the deaf to truly know God and Histeachings, “así es necesario que se ponga en esto el mayor cuyadado de esta enseñança.”29 ForBonet, the deaf were not dumb. He recognized their capacity to learn. In certain sections of hisbook, Bonet even lauds the abilities of deaf-mutes, especially that of attention to detail andlip-reading abilities.30In the prologue to Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos, JuanPablo Bonet expresses his hope that his method of teaching the deaf will be of use to manyothers, including foreigners since deafness and muteness is present everywhere.31 Bonet’streatise was indeed used in Western deaf education models beyond the Spanish mainland, which31 In the original Spanish this reads “pues es el daño común a todos,” which roughly translates to “since[deafness/muteness] is the hurt or harm common to all.” Interestingly, in the 1890 English translationdone by Hugh Neville Dixon, this part was translated as deafness being the evil common to all.30 Bonet, Juan Pablo, Hugh Neville Dixon, and Abraham Farrar. Simplification of theLetters of the Alphabet and Method of Teaching Deaf-Mutes to Speak, (1890): p. 201.29 Translation by Hugh Neville Dixon: “it is therefore necessary to take the utmost pains with this part of[the deaf-mute’s] education.”28 Bonet, Juan Pablo, Hugh Neville Dixon, and Abraham Farrar. Simplification of theLetters of the Alphabet and Method of Teaching Deaf-Mutes to Speak, (1890): p. 154.17is why many consider him a pioneer of deaf education today. However, like other intellectualswe have discussed throughout the course of this paper, Bonet’s ideas require a criticalexamination. While much praise should be awarded to Juan Pablo Bonet for recognizing theabilities of deaf people and making great strides in promoting deaf education, many of his ideasstill exhibit ableist themes and promote the biomedical model of disability. For instance, thesecond half of Bonet’s treatise is dedicated entirely to how to teach deaf-mutes how to speak,which is known as oralism. Oralism is aimed at getting deaf people to communicate withhearing people through spoken language, which inherently prefers spoken language over signedlanguages. Oralism is overwhelmingly dominant in Western deaf education today. Many Deafpeople, including my parents, attend speech therapy sessions in their youth. Speech therapy isoften extremely frustrating and can be traumatic. Oralism is evidence of a prevailing biomedicalmodel of disability since it seeks to assimilate Deaf people into a majority hearing society. Thisconflicts with the situation in the Mexican village of Chícan mentioned at the beginning of thispaper. There, Deaf individuals are incorporated into the community and the hearing residentsaccommodate them through widespread use of sign language. While groundbreaking in ways,Juan Pablo Bonet’s treatise reflects ableist rhetoric still present in Western deaf education. Withthis historical context in place, I now turn in earnest to Deaf experiences in contemporaryMexico.CONTEMPORARY MEXICAN DEAF EXPERIENCESMuch of the research done on deafness in Mexico rarely predates the founding of theEscuela Nacional para Sordomudos (National School for Deaf-Mutes, or ENS) in Mexico Cityin 1869, again emphasizing the need for more work with earlier sources. ENS is important not18just because it was the first school for the Deaf in Mexico, but also because it was established byMexican President Benito Juárez. Juárez is a widely admired Mexican national hero known forbeing the first native Mesoamerican to rise to the presidency and for his program of reforms. Heis especially loved by Deaf Mexicans because of the special interest he took in ensuring theireducation.32While ENS was an important early institution of deaf education, it has since closed andother deaf education programs offered are severely lacking. Claire L. Ramsey, a professor ofEducation at UC San Diego, is one of the foremost researchers of deafness and deaf education inMexico. Ramsey focuses on contemporary Mexico and her work highlights many of theinequalities and injustices Deaf Mexicans face today. Her book The People Who Spell: The LastStudents from the Mexican National School for the Deaf offers an incredible look at livedexperiences of Sordos Mexicanos today, many of whom attended ENS before it closed down in1972. Many of these “ENS signers” remember the school fondly as it being the first place theywere exposed to LSM (Mexican Sign Language) and for providing them with an opportunity ateducation.33 Yet, since the school’s closure, not much has been done to improve deaf educationin Mexico.34 Deaf education in Mexico has remained rather stagnant. As a result, many havelooked to America for better models. Interestingly, many Deaf Mexicans admire American Deafculture and its opportunities for Deaf people especially in terms of advanced education (i.e.Gallaudet University). Many Deaf Mexicans or families with young hearing-impaired childrenoften opt to immigrate to the United States to take advantage of American deaf education, whichis perceived as superior and more developed. While not perfect, the United States does have34 I would like to state here that I do recognize that public education in Mexico is generallyunderdeveloped when compared to countries like the United States. It is not just hearing-impairedMexicans who do not have easy access to public education. Yet, the point still stands.33 Ramsey, p. 9.32 Claire L. Ramsey, The People Who Spell: The Last Students from the Mexican National School for theDeaf, (Gallaudet University Press, 2011), p. 55.19more resources available for deaf education. The struggle for hearing-impaired Mexicans toaccess education is one of the main issues faced in contemporary Mexico.Another identifying feature of contemporary deafness in Mexico that may indicateintersections with the Western biomedical model is that of miracle cures. In a book chaptercalled “Niños Milagrizados: Language Attitudes, Deaf Education, and Miracle Cures inMexico,” Claire L. Ramsey and José Antonio Noriega identify three miracle cures for deafnessin the Tijuana/San Diego region. These cures are known as the key, the swallow, and theparakeet and are usually sought after by parents of deaf children. The key cure involves a priestinserting a key into a deaf child’s mouth and twisting it to “unlock” the child’s voice.35 Theswallow and parakeet cures are similar to each other in that they both involve a bird sacrifice sothat the bird’s song (voice) could be transferred to the deaf child.36 These miracle cures areableist in the sense that they promote oralism and the importance of spoken language. Thesecures can even be seen as perpetuating the biomedical model of disability since they attempt torestore the deaf child to society. And, since one of the miracle cures (the key) requires thepresence of a priest, these ableist perspectives are once again tied to Christianity which wasintroduced to Mexico through colonial structures.The contemporary experiences of deafness in urban Mexico differ greatly from the DeafIndigenous experience of Chícan examined at the very beginning of this paper. Deaf educationaimed and miracle cures aimed at oralism in urban Mexico have no place in rural, IndigenousChícan where deaf residents are incorporated and accepted entirely into society. While the urbanMexico that promotes a national Deaf Mexican identity aligns more closely with the biomedical36 Ramsey and Noriega, p. 132-133.35 Claire Ramsey and José Antonio Noriega, “Niños Milagrizados: Language Attitudes, Deaf Education,and Miracle Cures in Mexico,” in Bilingualism & Identity in Deaf Communities, (Washington, D.C.:Gallaudet University Press, 2000), p. 130.20model of disability, rural, Indigenous Mexico practices accomodation with the social model andpreserves Indigenous Deaf identity.CONCLUSIONSIn Mexico today, Deaf people are not allowed to obtain a driver’s license nor are theyable to buy a home without the assistance of a hearing person.37 This legal discriminationagainst hearing-impaired people is evidence of prevailing ableism in Mexico. And, as we haveexamined in depth throughout this paper, this is largely due to a long, complicated history ofinteraction with imported Western, Christian thought. The ideas presented in this paper areintended to introduce a Mexican Deaf history that extends back to the colonial period. However,this research is in no way complete and I invite other disability historians to delve deeper into thethemes and ideas discussed here.37 Anthony Depalma, “In Mexico, Deaf Find the Future Lies North,” The New York Times, July 26, 1997.21REFERENCESPrimary Sources ConsultedBonet, Juan Pablo. Reduction de las letras, Y arte para enseñar a ablar Los Mudos. En Madrid:Por Francisco Abarca de Angulo, 1620.Bonet, Juan Pablo, Hugh Neville Dixon, and Abraham Farrar. Simplification of theLetters of the Alphabet and Method of Teaching Deaf-Mutes to Speak. By Juan PabloBonet, ... Dedicated to His Majesty Our Lord the King Don Philip III. Madrid -Francisco Abarca de Andulo - 1620. Translated From the Original Spanish by H.D.Dixon, ... With a Historical Introduction by A. Farrar, 1890.Depalma, Anthony. “In Mexico, Deaf Find the Future Lies North.” The New York Times, July 26,1997.https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/26/nyregion/in-mexico-deaf-find-the-future-lies-north.htmlHoly Bible, New International Version (NIV)Molina, Alonso de. Vocabulario en Lengua Castellana y Mexicana. Mexico: de Spinosa, 1571.Motolinía, Toribio, Historia de los indios de la Nueva España, 1858.Ojito, Mirta. “A Neighborhood Was Jarred by the Cries of ‘The Mute Ones.’” The New YorkTimes, July 20, 1997.https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/20/nyregion/a-neighborhood-was-jarred-by-cries-of-the-mute-ones.html?searchResultPosition=322Sahagún, Bernardino de. Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España. 1540-1590.22Secondary Sources ConsultedAntebi, Susan. Embodied Archive Disability in Post-Revolutionary Mexican CulturalProduction. University of Michigan Press, 2021.Casas Ramírez, Juan Alberto. “Entre La Oscuridad y El Silencio: Ciegos ySordomudos En El Mundo de La Biblia.” Veritas, no. 34 (2016): 9–32.https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-92732016000100001.Dunn, Mary. Where Paralytics Walk and the Blind See: Stories of Sickness andDisability at the Juncture of Worlds. 1st ed. United States: Princeton University Press,2022. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691233239.Grushkin, Donald A., and Leila Frances Monaghan. Deaf Empowerment : Resistanceand Decolonization. Print edition. Laramie, Wyoming: Elm Academic Press, 2020.Hughes, Jennifer Scheper. The Church of the Dead : the Epidemic of 1576 and the Birth ofChristianity in the Americas. New York: New York University Press, 2021.https://doi.org/10.18574/9781479802586.Johnson, Robert E. “Sign Language, Culture & Community in a Traditional Yucatec MayaVillage.” Sign Language Studies 73, no. 73 (1991): 461–74.Knoors, Harry, Maria Brons, and Marc Marschark. Deaf Education Beyond theWestern World : Context, Challenges, and Prospects. New York, NY, United States ofAmerica: Oxford University Press, 2019.https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190880514.001.0001.MacDougall, J. Paige. “Deafness and Sign Language in a Yucatec Maya Community:Emergent Ethnographic Practice.” Annals of Anthropological Practice 39, no. 2 (2015):150–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/napa.12077.23Metzger, Melanie. Bilingualism and Identity in Deaf Communities. Washington, D.C:Gallaudet University Press, 2000.Ramsey, Claire L. The People Who Spell: The Last Students from the Mexican NationalSchool For The Deaf / Claire L. Ramsey. Gallaudet University Press, 2011.Tree, Erich Fox. “Meemul Tziij: An Indigenous Sign Language Complex ofMesoamerica.” Sign Language Studies 9, no. 3 (2009): 324–66.https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.0.0016.Williams, Scott M. Disability in Medieval Christian Philosophy and Theology. 1st ed.Milton: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429202919.24

Clean Full Text

Language

Doi

Arxiv

Mag

Acl

Pmid

Pmcid

Pub Date

Pub Year

Journal Name

Journal Volume

Journal Page

Publication Types

Tldr

Tldr Version

Generated Tldr

Search Term Used

Reference Count

Citation Count

Influential Citation Count

Last Update

Status

Aws Job

Last Checked

Modified

Created