Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language by Douglas C.BayntonReview by: Harry G. LangIsis, Vol. 88, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), p. 736Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/237882 .
Accessed: 09/05/2014 00:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 00:24:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 88: 4 (1997) BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 88: 4 (1997) BOOK REVIEWS-ISIS, 88: 4 (1997)
pages, roughly 100 are devoted to double-spaced footnotes and the Lees' bibliography, the reader must find the Gallihers' cursory treatment dou- bly unfortunate.
MARK C. SMITH
pages, roughly 100 are devoted to double-spaced footnotes and the Lees' bibliography, the reader must find the Gallihers' cursory treatment dou- bly unfortunate.
MARK C. SMITH
pages, roughly 100 are devoted to double-spaced footnotes and the Lees' bibliography, the reader must find the Gallihers' cursory treatment dou- bly unfortunate.
MARK C. SMITH
Douglas C. Baynton. Forbidden Signs: Ameri- can Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language. xii + 288 pp., illus., tables, index. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1996. $27.50, ?21.95.
This book is for professionals interested in the interplay between culture and language, espe- cially the effect of majority perspectives on mi- nority languages. The study of deaf people and deafness is complex, and Douglas Baynton's book adds to the existing body of knowledge through a detailed examination of the debates on the use of sign language that have raged through- out the history of the Deaf community in Amer- ica. Baynton's book focuses primarily on the contributions and perspectives of hearing peo- ple, as much of the history of deaf people has done in the past. Although this approach yields a revealing analysis of power relationships, op- pression, and terminology, it leaves the reader wondering about the ways in which the perspec- tives of deaf people themselves have influenced their situation: attitudes of deaf people, too, have played a complex and powerful role in deter- mining the acceptance of sign language in school environments throughout the community's his- tory.
Forbidden Signs looks at the seemingly end- less struggle by the Deaf community for the free- dom to communicate through a visual language of its own, one that, as Baynton accurately em- phasizes, is distinct from English and a "human right" for those who choose to enjoy it. From the restrictions of Social Darwinism and the influ- ence of Alexander Graham Bell and the eugenics movement to the modem debate on inclusion, this right has frequently been lost in arguments for "normality." For historians of science, Bayn- ton also presents interesting discussions of the origins of gestural languages and the relationship of the theory of evolution to attitudes about sign language as "primitive"-that is, he discusses in- teractions between the deaf community and sci- entific thought.
For those of us who are deaf and who rely heavily on visual/gestural language, Baynton's scholarship conveys a powerful message, one that validates our everyday experiences: no mat- ter what advances there have been in science and
Douglas C. Baynton. Forbidden Signs: Ameri- can Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language. xii + 288 pp., illus., tables, index. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1996. $27.50, ?21.95.
This book is for professionals interested in the interplay between culture and language, espe- cially the effect of majority perspectives on mi- nority languages. The study of deaf people and deafness is complex, and Douglas Baynton's book adds to the existing body of knowledge through a detailed examination of the debates on the use of sign language that have raged through- out the history of the Deaf community in Amer- ica. Baynton's book focuses primarily on the contributions and perspectives of hearing peo- ple, as much of the history of deaf people has done in the past. Although this approach yields a revealing analysis of power relationships, op- pression, and terminology, it leaves the reader wondering about the ways in which the perspec- tives of deaf people themselves have influenced their situation: attitudes of deaf people, too, have played a complex and powerful role in deter- mining the acceptance of sign language in school environments throughout the community's his- tory.
Forbidden Signs looks at the seemingly end- less struggle by the Deaf community for the free- dom to communicate through a visual language of its own, one that, as Baynton accurately em- phasizes, is distinct from English and a "human right" for those who choose to enjoy it. From the restrictions of Social Darwinism and the influ- ence of Alexander Graham Bell and the eugenics movement to the modem debate on inclusion, this right has frequently been lost in arguments for "normality." For historians of science, Bayn- ton also presents interesting discussions of the origins of gestural languages and the relationship of the theory of evolution to attitudes about sign language as "primitive"-that is, he discusses in- teractions between the deaf community and sci- entific thought.
For those of us who are deaf and who rely heavily on visual/gestural language, Baynton's scholarship conveys a powerful message, one that validates our everyday experiences: no mat- ter what advances there have been in science and
Douglas C. Baynton. Forbidden Signs: Ameri- can Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language. xii + 288 pp., illus., tables, index. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1996. $27.50, ?21.95.
This book is for professionals interested in the interplay between culture and language, espe- cially the effect of majority perspectives on mi- nority languages. The study of deaf people and deafness is complex, and Douglas Baynton's book adds to the existing body of knowledge through a detailed examination of the debates on the use of sign language that have raged through- out the history of the Deaf community in Amer- ica. Baynton's book focuses primarily on the contributions and perspectives of hearing peo- ple, as much of the history of deaf people has done in the past. Although this approach yields a revealing analysis of power relationships, op- pression, and terminology, it leaves the reader wondering about the ways in which the perspec- tives of deaf people themselves have influenced their situation: attitudes of deaf people, too, have played a complex and powerful role in deter- mining the acceptance of sign language in school environments throughout the community's his- tory.
Forbidden Signs looks at the seemingly end- less struggle by the Deaf community for the free- dom to communicate through a visual language of its own, one that, as Baynton accurately em- phasizes, is distinct from English and a "human right" for those who choose to enjoy it. From the restrictions of Social Darwinism and the influ- ence of Alexander Graham Bell and the eugenics movement to the modem debate on inclusion, this right has frequently been lost in arguments for "normality." For historians of science, Bayn- ton also presents interesting discussions of the origins of gestural languages and the relationship of the theory of evolution to attitudes about sign language as "primitive"-that is, he discusses in- teractions between the deaf community and sci- entific thought.
For those of us who are deaf and who rely heavily on visual/gestural language, Baynton's scholarship conveys a powerful message, one that validates our everyday experiences: no mat- ter what advances there have been in science and
technology, especially in linguistics and anthro- pology, human fear and resistance to difference remain difficult to overcome.
HARRY G. LANG
technology, especially in linguistics and anthro- pology, human fear and resistance to difference remain difficult to overcome.
HARRY G. LANG
technology, especially in linguistics and anthro- pology, human fear and resistance to difference remain difficult to overcome.
HARRY G. LANG
Marianne van den Wijngaard. Reinventing the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of Feminin- ity and Masculinity. (Race, Gender, and Sci- ence.) x + 174 pp., figs., bibl., index. Bloo- mington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997. $29.95 (cloth); $12.95 (paper).
Marianne van den Wijngaard, who has published in, among other places, the Journal of the His- tory of Biology, is a social constructionist. That is, she believes that much of what has been writ- ten about sex and gender in the scientific litera- ture in the past has been presented from the male viewpoint by male scientists and that it was only when feminists looked at issues from a woman's viewpoint that traditional attitudes changed. I agree with her that ideas about sex and gender have changed rather dramatically in the past twenty years and that feminists gave an impetus to this change. But the question is whether the paradigm shift she believes occurred would have come about without pressure from feminists seeking new and different answers. The change is in large measure the result of new findings in neuroendocrinology, to which both sexes con- tributed. Nevertheless, van den Wijngaard makes a strong case for the influence of feminist thinking.
The core of the argument is the question about the relative effects of nature and nurture: which is more important in forming gender behavior? Very few scientists today adopt the extreme of either position; most tend to emphasize that bi- ology cannot be ignored and that social factors build on it. Still, as van den Wijngaard points out, most of the pioneers in psychoendocrinol- ogy and neuroendocrinology originally tended to look at testosterone as a differentiating factor, instead of examining the effects of estrogen, and when they did come to study estrogen they found that estradiol was the key to the masculinization of the rat brain. Was the failure of the male sci- entists to investigate this approach earlier due to their belief in the importance of testosterone as the key to maleness? Van den Wijngaard also points out that most of the early sexual studies on rats were based on male rats and that when female rats were finally included interpretations changed radically. Too often, she argues, scien- tists proceed according to the traditional as- sumption that males, although biologically simi-
Marianne van den Wijngaard. Reinventing the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of Feminin- ity and Masculinity. (Race, Gender, and Sci- ence.) x + 174 pp., figs., bibl., index. Bloo- mington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997. $29.95 (cloth); $12.95 (paper).
Marianne van den Wijngaard, who has published in, among other places, the Journal of the His- tory of Biology, is a social constructionist. That is, she believes that much of what has been writ- ten about sex and gender in the scientific litera- ture in the past has been presented from the male viewpoint by male scientists and that it was only when feminists looked at issues from a woman's viewpoint that traditional attitudes changed. I agree with her that ideas about sex and gender have changed rather dramatically in the past twenty years and that feminists gave an impetus to this change. But the question is whether the paradigm shift she believes occurred would have come about without pressure from feminists seeking new and different answers. The change is in large measure the result of new findings in neuroendocrinology, to which both sexes con- tributed. Nevertheless, van den Wijngaard makes a strong case for the influence of feminist thinking.
The core of the argument is the question about the relative effects of nature and nurture: which is more important in forming gender behavior? Very few scientists today adopt the extreme of either position; most tend to emphasize that bi- ology cannot be ignored and that social factors build on it. Still, as van den Wijngaard points out, most of the pioneers in psychoendocrinol- ogy and neuroendocrinology originally tended to look at testosterone as a differentiating factor, instead of examining the effects of estrogen, and when they did come to study estrogen they found that estradiol was the key to the masculinization of the rat brain. Was the failure of the male sci- entists to investigate this approach earlier due to their belief in the importance of testosterone as the key to maleness? Van den Wijngaard also points out that most of the early sexual studies on rats were based on male rats and that when female rats were finally included interpretations changed radically. Too often, she argues, scien- tists proceed according to the traditional as- sumption that males, although biologically simi-
Marianne van den Wijngaard. Reinventing the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of Feminin- ity and Masculinity. (Race, Gender, and Sci- ence.) x + 174 pp., figs., bibl., index. Bloo- mington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997. $29.95 (cloth); $12.95 (paper).
Marianne van den Wijngaard, who has published in, among other places, the Journal of the His- tory of Biology, is a social constructionist. That is, she believes that much of what has been writ- ten about sex and gender in the scientific litera- ture in the past has been presented from the male viewpoint by male scientists and that it was only when feminists looked at issues from a woman's viewpoint that traditional attitudes changed. I agree with her that ideas about sex and gender have changed rather dramatically in the past twenty years and that feminists gave an impetus to this change. But the question is whether the paradigm shift she believes occurred would have come about without pressure from feminists seeking new and different answers. The change is in large measure the result of new findings in neuroendocrinology, to which both sexes con- tributed. Nevertheless, van den Wijngaard makes a strong case for the influence of feminist thinking.
The core of the argument is the question about the relative effects of nature and nurture: which is more important in forming gender behavior? Very few scientists today adopt the extreme of either position; most tend to emphasize that bi- ology cannot be ignored and that social factors build on it. Still, as van den Wijngaard points out, most of the pioneers in psychoendocrinol- ogy and neuroendocrinology originally tended to look at testosterone as a differentiating factor, instead of examining the effects of estrogen, and when they did come to study estrogen they found that estradiol was the key to the masculinization of the rat brain. Was the failure of the male sci- entists to investigate this approach earlier due to their belief in the importance of testosterone as the key to maleness? Van den Wijngaard also points out that most of the early sexual studies on rats were based on male rats and that when female rats were finally included interpretations changed radically. Too often, she argues, scien- tists proceed according to the traditional as- sumption that males, although biologically simi-
736 736 736
This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 00:24:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
