Combined Method, Philosophy and Models of

Quite literally, the combined method is the pedagogical philosophy that neither end of the spectrum of deaf education—oralism nor manualism—is effective on its own. Advocates of this method recognized the different strengths and weaknesses of both schools of thought and therefore promoted the instruction of sign and gesture in addition to speech and lipreading. It arose as a response to the peak of the debate within deaf education in the West during the 19th and 20th centuries. The most adamant supporter of the combined method was Edward Miner Gallaudet who asserted that neither movement on its own was sufficient for a comprehensive education for deaf children.

Western social discourse in the latter half of the 19th century created the space for oralism to become the dominant school of thought. The spread of oralism tends to be marked by the Second International Congress on the Education of the Deaf in Milan in 1880, yet the underlying ideologies had already taken root in the West. Broader perceptions of language and normalcy led to discussions of how deaf people deviated from those standards. Attempts to define a national character of the United States led to the promotion of monolingualism. This emphasis on English was specifically geared toward the rise of immigrants into the U.S., which effectively had a significant impact on deaf education.

In response, Gallaudet wrote “The Combined System: Approved by Friends of the Orally Taught” in 1896, in which he provides testimony from the parents of deaf children challenging the position that either oralism or manualism on its own is adequate. Several of these letters pushed for the combined method on the grounds that the oral method ultimately focuses on speech and lipreading exercises at the expense of educating students on content. As in, preoccupation with the proper process of communication overtook the goal of primary purpose of education. An ideal system of instruction was lost on those involved in deaf education, from the perspective of proponents of the combined method.

These letters argued that not only does the oral method attend to speech and lipreading exercises in a way that sacrifices more general education, but also it is incapable of teaching speech and lipreading in a way that teaches the majority of deaf people to pass as hearing. In particular, one mother explains that “there is no doubt that in the family [Page 137]circle Mr. Bell’s method is valuable, but in the world at large it has but little value to the ordinary deaf child” (4) since only a few can understand their speech. Oralism’s stated goal was to integrate deaf children into hearing society through the instruction of speech and lipreading. Here, this advocate of the combined method indicates that not only was oralism problematic on several fronts, but it also seemed to fall short of its primary objective.

Another way in which supporters of the combined method problematized oralism is in terms of socialization. The oral method limited both the use of sign language in addition to the interaction among deaf children in order to achieve the former goal. Rather than result in smooth assimilation of deaf people into hearing society, parents found that their deaf children ultimately became isolated. This isolation was a result of restricting interaction among deaf peers. One mother writes, “What I deplore in my own child’s case is her lack of deaf friends. She has been deprived of their society in order to compel her to use her voice, and she is terribly lonely. She longs for her own kind” (4). Effectively, the oral method isolated deaf children from one another and provided a poor framework for the deaf beyond classroom walls.

...