Deafness in Soviet Russia experienced a cultural transformation following the Russian Revolution. The Soviet's collectivist ideology, termed New Soviet, promoted the integration of deaf people within a predominantly hearing civilization. Thus, state-sponsored organizations, such as All-Russian Society of the Deaf, fostered cultural and professional opportunities for Russia's deaf population.
Background
Prerevolutionary Russian culture considered deafness a crippling condition comparable with insanity and intellectual disability. [1] [2] Birthed from the prerevolutionary establishment of deaf schools, Russian deaf culture communalized said minority. [3] However, Russia's deaf education system struggled due to inconsistent government funding. [3] Thus, deaf schools relied on philanthropic contributions. [3] [1] The lack of government financing helped preserve Russian Sign Language during an oralist era. [3] Marginalized by the tsarist legal system, Russia's deaf population supported the Bolshevik revolution. [1] Soviet socialism promoted economic participation, thereby favoring physically able beings. [3]
Deaf cultural identity
The New Soviet ideology promoted unity through the personal surmounting of physical and social obstacles. [2] Thus, societal contribution superseded physical defects. [2] A dire need for laborers and an affirmative outlook on disabilities strengthened Russia's deaf communities. [2] [3] Furthermore, the deaf established themselves as able-bodied workers by highlighting the invisible nature of their disorder. [3] [2] Soviet ideologies allowed for the politicization of deaf community members. [4] [2] As a result, political collaboration fostered the development of deaf community identity. [2] However, the strengthening of Russia's deaf movement brought the invisible disorder to light. [2] The establishment of deaf-accessible spaces highlighted the deaf communities' otherness. [2] Furthermore, the deaf labeled themselves as medically disabled. [3] Thus, Russia's hearing communities lacked faith that the deaf could successfully overcome their impairment and become ideal New Soviet people. [4] [2]
To combat such stigma, deaf communities developed a social identity focused on self-sufficiency. [4] [2] The self-establishment of deaf culture highlights deaf community members' embracing of New Soviet values. [2] [4] In 1962, the Soviet government recognized deaf people's future capability of embodying the New Soviet ideal. [2] Thus, the late 1940s through 1970s represent a high point in Russian deaf history. [4] [2] However, Russia's deaf population struggled to prove their self-sufficiency. [2] A 1957 Izvestia article highlights the deaf population's acceptance of social welfare. [2] Furthermore, the deaf's ability to achieve New Soviet ideals came into question following Izvestia's publication of "Pygmalion." [2] This article reveals an unwillingness to assimilate into New Soviet culture among some of Russia's deaf population. [2] Additionally, "Pygmalion" notes comparatively increased deviance and economic nonparticipation among Russia's deaf. [2]
Ultimately, Russia's deaf population failed to transition into New Soviet culture. [2] In the 1960s, the deaf population's focus shifted to strengthening deaf communities, falling further into social seclusion. [2] Thus, a clear societal division saw the return of prerevolutionary deaf marginalization. [2] An article published in 1984 notes the medical use of "GN—UO," a prerevolutionary term meaning "Deaf-mute—Mentally Retarded." [2]
Education
Deaf education stabilized following consistent financial backing from the Soviet regime. [3] Additionally, the Soviet Union partitioned deaf schooling into the following categories: born entirely deaf, born partly deaf, late-deafened. [3] Such division increased social interaction and tailored language modalities to account for students' needs. [3] However, prerevolutionary oralism extended into the Soviet era. [3] The New Soviet's commitment to social and economic participation favored the speaking modality. [3] Russia's deaf population recognized the economic implications of sign-only communication. [3] Thus, Russia's deaf embraced both spoken and signed language modalities. [3]
Higher education was accessible to deaf students. [3] Furthermore, VOG organized vocational training workshops for the deaf. [2] With the state's support, VOG established deaf-only alternatives for on-site industrial-educational programs termed Rabfaks. [3]
Economy
The Soviet collectivist ideologies alleviated economic competition, thereby easing the deaf population's employment barriers. [3] In addition, by highlighting their physical capabilities, the deaf population realized greater employment opportunities than those with other disabilities. [3] According to Soviet theorist Lev Vygotsky, deaf laborers exhibit comparable working abilities to their hearing counterparts. [2] Thus, the deaf disorder's invisible nature aided in the economic advancement of Russia's deaf. [3] [2]
Through employment, the deaf approached New Soviet idealisms. [2] Thus, oralism's vocational advantages encouraged its acceptance among Russia's deaf population. [3]
Social
Following the Russian Revolution, communal urban areas saw an increased presence of deaf beings. [2] However, public signing illuminated the naturally invisible disorder that is deafness. [2] Thus, social disparities and public inaccessibility prompted the creation of deaf spaces. [2] Such spaces demonstrated the deaf's cultural, self-sufficient, and economic advancements. [2] Additionally, hearing people were encouraged to use these spaces. [2] Through social integration, the deaf wished to highlight their capability of New Soviet transformation. [2]
The deaf population benefited from Russia's cultural enthusiasm toward mime and theater. [4] [3] [2] Viewed as a natural setting for the deaf, theater highlighted deaf cultural sophistication. [4]
Public spaces
Distinguishable by a dense signing presence, deaf spaces encouraged public collaboration among Russia's deaf community members. [2] Language accessibility fostered a unique deaf identity that overlooked their physical inabilities. [2] Additionally, the deaf identity embodied labor capability, cultural advancement, and self-sufficiency. [4] [2] The construction of deaf spaces strengthened internal community ties and encouraged social engagement. [2] Furthermore, deaf spaces represented the deaf population's embracement of New Soviet values. However, congregated public signing illuminated the deaf disorder. [2] Thus, deaf spaces negatively influenced hearing society's impressions of the deaf by challenging Soviet uniformity. [2]
Theater
Theater represented a significant segment of Soviet culture. [2] [3] [4] Viewed as a natural atmosphere for the hard of hearing, theaters provided employment opportunities for Russia's deaf. [4] [3] Founded in 1957 with VOG's support, the Theatre Studio of Sign and Gesture trained deaf actors in various theatrical crafts. [4] Renamed Theatre of Sign and Gesture following governmental support in 1963, the theater highlighted the deaf population's cultural refinement. [4] [3] Through training, deaf actors proved skillfully equivalent to their hearing counterparts. [4] For example, deaf actors learned rhythm through musical vibrations. [4] Thus, through cultural advancements and showcasing their artistic capabilities, Russia's deaf population approached New Soviet idealisms. [4] [2]
Organizations
All-Russian Society of the Deaf (VOG)
Founded in 1926 by Ivan Savel'ev, VOG is a deaf-run organization initially backed by the Soviet state. [5] [3] [2] Originally centered around employment services, VOG established vocational training centers. [3] [2] Additionally, VOG's social clubs strengthened internal deaf community relations. [2] Striving to achieve New Soviet transformation, VOG extended its focus to include cultural advancement. [2] [3] [4] With governmental funding, VOG hosted deaf-only sporting events and art exhibitions. [3] Additionally, VOG organized the construction of various deaf spaces and cultural centers. [2] [3] Membership rates soared, reaching 96% among deaf Muscovites in 1949. [2] Valuing self-sufficiency, in 1954, VOG refused governmental funding after citing sufficient revenue. [5] [2] Self-sufficiency remained a reoccurring theme among VOG's projects through deaf-funding, deaf-labor, and deaf-leadership. [2] [4]
Furthermore, VOG worked closely with state officials to influence social politics on the deaf's behalf. [5] [3] In 1926, the Soviet government sponsored a deaf-for-deaf newspaper called The Life of a Deaf-Mute. [3] [5] The paper highlighted the deaf's political advancements by repeatedly criticizing the Soviet state without reprimand. [3] However, a lack of governmental pushback may represent a non-threatening perception of the deaf community. [3]
References
- ^ a b c "The Status of the Deaf in Russia Before and After the October Revolution, 1917". American Annals of the Deaf. 76 (5): 452–461. 1931. ISSN 0002-726X. JSTOR 44391097.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax Shaw, Claire (2015). ""We Have No Need to Lock Ourselves Away": Space, Marginality, and the Negotiation of Deaf Identity in Late Soviet Moscow". Slavic Review. 74 (1): 57–78. doi: 10.5612/slavicreview.74.1.57. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 10.5612/slavicreview.74.1.57. S2CID 161132242.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah Burch, S. (2000-12-01). "Transcending Revolutions: The Tsars, the Soviets and Deaf Culture". Journal of Social History. 34 (2): 393–401. doi: 10.1353/jsh.2000.0130. ISSN 0022-4529. PMID 18360961. S2CID 35983479.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Claire Shaw (2013). "'Speaking in the Language of Art': Soviet Deaf Theatre and the Politics of Identity during Khrushchev's Thaw". The Slavonic and East European Review. 91 (4): 759–786. doi: 10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.91.4.0759. JSTOR 10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.91.4.0759. S2CID 142526994.
- ^ a b c d "О ВОГ". Всероcсийское Общество Глухих (in Russian). Retrieved 2021-09-29.