Oralism as a concept emerged in the field of deaf education where it referred to a teaching method in which deaf pupils are taught using speech and lipreading is emphasised. Deaf people regard it as an approach that does not acknowledge the role of sign language in their lives.

The oral teaching method was formulated in the 18th century, but it was influenced by earlier texts on the topic. Oralism was based on assumptions on the nature of spoken and signed languages. It influenced deaf education and was one of the reasons behind the ban on sign language in the 19th and 20th centuries. Based on assumptions on the nature of spoken and signed language, the method was applied in a very similar manner in different parts of the world.

Starting from the mid-18th century, deaf education was shaped by two different schools of thought. The French method emphasised sign language whereas the German method focused on the use of speech. While schools were founded in Europe by the advocates of both methods, oralism became the prevalent method at the end of the 19th century, and it was used in Finland for a century. The popularity of oralism has been explained with several factors, such as industrialisation, nationalism, Darwinian linguistics and eugenics.

The era of oralism is generally thought to have ended in the late 1960s, early 1970s when sign language was gradually reinstated in schools.

The view of the church in the Middle Ages was based on Paul the Apostle’s statement, whereby faith develops through hearing, and on a misinterpretation of Saint Augustine’s words. This gave rise to the idea that deaf people were not able to express themselves. During the Renaissance, views of the connection between deafness and mutism gradually changed.

The Benedictine monk, Pedro Ponce de León, is thought to be the first teacher to teach his pupils to speak and write. In a monastery in Oña, he tutored two deaf brothers. It is believed that he was used to signing in his classes because Benedictine monks, for whom silence is an important aspect of monastic life, had developed signs and finger spelling systems for communication. It is also generally thought that Pedro Ponce de León’s pupils already used a language based on signs to communicate with one another.

After this, the main goal in deaf education was considered to be learning speech. Johann Konrad Amman, a Swiss physician and teacher, appealed to the Bible, saying that God had created people in his image and therefore people should also speak in his manner. Amman was influential particularly in Germany, where using speech in tuition became the dominant teaching method.

The first schools for the deaf were founded in Europe in the 18th century. From the perspective of teaching methods, the most important of these were the school for the deaf in Paris, founded by the Catholic theologian and lawyer Abbé Charles-Michel de l’Épée in the 1760s and the school in Leipzig, which was founded by the German organ player and teacher Samuel Heinicke.

Abbé de l’Épée used a combination of speech, lipreading and finger alphabets in his teaching. In addition, he used signs. During L’Épée’s period, the French deaf community already used French sign language but L’Épée began to develop signs that could be used to teach French grammar, for example. L’Épée’s goal was to teach his pupils to become bilingual in written French and French sign language. For L’Épée, speech was just one of the ways to communicate thoughts.

Heinicke made two inventions related to teaching of speech. One of these was the ‘language machine’, a model of the tongue and throat that could be used to demonstrate how various sounds were produced. The machine could be both looked at and touched. A similar idea was later utilised in teaching with pupils touching their own throat and their teacher’s throat to understand how sounds were formed. In his other invention, Heinicke utilised the sense of taste with different flavours representing various letters. For example, the flavour of pure water signified the letter ‘a’, sugar water represented the letter ‘o’ and olive oil was the letter ‘u’. Liquid representing a certain letter was placed on a student’s tongue with a feather. These two methos helped students become aware of spoken language. According to Heinicke, they produced excellent results.

In the early 19th century, Abbé de l’Épée’s French teaching method, which utilised sign language, seemed to be gaining the upper hand. However, thanks to the influence of Friedrich Moritz Hill, the German oral method began to gain popularity once again. Hill acted as the head of the deaf teacher seminary and in 1840 published a book on teaching deaf children.

He believed that it was important to focus on the teaching of natural everyday language to deaf children, ensuring that speech became a part of their day-to-day lives. It was important that speech could be used to express thoughts. Hill’s basic idea was that deaf children should learn spoken language the way hearing children did — through tuition given in spoken language. He agreed with Heinicke that spoken language had to be used both in tuition and during leisure. As an educator and the head of the teacher seminary, Hill held sway and his thoughts spread far, all the way to the Nordic countries.

When state-run schools for the deaf were established in Finland, decisions on deaf education were increasingly made by hearing people. As a result, oralism gained a stronger foothold. The main influence in the field was the head of the Turku school, Carl Henrik Alopaeus. At first, he was in favour of teaching speech but had reservations about using speech to teach.

Alopaeus changed his mind later. Apparently, he thought that better results could be achieved with the oral method, particularly with regard to learning to speak and write. At the time, he thought that tuition of speech should only be given to those students who had some speech and hearing left. However, later his views became stricter and in 1875 he stated that the oral method helped deaf pupils develop their knowledge of concepts and ability to express themselves. The shift to the oral method resulted in the need to have separate schools for children from Finnish- and Swedish-speaking families and deaf people could no longer work as teachers. However, the oral method would only benefit the hard of hearing and pupils who lost their hearing later in life.

Uno Cygnaeus, the father of the Finnish public school system, also influenced the teaching methods used for deaf pupils. He prepared plans for for the public school system, visiting the Weissenfels school for the deaf in Prussia where the oral method was used. Cygnaeus was taken with this method and began to think the goal in deaf education should be learning to speak.

The first school in Finland to use the oral method was the Kuopio school for the deaf. In 1874, G. K. Hendell, who had learned about the Weissenfels school and schools in Norway and Sweden, became its head teacher. Hendell was convinced of the benefits of the oral method and began to use it with his pupils.

He said the method was practical and the goal was to equip the pupils with skills required for day-to-day activities. The idea was to eliminate obstacles that deaf students faced in the hearing world and to enable them to get along with others. Hendell also believed that education enabled deaf people to be useful members of society. Therefore, deaf education should focus on everyday skills and be simple and practical by nature. This was the approach typically adopted by Finnish oralists.

Hendell regarded tuition given in sign language as complicated and strange. He did not reject sign language totally but thought that ‘natural signs’ and written language could be resorted to when the oral method was not feasible. In contrast, he did not accept the use of a manual alphabet at all. Hendell admitted studying with the oral method was extremely tedious, but he insisted that the results were worth the effort.

In 1874, Hendell published an article on deaf education, giving his reasons for favouring oralism and presenting the oral method process. Hendell had the same basic idea as Heinicke: deaf people had to be led out of the darkness and taught to speak.

Of the early oralists, only Alopaeus could sign so they were unaware of the possibilities offered by sign languages even though they admitted sign language was important to deaf people.

In 1877, a meeting of headmasters of schools for the deaf was held in Helsinki where the participants decided that because the oral method had produced good results, the schools would adopt it in their tuition. However, it was agreed that not all students could be taught with the oral method. Sign language classes would be set up for them and the so-called overaged students. The meeting also decided that ‘natural sign language’ should only be used as an aid in tuition. Thus, the decision on the matter had been taken in principle. However, sign language was used in tuition for another couple of decades.

The matter progressed when the Senate decided in 1885 to send a suitable person to learn about schools for pupils with sensory disabilities in other countries. Valter Forsius, a master of philosophy, was selected for the task and he visited schools abroad over a two-year period to learn about deaf education. On the basis of these visits, he prepared a proposal for Finland’s school system concerning pupils with sensory disabilities.

Forsius also received reports from Finnish operators. Kustaa Killinen, the head of the Kuopio school, stated that in Kuopio, they had succeeded in teaching all the pupils with the oral method. In the end, Forsius ended up recommending this method.

The sensory disability committee discussed the matter in 1889. At the time, the only person to express opposition to the switch to the oral method was Anna Heikel, the head of the Pietarsaari school. She regarded implementing the oral method as an injustice against deaf people. However, sign language only had a few advocates. In addition, it is not known how deaf teachers commented the situation because they were not allowed to act as headmasters. Therefore, they could not participate in meetings where decisions on the oral method were made. It is quite likely, though, that they were against the decision.

Finally, a decree on teaching methods was passed in 1892. Finally, a decree on teaching methods was passed in 1892. Pursuant to the decree, the schools in Kuopio and Turku became Finnish language schools that used the oral method and the school in Porvo became a Swedish language school. The school to be founded in Mikkeli and the Pietarsaari school would use the writing method and the school in Jyväskylä would educate overaged pupils using writing and signing. After the decree entered into force, deaf teachers were no longer hired. The decree made no mention of the subjects to be taught at schools for the deaf. Therefore, the teaching method was given more emphasis than the content of tuition. After the decree entered into force, deaf teachers were no longer hired. The decree made no mention of the subjects to be taught at schools for the deaf. Therefore, the teaching method was given more emphasis than the content of tuition.

Schools adopted the oral method at different times. In 1892, a Finnish language oral method school began in Turku but the old school, which used sign language, also continued until 1898. The school in Porvoo switched to the oral method in 1896. New schools were founded in Mikkeli in 1893, Jyväskylä in 1894 and Oulu in 1898. At the end of the 1890s, the state schools had 339 pupils.

In 1904, a divided tuition system was implemented, and pupils were placed in different schools or classes, depending on their talent. All the pupils started school using the oral method, and they were later categorised as ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ pupils on the basis of their speech skills. The pupils placed in the ‘a’ or ‘b’ groups were taught using spoken language and ‘c’ pupils we transferred to a school that used the writing method. Pupils were evaluated on the basis of their ability to speak and in practice no attention was given to any other learning outcomes or talent. This was confusing for the pupils and gave rise to jealousy and shame and left many mentally scarred. This system was in place in schools for the deaf until the 1960s.

Schools where pupils were taught with the help of written language typically also used sign language and signs to some extent. Schools that used the oral method also had a few teachers who wanted to use signs. However, teachers regarded the oral method as a much better option, believing that using sign language in teaching would mean keeping the deaf pupils ignorant. On the other hand, learning sign language would have been difficult and time-consuming for the teachers.

Under the regulations issued in 1912, the schools could decide on the content of tuition relatively freely. Because schools prepared pupils for everyday life, the most important subject was articulation. The goal of this subject was to help the pupils become as ‘normal’ as possible. Articulation was taught up to 20 hours a week, taking up most of the time allocated for lessons. Other subjects were also taught using speech and lipreading.

Observation was central in the teaching, with pictures and objects used as teaching tools. Breathing exercises and gymnastics supported the tuition. In the teaching of articulation, mirrors, spoons and spatulas were also used. A story repeated in sign language histories is how the spoon used in articulation exercises was not washed before it was placed in the next pupil’s mouth, and many found this repulsive. Hendell believed that pupils had to learn to produce sounds before being taught grammar. Pupils had to understand the role of the lips, throat and tongue in the generation of speech. Pupils would hold one hand on the teacher’s speech organs and the other hand on their own to be able to imitate the motions.

The learning outcomes were typically poor, but the teaching of speech whenever possible was still recommended. It was laborious for teachers and pupils alike. Pupils had to keep a close eye on the teacher’s lips to catch the slightest movements. In addition to school days, pupils had to practise lipreading during the Sunday church service. Pupils also had articulation homework, which they did at the dormitory in the evening with the dormitory supervisor overseeing it. The pupils did not always understand what the texts were about.

The negative attitude to sign language was the most evident in the physical punishments pupils faced if caught signing. Deaf history is full of stories of physical force and punishments used in connection with the teaching of oral language. People have talked about physical punishment for using sign language and outright cruelty: pupils were hit on the fingers with a pointer, made to stand in the corner, their hands were bound or they were made to go hungry. Of course, physical punishments were also used at the schools for the hearing at the time.

Despite these hardships, deaf people typically considered their school years to have been a good time because they were able to socialise with other deaf people. Even though sign language was not permitted at school, the pupils used it in secrecy and it spread quickly among the children. In addition, the pupils who understood what the teacher said, used sign language to explain to others what was being taught. At home, however, the pupils did not have a shared language with their hearing family members.

The basic idea was that people who were different lived in the dark and teaching could raise them to the level of human beings. This was something that oralists and advocates of sign language tuition agreed on. Where they differed was the question of whether education should encompass one language or two. The goal of the oralists was to make deaf people more like their hearing peers, because they would struggle in life without the ability to speak.

During the early 20th century, attitudes became stricter and the oral method expanded into outright opposition to sign language. This resistance toward sign language was justified by saying that it was a less developed language with deficient grammar, and it was therefore only suited to teaching the pupils with the lowest level of aptitude.

This attitude partly stemmed from the ideology of evolutionism in which sign languages were the predecessors of spoken languages and formed a link between animals and humans. According to Darwinian linguistics, these less evolved forms of language were superseded by the more developed languages. Spoken language was seen as a human activity whereas signing was animal-like behaviour. It was common to compare deaf people to apes if they remained within the deaf community. The goal was to get the deaf community to change the language they used.

The evolution theory also paved the way for eugenics. Alexander Graham Bell, who became known as the inventor of the telephone, was worried about the increase in the number of deaf people. Bell had connections to the deaf community both professionally and personally. His father was an educator for the deaf and several members of his family had reduced hearing. Bell was also an educator for the deaf and one the most prominent oralists in the US.

He also participated in the activities of the eugenics movement. According to him, deaf couples had more deaf children. Therefore, deaf people should not socialise with one another and marriages between them should not be encouraged. It was said that deaf people married one another because boarding schools brought them together and they were also connected by sign language. According to Bell, this could be solved by setting up day schools that used the oral method and stopping the use of sign language. As ideologies, eugenics and oralism had the same goal, reducing the number of people who were flawed. In Finland, the most visible effect of eugenics was the marriage ban that came into force in 1929.

Since oralism taught deaf people to feel ashamed about their language, they were limited to using it in the deaf associations, which became the heart of the community’s social and cultural life. As a result, the community formed a separate group within society. Because oralism was also an external threat, it strengthened the community’s internal structures. On the other hand, regional associations and the Association for the Deaf had leaders who had good speaking skills, which gave rise to more positive attitudes towards oralism.

Oralism also affected the working lives of deaf people. Because teaching in schools focused heavily on articulation, pupils often had poor knowledge and skills in other areas. Consequently, many deaf people struggled to get accepted into further education which curtailed their professional careers. Low educational levels also made it more difficult for deaf people to stand up for their own interests. Oralism also had an impact on sign languages. If a language is not used as a teaching language, developing a widely used general language is more difficult. Even though the goal of oralism was to make deaf people more like their hearing peers, sign languages did not disappear but were passed on from one generation to the next.

The period of oralism was followed by an era of sign language, giving rise to generations with differing attitudes. Those who were born and attended school during the era of oralism placed a high value on speech and hearing. Deaf people who grew up at a time when sign language was more widely used, appreciate written language and sign language and emphasise equality with the hearing population. They have grown up to view deaf culture and sign language in a positive light. Between these two generations, there is a generation of in-betweeners, an age group that missed out on the opportunity to attend school in sign language as the switch to it took place after their school years.

The emphasis on speech affected deaf people in two ways. On one hand, they believed in the authorities that emphasised the importance of speech, but on the other hand they could not see how using sign language could be detrimental as it was the only language in which they could communicate easily and it was also the language of thinking for them.