Milan Congress of 1880

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles Milan Congress of 1880 and History of the Deaf (after 1880) #The Congress of Milan 1880 overlap thematically. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. Coyote III ( discussion ) 18:04, Jun 21, 2013 (CEST)


The Milan Congress of 1880 (actually the Second International Congress of Deaf-Mute Teachers ) was an important congress of leading European deaf educators in September 1880 in Milan . The resolutions of this congress had far-reaching, worldwide and about a century long-lasting consequences for the social life of the deaf , which they felt mostly negative. The term Milan Congress was coined in deaf circles.

background

According to the resolution of the Paris Congress for the Improvement of the Lot of the Deaf and Mute on September 30th, 1878, the Second International Congress of Deaf and Mute Teachers in Italy was held in Milan from September 6th to 11th, 1880 instead of in Como as originally decided .

organization

The organizing committee included: Isaac and Eugène Pereire (Paris) as honorary members, L. Vaïsse (Paris) as honorary president, E. Rigaut (Paris) as president, Abbé Lambert and E. Grosselin (Paris) as vice-presidents as secretaries La Rochelle (Paris) and J. Hugentobler (Lyon) as well as 18 other members and "corresponding members" from France , Sweden , Italy , Switzerland , Austria , Germany , the Netherlands , England and the USA . Deaf teachers were not invited to the organizing committee or as members of the congress. However, F. Rigaut resigned prematurely and was replaced as President by Eugène Pereire, the grandson of Jacob Rodrigues Pereira .

The premises in the Brerá Palace were made available for the congress by the Lombard Institute for Arts and Sciences .

program

"Individual questions from the program" were announced:

  1. What are the most important advantages of spoken language over sign language or vice versa?
  2. What are the fundamental differences between the terms pure spoken language (méthode orale pure) and mixed method (méthode mixte)?
  3. Where is the boundary between natural and methodical sign language?
  4. Do the deaf and mute who have been discharged from school forget to speak again or do they prefer sign language to spoken language in their ordinary dealings with hearing people? When such phenomena occur, what is the reason?
  5. Where and to what extent can the deaf and mute take classical studies or how can higher education institutions become available to them? Is it in an upper department of the deaf-mute school or in an institute specially created for them and are the ordinary deaf-mute teachers or teachers and professors of the ordinary secondary schools to be used?

decisions

Among other things, the following resolutions were passed:

  • "Convinced of the undisputed superiority of spoken language over sign language, insofar as it reproduces the deaf and mute in communication with the hearing world and enables them to penetrate deeper into the spirit of language, the congress declares: that the use of spoken language in teaching and in the education of the deaf and dumb is preferable to sign language. "
  • “Whereas the simultaneous use of sign language and the spoken word has the disadvantage that it interferes with speaking, lip reading and clarity of concepts, the Congress believes that the pure articulation method is preferable. "
  • “Considering the particular difficulties of teaching the deaf and dumb according to the articulation method and based on the experience made by almost all deaf and dumb teachers, the Congress declares that the most favorable age for deaf and dumb children to enter school is from the 8th to the 10th Year of life is; that school attendance must last at least 7, better 8 years; that a teacher using the pure articulation method cannot teach more than 10 students. "

A numerically small group of members of Congress (USA, one each from Great Britain and Sweden) who did not approve the resolutions gave the following reasons for their opposition:

  • Speech lessons are only successful with “half-pigeons” (meaning: late pigeons).
  • Speech teaching slows down and neglects the intellectual education of the deaf and mute.
  • Speech language teaching creates an artificial language that sounds unnatural.
  • Speech lessons are more expensive.
  • The methodological dispute has nationalist features and is therefore to be rejected.

Implementation in France

The Minister of the Interior of France, on the recommendation of the French congress participants, issued a circular on September 3, 1884. This declared the spoken language method as the only valid one for the (state) schools in France. Special 1st and 2nd degree exams should be introduced for the specialists there. The number of deaf teachers was increased overall, and deaf teachers were replaced by hearing teachers. All the necessary expenses for this have been included in the budget.

Evaluation of the congress and effects in Germany

Contemporary reviews, until 1940

At the first German deaf-mute teacher conference in Berlin on September 26, 1884, Dr. Karl Schneider, who headed the deaf-mute education system in the Prussian Ministry of Education from 1879 to 1899, said:

“That the work has not been done in vain shows that at present 96 German institutions speak face to face using the pure spoken language method. The gesture withdraws more and more after a hundred years of struggle. [...] A step backwards is no longer possible [...] But we have to be aware that we still have a lot to work to do to live up to the German name. You know how difficult it is for our Chancellor to get Sedan's victory. Claiming the Milan victory still requires a huge amount of work from us. "

At the congress in Cologne in 1889 one could hear: "We cannot go back, we have adopted the German articulation system, we have to honor the spoken language."

In 1940, Paul Schumann wrote in his History of the Deaf and Mute :

“When at the International Congress in Milan, after long negotiations, the deaf-mute teachers from seven civilized countries around the world almost unanimously agreed not only to the spoken language method, but also to the pure articulation method, méthode orale pure, excluding the gesture - only on the part of the Americans and the Swedish Eckborn objected - this was initially perceived as 'a great victory in the field of humanity and pedagogy, the importance and broad meaning of which cannot be emphasized strongly enough'. "

In reality, education for the deaf and dumb was given a task that only a few places had the means and strength to accomplish, regardless of whether it was properly set and worth solving.

Today's view

From today's perspective, these resolutions of the Congress are commented on as follows:

  • The aforementioned resolutions, declarations and views are the result of a professional assembly and therefore had no legal character. However, they exerted an influence on the regulations of ministries. The observing inspectors rate the quality of the pupils' speaking higher than their school-based knowledge.
  • In the “deaf and dumb institutions” before and after the turn of the century, all the hearing impaired (deaf, residual hearing, hard of hearing and, in some cases, speech impaired) were taught together. A comprehensive methodological differentiation had not been carried out or only rudimentarily carried out until then.
  • An all-encompassing and absolute rejection of the use of sign language has only occurred in part.
  • The resolutions are to be seen in a historical context.
    • The emergence of overarching national endeavors in the states of Europe
    • Spoken and written language as a factor in differentiating national thinking
    • Population density in the late 19th century
    • Emergence of the social question.

Since deaf teachers were not invited to either the organizing committee or the congress as members, all resolutions were passed without the inclusion of the “deaf” perspective.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Congress report in “Organ”, No. 11. and No. 12/1880
  2. ↑ Quotes from: Paul Schumann: History of the deaf and dumb being , Diesterweg, Frankfurt a. M. 1940.
  3. ↑ Frankfurt a. M 1940, p. 409.
  4. ↑ Quoted from Wolfgang Vater, "Important aspects of the Mailänder Kongress von 1880" ( Memento from April 25, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
  5. ↑ quoted from Wolfgang Vater, "Important aspects of the Milan Congress of 1880" ( Memento of April 25, 2006 in the Internet Archive )