“Disabled” Education Reform and Education Reform’s “Disability” A Case Study of an NGO’s Deaf Education Program in China

Language and Culture: Bilingual Deaf Education Program

Amity is a proponent and practitioner of deaf education reform. Challenging traditional approaches, it advocates progressive Western deaf education philosophy – bilingual and bicultural education philosophy – in order to change the old appearance of deaf education. Traditional deaf education is called “compensation education” and aims at providing deaf children with special, additional education plans and services to lead them to a normal life, to expand the opportunities and rights that they have lost because of their disadvantaged position. However, Amity goes one step further. It promotes the social status of deaf people, elevating them from a negative existence of receiving “compensation” to a more positive position, with more agency. Its strategy of promotion gives prominence to sign language as a language in deaf education, as well as to concerns in deaf culture. As a corresponding educational practice, Amity launched a deaf education reform program.

This program began in 1996, when Amity initiated the collaborative “Deaf Children Bilingual Bicultural Education Experiment” (Shen, Wu, and Chu 2005, 10). Bilingual and bicultural were thus coupled together in the early stage of the program. However, as the program progressed, language moved further and further ahead of culture. In the end, language played a solo role in the program. In 2004, with the support of the Norwegian Signo foundation, Amity began to collaborate with the Jiangsu Provincial Special Education Special Committee, initiating another round of deaf education reform. The title of this program was Zhong Nuo Shuangyu Longjiaoyu Hezuo Xiangmu (SigAm bilingual deaf education project) – without the three characters that spell shuangwenhua (bicultural). In other words, bicultural, which appeared in the title of the 1996 program, was missing from the title of the 2004 program.

Zhang Ningsheng, a well-known special education expert and a consultant for the bilingual deaf education program, has coedited a book titled Introduction to Deaf Culture. He recalled, when explaining why he wanted to compile this book, that he “had already recognized [the value of] deaf culture after [studying] dual grammar. Because bilingualism walks side by side with biculturalism” (Zhang et al. 2010, 1). He also wrote, “The overall environment of opening and reform allowed me to have contact with several programs of international collaboration on ‘bilingual biculturalism for deaf children.’ We clicked almost right away” (2). We can tell from Zhang’s memory that Amity was not the only organization with a bilingual cultural program. Related international collaborations were really flourishing.1

However, language and culture, which had walked together along the way when it came to Jiangsu in 2004, finally parted ways.2 Indeed, rather than saying that they parted ways, it would be more accurate to say that language threw culture far behind or even was afraid of being associated with it in any way.

It was not Amity’s intention not to put longwenhua (deaf culture) in the title of the 2004 program. Amity is an advocate and promoter of bilingual biculturalism. In the introduction to the Sino-Norwegian bilingual deaf education program on its website, one can still see a clear stance of bilingual biculturalism: advancing recognition of Chinese Sign Language as the mother tongue of deaf people in China.3 The program aimed to create teaching agendas and methods for deaf education from preschool through the compulsory education grades (through age fifteen) and to ensure deaf children’s right to receive basic education in their own language. Schools in the program taught in sign language and developed bilingual and bicultural education agendas to guarantee that the first group of students in the program received instruction from the beginning to the end of their compulsory education according to the plan designed for the program.

The word bicultural, however, does not appear in the title of the China-Norway collaborative bilingual deaf education project. That “deaf culture” does not appear in the name was probably not the intention solely of Norway. Professor Stein Ohna of the University of Stavanger, also a consultant on the project, summarized the SigAm experimental program (SigAm 2004–9) from the perspective of Norway in his article “Communication and Participation in Chinese Deaf Schools: Experiences from a China-Norway Collaboration Project on Sign Bilingual Education”:

Bilingual biculturalism is a well-known concept in international deaf education. But it has to be reinterpreted in the context of Chinese education. The project introduction pamphlet of Amity clearly defines this concept: “Bilingual biculturalism refers to the sign language of deaf people in China and Mandarin Chinese, and the corresponding deaf culture and culture of people with normal hearing [respectively].”…

The theoretical foundation of Norway’s management of SigAm comes from social culture theory. Social culture theory emphasizes that human knowledge and institutions are created and maintained in the dynamics of a specific cultural and historical background. In order to help understand human activity as a process of construction and reconstruction of social structure, it is necessary to explain the tools that actors use, in which language plays a crucial role. What do we do with language? What does language mean to us? These are questions that are really worth analysis. (Ohna 2009, 62)

“What does language mean to us?” Through this question, what the Norway side wanted to say was that the concern was the cultural features of language rather than its instrumentality. Ohna recalls in this article (62–63), based on his field notes taken during his participation in the first year of the project,

after a few years’ preparation, SigAm began in May 2001. At the early stage, the project carried out two very important activities: holding a conference in Nanjing to introduce to the Norway side the situation of deaf education development in China; and holding a conference in Suzhou to introduce to participants on the China side bilingual deaf education thoughts in Norway…

Cheng Yiji [a member of the SigAm coordination team] also shared some thoughts on the incoming deaf education curriculum reform. A basic principle of the new curriculum is to change the situation in the past that focused only on teaching content and specific pedagogies. These pedagogies in fact put teachers in a dominant position but ignored students’ learning capacity. The new curriculum, however, stresses students’ “self-learning, collaboration, and exploration.” It actually emphasizes the importance of students’ communication and participation in education….

In the Suzhou conference of principals from deaf schools in China, Norwegian specialists introduced core concepts and theories of deaf education and sign bilingual education development. At the request of the project coordination team, the lectures of the Norwegian specialists focused on the following three topics:

• (1) History and development of deaf education in Norway, past, present, and future

• (2) Bilingual biculturalism and its significance in deaf education

• (3) Classroom teaching under the conception of bilingualism and biculturalism

In our lectures, we dug into the first two topics directly but could only indirectly touch upon the third topic, classroom teaching. Deaf education and bilingual bicultural teaching can be approached from these three angles. The first is to understand them via the United Nations’ goal of everyone being able to receive education. The focus of the first lecture was thus deaf education relevant to Norwegian education policies. Second, bilingual bicultural education is related to functional bilingualism, so the second lecture stressed that Norwegian Sign Language is just one type of human sign language. It also talked about the bilingual education of deaf students. The third angle is to discuss bilingual bicultural education from the standpoint of deafness and deaf students. This lecture emphasized that deaf education has to adopt diversified paths and that deaf people’s participation in deaf education is necessary. The Norwegian specialists intentionally did not introduce specific pedagogies in their earlier lectures, because it is not appropriate to discuss a certain seemingly universal teaching method that is in fact out of touch with local cultural traditions.

It is not hard to see several things in this precious firsthand memory: First, the term culture appears with high frequency, and biculturalism is in two of the three lecture topics. Second, the Norway side intentionally reminded of us the correlation between culture and pedagogy and made every effort to avoid talking about pedagogy just for the sake of talking about it. Furthermore, the China side focused on teaching methods and students’ learning methods, seemingly wanting to understand the meaning of language only at the instrumental level of classroom teaching.

In the beginning, the SigAm project carried out its experiments in Jiangsu Province, in five special schools in Nanjing, Suzhou, Changzhou, Zhenjiang, and Yangzhou. On September 1, 2004, Amity signed project collaboration agreements with five deaf schools, including the Nanjing School for the Deaf, ensuring basic consensus on project goals, requirements, report systems, financial regimes, and so on. Each school in the experiment would receive a certain amount of money from the SigAm bilingual project every year for five years.

This article’s purpose is not to review the entire course of Amity’s deaf education reform but rather to discuss “disabled” education reform and education reform’s “disability” through the phenomenon of language moving along without culture. It aims to demonstrate that education reforms targeting “the deaf” (in this case definitely deaf people) have purposefully or accidentally exposed the “disability” of these reforms themselves in the process of implementation: education reform was supposed to walk on the two legs of language and culture, yet what we have seen in the process of deployment has been the separation of language from culture. What is sociologically meaningful is that the separation was not the intention of reform advocates. However, as a result of the complicated interaction of all sorts of social factors and forces, the advance of bilingual education reform, at least in Jiangsu Province, had to draw attention away from deaf culture as a precondition of moving forward. The diverging force of such a separation ultimately led to “crippled” deaf education. This article concretely presents that force through the textual analysis of a round table’s minutes, on the basis of which the author also provides a deeper discussion of “disability” and education reform.

Textual Analysis of a Round Table

Amity organized a team of six specialists to conduct research in three deaf schools, including deaf school Z, on October 11 and 12, 2005. Amity’s bilingual deaf education project (SigAm) hired six consultants to participate in the research and supervision of the project, two of whom were on the specialist team. The other four team members were from the special education research section of a professional technology college in city N. SigAm schools were using textbooks designed for regular schools. This research aimed at collecting feedback on new textbooks from teachers at the forefront of the project, with their content to be adjusted based on the regular-school textbooks and their use in these schools. The specialists mainly audited a first-grade Chinese class. As for the round table, its purpose was for the vanguard teachers to express their opinions and get answers to their questions. What is presented here are excerpts from a transcription of the audio record of the round table with the relevant teachers of school Z, held after the specialists had audited two sessions of a Chinese class (the full transcript appears as an appendix to this article).

Deaf school Z, the focus of this research, was previously a private deaf school, established in 1937. It was made a public school and renamed Z Deaf School in 1952. In 1995, the government invested six million yuan (about one million U.S. dollars) to relocate the school and construct new buildings for it, nearly 5,000 square meters on 13,700 square meters of grounds, creating a “Z special education center.” In September 2012, it became a comprehensive medium-size special education school, with education for both the deaf and the hearing impaired, in which deaf education consists of preschool education, compulsory education, and advanced midlevel education, with a length of schooling of fifteen years. At the time of the research, the school had 21 classes, 185 students, and 59 staff. It had joined the SigAm project in 2004.

Representatives of school Z in the round table included Principal R, Director of Education and Administration Z, Director of Discipline W, normal-hearing teacher C and one deaf teacher, both from the Chinese course for the first-grade bilingual class, one normal-hearing teacher and one deaf teacher from the preschool bilingual classes, and normal-hearing mathematics teacher X. The specialists audited mainly one Chinese course of the first-grade bilingual class that normal-hearing teacher C taught.

Of the four members of the specialist team, Division Chief C and Principal Z were the two key figures. C is the vice–director general of the special education committee of the Chinese Education Association, the head of the National Deaf Education Curriculum Reform Research Team, and formerly a major leader of the Basic Education Department of J province’s Board of Education, as well as the director general of J’s Provincial Association of Special Education Studies. At this time, he was appearing as the director of J’s Provincial Committee of Special Education. Principal Z was the principal of another school, deaf school N, and the director of Amity’s Rehabilitation Center for Deaf Children in Nanjing, and served as a member of the Hearing and Language Rehabilitation Committee of the Rehabilitation Association of Chinese Disabled Persons, a member of the Special Education Committee of the Chinese Education Association, the vice-director of J’s Provincial Committee for Hearing and Language Rehabilitation, and the vice–director general of N’s Municipal Association of Special Education Studies. He was at the round table as an expert member of J’s Provincial Committee of Special Education.

At the beginning of the round table, three “don’t know”s of Director of Education and Administration Z of school Z were very impressive:

C first introduced the teaching goals of this class, as well as his/her great confusion in preparing and teaching it. We can tell from the first paragraph that recognizing Chinese characters and using hand signs to present their meaning had long been the goal of teaching. However, this bilingual teaching experiment messed up the teaching designs passed down from the past. C used “correspond” to express his/her confusion. In reaction to C’s “to correspond with bilingualism” and expressions of confusion over how to do so, Director Z used three consecutive “don’t know”s – “don’t know how to teach,” “don’t know what to do,” and “[don’t] know how to run [bilingual class]” – as notes on C’s statements, giving the whole conversation an extremely strong negative color. Readers can tell from this conversation, especially the consecutive negation of “not,” what kind of negative and passive feeling the correspond that C used reveals. The reform of bilingual education, maybe because it was just in the beginning stage, had not received the wide acceptance of front-line teachers and was not something to which they had positively and willingly devoted themselves. To some extent, the reform was an intrusion of outside influence, precisely because of which, just as we see in C’s case, “to correspond” seems to reflect what was an awkward position. To summarize, using Director Z’s words, the teachers “[didn’t] know what to do.” The awkwardness of “corresponding,” one can tell from the round table, was due more specifically to the change from one teacher to two teachers, one of whom was deaf, in order to cope with the class’s audit by the specialist team. Indeed, having two teachers for one class was not the convention but an ad hoc “let’s try it today.” C said, “What are we going to do…? We figured we need the assistance of a deaf teacher to do this, then.” “This” in “to do this” refers to coping with the audit. And what was audited was not an ordinary class but a bilingual class. Therefore, here comes a deaf teacher. However, in the modal particle here translated as “then” in “the assistance of a deaf teacher to do this, then,” one can sense a strong feeling of helplessness. It is safe to say that even in an experimental bilingual school, the appearance of deaf teachers clearly prompted confusion and helplessness in the consciousness and language expression of an education participant in the round table. What was behind this helplessness, however, was the reality of deaf teachers’ almost nonexistent position in the education sector.

Deaf teachers are at the margins of deaf education, and their difficulty in reaching the stage of the classroom is a widespread phenomenon. This was also one of the “three major questions” listed by W, the director of discipline of school Z. The other two concerned textbooks and pedagogy. However, those three are closely interconnected.

Regarding issues with the new textbook, W pointed out that “we used to use a textbook for deaf schools. We were quite accustomed to it, whether in the teacher’s teaching or the student’s acceptance. The current textbook is less targeted. It does not target us. We have to start from scratch. We have to take care of language and Chinese characters simultaneously.” However, the expression “accustomed to” in “We used to use a textbook for deaf schools. We were quite accustomed to it, whether in the teacher’s teaching or the student’s acceptance” still met with correction and criticism. As an important member of the specialist team, Division Chief C made a guiding remark:

In 1982, western and northern European countries identified their failures in deaf education: compromising too much with regards to the requirements for deaf students and stressing compensation for defects too much while not placing potential developments in an important position. I think these two conclusions fully apply to us. Previous textbooks replaced some vivid material and instead taught deaf students with dry material. We would need six, seven, eight, or nine classes to finish with even a short essay. We expected students to understand integrated knowledge only by repeatedly reading “out loud” and made integrated knowledge fragmented, considering the defects of deaf students too much and lowering our expectations [for them]. So our deaf students did not learn very well.

Division Chief C aptly caught the core issue of “accustomed to”: “accustomed to” was accomplished at the price of progress and quality. Traditional deaf education excessively lowered the requirements for deaf students, overemphasized compensation for defects, stressed the training of reading “aloud,” and cost too much class time. The knowledge level of traditional deaf education textbooks is several years lower than that of textbooks for normal-hearing students. The deaf Chinese course lost its highlights and became “dry.” Division Chief C therefore said determinedly,

“It is fair to say that past teaching was not successful in either progress or method. With either eight or nine years of deaf school education, it is a frustrating result….. Our fourth-grade students are far behind students of the same grade in regular schools. They completely failed the exam designed for fourth-grade students of regular schools.”

The new textbook, however, aimed to rectify this, targeting the compensation education of the past. It had more content and a higher difficulty level and approached closer to a normal school’s standards. It can be said that this is a new direction in deaf education reform. However, questions also followed. Using the new textbook raised issues in teaching. As the round table shows, being asked to use normal-school textbooks confused teachers so that they could not keep up with the schedule and finish all the content that ought to be finished.

Division Chief C also thought new the curriculum really “posed a big challenge for the teaching, textbook, and pedagogy in our deaf schools.” But, he insisted,

we should not excessively lower the requirements for [deaf] children. The problem in the past lies in that we lowered our expectations too much. In the past we could spend a couple of days teaching the Pinyin of one character or the character itself. So we should reflect in this regard. Because we are doing an experiment, at each stage we should consistently remind ourselves to reflect on pedagogical concepts, teaching methods, and teaching tools. Also to reflect and find strategies for the development of students in every respect. Here I hope you will still follow the schedule, and always reflect. Differences do exist for deaf students, but we don’t have to use traditional ways to think about today’s teaching.

“Should not excessively lower the requirements for [deaf] children” means that deaf education should not walk the traditional path of compensation education. Division Chief C stressed, “We don’t have to use traditional ways to think about today’s teaching.” Then how can one “not excessively lower the requirements for [deaf] children” while “better, fully develop[ing] [their] body, mind, virtue, intelligence”? Bilingual deaf education here became an experimental choice.

Bilingual deaf education, rather than a pedagogy of taking care of language and character simultaneously, refers to a bilingual education of oral expression and sign language.

There have been intense debates surrounding what roles sign language teaching should have and whether sign language, especially deaf sign language, which is considered “natural sign language,” should be used as teaching languages or not. The situation in mainland China is that sign language was long taken as forbidden in the zone of deaf education after the government established “oral language as the center” as a principle of deaf education in 1956. Oral language pedagogy has thus kept absolute dominance all along. (He 2006, 93). Only in recent years has bilingual deaf education become a focus of attention and an educational reform experiment and practice in certain schools in certain regions, resulting from reflection on compensation education and the influence of European and American deaf education concepts and thoughts.

The concept of bilingual deaf education recognizes social language and cultural diversity, fully acknowledges the deaf group and deaf language, sign language and deaf culture. It insists that deaf sign language is the first language that deaf children must master; on using deaf sign language as a tool in teaching, including in teaching deaf children the languages of their own countries (oral and written language), using this approach to teach a second language; on the importance of deaf people’s equal participation in deaf education; and on having high expectations of deaf students with the hopes of raising them to be people who can do anything except have normal hearing. (Shen, Wu, and Chu 2005, 159)

However, even with the consensus that bilingual deaf education is a very good choice “to better, fully develop body, mind, virtue, intelligence” while “not excessively lower[ing] the requirements for [students],” the understanding of its meanings is not without fractures.

At the round table, one person, though not present, existed in the consciousness of every participant. This person A is an Amity sector manager and the manager of the SigAm bilingual deaf education experiment. A is a key figure in Chinese bilingual deaf education reform. Not only has he translated and introduced Western bilingual deaf education thoughts and concepts into China, but he has also implemented these thoughts and concepts, as in preparing and carrying out this bilingual deaf education program. There was an interesting conversation regarding A at the round table.

One can surmise from what Director Z said that A is not only an advocate of sign language education but also a determined advocate of natural sign language. He is not just promoting bilingual deaf education but also paying special attention to the roles and functions of deaf people in deaf education.

Though they all participated in and promoted the experiment and practice of bilingual deaf education, those who were in the round table were clearly different from A in their attitude toward natural sign language. Division Chief C maintained that “we must stick to standards in the teaching of sign language. Yours [ours] is Chinese teaching. Natural sign language has to be auxiliary, functioning as tool.” Because of this, Division Chief C said, “[we] have to break through the authority of deaf teachers in sign language. Does knowing sign language alone mean that one can be a teacher? Similarly, can one be a teacher as long as one can talk? Many farmers are illiterate but very good at speaking. They are still farmers. Language is just a tool. It does not reflect one’s level of knowledge…. To learn [Chinese] characters before learning Pinyin does not fit the rule of education…. Focusing on natural sign language is equal to focusing on deaf people.”

Principal Z, another major member of the specialist team, to show his attitude, followed with: “We should keep what deserves keeping, and do things how they should be done.”

Director Z spoke in a roundabout way and raised doubts about bilingual deaf education: “The guiding principle of the experiment is quite vague. Should we concentrate on sign language or on the development of deaf people? We overthrew all previous paradigms and we got cold feet, all for emphasizing bilingualism.”

Therefore, under the principle of “we should keep what deserves keeping, and do things how they should be done,” a dividing line was drawn between education officers and practitioners on one side and Amity on the other, although they are all in the same camp of bilingual deaf education. Let us see where this line was drawn.

One can tell from the record of the round table that on the side of education officers and practitioners, even those advocating bilingual deaf education, sign language teaching is only a method and tool. The full development of students’ body, morality, and intelligence is the concept and the purpose. Of course there is nothing to fault in this. However, such an abstract concept has to be realized at a concrete level. When it is implemented at such a level, Chinese is no longer just a sign language – it becomes concept and purpose. Division Chief C said, “Our bilingual teaching is not done to teach sign language for the sake of learning it. It is a tool but not the purpose of teaching itself. The purpose is to better, fully develop body, mind, virtue, intelligence. From the perspective of teaching, it is to develop [the students’] thinking, to better master Mandarin Chinese, to better attain knowledge.”

It is safe to say, even though these education officers and practitioners and Amity are all engaged in bilingual deaf education reform, they apparently have different attitudes toward sign language, especially natural sign language. It is worth further thinking about whether to take sign language teaching only as a method or as concept, the difference between these two approaches, and what that difference implies.

The bottom line of “we should keep what deserves keeping, and do things how they should be done” was drawn at “Our bilingual teaching is not done to teach sign language for the sake of learning it. It is a tool but not the purpose of teaching itself.”

Those who would not yield an inch with regard to this bottom line were participants in the round table, mainly officials of educational sectors and normal-hearing teachers. They emphasized the integration of deaf people into mainstream culture and took sign language teaching only as a method, stressing that the purpose of deaf education is for deaf students to better develop their thinking and better master Mandarin Chinese. Amity expects to have a breakthrough, but without abandoning its bottom line, and has conducted various reforms. Although acknowledging the importance of deaf people’s integration into mainstream culture, it has not given up the conviction that the first language of deaf people should be their natural sign language. The organization emphasizes the equal participation of deaf people in deaf education and insists that deaf sign language in education should not stay at the level of approach but should be the purpose of the education itself.

It is still very difficult for many who are education officers or practitioners to accept the view of deafness as a subcultural or transcultural existence, at least for now. The content of the round table shows that whether they are administrators or teachers, everyone focuses on how to better use sign language to help deaf people learn Chinese and develop their thinking. Here the word thinking means not “thinking as deaf people” but rather “thinking as normal-hearing people,” allowing deaf people to think and understand questions just as normal-hearing people do. For instance, Principal Z, as a major member of the specialist team, mentioned, “Our deaf students’ thinking is often stiff. What is the natural sign language of deaf people? Should we call it ‘natural sign language’ as long as it is different from finger language?”

“Our deaf students’ thinking is often stiff.” This “stiff” thinking is without question the problem that has to be overcome. Only education that transforms deaf people into being like normal-hearing people deserves to be called education.

Of course, it should be noted that following traditional pedagogical thought, such as the idea that only changing “stiff[ness]” can be called education, was not Amity’s original intention. As an NGO, what Amity insists on is the principle of social work, which here departs from traditional pedagogical thought. The latter presumes subjects of education (students), sets value standards and goals for them from the position of educator, and then helps them break away from so-called uncivilized status via a whole set of procedures. In contrast, social work stresses thinking about issues from the position of the subject. First of all, it requests the understanding of the subject and his or her situation and needs, and helps him or her from the bottom up rather than indoctrinating him or her from the top down. Here the object is not an “uncivilized” existence. Deaf people became a disadvantaged social group because many social, historical, cultural, and other factors trapped them in an inferior position. Taking the subject as “uncivilized” or as part of a disadvantaged social group are two distinct types of attitude that lead directly to the debate about whether deaf education should be reformed as bilingual education or as bilingual bicultural education.

“Disability” and Education Reform

The point of this article is not just to show readers via the analysis of the record of a round table the internal splits and differences of opinion within the camp of bilingual deaf education. It is not just to question and to criticize as “uncivilized” traditional pedagogical thought that takes its subjects (students) as “uncivilized” either. Any efforts to participate in bilingual deaf education reform and reveal that previous compensation education and oral expression teaching have limitations and that bilingual education and sign language are beneficial to deaf people, at least those whose hearing is impaired or congenitally lost, deserve attention and praise. The goal of this article is to present the transcript of a round table as fully as possible and to analyze via this text the spirited process of deaf education reform and the influence and participation of an NGO as an important social organization in education reform. The term spirited implies complication and hardship. As the history of education in China repeatedly shows, influential educational reform often appears as top-down directives and is very difficult to achieve from the bottom up. This time, however, in the realm of special education, the NGO Amity wants to accomplish something. Its efforts, because of their complication and hardship, provide an excellent case for the sociological analysis of deaf education reform.

In a careful reading of the transcript of the round table (please refer to the appendix), at least three points, in content and style, are worth attention.

First of all, the participants were all powerful figures in the forefront of education, including former officers of the Basic Education Department of Jiangsu Province4 and principals and heads of the deaf schools in the experiment. These midlevel cadres, who are at the level of policy implementation, directly determine whether top-down education reforms are carried out correctly or not. The folk wisdom of “Whenever there is a policy from above, there will be a countertactic from below” implies that however good the macro policies are, there will always be realistic revisions at the micro level when it comes to the grass roots. It is those chiefs and principals who determine whether to revise or not. Education reform is not an exception. However perfect the design of education reform is at the top, it will always be revised, distorted, or even rewritten when it is implemented at the very forefront of the micro level.

Second, bilingual deaf education in this case was not designed at the top before implementation. Amity is an NGO. The reform concept that Amity advocates cannot have the effect on education officers, principals, heads, and vanguard teachers of instructions and restraints from the government’s top level. Civil education reform is not an exception, as even its official policies meet the issue of “Whenever there is a policy from above, there will be a countertactic from below.” The last sentence of the round table, “We’ll be smarter next time – we will decide what to teach based on who is coming,” is from the mouth of the principal of a school that was part of the experiment, which, amid laughs, indeed reveals the “flexibility” of the reform participants. The concepts of education reform never entirely determine whether it will be successful or not. Even with advanced concepts, reforms needs to resonate with and inspire the voluntary and positive devotion of education officers and teachers at the forefront to succeed. As this round table shows, although they were part of an expert investigation organized by Amity, major members of the specialist team and teachers at the participating schools did not entirely understand or fully agree with Amity’s concepts. Especially when the concept was expressed as “bilingual biculturalism,” bilingualism drew attention from the round table participants, yet biculturalism remained highly controversial. Even though the word culture did not appear anywhere in the entire round table, the points that participants made regarding natural sign language and the thinking of deaf people expressed their recognition of this culture. The complication and hardship that their “flexibility” reveals might well be the status quo of reform. The acceptance and internalization of new concepts cannot be done in a day. The saying “Where you sit determines what you think” is a sarcastic and vivid folk wisdom summary of a prominent phenomenon in contemporary Chinese society. For all practitioners of education reform, their previous positions, their current positions, and the interests associated with those positions will determine how deeply they will understand the reform concept and how far the reform practices will go.

Finally, a remarkable feature of the round table is that members of the specialist team, especially Division Chief C, predominantly occupied the discussion. In sharp contrast, although deaf teachers were present, they did not voice their opinions. The silence of the deaf teachers, of course, does not mean that even if they had wanted to speak they would not have gotten the chance. It is more likely that they were not consciously eager to have a chance to voice their opinions. The normal-hearing specialists and teachers took this for granted and would not raise it as an issue to the level of their consciousness. What this phenomenon suggests is that many participants in deaf education reform subconsciously think that it is a matter for normal-hearing people. Marx has a famous line in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, “They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented,” which Said uses as an epigraph for his Orientalism (Said 1999, no page number). The transcript of the round table precisely expresses such a message: deaf people cannot represent themselves; they must be represented by normal-hearing people, who must speak for them.

To call attention to the above three points is not to criticize incompleteness in reform practices or the understanding of concepts but to make people understand the complication and hardship of reform in a situation in which reform will always “be altered, twisted, or even reversed,” in which where you sit determines how you think, and in which one “has to express and present oneself via others.” Bilingual deaf education reform is not something to be done all at once. If society has not reached a certain stage, its people will not have experienced a leap in their consciousness and value system. Hence it is very difficult to have a fundamental breakthrough or a complete change in the appearance of deaf education reform. Complication and hardship may be the normal state of reform, but returning to the previously normal state can also be an extremely long process. Because of this, there is more positive, practical meaning in thinking about how to live with the senses of suffering and helplessness that accompany complication and hardship in this process.

In the title of this article, I use the expression “education reform’s ‘disability.’” As I state above, it first refers to the “crippled” status of deaf education reform in China: the separation of culture from language and the lonely path of language. However, with further thinking, the term canji (disability) has a second meaning. What this layer expresses is that the suffering and helplessness of “disability” will always accompany deaf education reform. We say that deaf education reform is inevitably “disabled,” in the sense that reform will always “be altered, twisted, or even reversed,” in the sense that where you sit determines how you think, and in the sense that one “has to express and present oneself via others.” However, it is better to say that pointing out inevitability in the second layer, rather than spreading an air of desperation, helps to find a certain positivity in the desperation that “being inevitably ‘disabled’” appears to represent, as well as the suffering and helplessness that grow from desperation.

It was Kiyotsugu Takeda, who has a distinct reading of the “disability” issue, and Hakyeong Kim, a writer whom Takeda highly esteemed, who taught me to think about the positive meaning of the suffering and helplessness of “disability.”

The name of Kiyotsugu Takeda is almost unknown in China. In Japan, however, especially in the circle of literary critics, he has quite a reputation. In the 1980s and 1990s, when postmodern discourses became popular, he directly countered the trend and criticized postmodern thinkers famous at the time, such as Shiguéhiko Hasumi, Kōjin Karatani, and Akira Asada. His writing always gives a sense of his speaking to his heart’s content. Of course, his fame has another reason – he is “Korean in Japan,” in addition to having the courage to challenge people like Shiguéhiko Hasumi and his indeed thought-provoking critics.

Most literary critics have writers whom they love. Takeda is no exception. Hakyeong Kim, whom Tekada admired, was yet another Korean in Japan. When Kim committed suicide on January 4, 1985, Takeda wrote an essay to eulogize him, titled “The Source of Suffering – in Memory of Hakyeong Kim,” which is worth reading and provoked discussions of the suffering and helplessness of “disability.”

Kim was “Korean in Japan.” In other words, although he was born, grew up, and lived in Japan, he was relegated to the margins of Japanese society because his father or even his grandfather was Korean; suffered various forms of discrimination; could not integrate into Japan; could not become Japanese. To a certain extent, “in Japan” means humiliation in social identity and can be directly replaced by the word “disability.” Being born, growing up, and living in Japan but not being able to become Japanese forms a salient self-identity – which is an outstanding social and historical issue concerning discrimination and anti-discrimination in Japan – and is a “source of suffering.” For Kim it was even worse, because he had a disability of body: frozen mouth.

Regarding the issue of Zainichi5 (in Japan), most “Koreans in Japan” basically have two options escape the quandary of being socially disadvantaged. The first is to fight against their reality and more or less chase the slim hope of standing out in Japanese society through extraordinary efforts. Takeda, for instance, grew up to be a professor in a reputable private university and a prominent and young (back then) cultural critic. He still had considerable reservations that he could psychologically solve his issues of integration and identity, even though he was several levels higher in social status than his father or grandfather had been. The second option is to create a reference group and turn it into a group of affiliation via action, not only psychologically but also psychically returning to one’s homeland – South Korea or North Korea in this case – and devoting oneself to a community of shared destiny that can accommodate and embrace one. However, as Kim was doomed to simultaneously face two “disabilities,” “in Japan” and “frozen mouth,” he had whole new understanding of “disability” (in both physical and social senses), the suffering that disability brings about, and the overcoming of suffering, which is distinct from the two aforementioned options to escape social suffering. Kim thus had a unique style of writing. And it was exactly this style of writing and the extremely deep thoughts it contains that touched Takeda. He said that Kim “brought such an amazing literary experience to me for the first time” (Takeda 1998, 4) and was “an author who motivated me to write” (3).

What kind of style is it? Takeda wrote,

There is suffering from one’s existence, which is often discussed as ‘the issue of staying in Japan’ or ‘the issue of discrimination.’ But these terms have nothing to do with one’s ‘suffering.’ Here [Kim] discards very cautiously, one by one, those social meanings attached to his own suffering and attempts only to deeply depict the nature of suffering… only to describe the nature of suffering and the concreteness of suffering. This depiction allows the depicter to gain a whole new understanding of self, and therefore enables them to live” (3–4).

Kim described his hardship with stuttering in his first publication, Frozen Mouth. However, his writing is best construed as narrating, using an extremely subtle style, how people with a stutter actually feel rather than describing the suffering of having a stutter…. Stuttering does solely mean inconvenience in expression. It is best related as a strange experience: creating “the cage of self-consciousness” deep inside one’s mind after witnessing “rejection in the eyes” of others. The difficulty in dealing with such a cage is that even having understood the causation of disability, one can never overcome [the suffering of disability] as long as one has had to carry the disability of frozen mouth in reality. The suffering of frozen mouth is a special “experience” that is impossible to share with others and whose brunt one can only bear oneself. In other words, stuttering in essence has an unproductive pain without “exchange value” between others and you. (17)

Kim’s writing style is unique in that he did not intentionally romanticize the suffering of “disability” (either social or physical) or its social meanings. Instead he calmly described self-feeling – “discard[ing] very carefully, one by one, those social meanings attached to his own suffering,” “using an extremely subtle style,” “only to describe the nature of suffering and the concreteness of suffering” – in order “to gain a whole new understanding of self.” This “whole new understanding of self,” in other words, is also a whole new understanding of disability – “Even having understood the causation of disability, one can never overcome [the suffering of disability] as long as one has had to carry the disability of frozen mouth in reality. The suffering of frozen mouth is a special ‘experience’ that is impossible to share with others and whose brunt one can only bear oneself.”

The pain of “impossible to share with others and whose brunt one can only bear oneself” is not limited to frozen mouth. The helplessness of “can never overcome” is also not unique to people with frozen mouth and applies to all incurable disabilities (in a medical sense), including hearing disabilities. In other words, making extraordinary efforts and returning to the collective may well be colorful delusions that others enable out of compassion. Delusion in fact represents one’s helplessness. And helplessness is indeed a major source of suffering. However, the delusion that views overcoming helplessness as a necessary means of passing through suffering is just a fundamental cause of suffering. The profundity of Kim’s and Takeda’s thoughts is to tell us that helplessness is not something that can be overcome.

We should instead learn to have awe inside and think of living and coexisting with helplessness as destiny. At first glance, to live and coexist with helplessness is seemingly fully of negativity, but it actually has a thoroughly positive side. It might be put this way: Expecting education reform to provoke a fundamental change in overcoming the suffering of disabilities such as frozen mouth or impaired hearing is essentially too optimistic and too naïve. Ultimately, one can only describe what the experience and feeling of “disability” are to the people involved, “using an extremely subtle style.” As a matter of fact, to speak in a forward-looking way, we should approach deaf education reform from this perspective and think more deeply about it. Anyone who dreams of overcoming and entirely solving the complication and hardship of reform is too optimistic and naïve. This complication and hardship seem to be deeply rooted in “the national soul,” which has invoked numerous slogans of reform and renovation for a century but essentially not changed even for a bit. They are beyond the efforts of a single field or the good intentions of social work, sociology, anthropology, and perhaps education studies as well. It therefore appears more important to strive to describe, “in an extremely subtle style,” the “disability” of deaf education reform and especially to describe the experience of deafness to the people involved – that is, to every participant in deaf education reform. In this reform, of course, deaf people are very important.

语言与文化：双语聋教育项目

爱德是聋教育改革的积极倡导者和实践者。它一反传统的聋教育理念，大力提倡引进西方先进的聋教育思想——双语双文化聋教育思想，以改变聋教育的旧有面貌。传统的聋教育被称为 “补偿教育”，主张教育应该为残疾儿童提供特殊、附加的教育计划和服务，使其恢复正常生活，扩大其因处于不利地位而丧失接受良好教育的机会和权利。但爱德却在理念上更往前走一步，它试图提升聋人的社会地位，把聋人从受 “补偿” 的消极性存在提升到更具积极意义、更具能动性的位置，而提升的具体策略则是试图在聋教育中突出强调手语作为语言的重要地位以及对于聋文化的关注。作为相应的改革实践，爱德启动了聋教育改革项目。

爱德聋教育改革项目最早始于 1996 年。是年，爱德与南京聋校开展了实验项目的合作，项目名称是 “聋儿双语双文化教育实验”。（沈玉林、吴安安、褚朝禹，2005: 10，序三）项目初期是 “双语” “双文化” 形影相伴，但随着项目的展开，语言却与文化拉开越来越大的距离，最后变成了语言的孑孓独行。2004 年在挪威聋人福利基金会支持下，爱德又与江苏省特殊教育专业委员会合作，开始了新一轮聋教育改革实验，从项目正式名称看，已表述为 “中挪双语聋教育合作项目”1，没有了 96 年项目名称中出现的 “双文化” 三个字。

爱德双语聋教育项目的顾问、知名特殊教育学家张宁生编写过《聋人文化概论》一书，他在说明为何编写此书时回忆道，自己在 “双语法之后就认定聋文化了，因为双语是牵着双文化一同走来的”。（张宁生，2010：1，前言）张宁生还写道：“改革开放的大环境，使我接触到了‘聋儿双语双文化’ 的几个国际合作项目，几乎是一拍即合”。（张宁生，2010：2，前言）从张的回忆中可以知道，当时展开双语双文化项目的并非爱德一家，相关国际合作也大有开展得红红火火之感。2 然而，这 “一同走来” 的语言和文化，走进江苏走到 2004 年，终于是分道扬镳了。3 当然，与其说是分道扬镳，更确切地讲，是语言把文化远远地甩在了后面，甚至有唯恐避之不及之感。

2004 年的项目名称上没有出现 “聋文化” 三字，这并非爱德的本意。爱德是双语双文化的积极倡导者和推动者，在爱德网站有关中挪双语聋教育项目的宣传文字中，依然还是可以见到鲜明的 “双语双文化” 姿态——推动中国聋人手语作为聋人母语被人们所认识。为聋教育学前到义务教育建立双语教学计划和方法，保证聋儿通过自己的语言接受基础教育的权力权利。项目学校以手语授课，建立双语双文化教育计划，保证至少第一批项目学生从开始到完成义务教育自始至终按照本计划接受教育。4

但是 “双文化” 的表述没有出现在中挪双语聋教育合作项目的名称中。没有出现 “聋文化” 三字，恐怕也并非挪威一方的本意。挪威斯塔万格大学教授、也是此项目顾问的斯坦因·欧纳在 “与中国聋校的沟通和合作：中挪手语双语教育的合作经验” 一文中，从挪威一方的角度，对双语聋教育实验项目（SigAm 2004–09）进行了总结。欧纳（2009: 62）写道：

尽管双语双文化在国际聋教育界是一个普遍知晓的概念，但这个概念在中国的教育背景下需要重新解释。爱德基金会的项目介绍手册给双语双文化概念做了清晰的界定：“双语双文化是指中国聋人手语和汉语这两种语言，以及其相对应的聋人文化和健听人文化”。

……

挪威对 SigAm 项目的管理其理论基础源于社会文化论。社会文化论强调人类知识和体制是通过在特定的文化和历史背景下的互动而创造和维持的。为了将人类活动理解为社会结构的创造和再创造的进程，有必要说明和分析一下行为者所使用的工具。语言在其中起了至关重要的作用。我们对语言做了什么，语言对我们意味着什么，是非常值得分析的问题。

“语言对我们意味着什么”？通过这个问题的追问，挪威一方想表达的，乃是对于语言的文化性的关注，而不是在强调语言的工具性。欧纳（2009: 62–63）在此文中根据自己在项目开展第一年参与时所记下的田野笔记，回忆道：

经过几年的准备， SigAm 项目于 2004 年 5 月开始。早期阶段开展了两项非常重要的活动：在南京开办研讨会，向挪威方介绍中国聋教育发展现状；在苏州开办研讨会，向中方的项目参与者介绍挪威双语聋教育理念。

……程益基也介绍了即将开始的聋教育新课程改革的一些想法。新的课程大纲的一个基本原则就是要改变过去只注重教学内容和教师使用的某种特定的教学方法。这些教学方法其实是将教师置于主导地位，而忽略了学生的学习能力。而新的聋教学大纲则强调了学生 “自主学习、合作和探索” 三个概念。这实际上是强调了学生交流和参与教育的重要性。

……

在苏州的中国聋校校长研讨会上，挪威专家就聋教育和手语双语教育发展的核心概念和理论作了介绍。应项目协调小组的要求，挪威专家的演讲主要侧重以下三个主题：

• (1) 挪威聋教育的历史和发展：过去，现在和将来。

• (2) 双语双文化的概念及其在聋教育中的重要性。

• (3) 双语双文化理念下的课堂教学。

在我们的演讲中，前两个主题直接切入，而第三个主题 “课堂教学” 只是间接地谈及。聋教育和双语双文化教学是通过三个方面来理解的。第一，通过联合国人人享有教育的目标框架来理解。演讲的重点是介绍与挪威教育政策相关的聋教育。第二，双语双文化教育与功能性双语有关。演讲着重介绍挪威手语是人类语言的一种，以及对聋生的双语教育。第三，从聋和聋生的角度来讨论双语双文化教育。演讲强调聋教育需要采取多元的途径和聋人参与聋教育的必要性。

挪威专家在早期的演讲中有意地不直接介绍特定的教学方法，是因为如果脱离了当地的文化传统去谈论某一种好像可以普遍适用的教育方法，是不合适的。

在以上这段颇为珍贵的第一手回忆材料中不难看出以下几点：首先，文化一词是高频度出现的，而且三个演讲主题中两个出现了 “双文化” 的表述；其次，挪威一方有意在提请注意文化与教学方法的关联，极力回避就教学方法谈教学方法；再次，中方关注的重点则落脚在教师的教学方法和学生的学习方法上，似乎是想仅仅在课堂教学的工具性层面去理解语言的意义。

中挪双语聋教育合作项目一开始主要在江苏省展开实验，推展至南京、苏州、常州、镇江和扬州 5 所特殊学校。2004 年 9 月 1 日，爱德分别与江苏省南京聋校等五所项目聋校签订项目合作协议，以保证项目学校对项目目标、要求、报告制度、财务制度等有一个基本共识，每所实验学校每年可获得中挪 SigAm 双语实验学校实验项目一定数额的项目经费，为期五年。5 项目从 04 年至今，恰好有 10 年的历史。

本文并非是对爱德聋教育改革做全程的回溯，而是通过关注语言甩掉文化踽踽独行这一现象，讨论 “残疾的” 教育改革与教育改革的 “残疾” 问题。本文想要表明，以所谓的 “残疾人”（此案例中当然指的是聋人）为对象的教育改革，在实际展开过程中，自觉或不自觉地表现出了改革本身的 “残疾”一面：原为以 “语言” “文化” 两条腿走路的教育改革，在展开过程中我们看到的现象是，语言与文化被剥离了开来。颇具社会学意义的是，这一剥离并非改革倡导者的本意，但在种种复杂的社会因素、社会力量交互作用之下，双语教育改革的推进，至少在江苏省，却不得不以抽空对聋文化的关注为进展的条件。这一剥离的张力，最终导致了聋教育改革 “跛足” 而行。本文尝试通过一个座谈会记录的文本解读，来具体呈现这一张力，在此基础上，尝试对 “残疾” 以及教育改革的问题展开一些更为深入的讨论。

座谈会的文本分析

2005 年 10 月 11 至 12 日，爱德组织专家组赴 Z 聋校等三所双语实验聋校进行调研。爱德的双语聋教育项目（SigAm 项目）聘请了六位专家顾问参与项目的研究和指导，此行的专家组共四人，包括上述六位专家顾问中的两位，以及 N 市特殊职业技术教育学院特殊教育教研室的两位。此次调研目的是针对新教材问题听取一线教师的看法。 SigAm 项目实验校率先试行普校教材，新教材计划根据实验学校使用普校教材的实际情况，在普校教材基础上做出适当调整。调研活动内容主要是听课和座谈。听课主要是听小学一年级语文课；座谈则听取一线教师的意见，解答一线教师的困惑。这里呈现的记录便是专家组在 Z 聋校听了两节语文课后与实验学校相关教师进行的座谈的现场录音。

作为此次调研重点的 Z 聋校，前身为一所私立聋哑学校，创办于 1937 年。1952 年更名为 Z 市聋哑学校，改为公办。1995 年，政府投资 600 万元易地建成占地 13700 平方米，建筑面积近 5000 平方米的新校舍，成立 “Z 市特教中心”。2002 年 9 月，学校发展成为一所聋弱一体的综合型中等特殊教育学校。其中，聋教育由学前教育、义务教育、高级中等教育组成，学制 15 年。调查的当时，全校共有 21 个教学班，185 名学生，59 名教职工。2004 年开展中挪双语教学实验班项目。

本次座谈会的 Z 校代表有校长 R、教导主任 Z 、政教主任 W、一年级双语班听人语文教师 C 和聋人教师各一人、学前双语班听人教师和聋人教师各一人，听人数学教师 X 。座谈会之前重点听了一节由听人教师 C 主讲的一年级双语班语文课。

专家组成员四人，C 处长和 Z 校长为两名关键人物。C 是中国教育学会特殊教育专业委员会副理事长、全国聋教育课程改革研制组组长、J 省教育厅基础教育处原主要领导、J 省特殊教育研究会理事长。此行 C 是以 J 省特殊教育专业委员会主任身份出席。Z 校长是另一双语实验聋校 N 聋校原校长、爱德基金会 N 市聋儿康复中心主任，兼任中国残疾人康复协会听力语言康复专业委员会委员、中国教育学会特殊教育专业委员会学术委员、J 省听力语言康复委员会副主任、N 市特殊教育研究会副理事长。此行其身份是 J 省特殊教育专业委员会专家。

座谈会一开始，Z 校教导主任 Z 的三个 “不知道” 让人印象深刻。

C 教师首先介绍了这堂课的教学目标以及在备课、教学过程中的巨大困惑。从第一段话中可知，认字以及用手势来表达字面意思是一贯以来的教学目的所在，但开始双语教学实验后，以往延续下来的教学设计被打乱了。C 教师用了 “对应” 一词来表达自己的困惑，而针对“为了对应双语” 的表述，Z 主任则接连用上了三个 “不知道” —— “不知道怎么上了”，“不知道怎么办了”，“不知道怎么操作了” ——来为 C 老师作注解，使得整段对话呈现出极为强烈的 “否定色彩”。读者在这段对话中，尤其是在 “不” 的连续否定中，可以体会出 C 教师所用 “对应” 一词表达了怎样的一种 “消极” “被动” 情感。双语教育的改革，或许是在刚开始阶段，并非一件广受一线听人教师欢迎、他们能够积极、主体性地投入的事情，某种意义上讲，反而是外部影响的一种强行闯入。也正因如此，正如在 C 教师的案例上可以看到的，“对应” 就显得颇为狼狈。借用 Z 主任自己的语言来概括，便是 “无所适从了已经”。这种所谓的 “对应” 的狼狈，从座谈内容中可以得知，更具体地是起因于为了应付专家组的听课而把平时一人上的课变为了两个人来上，而且其中的另一位是聋人教师。而一堂课两个老师来上，并非是教学上的惯例，而是一种临时的 “今天我们就尝试一下”。C 教师表述道：“我们想怎么办呢，我们想，就请聋人老师来协助吧，完成这个”。“完成这个” 的 “这个” 是指应付听课的事。而听的课，不是一般的课，而是双语的课，因此，便有了聋人教师的登场。但在语气助词“就请聋人老师来协助吧” 的 “吧” 字中，可以体会出一种强烈的无可奈何。可以说即便在双语实验学校，聋人教师的登场所带来的困惑和无奈，也清楚地表现在座谈会的这些教育实践者的意识中、语言表达中的。而在这一无可奈何的背后，则是一个聋人教师在聋校教育中几无地位的现实。

聋教师在聋教育身处边缘很难登上讲坛是一个比较普遍的现象，也被 Z 校政教主任 W 列为 “主要问题三个” 中的一个，另外两个是教材和教法，只是这三个问题，都是有机地关联在一起。

作为新教材的问题，W 首先指出，“原来我们都是采用聋校的教材，无论从老师的授课还是学生的接受来看都是比较适应的，现在教材的针对性不够，教材的针对性就不是针对我们的了，我们是零开始，我们是文语并进”。不过 “原来我们都是采用聋校的教材，无论从老师的授课还是学生的接受来看都是比较适应的” 的 “适应” 两字，还是遭到了修正和批评。作为本次专家组主要成员的 C 处长，发表了指导性的意见：

1982 年北欧和西欧总结他们聋教育的失败一是过低降低对聋生的要求，二是过分的强调缺陷补偿，没有把潜在开发放在重要位置。我觉得这两条教训完全适应我们。我们过去的教材把课文有血有肉的部分去掉了交给聋人干巴巴的部分，短短的一篇课文要 6、7、8、9 课时才能学完，把完整的知识反复朗读就以为理解了，把完整的知识打得支离破碎，过分的照顾了聋生缺陷，降低了要求。所以我们聋孩子学得非常不好。

C 处长敏锐地抓住了所谓 “适应” 的问题核心：适应是以进度和质量为代价的。传统的聋教育过分降低对聋生的要求，过分强调缺陷补偿，强调发声朗读的训练，花费的教学课时过多，其教材知识层次比同龄的听人学生教材低好几个年级，课文的教学也失去了精彩而成为了一个 “干巴巴” 的东西。C 处长斩钉截铁地说道：

包括进度、方法，可以说过去的教学是不成功的，最后通过八年、九年的聋校教育，是令人懊恼的结果。……我们聋校四年级的水平和普通学校四年级水平相差很多，我们聋校的四年级孩子到普通学校四年级考试简直是一塌糊涂。

而新教材是针对过去的补偿教育做出的矫正，增加内容、提高难度，向普校的标准靠拢。可以说，这是聋教育改革的一个新的方向。然而，问题也接踵而至。新教材的使用带来了教学方法上的问题，从座谈会的内容来看，要求聋校使用普校教材，给一线教师带来了很大的困惑，进度赶不上，内容完成不了。

“因为教材是普通学校的，又要保证进度，真的是比较难兼顾”。（Z 主任）

“现在教材的针对性不够，教材的针对性就不是针对我们的了”。（W 主任）。

“人家是普通学校是六年的语言基础来学一年级的教材”，（Z 校长）而我们 “很多语文数学课都当手语课上”，（Z 主任）“不光是语言问题，还有整个知识系统。数学简直没法教。进度跟得上效果肯定不行”。（W 主任）

C 处长也认为新教材确确实实 “为我们聋校的教学、教材还有教学方法提出一个非常大的问题”，但他坚持：

不能过分降低对孩子们的要求，我们过去问题就出在过低地降低了对孩子们的要求，过去一个拼音教几天啊一个字教几天啊，所以我们这方面还应该考虑。因为我们是试验，每个阶段要不断得对自己进行反思，教学理念教学方法教学手段对孩子们的各个方面的发展提出反思和对策。在此我希望你们还是按照进度来搞，不断提出反思，我们的教学方法是不是适当，是不是有问题。聋孩子的差异性是客观存在的，但是我们一定不要用传统的过去的思想来思考今天的教学。

“不能过分降低对孩子们的要求” 意味着聋教育不应再回 “补偿教育” 的老路。C 处长强调，“一定不要用传统的过去的思想来思考今天的教学”。 那么如何才能既不“过分降低对孩子们的要求” 又能 “更好的让孩子的身心、德智体得到全面发展”（C 处长语）呢？双语聋教育在此成为了一种尝试性的选择。

双语聋教育，并非指 “文语并进” 的教学方法，而是指 “口语” 与 “手语” 的双语教育。

围绕着手语教学应该有什么样的地位，手语，尤其是手语中被称为 “自然手语” 的聋人手语在学校教育中是否能被当作教学语言一直存在着激烈的争论。大陆的情况是，1956 年确立了 “以口语为主” 的聋教育教学方针后，手语长期被划为聋教育的禁区，口语教学法始终以绝对的优势一统天下。（贺晓星，2006：93）只是到了最近几年，出于对 “补偿教育” 效果的反思以及欧美现代聋教育理念和思想的影响，双语聋教育开始成为人们关注的一个焦点并且在某些地区某些学校成为了一种教育改革的实验和实践。

双语聋教育秉持着这样一种理念：

双语聋教育的理念认同社会语言和文化的多元性，充分肯定聋人群体，肯定聋人语言——手语和聋人文化；主张用聋人手语作为聋童必须掌握的第一语言；在教学进程中用聋人手语为工具，并用教第二语言的方法教授聋童的本国语言（口语和书面语）；双语聋教育强调聋人平等参与聋教育的重要性；对聋生有高的期待值，希望把他们培养成：除了听，什么有能行的人。（沈玉林、吴安安、褚朝禹，2005: 159。“什么有能行” 疑为 “什么都能行” 之误）

然而，即便具有着一种共识，认为为了既不 “过分降低对孩子们的要求” 又能 “更好的让孩子的身心、德智体得到全面发展”，双语聋教育应该是一种很好的选择，但在实验或实践者阵营中间，对双语聋教育意义的认识和理解也存在着裂缝，并非铁板一块。

在这次座谈会上，有一个人物虽然没有到场但却始终存在在每个座谈会参与者的意识之中。这个人物就是爱德基金会某部门负责人，也是 SigAm 双语聋教育实验项目资金负责人的 A。A 是中国双语聋教育改革中的一个关键人物，不仅积极译介西方的双语聋教育思想与理念，而且在中国积极尝试付诸实践，负责筹备和展开双语聋教育的实验项目。涉及到 A，在座谈会上有这样一段有趣的对话：

从 Z 主任的这句话中可以推测，A 不仅主张手语教学，而且还是自然手语的坚定拥护者；不仅积极推广双语聋教育，而且还格外重视聋人在聋教育中的地位和作用。

虽然同样参与和推动着双语聋教育的实验或实践，但对于自然手语，对于聋教师的地位和作用，在场的各位却表现出与 A 明显不同的态度。C 处长主张 “手语的教学要用规范的，你是汉语教学。自然手语应该是教学中的辅助材料，工具性的作用”，也因此，C 处长认为：

要打破聋人在手语上的权威地位。会手语的就能当老师了？就像会讲话的人就能当教师了一样。很多农民是文盲口语都很好但他还是农民。语言只是个工具，不能等同于知识水平。……先学字再学拼音，不符合教育规律。……以自然手语为主不等于以聋人为主。

另一位专家组的主要成员 Z 校长也跟着表明了态度：

Z 校长：我们该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么做。

Z 主任则进一步敲边鼓，对双语聋教育提出了疑虑：

Z 主任：现在实验的指导思想比较混乱，是以聋人手语为准还是聋人发展为准？我们把以前的固定模式都全部推翻了，畏首畏脚，都是为了突出双语。

于是，在 “我们该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么做” 的指导思想下，以教育行政部门和教育实践工作者为一方以爱德为另一方的、同在一个双语聋教育阵营中但却又截然存在的一条分界线被划了出来。让我们来看看这前一方的 “该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么做” 的低线划在了何处。

从座谈会记录中可以看出，在教育行政部门教育实践工作者的这一方，即便倡导着双语聋教育，但手语教学始终只能是一种方法一种工具，孩子的身心、德智体得到全面发展才是理念才是目的。当然，将孩子的身心、德智体全面发展设定为理念设定为目的本身无法去质疑，但这种抽象的东西总要落实到更具体的层面，而当落实到更具体的层面，汉语而不是手语，就成为了理念和目的。C 处长说道：

我们的双语教学不是为学手语而学手语，它是一个手段不是教学目的，它的目的是更好的让孩子的身心、德智体得到全面发展，从教学角度来讲，是为了发展他的思维，更好的掌握汉语，更好的学习知识。

可以说，即便一同致力于双语聋教育的改革，在对待手语，尤其是对待自然手语的态度上两者还是存在着明显的区别的。将手语教学仅仅看作是一种方法，和将手语教学看作还是一种理念，这两种观念之间的差距以及这差距所蕴涵的意义，很值得作一些深入的思考。

“该坚持还是要坚持，该怎么做还是怎么做” 的低线划在了 “我们的双语教学不是为学手语而学手语，它是一个手段不是教学目的”，在这一底线前寸步不让的是座谈会的参与者，主要是教育行政部门领导以及第一线的听人教师。他们强调聋人对主流文化的融入，将手语教学看作仅仅是一种方法，强调聋教育的目的是为了更好地发展聋生的思维，更好的掌握汉语。而在这一底线前希望有新的突破并积极展开种种改革尝试的是爱德基金会。爱德虽然认可聋人对主流文化融入的重要性以及这种融入在中国所具有的巨大的现实意义，但并不放弃聋人的第一语言应该是他们的自然手语的主张，强调聋人对聋教育的平等参与，强调手语教学并不应该仅停留在方法的层面它本身还应该是一种理念一个目的。

聋人或许是一种异文化的存在或者是一种跨文化的存在这样的观点和意识至少在目前还很难为许多从事教育行政工作和教育实践工作的人所接受。从座谈会的内容来看，无论是行政领导还是一线教师，都关注的是如何更有效地利用手语来让聋人学好汉语，发展聋人的思维。这里的 “思维” 两字，并非意指聋性思维，而是指听人的思维，要让聋人学会象听人那样地去思考问题领悟问题。比如作为专家组主要成员的 Z 校长就谈到：

我们聋生思维本身就呆。什么是聋人的自然手语？是不是跟指语的打法不同就叫自然手语？

“我们聋生思维本身就呆”，这种 “呆” 的思维无疑是要被克服的对象，把聋人改造得象听人一样才可称作为教育。

当然，需要指出的是，改变这种 “呆” 才叫做教育这样的传统教育学思维（？）并非爱德的本意。作为非政府组织，爱德坚持的是一种社会工作（Social Work）理念。社会工作理念与传统教育学思维不同之处在于，相对于传统教育学思维预先设定一个受教育的对象，并从教育者的立场出发为对方设定了价值标准和努力目标然后通过一整套的方法程序使对方摆脱所谓的 “蒙昧不化” 之境的做法，社会工作强调从对方的立场出发思考问题，首先要求理解对方，了解对方的处境和要求，不是去自上而下地教化对方而是自下而上地去帮助对方。在此，对方并非一种 “蒙昧不化” 式的存在，而是因了社会、历史、文化等诸种因素的影响陷于不利的困境，成为了一种社会弱势群体。将对方看作是 “蒙昧不化” 和看作是 “社会弱势群体” 乃是两种截然不同的态度，直接导致了改革中的聋教育到底是双语教育呢还是双语双文化的教育。

“残疾” 与教育改革

本文并非要通过对一个座谈会记录的解读告诉读者双语聋教育阵营其实也是内部分化意见不一，本文也并非想讲将对方看作是 “蒙昧不化” 的传统教育学思维本身是如何的 “蒙昧不化” 需要去批判去质疑。即便对双语聋教育的理解有所不同对手语地位的认同有明显的差异，但能够参与双语聋教育的改革认识到以前的补偿教育、口语教学有其局限性而双语教育、手语教学能够有益于聋人至少是那些听力受损程度严重或先天丧失听力的聋人的任何努力，其实都值得去关注去肯定。本文的目的是尽可能原汁原味地呈现一个座谈会的文本，通过这一文本来体会一下聋教育改革的鲜活过程以及非政府组织作为一支重要的社会力量对教育改革的影响与参与。而 “鲜活” 一词，尤其意指着 “复杂” 与 “艰难”。正如中国教育史反反复复表明的那样，有影响的教育改革始终很难采取自下而上的形式而往往大多是一种自上而下的事情，然而这一次在特殊教育领域，非政府组织的爱德基金会意欲有所作为，他们的努力，也正因为 “复杂” 与 “艰难”，提供了对聋教育改革作社会学思考的极好样本。

细读座谈会的文本（参照附录），在内容和文体上，至少有以下三点值得关注。

首先，参加这次座谈会的，大多是一线教育现场的实力派人物。有江苏省基教处6 的前领导以及相关实验聋校的校长、主任。这些处在政策具体落实、操作层次的中层干部，直接决定了自上而下的教育政策的实施是走样还是不走样。“上有政策下有对策” 的民间智慧，意指上面的宏观政策再好，到了下面基层，在微观操作层面，总会有更为现实主义版的修正。而决定修正还是不修正以及如何修正的，正是处长、校长们。教育改革也不例外，顶层设计再完美的教育改革，当贯彻到微观的一线层面，总是被涂改被扭曲甚至被改写。

其次，此次双语聋教育改革，也并非典型的先有顶层设计再是贯彻执行。爱德乃为一 NGO 组织，其倡导的改革理念对于教育行政官员、校长主任、乃至一线教师来讲，并不具有 “顶层” 所具有的指示、约束作用。官方的尚且遭遇 “上有政策下有对策” 的问题，民间的就更不例外。座谈会最后一句 “以后我们就聪明了，看谁来开什么课（笑）” 出自实验校校长之口，在呵呵一片笑声中确实尽显改革实际参与者的 “机动灵活”。教育改革成功与否从来就并非是理念决定一切。即便持有先进的教育理念，改革的成功也需要一线层面的教育行政人员、教师发自内心的共鸣以及真正自觉的、积极的投入。而从此次座谈会看，虽然是爱德组织的专家组调研，但专家组的主要成员以及实验校的一线教师也并非透彻地理解或完全赞同爱德的理念。尤其当这一理念表达为 “双语双文化” 时，“双语” 从某种角度讲是获得了足够的重视，但“双文化” 的观念却充满了争议。虽然整个座谈会文本自始至终并没有出现 “文化” 一词，但参与者所发表的有关“自然手语” 的观点、有关聋人 “思维” 的观点，无疑表达着他们对于文化的认识。“机动灵活” 所透露出的 “复杂” 与 “艰难”，或许正是改革的原生态。理念的接受与内化并非一朝一夕之事。“屁股决定脑袋” 乃为民间智慧中对中国当代社会突出现象的一种充满嘲讽但又形象生动的概括，教育改革的每个实践者，在参与改革前的原有位置、现有位置以及来自于这一无论是原有的还是现有的位置的利益诉求，决定着其对改革理念的理解到底有多深，改革实践走的有多远。

最后，座谈会发言还有一个非常醒目的文本特点——专家组成员，尤其是 C 处长的发言占了压倒性的篇幅，而成鲜明对比的是，虽然有聋人教师在场但却并不发声。聋人教师的这一不发声，当然并不即刻意味着即便聋人教师想要发言，也得不到任何发言的机会，更可能的情况是，聋人教师本身就没有一种意识去积极争取表达自己观点的机会，而座谈会的各位听人专家、一线教师，也对聋人教师的不发声习以为常，不会去把不发声作为一个问题上升到意识的层面。在此看到的现象是，聋教育的改革，在许多改革参与者的潜意识中被认为其实还是一件听人的事情，是听人为聋人来决定聋教育究竟应该怎么改。马克思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》中曾有一句名言：“他们无法表述自己；他们必须被别人表述”，萨义德引来作为自己《东方学》一书的题引。（萨义德，1999：无页码）座谈会的文本特点表达的恰好是这样一个信息：聋人无法表述自己，他们必须被听人表述，被听人代言。

指出以上三点，与其说是想要对理念理解的不到位、改革实践的不彻底展开批判，不如说是要在改革总是 “被涂改被扭曲甚至被改写” 中，在 “原生态” 的 “屁股决定脑袋” 中，在 “必须被他人所表述所代言” 中，去体会一种改革的 “复杂” 与 “艰难”。双语聋教育改革并非毕其功于一役的事，社会发展不到一定的阶段，人的意识以及价值观念就不会有质的飞跃，聋教育的改革也就很难说能取得本质性的突破能有彻底的改观。“复杂” 与 “艰难” 或许乃为改革的一种常态，而这一常态的改变，又是一个极为漫长的过程。也正因为漫长，比之于对于改革立竿见影效果的天真乐观的期待，在这过程中学会思考怎样与 “复杂”、“艰难” 所带来的 “痛苦” 感、“无奈” 感相伴，就更具有积极的现实意义。

笔者在标题中使用 “教育改革的 ‘残疾’” 这样的表述，正如前述，首先意指中国聋教育改革的一种 “跛足” 状态：语言与文化的剥离以及语言的孑孓独行。但进一步思考，“残疾” 一词，还可以有第二个层面的意思。这第二个层面，表达的是这样一层含义：聋教育改革必然相伴着 “残疾” 的痛苦与无奈，在改革总是 “被涂改被扭曲甚至被改写” 的意义上，在 “原生态” 的 “屁股决定脑袋” 的意义上，在 “必须被他人所表述所代言” 的意义上，我们说聋教育改革必然是 “残疾” 的。然而，指出这第二个层面的 “必然”，与其说是想渲染一种绝望的心情，不如说是想在 “必然是 ‘残疾’” 所貌似的绝望、以及因绝望而产生的痛苦与无奈中看出一些积极意义。

让笔者意识到学会思考 “残疾” 的痛苦与无奈之积极意义的，是对 “残疾” 问题作出了独特解读的日本学者竹田青嗣以及他所推崇的作家金鹤泳。

竹田青嗣的名字还几乎不为国人所知，而在日本，尤其是文学评论圈里，他具有较高的知名度。在后现代文学评论话语呈为一种流行时尚的上世纪八、九十年代，他迎面而上展开了对于莲实重彦、柄谷行人、浅田彰等当红后现代思想家的批判，文章总是带给读者一种酣畅淋漓的感觉。当然，他的有名，除了敢于挑起与莲实重彦等人的论战及其批判确实有深度有底气外，还有另外一个重要的原因——他是 “在日朝鲜人”。

从事文学评论的大多都有自己喜爱的作家，竹田青嗣也不例外，他推崇的是金鹤泳，另一位 “在日朝鲜人”。1985 年 1 月 4 日，时年 46 岁的金自杀身亡，竹田写了一篇题为 “痛苦的由来——悼金鹤泳” 的文章，颇值得一读，引来思考此处 “残疾” 的痛苦与无奈问题。

金鹤泳是 “在日朝鲜人”。换言之，他虽然出生在日本成长在日本生活在日本，但由于父辈甚至是祖辈是朝鲜人之缘故，却被排挤在日本社会的边缘，饱受种种的歧视，融不进日本，成不了日本人。某种意义上说，“在日”两字，意味着一种身份的屈辱，完全可以直接置换为“残疾” 一词。出生在日本成长在日本生活在日本但却成不了日本人形成不了鲜明的自我认同，这乃是日本社会中一个突出的歧视-被歧视的历史、社会问题，成为 “痛苦的由来”。而金鹤泳本人雪上加霜，他还兼有身体的残疾——口吃。

在 “在日” 问题上，一般 “在日朝鲜人” 为了走出社会弱势的窘境，大致会有两种克服 “痛苦” 的选择：一是与现实抗争，通过自己不断发奋努力多少寻觅到在日本出人头地之一丝一线的光明。比如竹田青嗣，成年后成为了一所知名私立大学的教授又是赫赫有名的年轻气盛（当年）的文学评论家。只是虽然社会地位上与父辈、祖辈相比上了好几个层次，精神上是否真的解决了 “融入” 与“自我认同” 的问题，依然尚存不小的疑虑；二是构建一个神话般的参照群体再在行动上把参照群体变为所属群体，不仅心理上而且肉体上也返回自己的祖国—— “朝鲜” 或 “韩国”，投入一个能容纳自己拥抱自己的命运共同体。然而因为宿命般地必须同时直面 “在日” 与 “口吃” 两种 “残疾”，金鹤泳对于 “残疾”（生理与社会两种意义上的）以及因残疾而带来的 “痛苦” 及其克服有着自己全新的认识，迥异于上述两种克服 “痛苦” 的选择。金鹤泳由此形成了独特的写作风格，而正是其写作风格及风格所内含的极为深刻的思想，感动了竹田。竹田称金 “是第一个给了我这样的不可思议的文学体验”（竹田，1998：4）、 “赋予了我写作动机的作家”（竹田，1998：3）。

这是一种怎样的风格呢？竹田写道：

存在着自己生存的困苦并常常被谈论为 “在日问题” “歧视问题”，但这些词与自己的 “痛苦” 没有一丁点的关系。在此，他非常谨慎地将附加在自己痛苦之上的那些社会意义一一舍弃，仅仅试图深入描绘痛苦本身的实质。/……仅仅就是在表述痛苦的实质痛苦的具体性，而这一表述使得表述者获得了一种对自己的崭新理解，从而使得其能够活下去。（竹田，1998：3–4。/表示换行，下同）

金在其处女作《冻口》中描述了自己口吃的痛苦。然而作者的写作，与其说是在描述口吃的痛苦，不如说是在以极为精致的笔触，讲述 “口吃” 对于当事人来说是一种怎样的体验感受。/“口吃” 并不单纯意味着表达的不便。更准确地讲乃为一种很怪异的体验：遭遇他者 “目光的拒绝” 从而在自己内心形成了 “自我意识的牢笼”。而这一牢笼的不好对付，在于即便明白了残疾之因果的缘由，但只要在现实中背负着口吃的残障，就绝不能消解掉。口吃的痛苦是一种 “特殊的体验”，无法与他人分担，只有自己单独承受。换言之，所谓的 “口吃”，本质上讲乃为一种不具与他者之间 “交换价值” 的不毛的痛楚。（竹田，1998：17。着重号原文所有）

金的独特的写作风格，在于他并没有刻意去渲染 “残疾” 之 “痛苦”（无论是社会性的还是生理性的）及其社会意义，而是冷静地在描述一种自我的感觉—— “以极为精致的笔触”，“非常谨慎地将附加在自己痛苦之上的那些社会意义一一舍弃”，“仅仅就是在表述痛苦的实质痛苦的具体性”，以达到 “一种对自己的崭新理解”。这一“对自己的崭新理解”，换言之，也是对于残疾的一种崭新理解—— “即便明白了残疾之因果的缘由，但只要在现实中背负着口吃的残障，就绝不能消解掉。口吃的痛苦是一种 ‘特殊的体验’，无法与他人分担，只有自己单独承受”。

“无法与他人分担，只有自己单独承受” 的痛苦，不仅仅局限于口吃；“绝不能消解掉” 的无奈，也并非 “口吃” 独有，而是可以推论到其他一切在医学意义上难以康复的残疾，包括听障。换言之，“发奋努力” 也好回归 “共同体” 也罢，或许仅仅是一种别人出于慈善之心提供的一种色彩斑斓的幻想，幻想其实表征的正是一种无奈。而又或许，无奈也确实是痛苦的一个主要由来，然而将对于无奈的克服视之为超越痛苦之必由之路的幻想，却是痛苦之为痛苦的根本缘由。金与竹田的思想深度在于告诉我们，无奈并非可以去克服去超越的某物，而是应该去学会怀着一种敬畏之心，思考如何宿命般地与之共生共存的。这一共生共存，猛看起来似乎充斥着消极的意义，但实际上却有着更为彻底的积极一面。或许可以这样说，对于口吃、听障等残疾所带来的痛苦的超越，期待教育改革引发本质性的变化其实本是太过乐观太过天真，“残疾” 根本上只能是以一种 “极为精致的笔触讲述” “残疾” “对于当事人来说是一种怎样的体验感受” 而已。

其实进而言之，聋教育的改革，也自可以从这一角度出发来进行更深入的思考。改革的 “复杂” 与 “艰难”，幻想着有朝一日能够彻底克服和解决，也实在是过于乐观和天真。这一 “复杂” 与 “艰难”，或许深深扎根于喊了上百年种种改革、改良口号但直到今天本质上依然没有见到些许改变的 “国民性” 之中，并非仅靠单一领域的努力以及社工、社会学、人类学、或许还有教育学的善意就能超越的东西。将聋教育改革的 “残疾”，努力去用 “极为精致的笔触讲述” 出来，尤其是将改革的 “残疾” 对于当事人，也即每位聋教育改革的参与者——当然其中很重要的是聋人——来说 “是一种怎样的体验感受” 描述出来，因此才更显珍贵。