![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In this article the social networks and family ties of a pre-industrial (married and/or died between 1770 and 1850) and industrial (married and/or died between 1850 and 1950) cohort of deaf men and women are compared to each other and to a cohort of non-disabled siblings. The aim is to assess the extent to which the deaf participated in a full-fledged manner in family and social life and to evaluate the ways in which their social networks changed as a result of nineteenth-century industrialisation processes. The extent of social integration is deduced from the profile of the witnesses registered in marriage and death certificates. In the absence of personal testimonies of social experiences, demographic sources are invaluable for providing a glimpse of the everyday social life of ordinary people in the past. In combination with historical records identifying disabled individuals, this research is a first attempt to study the social opportunities of an up-until-now often forgotten, but nevertheless integral part of society: the disabled. Based on the analysis of the witnesses, this article argues that in the course of the nineteenth century deaf individuals became less embedded in their social environment and their relationship with their family weakened. The minority of married deaf persons, however, expressed a much higher connectedness with family.
Notes
1. This article is part of my PhD project entitled ‘Breaking the silence. On the life courses of the hearing impaired. The case of East Flanders, 1750–1950’ (Supervisor Prof. dr. Isabelle Devos; funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (2010–2014)).
2. National Archives Beveren, Fund of Benevolence (1858–1859).
3. The results of these censuses are published in l'Exposé de la Situation du Royaume de 1851 à 1860, l'Exposé de la Situation du Royaume de 1861 à 1875, and l'Exposé de la Situation du Royaume de 1876 à 1900.
4. In 1858 one out of 2324 inhabitants in Belgium was deaf; 1880: 1/3243; 1890: 1/2903; 1900: 1/2578.
5. Usually the name of the street is recorded and it is specified whether the person resides in his own house, someone else's house or an institution. Since these certificates are snapshots in time, it is never clear how long someone has resided in this place.
6. For more on the unique value of the Belgian population registers, e.g.: Gutmann, m.p., Van De Walle, E. (1978). New Sources for Social and Demographic History: The Belgian Population Registers. Social Science History, 2(2), 121–143.
7. Individuals residing in an institution were registered at the address of the institution.
8. State Archives Beveren, Conscription registers East-Flanders, 1–37, 504–543, 554–563, 582–599, 607–615, 625–633, 643–651, 662–671, 681–691.; Commission Centrale de Statistique (1864). Statistique générale de la Belgique: exposé de la situation du royaume (période décennale de 1851–1860). Brussels: Lesigne.; Archive of the Sisters of Love of Jesus and Mary Ghent, Matriculation list for the ‘Institut des sourdes-muettes’.; State Archives Beveren, Hollands Fonds, 725/19.
9. The small number of files (137) indicates that either a lot of files were lost, or that only part of the deaf population was recorded.
10. For more on parish and civil registers in Belgium: Art, J., Boone, M. (Eds.) (2004). Inleiding tot de locale geschiedenis van de 12de tot de 18de eeuw. Gent: Mens en cultuur; Art, J., Vanhaute, E. (Eds.) (2003). Inleiding tot de lokale geschiedenis van de 19de en 20ste eeuw. Gent: Stichting Mens en Kultuur.
11. Except when the family name of the witness corresponded with the family name of the deceased or spouse. In that case, the witness was considered to be family.
12. Lateral kinship ties: e.g. brother, brother-in-law and cousin; vertical kinship ties: e.g. father, uncle, grandfather, son.
13. Regarding witnesses recorded as ‘family-in-law’ it is difficult to ascertain whether they were vertically or laterally related to the bride/groom. The small age gap between the married individuals and the witnesses, however, suggests they were most often age peers.
14. The relationship with nephews is somewhat difficult to interpret as the Dutch word ‘neef’ can refer to both ‘cousin’, the son of an uncle – which implies a lateral relationship with more or less an age peer – as to a ‘nephew’, the son of a sibling – which implies a vertical relationship with a younger person. If the age gap between the deceased/married individual and his or her ‘neef’ was less than 15 years or if the ‘neef’ was older, he was considered a ‘cousin’. If the ‘neef’ was more than 15 years younger, he was considered a ‘nephew’.
15. The cross tabulation of the number of lateral and vertical witnesses in each time cohort produced similar results.; Those individuals with an equal number of vertical and lateral kin witnesses (nine deaf individuals and 19 siblings) were excluded from the analysis.
16. A correspondence in occupation type of people without profession was not considered to be the same occupation type. When a person died at old age, it is likely that he was registered as without profession which makes it impossible to compare occupations. Therefore, I considered a research individual to have the same profession as the witness when the same occupation type was recorded for the research individual at one point in his or her life. As the occupation at marriage is often the first available recording of occupation, only the occupation type at marriage is taken into account in the marriage analysis.
17. Starting from the 1795 population census Jaspers and Stevens (Citation1985) have mapped out the labour and employment characteristics of East Flanders at the end of the early modern period. Based on their classification scheme, I have devised a division into seven occupation ‘types’: agriculture, unskilled labour, crafts, trade and transport, administration, domestic service and undetermined.
18. The distinction is made based on the date of the event, not the date of birth as people born in the same birth cohort can have very different ages at death and/or marriage.