Language as Reality: An introduction to Discourse Theory

Reconsidering history of pyschology’s borders

Scot Atkin’s comments on Critical Theory piqued my interest.  I was particularly curious about how it differed from social constructionism.  Krantz (2001)’s article about the history of psychology and potential applications of critical theory did not do much to distinguish critical theory from Gergen (1985)’s social construction movements.  Both begin with the premise that knowledge is socially constructed (Krantz, 2001; Gergen, 1985).  Both understand that positivist perspectives are inherently rooted in research behavior and are the foundation for most logical thought; however, socially constructed realities direct positivist research and makes false, but more socially acceptable research pervasive.  For example, the media often uses dubious sources and politicians and lawyers can always find a scientist willing to back their views with “empirical” data.

 

Ladd (2003) mentions the impact socially constructed narratives have on empirical research.  If we apply positivist research to the Deaf, we come to the conclusion that the average deaf adult reads and writes at the fourth grade level.  From this conclusion, many people make the erroneous deduction that deaf people are generally not intelligent and are illiterate.  Those who believe so will cite that there is empirical proof that deaf individuals cannot read and write well.  A social constructionist working from critical theory will question the motivations of the researcher and the environment which produced the research (Krantz, 2001).  Logically speaking, audistic environments produce audistic research.  Can we prove that the research did not begin with the premise that all deaf individuals have problems reading and writing, and that the methodologies employed by the researcher may have subconsciously been working to subvert the abilities of the deaf who participated in the research?  Until we can be absolutely sure that research conducted on the deaf is free of audistic taint, then it may be wise to critically assess empirical research on the deaf.

 

Not only does society influence researchers, but it also influences the kind of research conducted (Krantz, 2001).  Society directs research through two means: socially acceptable norms, and reinforcement; generally through economic means (Krantz, 2001).  Unpopular research is met with disdain or lack of funding.  Popular research is met with social approval and lots of funding.  In an environment which fosters oralism, which research will most likely be met with funding and general approval: research on bilingual education and the positive benefits of cultural dissemination, or research on phonetic cueing systems and applications for speech acquisition?  Until society is conductive to deaf culture and deaf epistemology, it is unlikely that we will have an environment which completely nurtures the deaf way of life.

 

A critical component of critical theory which has current associations is that knowledge, which emanates through contextual means and is highly subjective, spreads quickly through social networks (Krantz, 2001).  A good example of a social network is news media.  Much of what we use to construe a global reality comes from the media.  The media delivers a continuous stream of information.  People are likely to only pick out information which is pertinent (Triandis, 1989).  The media tends to use short bits of information which are use to chunk the information stream.  These chunks are called sound bytes.  Sound bytes are designed to give extremely short summaries of the information content.  Because knowledge needs context to be completely understood, sound bytes are often biased or relatively inaccurate.  Sound bytes; however, are a valuable tool for manipulating social networks because they are easily absorbed, quickly spread, and can distort the truth while being true.

 

Some blogs have complained that the current protests lack symbolism.  To me, the bloggers appear to want a sound byte.  The situation at Gallaudet cannot be described in clear terms.  What agitates the students is not only that JKF is a poor leader, or that there is not enough sign on campus.  The students clearly are protesting the systematic presence of audistic tendencies in a place designated the mecca of deaf culture.  Even though the board is 51% deaf and even though many of the administrators have long histories of working with the deaf, they could not and are not avoiding the paternalistic attitudes which are associated with being in a position of power over the deaf.  Ladd (2003) articulated the damaging effects paternalistic attitudes have in his chapters about missioners, particularly 1,001 Victories.  One blogger, who pointed out that her dad was a board of trustee member, wrote that the board of trustees feels that the HMB lockdown was prompted by the faculty and that the protesters are being led on by the faculty.  That the board has this opinion shows that they do not believe that deaf college students possess the intelligence necessary to think of such an action.

 

The students; however, appear to be unable to completely articulate what they are protesting against.  I feel that is because the students lack the vocabulary necessary to explain systematic audism.  This is not a reflection on the intelligence of the students, but rather, the education system that denies the culpability of socially acceptable audism.  There are no sound bytes because there cannot be any sound bytes.  Meanwhile, hearing people who listen to the news believe that the protest is about whether or not JFK is deaf enough, because that is a socially acceptable narrative and therefore can be sound-“bit”.

 

Critical theory shows us how language can be used to oppress, but also how language can be used to emancipate.  Applications of critical theory and discourse theory will provide new vocabulary and narratives for the deaf, and hopefully change how society perceives its audistic tendencies.

 

 

Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Krantz, D.L. (2001). Reconsidering history of pyschology’s borders. History of Psychology. 4(3). 182-194. Retrieved October 5, 2006 from psycARTICLES databse.

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: in search of deafhood. Tonawanda, NY. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Triandis, H.C. (1989).  The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review. 96(3). 506-520. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts

Deafhood is a duality of actualization; the actualized self and the actualized community.  Both the self and the community are contingent; the self is shaped by the community (Triandis, 1989). For some, the self and the community blur.  At what point is there a distinguishment between a deaf person and the deaf community?  Generally speaking, the self is crystallized through language.  Descartes believes that the self was real through thought.  Gergen (1985) points out that the self is born with language and (Triandis) reinforces Gergen’s mandate.  In English, the self is given flesh with words such as “I” and in ASL, the reference point sign indicates self rather than someone else. 

 

It would be interesting to explore how Deaf people establish a self through reference point signs.  I am not a linguist; however, it seems to me that using reference point signs to establish the self is indicative not of a true individualist “I”, but of something along the lines of “This body in this spatial point”.  The reason I say that is because when reference points are used in conjunction with talking about others, the signs do not mean so much as “He was walking” as it does “This spatial point which represents Bob, Bob was in the process of walking.”  This, I cannot say for sure, but I hope someone with more knowledge of ASL grammatical properties will chime in.

 

Reality is extremely subjective (Triandis, 1989).  It is based on individual perspective.  Objective reality is a consequence of a social process in which we all agree on external events (Triandis, 1989; Gergen, 1985).  We agree on an objective reality through discourse.  A beautiful example of what happens when there are opposing subjective realities was realized last night when a DPS officer supposedly assaulted Gallaudet protestors.  The protestors claimed that the assault was without reason.  I watched the video and came to the conclusion that I could not entirely fault the DPS officer for his actions. Were I in such a situation and surrounded by angry people who I could not understand entirely (The officer should have been fluent in sign, but I digress), I may have reacted in a similar fashion.  That does not excuse the DPS officer’s actions; however, it does bring us into conflicting realities.  The subjective/collective experiences of the protestors were that they were wronged and that the DPS officer used excessive force.  I cannot make assumptions about what the DPS officer was experiencing, but experience tells me that his side of the story will differ from the protestors.

 

What makes this situation different from any conflict with opposing subjective realities is the existence of recorded footage.  The video camera is a truly objective viewer since it cannot record a subjective reality (unless, of course, the film was edited before being posted, a possibility which cannot be dismissed in any situation).  The camera isn’t a true arbitrator of truth, though, because its footage must be perceived and processed by subjective experience in order for its contents to be understood completely.  So, the otherwise objective reality in the video footage must undergo the discourse process in order to be truly objective.  Subjective experience can still taint objective reality (writ – all the people posting in response to viewing the “brutality”).  The brain is assaulted by a constant stream of information from the senses.  In order to process everything efficiently, it has to “sample” the information, or take little pieces of the whole (Triandis, 1989).  The brain tends to pick out information which is most pertinent to the self.  A self emotionally involved with the Deaf protestors would pick out the brutality and ignore what happened immediately before it (the protestors surrounding DPS and invading his space). What we are seeing on the discussion boards in response to the video is social constructionism at its best.  Isn’t it beautiful?

 

Self-concept not only influences reality, but how we respond to it (Triandis, 1989).  Simple self-definition words such as “I am smart” makes me behave in such a manner that I affirm that I am smart.  In the same vein, telling myself that “I am stupid” means that I will likely feel stupid all the time and oppress myself thusly.  I am also more likely to bind myself to people who will reinforce my self-definition (Triandis, 1989).  The reinforced social processes create an ingroup within an ingroup, or a subjective cultural experience.  A subjective cultural experience means that people who are within a culture will experience the culture differently depending on their location, their cultural ingroup, and the timeframe in which they experience the culture.  For example, Deaf culture today is not the same as Deaf culture in the 1950s, even though we assume that Deaf is Deaf no matter what.  I remember a situation in which an older Deaf woman chided me for not carrying a pen.  In her day, it was a cultural must for a Deaf person to have a pen.  How else would they communicate with hearing people? I stopped using pen and paper once I entered the bar scene.  It was a lot less savvy to pick up a girl with a beer soaked napkin than with a very cool Sidekick 2.  The older woman and I were both Deaf; however, a separation of fifty years created a very different cultural experience for us.  Cultural subjectivity can change over a few small years.  Witness today’s culture at Gallaudet.  Ask any Gallaudet graduate who went to school how they got in touch with their friends before pagers came along.  Likely they’ll tell you stories of walking across campus to knock on someone’s door, only to be frustrated by the fact that their friend wasn’t in the room.  Today, if a Gallaudet student wants to visit a friend, all he or she has to do is send a page or an IM.

The self is divided into three separate parts: the private self, the public self, and the collective self (Triandis, 1989).  The interaction of all three depends on whether or not the entire self belongs to an individualist or a collective culture.  The primacy of each self also depend on whether or not the entire self belongs to an individualist (private) or a collectivist (collective) culture (Triandis, 1989; Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  Within the selves are “units” of information which can be stated through language (Triandis, 1989).  For example, the private self may consist of units such as “I like fantasy novels”, or “I like how it feels when the wind blows a t night” (Trianids, 1989).  The collective self may have units such as “I am a good brother or “It is important that I feed my sister” (Triandis, 1989).  The amount of units a self has lends towards its complexity.  An individualist will have a very complex private self, whereas a collectivist will have a very complex collective self (Triandis, 1989).  Units can be added or removed from the selves.  Integration is the process of assimilating another unit which may change other units of self (Triandis, 1989).  For example, a late-deafened individual might add the unit “I am deaf” to his or her private self.  This does impact other units such as “I like ham radio” or “I feel good about myself as a person”.  The late-deafened individual is integrating the unit into his or her private self.

.Complexity is not only limited to the self, but to cultures as well (Triandis, 1989).  Cultural domains are established by distinctiveness, of that which makes them different from others.  Within these domains is a multiplicity of ingroups.  The amount of ingroups in a culture defines its complexity (Triandis, 1989).  For example, we sometimes like to make statements such as “The hearing community is individualist”.  This is a patiently false statement since the greater hearing community is made up of numerous different ingroups, each with different individualist and collectivist bents.  Let’s use US culture as an example.  Within US culture, there exists athletic ingroups (football, basketball, hockey, etc), music ingroups (punk, emo, rockerbilly, country, etc), location ingroups (Midwest, Chicago, New York City, West, etc), high school ingroups (geek, nerd, jock, preppy) and that’s just scratching the surface.  While each are not complete cultures, they are elements of cultural subjectivity since a culture is experienced through the ingroup (Triandis, 1989).

 

The more ingroups a culture has, the more likely the culture is individualist (Triandis, 1989).  That Deaf culture is collectivist may have something to do with a lack of communication.  Deaf individuals are limited to fewer ingroups because of audism and communication barriers.  In situations where Deaf are the majority, more ingroups develop (Deaf schools, Gallaudet).

 

It’s important to recognize that membership in an ingroup is done to benefit the self (Triandis, 1989; Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  In a collectivist culture, the ingroup not only benefits the self, but shapes how the self interacts with the world and how the self perceives itself.  That is, the self defines itself through relationships in the ingroup (Triandis, 1989).  For example, a culturally Deaf person may say “I am a Gallaudet alumni” (relationship to a cultural center) or “I am an Illinois School for the Deaf graduate” (relationship to a known deaf school).  Collectivist Deaf people also define their life around community activities.  The ingroup is so dominant in a collectivist culture that members of the ingroup are unable to interact with outgroups and the governing structure of an ingroup is rife with attempts to maintain the status quo (such as by hoarding information or by not helping others advance within the ingroup) (Triandis, 1989; Ladd, 2003).

 

Culture may be further defined by whether or not it is “tight” or “loose” (Triandis, 1989).  Tight cultures do not accept any deviations from the norm.  Individuals who deviate are rejected by the culture.  Loose cultures are more accepting of deviations; however, there is a point where an individual will deviate too much and must be rejected by the culture.  I propose that the global Deaf culture is rather loose; however, individual ingroups within the overall Deaf community are either tight or loose depending on the members of the ingroup.

 

Tirandis (1989) has much more to say on the subject; however, I’d like to conclude this summation by quoting him. “Culture is to society what memory is to the person,” (Tirandis, 1989).

 

Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Graetz, K. (1999). In search of self-definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76(1). 5-18. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

 

Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

 

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: in search of deafhood. Tonawanda, NY. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

 

Triandis, H.C. (1989).  The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review. 96(3). 506-520. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

In search of self-definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy?

We have previously been discussing the role of collectivist and individualist constructs in cultural contexts.  Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) funnel these global constructs into the individual.  The self is composed of individualist and constructionist constructs which mirror the cultural constructs (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  Defining the self is the functional equivalent of establishing the premise of existence.  Self-definition is more complicated than merely thinking oneself into being.  A psychologist might claim that it is all well and good to accept existence as a result of thought; however, existence without substance is quite hollow.  For example, I am pretty sure that I am Jon.  What defines me as Jon is what gives me color.  Within me are two types of self-definition constructs: the individual Jon, or the Jon that I define through my own personal perspective, and the collective Jon, or the Jon that I create based on interactions with my culture and with society.  The collective Jon and the individualist Jon actualize differently.  I can emphasize my collective self, my individual self, or neither.  Much of my behavior within a society depends on which self dominates, something Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) called the “motivational primacy”.

 

The idea of duality in self-definition is very familiar for those of us who are exploring the actualization aspect of Deaf epistemology.  On one hand, we have the Deafhood process, which deals with the individual journey towards actualization and post-actualization internalization.  On the other hand, we have the Deafhood experience, which deals with the discourse aspect as well as community-based and cultural actualization activities.  Deaf people need to actualize themselves (process) and the community (experience).  If there are two aspects to the Deaf self to actualize and define, then which take definitive primacy?

 

Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) explains that there are three types of motivational primacy: the individual-self primacy, the collective-self primacy, and the contextual primacy.  The individual-self primacy is when an individual feels it necessary to define the self first.  The collective-self primacy is when an individual feels it necessary to define the self in relation to the group first.  The contextual-self is when an individual does not feel it necessary to define either the individual-self or the collective-self at the expense of each other (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).

 

A Deaf individual with an individual self motivational primacy may find it necessary to define and actualize himself or herself through the Deafhood process before understanding and defining the greater community (experience).  This makes an assumption that a Deaf individual can completely separate himself or herself from the Deaf community.  The focus on self does not say anything about whether Deaf culture is individualist, collectivist, or a swath in between.  What it does imply is that the culture exists separately from the community.  Is it possible that the Deaf community can be regulated a status other than “ingroup” without diminishing a Deaf individual’s cultural affiliation?  I believe it is possible.  Deaf people with individualist tendencies or idiocentric tendencies can maintain cultural identity without active community involvement, much in the same way that I still consider myself Sigma Phi Epsilon two years after leaving undergraduate university.  My old fraternity is very much an outgroup, but the experiences I had while it was an ingroup have become banked in my subjective consciousness.  That being said, there still needs to be encounter with the Deaf community in order to begin the Deafhood process (Parham & Helms, 1985).

 

Regardless of lack of actualization or definition, the self is self-evident and a rather stable construct (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  It is rare for a sane individual to completely lose his or her sense of self.  For example, regardless of any conflict I may have defining myself or actualizing myself, I still retain the concept and the word “I”.  There may be an evolutionary motive for the existence of individual knowledge of self (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).

 

The group also evolved as a means of preservation (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  While existing in a group, the collective-self is more important than the individual-self.  While the individual-self sets up the premise of “I”, the collective-self establishes the “we” and allows the group to function as a coherent entity (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  For example, when I am playing ice-hockey, my collective-self has primacy.  My individual-self may want to drive the puck to the post; however, my collective-self understands that in order for the group to succeed, I need to function as a valuable member of the group instead of focusing on my individual goals.  It’s nice to score, but my collective-self understands that if someone else is in a better position to score, then that person should score so that the entire group can succeed.

 

A hockey team provides a prime example to explain the relationship between the collective and the collective-self.  In the collective, my role is clearly defined.  I am a second-string left-winger.  My role is to moderate the offensive while maintaining control of the left crease and post.  I may also need to coordinate actions with the center during offensive maneuvers and fall back to help the left defenseman.  My individual-self controls my own personal desires on the ice.  I want to score.  I want to hit someone hard.  I want to impress the really cute girl in Section A, Row 3, Seat 5.  My collective-self regulates my interaction with the team and ensures that I comply to all social norms (no back-checking, no hooking, no slashing, no ignoring an open player on the ice, no anything fun, bad Jon).  The function of the collective-self in a group is universal, which is why athletes who rely on individual-self primacy are often reviled even though they may be productive (Kobe?).

 

The contextual primacy theory states that self-definition is extremely fluid and is dependant on the context in which the self needs to choose a directive (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  According to the contextual primacy theory, I can be an individualist or I can be a collectivist depending on the situation.  For the most part, it is necessary for me to maintain the collective-self while playing hockey; however, there are times when I need to define myself as an individual.  I am Jon; all-star hockey player, et cetera, ad nauseam.  

 

Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) studied how the individualist-self and the collectivist-self function together to provide a comprehensive self-definition.  What they found was that how people react to situations depends on which self has primacy.   If a person’s primary self-definition ins individualist, then any attacks on the individual causes the person’s self primacy to shift towards the collective.  For example, a Deaf person who identifies himself or herself as hard of hearing and is criticized for using his or her voice (a highly personal decision), the person might retreat into the collective-self (colonial or deaf cultures) in order to maintain his or her self esteem and sense of self.  This leads to possible retorts such as aligning closer to the colonist community (“I use my voice in order to fit in better with hearing people. After all, this is a hearing world”) or adapting oneself with the Deaf community (“Okay I won’t use my voice in a deaf context because it hurts members of the community”).   When the collective-self has primacy, the person shifts to the individualist-self when the collective is attacked.  For example, suppose a hearing person says that all Deaf people are stupid because the average deaf person reads and writes at the 4^th grade level.  A Deaf person might respond that he or she reads at an post-high school level.  When the collective was verbally assaulted, the individual-self emerged in order to cushion the psychological damage.

 

It’s important to remember that the individual-self, regardless of collectivist or individualist culture membership, take universal primacy over other types of self (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  Shifting towards the collectivist-self is a mechanism for defense of self and belonging to the group, or the collectivist, is an evolutionary development for self-survival.  That’s why it’s important to encourage and temper the Deafhood process while not rejecting those who consider the community an outgroup rather than an ingroup.  If the Deafhood process occurs as we think, then the community will eventually reap its rewards with actualized individuals who understand the needs of the collective-self.

 

Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Graetz, K. (1999). In search of self-definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76(1). 5-18. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

 

Parham & Helms (1985) Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(3) 431-440. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Subjectivism

Positivism VS Social Constructionism

Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005)

It is a funny coincidence that so soon after I read an article arguing that dividing cultures according to individualist and collectivist constructs is futile and that geographic swaths cannot be classified according to arbitrary means, I read another article which attempts to do exactly that. Both articles make strong arguments in favor of their theory. I must admit that I am biased towards the former and I don’t really believe in attempts to generalize cultures as either individualist or collectivist, but instead, as vibrant, fluid social creations that react to the needs of each person in them.

Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) respond to claims that self-actualization is a western phenomenon with the assertion that researchers who believe such things do not understand that individualist and collectivist cultures actualize differently. Using western individualist standards of actualization with members of collectivist cultures will show that collectivist cultures cannot actualize in the same way as individualist cultures; however, it does not show that members of collectivist cultures cannot actualize (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005).

All cultures can actualize (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005). The critical difference is that members of individualist cultures actualize through self determination while members of collectivist cultures actualize through the collective (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005). In order to show that cultures actualize differently depending on their culture construct, Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) did a literature review and then performed a meta-analysis on them to provide empirical evidence that all cultures actualize and do so differently. My concern is that cultural variations cannot be measured accurately. Fiske (2002) demonstrated that cultural and linguistic difficulties make establishing good measurements a near impossible task. While Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) use these measurements well to make clear their point that all cultures can actualize, that the data is possibly faulty makes Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea’s point rather moot.

Aside from the generalizations in the article regarding western/individualist and eastern/collectivist tendencies, Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) do well to point out that all cultures actualize and do so differently. Americans do not actualize in the same way as the Swedish, even though both are considered individualist cultures. In order to determine how a culture actualizes, it’s important to find what each culture values.

For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that Deaf culture is collectivist. If we use the Fiske (2002) model, we can claim that Deaf culture is neither collectivist or individualist, but composed of a collective of people, each with different goals, but bound together by a common force. If we use the Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) model, then Deaf culture is collectivist with idiocentric tendencies influenced by upbringing and affluence. Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) would point out that generally accepted research claims that Deaf culture is truly collectivist. If Deaf culture is truly collectivist, then Deaf individuals seeking to actualize do so within the context of the group. A Deaf person attempting to actualize must question his or her role in relation to the group and accept the core values of the culture and community while growing into the provided role. Therein is actualization.

Given that collectivism and individual actualization is not so cut and dried, it is likely that the actualization process differs for each individual. This would pertain more with Ladd (2003)’s theories of Deafhood.

Resources

Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: in search of deafhood. Tonawanda, NY. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Vevea, J.L. (2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (89)4. 539-551. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).

It seems to me that psychologists and researchers are apt to classify their research material into categories, even if none are necessary. While psychologists and researchers try to hold true to positivist thought and maintain complete objectivity, it is quite impossible to remove themselves entirely from human nature and, some might argue, from the research itself (Gergen, 1985). It appears to be a human tendency to classify. Our ancestors classified according to type and we continue to classify according to qualities.

Of late I have been reading about Individualism and collectivism. I am aware that Deaf studies researchers have classified Deaf culture as collectivist and my thesis hinges on what many perceive to be collectivist traits. Individualism and collectivism are not new categories in psychology. The concepts have been around for over a century (Fiske, 2002). That these categories exist is a testament to human need for clear boundaries. Earlier research I’ve read (and some later ones, too, but we won’t go into that right now) have attempted to establish certain cultures as either collectivist or individualist. Western culture, for example, is usually classified as individualist and eastern culture, collectivist (Fiske, 2002; Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Culture; however, is not so stark. Individualism and collectivism, for example, are not exactly opposites (Fiske, 2002). When describing individualism and collectivism in general terms, psychologists tend to refer to the person’s relationship to the group (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Collectivists tend to derive a sense of self from their role in the greater community. Individualists derive a sense of self from their own desires. There is; however, no negative correlation between individualists and collectivists (Fiske, 2002). In most dyad categories, the categories themselves are polar opposites. Black is the opposite of white, so given two categories, an item is either black or white. Culture, according to Fiske (2002) is neither black or white, but a rainbow of colors. While we like our nice boundaries between individualist and collectivist cultures, researchers have found that very rarely is a culture completely individualist or completely collectivist (Fiske, 2002).

Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) attempted to ameliorate this situation with the terms, “idiocentric” and “allocentric”. While it was helpful to classify cultures as collectivist with idiocentric qualities or individualist with allocentric qualities, the terminologies still allowed for broad classifications. A good comparison would be gender. Some people insist that there are only male and female genders. Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990)’s terminology allows for men with feminine characteristics or women with masculine characteristics. Fiske (1990) on the other hand, would argue that even Trandis, McCusker, & Hui’s classifications are still too extreme. How might one measure a gender trait? Is it a masculine trait to prefer sports over dolls? Fiske (2002) believes that it may be impossible to truly classify a culture as either individualist or collectivist.

Let’s begin with the general distinction that western cultures are individualist and eastern cultures are collectivist. Recent studies have shown that Japanese culture, in many ways, is more individualist than western cultures, depending on how the studies are set (Fiske, 2002). Korea is just as collectivist as North American cultures (Fiske, 2002). Given that two of the major countries in the “east” are individualist, it is a misconception to claim that eastern cultures are generally collectivist. Fiske (1990) mentions that it is also improper to assume that country has a set culture which is either collectivist or individualist. American does not have a singular culture because it is not homogenous. This holds true for other countries as well. Japan, which is considered pretty homogenous, has many different cultures, each with different norms and values (Fiske, 2002). That society is so heterogeneous makes it hard to use general terms, at least when culture is involved.

There is also not a singular type of individualist or collectivist culture (Fiske, 2002). Cultures considered collectivist will not be similar. What a particular culture values as important for its collective soul is not the same as what another culture values for its collective soul. The collective cultures of China and India are not the same. That there are many types of collective cultures holds true for individualist cultures as well. Individualist cultures are not all self-serving, hedonists (Fiske, 2002). Scandinavian culture, which is more individualist than North American culture, is non-competitive and finds referring to the self, shameful (Fiske, 2002).

Even in cultures, whether or not a person has collectivist or individualist tendencies varies with age. Post-college aged adults tend to be more individualist while college-aged persons tend to be more collectivist (Fiske, 2002). That means a person from a culture generally considered collectivist may be, at any point in his or her life, either collectivist or individualist. For me, this points to the fluidity of the sense of self, and for cultural affiliation. A person is not only of one culture (Fiske, 2002). Personally, Deaf culture is not the only culture for which I consider myself a member. I am also a part of Jewish culture as well as an overall American culture. I do not consider my membership in different cultures a bad thing. Many leaders in the Deafhood movement have considered the general American/hearing culture to be a colonial culture. While I understand that hearing culture has served to oppress me and “colonize” my primary culture, I bear no more anger towards it than I do my puppy who occasionally bites me by accident. It is possible that those who lash out at colonial hearing culture may be in the immersion-emersion stage of self-actualization, but I am in no position to judge (Parham & Helms, 1985).

That culture is fluid is a matter of course. I was not born into Deaf culture. I migrated into it. It is questionable whether or not a Deaf person who is actualized into Deaf culture can truly leave it; but I can envision émigrés abandoning their parent culture in favor of an adopted culture. Truly labels cannot contain culture. Gergen (1985) points out that language is a harsh tool for manipulating abstract and subjective concepts. I am inclined to agree with him.

People are rather insistent that things be either this or that. In order to test whether something is either this or that, or in this case, whether a culture is individualist or collectivist, a system of measures need to be developed. In the past, psychologists used tests which consists of a statement and a ranking (Fiske, 2002). For example, a person taking a individualist/collectivist measurement assessment might find a question which reads “I do not mind taking orders from my parents”. The person would then rank the validity of that statement from 1 to 5. There are many immediate problems with this form of assessment. First, the numerical scale used to rank the validity of the statement is arbitrary. Is the statement of a person who circled 4 twice as valid as the statement of a person who circled 2? Even if the statements are measured on an ordinal scale, the numbers have no quantifiable meaning. That a person circled a 4 for the previously mentioned statement tells me nothing about whether or not the person minds taking orders from his or her parents. It is an arbitrary snap-shot statistic which is dependant on the participant’s frame of mind while taking the assessment as well as his or her understanding of the sentence.

Given that language is a social beast means that culture has an enormous impact on how language is used and understood (Gergen, 1985). Two speakers of English from different cultures may have different semantic interpretations of the same sentence (Fiske, 2002). This is particularly true of extremely subjective, vague terms such as “how much”, “privacy’, or various distance adverbs (Fiske, 2002). Two people from different cultures confronted with the same statement may circle different numbers although in truth, their cultures value that particular statement equally. The different interpretation of the sentences destroyed any statistical truth the statement might’ve had. If speakers of the same language might interpret the same sentence differently, we can only imagine the difficulties translation might incur.

Deaf people tend to rely on visual language. Visual language is processed quite differently than verbal. If reality is constructed on language, then a Deaf reality is nicely different than a hearing reality. If a Deaf person were to take the cultural assessment mentioned above, it is likely that Deaf scores could not accurately be compared to hearing scores since each statement would have a different truth bearing for the Deaf person.

Given that measuring individualism and collectivism is meaningless, and it is not likely than an adequate system will be developed soon, it is moot to attempt to classify cultures as either individualist or collectivist (Fiske, 2002). It is pointless to compare cultures since cultures are rarely formed in relation to another (Fiske, 2002). Cultures should be assessed and crystallized as a meaningful self without arbitrary labels.

I have not seen any assessment that proves Deaf culture to be collectivist, but any such assessment would be irrelevant. It would have to compare Deaf culture to other collectivist cultures and individualist cultures. Fiske (2002) has shown the futility of such an endeavor. I do not have enough information to determine the validity of claims that Deaf culture is collectivist; however, I am willing to accept that there is a tendency for deaf people to actualize through the group. This, to me, shows more of a need to communicate fluidly with people who understand the culture than any form of pure collectivism.

Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Parham & Helms (1985) Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(3) 431-440. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism

Individualist and collectivist constructs impact more than how persons in either construct perceive themselves. They also possibly affect cognitive processes (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). That cognitive processes are influenced by cultural affiliation is important in psychological research. Positivist research assumes that scientific inquiry (in this case, studies about cognitive processes) creates universal information. Data gained from empirical study, according to positivists, can be blanketed across all people from all cultures. Given that people in individualist and collectivist cultures not only have a different sense of self, but a different cognitive process, it is only natural that any pertinent study needs to use a multi-method mode of research (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) emphasize that although a completely positivist stance towards research is counterproductive, a completely constructionist view is too extreme as well. Either/or stances fragment the psychological community and slow the advance of the psychological sciences (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). It’s important to combine both positivist and constructionist thought in a multi-method inquiry in order to provide a broad view of research.

Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) emphasize that creating two separate labels for vast groups of people and cultures creates divisions which do not naturally exist. This view was later echoed by Ben-Ari and Lavee (2004). Not all groups exhibit completely individualist or completely collectivist traits. Some individualist groups have collectivist qualities and some collectivist groups have individualist qualities. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) determined that there needs to be a word which distinguishes the collectivist-individualist and the individualist-collectivist. The word “idiocentricism” defines a collectivist with individualist traits and the word “allocentrisim” defines an individualist with collectivist traits (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

Idiocentricism and allocentricism are important words to add to the Deaf studies vocabulary. I, personally, have not seen any definitive research on why the Deaf community is collective. It seems to me that researchers begin with the assumption that the Deaf community is collective and this assumption is pervasive. I’ve seen it referenced to in Ladd’s book, as well as Holcomb, Humphries, and Padden’s books. My own experiences in the Deaf community shows that the community is not collectivist as generally accepted, but shares traits with individualist cultures. I am not sure whether or not the collectivist Deaf community mirrors the colonial culture, but I understand that the community is collectivist with several idiocentric traits.

The differences between collectivist and individualist cultures is not as simple as defining the role of the self (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). A better method for establishing boundaries, according to Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) is to use “ingroups”. An ingroup is defined as a group which shares a common fate (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). The immediate family is a more familiar ingroup, but the ingroup can also include a community, a region, a religion, or a country. Persons in a collectivist culture define themselves by their relation to the ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). The ingroup establishes social roles and behavioral norms. Ingroups also have a clear social hierarchy and dissent is considered inappropriate because it diminishes the social harmony of the ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

If the Deaf community were purely collective, then it would have a strongly defined ingroup which shares the traits listed by Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990). We can determine that the Deaf community is its own main ingroup. Not all collective cultures have a singular ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). If the Deaf community followed this trend, then we can assume that members of the Deaf community have one ingroup that is composed of the local Deaf community, and a greater ingroup which is composed of the entire Deaf community. It is possible that these ingroups are partitioned further according to Deaf clubs, sports, and schools; however, that adds a level of complexity for which I am not prepared to deal with. The various ingroups which compose Deaf culture do establish behavior and social norms. These behaviors are enforced through discourse and other social processes. Members of the Deaf community do employ different social behaviors than the greater hearing communities. For example, the pragmatic systems of American Sign Language allow for direct intercourse of a type that English language users in America disapprove. Language pragmatics, especially in American Sign Language, correlate with the social norms of the culture which adopts them. That members of the Deaf community tend to define themselves in accordance to their role in the Deaf community (school, club participation, “oh there are a lot of deaf people in san Francisco…”) is evident of a general trend towards collectivism. I also propose that there exists a clear hierarchy in the Deaf community composed of an “aristocracy” of multi-generation Deaf families and persons who have contributed much to the community. I am not quite sure if there is a correlation between being born into a well-known deaf family and later actualization activities, or being born into a deaf family actualizes the child who later goes on to give back to the community. It is worth looking into that later.

Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) noticed that some cultures which are traditionally collectivist have been shifting towards individualist tendencies. It is not a matter of whether or not there are idiocentric members of a collectivist community, but that there is a general trend towards individualism. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) concluded that affluence tends to encourage individualist traits. Affluence brings awareness of a global media as well as an understanding that a person need not share a common fate with others in the ingroup. Those who shift to individualist perspectives tend to change their behavior as well as the norms to which they conform (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Cultures which become individualist lost the social network which sustained it. There is also a breakdown in the hierarchical structure which leads some to believe that the individualists are selfish and have no respect for authority (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

There does appear to be a schism in the Deaf community among the collectivists and those who are largely individualist. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) are correct that it is likely new affluence which causes these gaps. In the past, the Deaf community was dependant on only itself. Deaf professionals were limited to those who could integrate with the colonial culture or to those who had acquired their money through non-traditional means. Since the IDEA and the ADA was passed, it is more common to see Deaf professionals who are enjoying an affluence not known to their Deaf forbearers. The growing divide between “grassroot” Deaf individuals and Deaf professionals is cause for concern. Without thread, the Deaf community will fracture into a have-and-have-not culture. I believe the greater Deafhood movement allows individualist Deaf persons to reconnect with the Deaf community.

Ben-Ari, A. & Lavee, Y. (2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 74(2). 102-111. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis

Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis

If western Deaf culture is considered collectivist, then it is only natural that research on individualist and collectivist cultures would apply to western Deaf culture. Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) studied the impact affiliation with either an individualistic culture or a collectivist culture had on stress perception. Cultural impact on stress perception is critical because stress negatively affects both mental and physical health (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). That members of the Deaf community are collectivists means that Deaf people may understand and suffer stress differently than the greater hearing community. Understanding how Deaf people react to stress would be a critical step towards treating stress-related problems.

Stress sources differ across cultures. Individualist cultures tend to have self-originating stress whereas collectivist cultures have collectively originating stress (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). That is not to say that members of the collective community lack an idea of self. Rather, the collectivist perception of self originates from the collectivist individual’s role in the community and whether or not that role is meaningful (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). The collectivist individual thinks of himself or herself as a part of the community and all his or her goals and desires are a reflection of the community needs (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). Deaf members of the community place a lot of emphasis on their role in the Deaf community. Deaf community members who do not have a positive experience in the Deaf community may suffer higher degrees of self-doubt, stress, and lack of actualization than the Deaf who derive a positive community experience. The lack of actualization is critical in understanding the mental health of Deaf members who are not involved or who do not have a positive involvement with the Deaf community. Collectivist cultures encourage actualization through the collective culture (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). If an individual cannot actualize because of negative community involvement, then the individual’s self-esteem will suffer terribly.

Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) recognize that creating two broad labels for all cultures is rather complicated. Not all collectivist cultures approach the community in the same way and not all individualist cultures approach the self in the same way. Some cultures share traits with both individualist and collectivist cultures. There currently is some friction in the Deaf community about whether or not the community is truly collectivist since there are a lot of individualist elements present. Certainly members of the Deaf community have leeched elements of the greater western culture in which it exists; however, an argument can be made that truly individualistic Deaf people are in the pre-encounter stage and are suffering from the effects of colonialism (Parham & Helms, 1985).

What Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) found was that individualist and collectivist cultures do process stress differently, although not to much of a degree. Certain stress sources, such as financial and social-environmental were nearly identical across cultures (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). One major difference is that one set of collectivists reported that family was a major source of stress (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). It may be that members of the collectivist community feel pressure to meet their family’s needs and expectations and that these stresses are not that potent in an individualist culture. The Deaf community can be seen as a Deaf person’s family. Pressure to find a place in the Deaf community or to meet the expectations of local Deaf community members and greater Deaf community leaders may place a lot of stress on Deaf individuals.

Ben-Ari, A. & Lavee, Y. (2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 74(2). 102-111. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Parham & Helms (1985) Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(3) 431-440. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.