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.