Posts filed under 'Deafhood'
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.
7 comments October 8, 2006
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.
1 comment October 6, 2006
