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

Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students

Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students

There is much Deaf psychology can learn from established Afri-centered and Gay-Lesbian-Bi-Transgender (“GLBT”) psychologies. While that to which they pertain are different, the themes of oppression, colonialism, psychological self-mutilation, and redemption through actualization are very similar. While material for a true Deaf psychology, at least on the theoretical level, are currently lacking, I find that Afri-centered and GLBT research are quite pertinent. It is easy to draw parallels and adapt their theories to a Deaf perspective. Eventually, I hope that this new Deaf psychology will become self-sufficient and generate new material without having to resort to adaptation. I’m curious as to whether or not there is a name for a Deaf psychology? Surdism? Deaf-centered psychology? I don’t feel like I’m in a position to coin names.

Parham & Helms (1985) point out that current psychological exams do not apply to black people, therefore creating quantifiable measurements for psychological assessments of black individuals is rather hard. Most psychological assessments, at least in the past, were normed on white, male, college-aged individuals. Even when there were movements to incorporate females into psychological assessment norming samples, the females tend to be white. Gergen (1985) explains that people are a product of social processes. That means personal identities and behavior reflect the culture and social systems in which they were developed. Male and female behavior may differ because of gender (which can be seen as a product of society as well as biology), overall behavior is shaped by cultural norms. A psychological assessment exam normed on only white people will create a set of measurements which apply only to white people. When other ethnic groups are assessed using the measures normed on white-people, the other ethnic groups will not score well on the psychological exams. In the past, this has led to a rather unfavorable view of black individuals in white society (Parham & Helms, 1985). The psychological assessments do not help black people, rather, they reinforce the system which was originally designed to oppress non-white groups. In order to accurately assess black identity awareness, it is important to develop assessments normed on black people.

While a number of deaf individuals are white and do benefit from white privilege, their deafness supercedes their whiteness. In the eyes of the “normal” white community, the white-deaf are thought of as less-than, or less capable. If the deaf person belongs to a minority group other than Caucasian, the oppression magnifies, creating a cesspool of horizontal and lateral oppression. That oppression against the deaf is systematically inherent is evident in the treatment the psychological community has provided. Psychological assessments which were normed on members of the Deaf community are sorely lacking. Not only are the assessments not normed on members of the community, but the assessments are provided in graphemic or phonic languages rather than visual. All these factors combined mean that the deaf are denigrated by the psychological community, which is striking since the psychological community was designed to help. Instead, it becomes a tool for hearing society to condone and continue the oppression of the Deaf. Audism is a self-perpetuating crime.

Afri-centered psychologists who want to measure actualization tendencies in the black community use what I have dubbed “The Cross Scale.” The Cross Scale attempts to categorize the black self-actualization journey into five categories: pre-encounter, encounter, immersion-emersion, internalization, and internalization-continuous (Parham & Helms, 1985).

Black persons in the pre-encounter stage tend to have euro-centric views (Parham & Helms, 1985). They favor white culture and white perspectives. They may even believe that because they are black, they are inferior to whites. Blacks in the pre-encounter stage tend to have poor mental health and may be filled with rage, despair, and other negative emotions (Parham & Helms, 1985). Pre-encounter blacks tend to view self-actualizing blacks with scorn. Deaf people also appear to have a pre-encounter stage. Pre-encounter deaf believe that hearing people are always right and are superior to them because they can hear. Pre-encounter deaf also feel inadequate and this carries over into their social and professional lives. Pre-encounter deaf are probably more likely to have low-status jobs or collect welfare.

The next stage is called encounter. Blacks in the encounter stage have experienced an event which causes them to realize their black identity (Parham & Helms, 1985). This stage is overwhelmingly positive and causes those who have entered it to assess their relation to the self-actualized community. I have heard many stories from deaf people who have had their own encounter experience. For myself, my “encounter’ was when I began studying deaf culture in high school. Before then, I did not realize that there existed such a thing. Many people I’ve talked to have reported similar events. For some, Paddy’s book was the encounter they needed to progress from the pre-encounter stage.

The third stage is immersion-emersion. Blacks in the third stage are beginning to explore their black identity (Parham & Helms, 1985). They join black identity movements and become part of the black community. One aspect of the immersion-emersion stage is the complete and total rejection of the oppressive culture and a release of any anger towards it that may have been bottled. Blacks in the third stage may express extremely negative emotions and comments towards white people and white culture. Deaf individuals in the third stage may also become involved with the Deaf community. They may become members of their local Deaf government, participate in think tanks and gatherings, and become very assertive on Internet communities. They also show anger towards their hearing oppressors. Hearing people will be described in negative terms and the English language attacked and mocked.

The fourth and fifth stages are an evolution of the self-actualization process. Rather than becoming actualized from external sources (eg socializing), black individuals find affirmation from internal sources (Parham & Helms, 1985). The fire burns without needing wood, so to speak. Once self-actualized, black individuals in the fourth and fifth stage reduce the amount of interaction they have with the active communities; however, they still feel the need to “give back” to the black community and to help others find their identities. Deaf people in the fourth and fifth stages of actualization will behave in same.

At first look, the implications of the Cross Scale are profound. It seems easy to analyze a person’s behavior and place him or her in the appropriate stage. That; however, is a positivist approach to human behavior. Behavior cannot always be quantified (Parham & Helms, 1985). How do I measure whether or not a person has been self-actualized? Parham & Helms (1985) used an assessment in which people measured their levels of actualization from 1 to 5. The reliability of such a self-assessment exam can already be called into question. Are people the best judge of their behavior? Can behavior be judged objectively without being colored by the researcher’s own perceptions? What happens when a person shared traits with several different stages? In which stage do we place them? Regardless of what stage a person may be in, if positivist measurements must be applied, Parham & Helms (1985) noticed that as a person became self-actualized, how he or she perceived himself or herself as a person improved.

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.

The actualization balance of ethnic identity

The actualization balance of ethnic identity

For the purpose of this summation, we will begin with the assumption that people have a multiplicity of identities rather than a single one (Horenczyk & Nisan, 1996). Personally, I am inclined to believe that people do have multiple identities. When I infer to multiple identities, I’m not talking about cognitive dissociation disorders. There is no “Dr. Jekyl” in me that surfaces and runs rampant. Multiple identities refers to the many different facets, or “masks” we have that help us respond to different normative conditions. I have my son mask that I wear when I am around my parents and my grandparents. I have my fiancée mask and my lover mask and my best friend mask that I alternate between when I’m with Tamara. I have my hardcore asshole mask that I wear only when necessary. Those are aspects of my personality which are tied to aspects of my identity. The main identities I have: Deaf, Jewish, Caucasian, et cetera, all combine to create the consciousness “Jon”.

Each of the identities I possess necessitates actualization (Horenczyk & Nisan, 1996). I can actualize my Jewish identity and I can actualize my Deaf identity. Actualization, of course, is my esteem regarding a particular identity, or how I feel about myself possessing that particular identity. That I have many different identities that require actualization poses a problem for some social psychologists (Horenczyk & Nisan, 1996). I need to choose which identity is an actualization priority. In order to actualize an identity, I may actually have to nonactualize another identity (Horenczyk & Nisan, 1996). Some social psychologists have proposed a hierarchy model of identities. Some identities have more worth than others and those identities are the ones which are actualized at the expense of lesser identities. For example, I may value my Deaf identity more than my Jewish identity and therefore neglect my Jewish identity in favor of my Deaf identity. Horenczyk & Nisan (1996) feel that the hierarchy model is invalid because it quashes lesser identities. They favor a balance theory in which all identities are weighed equally and actualization is accrued in positive or negative increments.

People therefore are considered according to whether they have a positive or a negative actualization balance. A negative actualization balance means that a person may have actualized little of his or her identity, or too much of one at the expense of another. Horenczyk & Nisan (1996) found that individuals with a negative actualization balance tend to have lower self-esteems and allow deviant behavior to take place at their expense. For the most part, those with negative actualization balances have detoured from the positive balance that they should allow themselves to have. There is a point where individuals have to establish an actualization point – the point where they feel comfortable with their identity (Horenczyk & Nisan, 1996). .The identity that people tend to fret about, at least in America, is their ethnic identity. People understand their ethnic identity through membership in the ethnic community and through the emotional benefits they gain from membership in the ethnic community (Horenczyk & Nisan, 1996).

Ladd (2003) has made the argument that we should focus on our Deaf identity to the detriment of other identities. It is necessary, he points out, that the Deaf identity be realized before it is quashed by cultures that are anathema to it (p. 167). While I understand his point of view, I find myself more in favor of the balanced identity theories put forth by Horenczyk and Nisan. It is necessary to not only actualize my Deaf identity, but to ensure that my other identities have a positive balance as well. Were I to neglect my other identities, I would be troubled by my relation to my family as a Jewish person, even though I have a positive relationship with my deaf identity and the Deaf community.

Horenczyk and Nisan (1996) wanted to find out whether or not those who have actualized their particular ethnic identity would be more forgiving of those who do not contribute to the community (nonactualize) or towards those who choose to nonactualize in order to attend to personal needs. The studies found that those who had actualized were more likely to allow nonactualization behavior and to, themselves, nonactualize. The act of actualization was enough and no further actualization was deemed necessary. Horenczyk and Nisan determined that this was in part because people find an actualization balance – a point that they decide that a particular identity had been actualized enough.

I also find the Horenczyk & Nisan finding that once actualized, people do not feel the need to contribute further to the community. It seems to me that this does not fit in with patterns the Deaf community has shown. Deaf who have actualized their identity appear to be more active in the Deaf community than those who have not realized their Deaf identity. I would like to theorize that the Horenczyk & Nisan findings were based on an individualistic culture rather than a collectivist culture. I am curious as to whether members of collectivist cultures continue to actualize their identities in order to encourage group cohesion and actualization. That would certainly explain aspects of the Deaf community which differ from the hearing community.

References

Horenczyk, G. & Nisan, M. (1996). The actualization balance of ethnic identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70(4). 836-843. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

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