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 social construction movement in modern psychology

The social construction movement in modern psychology

Kenneth Gergen is one of the leaders in the Social Constructionist and Postmodern psychology movements. I was first introduced to his work in a general psychology class and have been fascinated by his manner of thinking since. I would love to study under him, hopefully for my doctorate or any post-doc work.

The more I read about the social construction movement, the more it fascinates me. Before I began studying it, I admit that I was generally a positivist. I believed that true knowledge was objective and that all knowledge could only come from observation and testing. There’s a lot of junk out there masquerading as knowledge. Having an objective system of sorts provides comfort. Once I started studying postmodernism and the social construction movement, the more I realized that our individual ontology, our perception of reality, is created through social interaction and structured by the use of language. Gergen (1985) points our that the social process is the foundation of reality. What he means by that is much of our knowledge of the world and our understanding of it is derived from social interaction. I know to wear clothes because society has instilled in me the importance of coverings. I know that what I am using is a keyboard, and the proper way of using it, because somewhere along the line, someone took the opportunity to teach me how to use it or I observed someone in the process of using it. What happens when a human is removed from the social construct has been documented. Feral humans usually do not fare well.

Positivism is anathema to social constructionism (Gergen, 1985). Some may argue that true knowledge can only come through scientific methodology or through our senses. The trajectory of a bullet can only be described through physics, which was a product of positivist thought. The taste of an apple can only be described through the chemical reaction that begins when a fructose molecule interacts with the synapses in a taste bud. While those examples may be true, the knowledge of them cannot exist in a vacuum. The knowledge must be transferred from one individual to another. This is done through language. Language is arbitrary (Gergen, 1985). It is highly dependant on grammatical constructs and the context in which it is used (Gergen, 1985). In order to effectively communicate knowledge, both parties must have come to a social “agreement” on the principles of the language as well as the context in which it is used. Therein is the necessity of social construction theories. Suppose I were talking about the trajectory of a bullet. We would first have to agree on the terms “trajectory” and “bullet” as well as have a general understanding of how a bullet interacts with the environment. Conversations with someone who doesn’t agree with the conventional definitions of those words would not be very effective. Also, we both would need a cultural understanding of a bullet. Were we to discuss bullets with someone unfamiliar with the cultural construct of a bullet, the conversation would be moot as well. Not only is discussing the scientific properties of a bullet trajectory limited by linguistic structure, but the linguistic structure itself may manipulate knowledge of a bullet trajectory. People attach meaning to words and situations and these are exhibited through language (Gergen, 1985). It would be impossible to have a completely objective conversation about the trajectory of a bullet because the words surrounding bullet (shot, fired, contact, explosion) have negative connotations.

The only way to truly transmit knowledge is through discourse (Gergen, 1985). Discourse is a comparison of individual realities. That is not to say that because everyone has an individual reality that everything is relative (Gergen, 1985). Many opponents of postmodern psychology and social construction movements have made the argument that removing an objective reality in favor of a subjective truth destroys anything that resembles tautological fact, or universal fact. Gergen (1985) points out that while relativism is a necessary consequence of postmodernism and social construction movements, objective truth and fact can never be demolished because the nature of social processes establishes norms and truths that are generally accepted by everyone. Those who do not accept generally accepted norms and realities are oft labeled with psychopathological diseases such as schizophrenia and dementia. In those types of situations, we can see how positivism is used to oppress and to colonize. Why are those who have schizophrenia so derided? What makes their reality a lesser truth than our own?

The debate between positivism and social construction movements can be simplified to whether or not reality is external or internal. External realities would conform to behaviorism as well as other movements which reinforce the person as machine, world as objective schematics. Discourse theory holds that reality is internal. What we understand as reality is created by the mind. The mind interacts with reality through language. I understand something is sweet because it has been socially instructed to me as sweet (in that same vein, I do not find eyeballs sweet even though some cultures consider them a delicacy).

The concept of Deafhood is rooted in the social construction movement. There are those who might wonder why there exists a separate Deaf epistemology. Remember that reality is framed by language and linguistic traits. These linguistic traits have manifested as a result of social processes. As Deaf people, not only is our primary language different than the norm, but how we process this language is different. Our language involves the parietal lobe as well as the temporal lobe. The addition of other parts of the brain in language processing means that there may be additional alterations to our constructed reality. I don’t feel I have enough information to walk that path just yet; however, that Deaf people use a different language and have different culture than the majority of hearing people. The way we construct our reality is different than the way hearing people do, and our social discourse is different because the culture and the context in which our language is used is different as well. There thus exists a Deaf epistemology of which we have only begun to explore. What constructs do we use to establish our deaf reality? How do we maintain this reality through social discourse? How does this impact the education process? Those are questions I hope to have answered.

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

The turn to discourse in social psychology

Before we can delve into the intricacies of discourse theory, we must first dismiss positivism as the sole source of knowledge (Kroger & Wood, 1998). Positivism declares that the only source of knowledge is scientific. We can only know what we observe and what has passed tests with due scientific rigor. Psychology has, since inception, been a fallacy of positivism (Kroger & Wood, 1998). This is in part because of the nature of its birth (Wundt) and the later pushes away from “soft” science in order to be recognized as a “hard” science. The problem with the positivist approach is that it ignores the use of language as a cultural and social device. Psychology is not only a product of how the brain reacts to tangible stimuli, but how the mind interacts with the intangible, such as social relations and culture (Kroger & Wood, 1998). In order to truly understand the mind, it is necessary to apply the linguistic reality principles suggested by Wittgenstein.

The basic premise of this particular aspect of Wittgenstein’s theories is that language equals reality. Language isn’t a response to what people experience, but rather, the constructor of experience and subsequently, knowledge. Positivists make the mistake of assuming that language is simply a matter of physical response (Kroger & Wood, 1998). The brain processes a situation and sends a message to the vocal cords, or the hands, to initiate a series of movements which will stimulate the appropriate response in the stimuli-receptor. The scientific dissection of the movements of language robs language of meaning (Kroger & Wood, 1998). Wittgenstein explained that language only has meaning in social context. With this in mind, it is impossible to remove language from its context and say, “Ah, so this is what so-and-so meant.”

Language is not isolated (Kroger & Wood, 1998). Language is reality. Its use creates reality and as such, it has consequences for use. I cannot tell a TSA agent that I have a bomb and then complain when I am later apprehended. When I leave messages on forum boards, I cannot deny myself the impact my words might have on those who read it. These consequences; however, are tied to the context in which the language is used (Kroger & Wood, 1998). If I were to tell someone that those who are born to a deaf family often have better groundings in deaf culture because of the environment in which they were raised, and if that someone were to use my comments out of context to claim that Deafhood is a product of Deaf of Deaf militancy, then the my language loses meaning because its meaning is contingent on the situation in which it was used.

Language needs to be interpreted (Kroger & Wood, 1998). The act of interpretation implies the subjective. Language means different things to different people. This is easily apparent in sexual relationships. I regularly argue with my fiancée on whether items are clean enough. For me, the use of the word clean implies that a certain amount of effort has gone into ensuring that the object remains dirt free. For her, clean is the absolute negation of anything that may even resemble a germ. The dish must be disinfected, placed in a steam bath, and transformed into a shining ark of cleanly-goodness. Discourse occurs when language is in use and various interpretations are applied in order to construct a reality.

Aspects of deaf culture, according to Ladd (2003, p237), are given reality through signed language. That signs for certain words such as “DEAF WORLD” or “DEAF WAY” or “DEAFHOOD” establishes those words in our lexical reality. It’s important to point out that made-up signs are not acceptable additions to the Deaf ontology. Language is only affirmed by use in the social construct. If enough people use and accept the “made-up” word, then that language is added to the social reality. I’m aware that I appear to be contradicting myself when I say that subjective language cannot be used objectively; however, language must be interpreted and in order for language to be interpreted properly, others need a subjective knowledge of the word in use. I can teach my language, but if it does not match the grammatical structure of the accepted language, it is “made-up” and dismissed. That “DEAFHOOD” has become almost immediately enshrined in the Deaf reality is testament to something that has always existed but lacked the appropriate vocabulary.

Another consequence of the relative “newness” of the Deafhood discourse is the high-tension discussions which appear to be more like clashes. I have personally seen linguistic clashes become excessively personal. The reason for these clashes is that we lack a comprehensive vocabulary which allows us to have an effective discourse on Deafhood. We are forced to resort to our own subjective experiences, our own narratives, and when our narratives do not gel with someone else’s understanding, or narratives, friction happens. As we develop our discourse and we develop vocabulary for Deafhood, I predict that these clashes will lessen.

When employing discourse analysis, it’s important to not only analyze the content of the language user, but the structure and the style in which the language is delivered (Kroger & Wood, 1998). Content is meaningless without grammar and style fluctuates the reality in which the language exists. “I am mad” is not particularly evident of anything if the delivered style is blasé. “I AM MAD” means that we’d all better blow out or something bad is going to happen. Language transcripts make assessing style rather hard, especially for visual languages like ASL. This can be summed by mentioning that language is never black and white. There are always little nuances which must be considered before acquiring the actual meaning of the discourse.

Kroger & Wood (1998) point out that in order to achieve an objective reality, language users often pin their subjective on an agreed factuality. This agreed factuality is called a narrative. Narratives are stories that have an objective status among a particular culture. In the hearing world, people who exclaim that a favored band has gone MTV are implying that their band has “sold out” or become mainstream. In the MTV narrative, song choices are determined by people in suits and the band will write music that is meaningless and is designed to turn them a better profit. The unfortunate side-effect of narratives is that narratives are used to create grammatical constructs which diminish a person whose experiences are outside the narrative. Kroger & Wood (1998) used examples of date-rape victims attempting to use accepted rape narratives (back alleys, strangers, etc) to understand the circumstances of their rape. Often, the date rape victims used grammar that diminished their value and “blamed” themselves for the rape situation. This was a consequence of their own narratives not meshing well with the established narratives.

The use of narratives and objective narratives is cause for considerable concern in the emerging Deafhood movement. Ladd (2003, p313) is quite clear when he explains that the Deaf identity movement cannot be separated from the use of language. As I mentioned earlier, the lack of Deafhood vocabulary means that we are forced to use our subjective knowledge to interpret what is being said. This is particularly difficult because the Deafhood narrative does not translate well into English. While some of us can use the language to create a facsimile of Deafhood, many prefer to engage in discourse in their natural language, ASL. The need for discourse in ASL explains the rise of ThinkTanks; however, the Deaf community is always in a state of Diaspora, necessitated by jobs and family. Full Deafhood discourse is regulated to the internet, where those with a strong command of English often engage in attempts to define the Deafhood lexica. Using English to grow Deafhood detracts from it and applies English narratives to a visual language narrative. English grammar encourages deficit thinking, in some ways.

I once had a discussion with Jennifer Ann Cook (“JAC”) on the use of “deafness” as an adjective. JAC felt that “deafness” was a result of deficit thinking and should be dropped from our vocabulary. To have the property of “deafness” was to lack the property of “hearing” (e.g. he is inflicted with deafness). I agreed with her on some level, but did not think that we can drop “deafness” from our English vocabulary. We do need a word to describe having the property of being deaf. It is interesting to note that there is no real sign for “deafness” in ASL, of which I am aware. I am all too aware, though, of the English signs “DEAF – NESS” which I loathe completely.

References

Kroger, R. & Wood, L. (1998) The turn to discourse in social psychology. Canadian Psychology 39(4). 266-279. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

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