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 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 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.

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.

Genesis

This is my first attempt at a vLog. I'm quite happy about how it turned out. My VP-100 and my limited knowledge of movie editing software bore non-bitter fruit. I'm hoping to use my vLog to help me digest the enormous amount of information that I need to read while preparing for my thesis. My goal is to use the discourse theories I'm studying to produce. This project excites me and I look forward to see what comes of it.

Tamara is already making fun of my unique "signs". I don't always have the sign vocabulary necessary to match the english words in my head so, I reach for approximate translations. Tamara, my fiancee, has pointed out that I'm probably using "bloom" incorrectly. Personally, I feel that it is an appropriate adjective given the context in which it is used. Self actualization, when applied to Deafhood, is a sort of blooming, isn't it?

Cheers.