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.