Please direct your browsers to

http://jhenner.wordpress.com/


The new site should work better with deafread.com. I also like the ability to categorize my articles according to topic. That makes it easier for me to quickly retrieve and process them when needed.

Thanks for understanding and don't forget to update your bookmarks!

Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005)


It is a funny coincidence that so soon after I read an article arguing that dividing cultures according to individualist and collectivist constructs is futile and that geographic swaths cannot be classified according to arbitrary means, I read another article which attempts to do exactly that. Both articles make strong arguments in favor of their theory. I must admit that I am biased towards the former and I don’t really believe in attempts to generalize cultures as either individualist or collectivist, but instead, as vibrant, fluid social creations that react to the needs of each person in them.

Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) respond to claims that self-actualization is a western phenomenon with the assertion that researchers who believe such things do not understand that individualist and collectivist cultures actualize differently. Using western individualist standards of actualization with members of collectivist cultures will show that collectivist cultures cannot actualize in the same way as individualist cultures; however, it does not show that members of collectivist cultures cannot actualize (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005).

All cultures can actualize (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005). The critical difference is that members of individualist cultures actualize through self determination while members of collectivist cultures actualize through the collective (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005). In order to show that cultures actualize differently depending on their culture construct, Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) did a literature review and then performed a meta-analysis on them to provide empirical evidence that all cultures actualize and do so differently. My concern is that cultural variations cannot be measured accurately. Fiske (2002) demonstrated that cultural and linguistic difficulties make establishing good measurements a near impossible task. While Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) use these measurements well to make clear their point that all cultures can actualize, that the data is possibly faulty makes Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea’s point rather moot.

Aside from the generalizations in the article regarding western/individualist and eastern/collectivist tendencies, Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) do well to point out that all cultures actualize and do so differently. Americans do not actualize in the same way as the Swedish, even though both are considered individualist cultures. In order to determine how a culture actualizes, it’s important to find what each culture values.

For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that Deaf culture is collectivist. If we use the Fiske (2002) model, we can claim that Deaf culture is neither collectivist or individualist, but composed of a collective of people, each with different goals, but bound together by a common force. If we use the Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) model, then Deaf culture is collectivist with idiocentric tendencies influenced by upbringing and affluence. Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) would point out that generally accepted research claims that Deaf culture is truly collectivist. If Deaf culture is truly collectivist, then Deaf individuals seeking to actualize do so within the context of the group. A Deaf person attempting to actualize must question his or her role in relation to the group and accept the core values of the culture and community while growing into the provided role. Therein is actualization.

Given that collectivism and individual actualization is not so cut and dried, it is likely that the actualization process differs for each individual. This would pertain more with Ladd (2003)’s theories of Deafhood.

Resources

Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

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

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Vevea, J.L. (2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (89)4. 539-551. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).

It seems to me that psychologists and researchers are apt to classify their research material into categories, even if none are necessary. While psychologists and researchers try to hold true to positivist thought and maintain complete objectivity, it is quite impossible to remove themselves entirely from human nature and, some might argue, from the research itself (Gergen, 1985). It appears to be a human tendency to classify. Our ancestors classified according to type and we continue to classify according to qualities.

Of late I have been reading about Individualism and collectivism. I am aware that Deaf studies researchers have classified Deaf culture as collectivist and my thesis hinges on what many perceive to be collectivist traits. Individualism and collectivism are not new categories in psychology. The concepts have been around for over a century (Fiske, 2002). That these categories exist is a testament to human need for clear boundaries. Earlier research I’ve read (and some later ones, too, but we won’t go into that right now) have attempted to establish certain cultures as either collectivist or individualist. Western culture, for example, is usually classified as individualist and eastern culture, collectivist (Fiske, 2002; Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Culture; however, is not so stark. Individualism and collectivism, for example, are not exactly opposites (Fiske, 2002). When describing individualism and collectivism in general terms, psychologists tend to refer to the person’s relationship to the group (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Collectivists tend to derive a sense of self from their role in the greater community. Individualists derive a sense of self from their own desires. There is; however, no negative correlation between individualists and collectivists (Fiske, 2002). In most dyad categories, the categories themselves are polar opposites. Black is the opposite of white, so given two categories, an item is either black or white. Culture, according to Fiske (2002) is neither black or white, but a rainbow of colors. While we like our nice boundaries between individualist and collectivist cultures, researchers have found that very rarely is a culture completely individualist or completely collectivist (Fiske, 2002).

Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) attempted to ameliorate this situation with the terms, “idiocentric” and “allocentric”. While it was helpful to classify cultures as collectivist with idiocentric qualities or individualist with allocentric qualities, the terminologies still allowed for broad classifications. A good comparison would be gender. Some people insist that there are only male and female genders. Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990)’s terminology allows for men with feminine characteristics or women with masculine characteristics. Fiske (1990) on the other hand, would argue that even Trandis, McCusker, & Hui’s classifications are still too extreme. How might one measure a gender trait? Is it a masculine trait to prefer sports over dolls? Fiske (2002) believes that it may be impossible to truly classify a culture as either individualist or collectivist.

Let’s begin with the general distinction that western cultures are individualist and eastern cultures are collectivist. Recent studies have shown that Japanese culture, in many ways, is more individualist than western cultures, depending on how the studies are set (Fiske, 2002). Korea is just as collectivist as North American cultures (Fiske, 2002). Given that two of the major countries in the “east” are individualist, it is a misconception to claim that eastern cultures are generally collectivist. Fiske (1990) mentions that it is also improper to assume that country has a set culture which is either collectivist or individualist. American does not have a singular culture because it is not homogenous. This holds true for other countries as well. Japan, which is considered pretty homogenous, has many different cultures, each with different norms and values (Fiske, 2002). That society is so heterogeneous makes it hard to use general terms, at least when culture is involved.

There is also not a singular type of individualist or collectivist culture (Fiske, 2002). Cultures considered collectivist will not be similar. What a particular culture values as important for its collective soul is not the same as what another culture values for its collective soul. The collective cultures of China and India are not the same. That there are many types of collective cultures holds true for individualist cultures as well. Individualist cultures are not all self-serving, hedonists (Fiske, 2002). Scandinavian culture, which is more individualist than North American culture, is non-competitive and finds referring to the self, shameful (Fiske, 2002).

Even in cultures, whether or not a person has collectivist or individualist tendencies varies with age. Post-college aged adults tend to be more individualist while college-aged persons tend to be more collectivist (Fiske, 2002). That means a person from a culture generally considered collectivist may be, at any point in his or her life, either collectivist or individualist. For me, this points to the fluidity of the sense of self, and for cultural affiliation. A person is not only of one culture (Fiske, 2002). Personally, Deaf culture is not the only culture for which I consider myself a member. I am also a part of Jewish culture as well as an overall American culture. I do not consider my membership in different cultures a bad thing. Many leaders in the Deafhood movement have considered the general American/hearing culture to be a colonial culture. While I understand that hearing culture has served to oppress me and “colonize” my primary culture, I bear no more anger towards it than I do my puppy who occasionally bites me by accident. It is possible that those who lash out at colonial hearing culture may be in the immersion-emersion stage of self-actualization, but I am in no position to judge (Parham & Helms, 1985).

That culture is fluid is a matter of course. I was not born into Deaf culture. I migrated into it. It is questionable whether or not a Deaf person who is actualized into Deaf culture can truly leave it; but I can envision émigrés abandoning their parent culture in favor of an adopted culture. Truly labels cannot contain culture. Gergen (1985) points out that language is a harsh tool for manipulating abstract and subjective concepts. I am inclined to agree with him.

People are rather insistent that things be either this or that. In order to test whether something is either this or that, or in this case, whether a culture is individualist or collectivist, a system of measures need to be developed. In the past, psychologists used tests which consists of a statement and a ranking (Fiske, 2002). For example, a person taking a individualist/collectivist measurement assessment might find a question which reads “I do not mind taking orders from my parents”. The person would then rank the validity of that statement from 1 to 5. There are many immediate problems with this form of assessment. First, the numerical scale used to rank the validity of the statement is arbitrary. Is the statement of a person who circled 4 twice as valid as the statement of a person who circled 2? Even if the statements are measured on an ordinal scale, the numbers have no quantifiable meaning. That a person circled a 4 for the previously mentioned statement tells me nothing about whether or not the person minds taking orders from his or her parents. It is an arbitrary snap-shot statistic which is dependant on the participant’s frame of mind while taking the assessment as well as his or her understanding of the sentence.

Given that language is a social beast means that culture has an enormous impact on how language is used and understood (Gergen, 1985). Two speakers of English from different cultures may have different semantic interpretations of the same sentence (Fiske, 2002). This is particularly true of extremely subjective, vague terms such as “how much”, “privacy’, or various distance adverbs (Fiske, 2002). Two people from different cultures confronted with the same statement may circle different numbers although in truth, their cultures value that particular statement equally. The different interpretation of the sentences destroyed any statistical truth the statement might’ve had. If speakers of the same language might interpret the same sentence differently, we can only imagine the difficulties translation might incur.

Deaf people tend to rely on visual language. Visual language is processed quite differently than verbal. If reality is constructed on language, then a Deaf reality is nicely different than a hearing reality. If a Deaf person were to take the cultural assessment mentioned above, it is likely that Deaf scores could not accurately be compared to hearing scores since each statement would have a different truth bearing for the Deaf person.

Given that measuring individualism and collectivism is meaningless, and it is not likely than an adequate system will be developed soon, it is moot to attempt to classify cultures as either individualist or collectivist (Fiske, 2002). It is pointless to compare cultures since cultures are rarely formed in relation to another (Fiske, 2002). Cultures should be assessed and crystallized as a meaningful self without arbitrary labels.

I have not seen any assessment that proves Deaf culture to be collectivist, but any such assessment would be irrelevant. It would have to compare Deaf culture to other collectivist cultures and individualist cultures. Fiske (2002) has shown the futility of such an endeavor. I do not have enough information to determine the validity of claims that Deaf culture is collectivist; however, I am willing to accept that there is a tendency for deaf people to actualize through the group. This, to me, shows more of a need to communicate fluidly with people who understand the culture than any form of pure collectivism.

Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. 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.

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.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism


Individualist and collectivist constructs impact more than how persons in either construct perceive themselves. They also possibly affect cognitive processes (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). That cognitive processes are influenced by cultural affiliation is important in psychological research. Positivist research assumes that scientific inquiry (in this case, studies about cognitive processes) creates universal information. Data gained from empirical study, according to positivists, can be blanketed across all people from all cultures. Given that people in individualist and collectivist cultures not only have a different sense of self, but a different cognitive process, it is only natural that any pertinent study needs to use a multi-method mode of research (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) emphasize that although a completely positivist stance towards research is counterproductive, a completely constructionist view is too extreme as well. Either/or stances fragment the psychological community and slow the advance of the psychological sciences (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). It’s important to combine both positivist and constructionist thought in a multi-method inquiry in order to provide a broad view of research.

Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) emphasize that creating two separate labels for vast groups of people and cultures creates divisions which do not naturally exist. This view was later echoed by Ben-Ari and Lavee (2004). Not all groups exhibit completely individualist or completely collectivist traits. Some individualist groups have collectivist qualities and some collectivist groups have individualist qualities. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) determined that there needs to be a word which distinguishes the collectivist-individualist and the individualist-collectivist. The word “idiocentricism” defines a collectivist with individualist traits and the word “allocentrisim” defines an individualist with collectivist traits (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

Idiocentricism and allocentricism are important words to add to the Deaf studies vocabulary. I, personally, have not seen any definitive research on why the Deaf community is collective. It seems to me that researchers begin with the assumption that the Deaf community is collective and this assumption is pervasive. I’ve seen it referenced to in Ladd’s book, as well as Holcomb, Humphries, and Padden’s books. My own experiences in the Deaf community shows that the community is not collectivist as generally accepted, but shares traits with individualist cultures. I am not sure whether or not the collectivist Deaf community mirrors the colonial culture, but I understand that the community is collectivist with several idiocentric traits.

The differences between collectivist and individualist cultures is not as simple as defining the role of the self (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). A better method for establishing boundaries, according to Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) is to use “ingroups”. An ingroup is defined as a group which shares a common fate (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). The immediate family is a more familiar ingroup, but the ingroup can also include a community, a region, a religion, or a country. Persons in a collectivist culture define themselves by their relation to the ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). The ingroup establishes social roles and behavioral norms. Ingroups also have a clear social hierarchy and dissent is considered inappropriate because it diminishes the social harmony of the ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

If the Deaf community were purely collective, then it would have a strongly defined ingroup which shares the traits listed by Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990). We can determine that the Deaf community is its own main ingroup. Not all collective cultures have a singular ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). If the Deaf community followed this trend, then we can assume that members of the Deaf community have one ingroup that is composed of the local Deaf community, and a greater ingroup which is composed of the entire Deaf community. It is possible that these ingroups are partitioned further according to Deaf clubs, sports, and schools; however, that adds a level of complexity for which I am not prepared to deal with. The various ingroups which compose Deaf culture do establish behavior and social norms. These behaviors are enforced through discourse and other social processes. Members of the Deaf community do employ different social behaviors than the greater hearing communities. For example, the pragmatic systems of American Sign Language allow for direct intercourse of a type that English language users in America disapprove. Language pragmatics, especially in American Sign Language, correlate with the social norms of the culture which adopts them. That members of the Deaf community tend to define themselves in accordance to their role in the Deaf community (school, club participation, “oh there are a lot of deaf people in san Francisco…”) is evident of a general trend towards collectivism. I also propose that there exists a clear hierarchy in the Deaf community composed of an “aristocracy” of multi-generation Deaf families and persons who have contributed much to the community. I am not quite sure if there is a correlation between being born into a well-known deaf family and later actualization activities, or being born into a deaf family actualizes the child who later goes on to give back to the community. It is worth looking into that later.

Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) noticed that some cultures which are traditionally collectivist have been shifting towards individualist tendencies. It is not a matter of whether or not there are idiocentric members of a collectivist community, but that there is a general trend towards individualism. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) concluded that affluence tends to encourage individualist traits. Affluence brings awareness of a global media as well as an understanding that a person need not share a common fate with others in the ingroup. Those who shift to individualist perspectives tend to change their behavior as well as the norms to which they conform (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Cultures which become individualist lost the social network which sustained it. There is also a breakdown in the hierarchical structure which leads some to believe that the individualists are selfish and have no respect for authority (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

There does appear to be a schism in the Deaf community among the collectivists and those who are largely individualist. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) are correct that it is likely new affluence which causes these gaps. In the past, the Deaf community was dependant on only itself. Deaf professionals were limited to those who could integrate with the colonial culture or to those who had acquired their money through non-traditional means. Since the IDEA and the ADA was passed, it is more common to see Deaf professionals who are enjoying an affluence not known to their Deaf forbearers. The growing divide between “grassroot” Deaf individuals and Deaf professionals is cause for concern. Without thread, the Deaf community will fracture into a have-and-have-not culture. I believe the greater Deafhood movement allows individualist Deaf persons to reconnect with the Deaf community.

Ben-Ari, A. & Lavee, Y. (2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 74(2). 102-111. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis

If western Deaf culture is considered collectivist, then it is only natural that research on individualist and collectivist cultures would apply to western Deaf culture. Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) studied the impact affiliation with either an individualistic culture or a collectivist culture had on stress perception. Cultural impact on stress perception is critical because stress negatively affects both mental and physical health (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). That members of the Deaf community are collectivists means that Deaf people may understand and suffer stress differently than the greater hearing community. Understanding how Deaf people react to stress would be a critical step towards treating stress-related problems.

Stress sources differ across cultures. Individualist cultures tend to have self-originating stress whereas collectivist cultures have collectively originating stress (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). That is not to say that members of the collective community lack an idea of self. Rather, the collectivist perception of self originates from the collectivist individual’s role in the community and whether or not that role is meaningful (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). The collectivist individual thinks of himself or herself as a part of the community and all his or her goals and desires are a reflection of the community needs (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). Deaf members of the community place a lot of emphasis on their role in the Deaf community. Deaf community members who do not have a positive experience in the Deaf community may suffer higher degrees of self-doubt, stress, and lack of actualization than the Deaf who derive a positive community experience. The lack of actualization is critical in understanding the mental health of Deaf members who are not involved or who do not have a positive involvement with the Deaf community. Collectivist cultures encourage actualization through the collective culture (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). If an individual cannot actualize because of negative community involvement, then the individual’s self-esteem will suffer terribly.

Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) recognize that creating two broad labels for all cultures is rather complicated. Not all collectivist cultures approach the community in the same way and not all individualist cultures approach the self in the same way. Some cultures share traits with both individualist and collectivist cultures. There currently is some friction in the Deaf community about whether or not the community is truly collectivist since there are a lot of individualist elements present. Certainly members of the Deaf community have leeched elements of the greater western culture in which it exists; however, an argument can be made that truly individualistic Deaf people are in the pre-encounter stage and are suffering from the effects of colonialism (Parham & Helms, 1985).

What Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) found was that individualist and collectivist cultures do process stress differently, although not to much of a degree. Certain stress sources, such as financial and social-environmental were nearly identical across cultures (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). One major difference is that one set of collectivists reported that family was a major source of stress (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). It may be that members of the collectivist community feel pressure to meet their family’s needs and expectations and that these stresses are not that potent in an individualist culture. The Deaf community can be seen as a Deaf person’s family. Pressure to find a place in the Deaf community or to meet the expectations of local Deaf community members and greater Deaf community leaders may place a lot of stress on Deaf individuals.

Ben-Ari, A. & Lavee, Y. (2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 74(2). 102-111. 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

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.