The Role of Deaf Identity in Deaf Studies

Barbara Kannapell

Introduction

This presentation will focus on the relationship between Deaf Studies and Deaf identity. The opening section will review the research literature on Deaf identity and raise questions for further exploration. After looking at different types of identities in general and how self-identity is influenced by gender and race, I will propose a definition of the cultural identity of deaf people. The second part of the paper will focus attention on the educational system and its role in promoting Deaf identity: the difference between how educators identify Deaf children and how Deaf people identify themselves and the importance of the relationship of Deaf identity and Deaf Studies. Finally I will propose what educators can do to foster Deaf identity among deaf children through Deaf Studies programs.

Review of Research Literature on Deaf Identity

For the past 20 years there has been a discussion of the importance of linguistic competence (American Sign Language) and, currently, cultural competence (Deaf Culture) besides certain degrees of hearing loss as essential factors for membership in the Deaf community. Much more research is needed on important aspects of Deaf Culture, such as Deaf identity, common knowledge and rules of behavior, and values. Here we will focus on Deaf identity.

There is a handful of research on identity among deaf people (Erting, 1982; Kannapell, 1985; Stone-Harris & Stirling, 1986). Erting’s research focused on the interaction of deaf preschool-age children with their parents, teachers, and deaf strangers. Kannapell’s research explored the relationship between identity choice and language choice among deaf college students. Stone-Harris and Stirling’s study compared deaf children of deaf parents with those of hearing parents based on their opinions of themselves as deaf or hard of hearing and their beliefs that they would change their identity when they grew up. Basically, all three researchers support the need to develop Deaf identity among deaf children.

Clearly, there remains a great need for more research on the identity of deaf people. There are many questions that need to be answered: Are there more deaf people who are marginal members of the Deaf Community now than before because more and more deaf children attend mainstream schools? Are deaf people ambivalent and/or ambiguous toward their personal identity? Do deaf people change their identity for political reasons? What is the role of Deaf Studies in the identity development of deaf children? I will address some, but not all, of these questions in this paper. I hope there will be much more research on these issues.

Self-Identity in General

There are many different identities among hearing people as well as Deaf people, depending on how they see themselves or how others see them, based on gender, race, family membership, and occupation. The identity closest to us may be taken for granted: for example, hearing white men rarely think of identifying themselves as hearing, white males; hearing people seldom identify themselves as “hearing”; white people rarely identify themselves as “white.” Because of the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1970s, black people see themselves as “Black” first. Also, increasingly, women are identifying themselves as women or feminists.

In the same way, Deaf people see themselves as “Deaf”¹ first. In this paper, I will focus on the cultural identity of deaf people. At another time, I hope to do more work on the causal factors in the creation of that identity, including oppression, and also on gender and racial differences in cultural identity choice among deaf people.

Definition of Cultural Identity of Deaf People

Based on my observations of the Deaf community and my experience teaching Deaf Culture, I propose that the definition of cultural identity among deaf people should be based on how deaf people identify themselves in terms of language identity, personal identity, and social identity. These three major types of identities are strongly interrelated.

The focus here is self-definition, which is internal as opposed to external—how others identify a person. An example of external identification is how Deaf people identify other deaf people and hearing people such as “deaf people think like hearing people” or “hearing people with positive or negative attitudes toward deaf people.” This paper focuses on internal self-identification among deaf people.

Language Identity

Before discussing the meaning of language identity, it is important to introduce a sociolinguistic perspective on language:

It is a well-accepted notion among sociolinguists that language is not just an instrument for communication. It is also a symbol of social or group identity, an emblem (badge) of group membership and solidarity. (Grosjean, 1982, p. 117)

Language is simultaneously a store or a repository of cultural knowledge, a symbol of social identity, and a medium of interaction. (Gumperz, 1974, p. 785)

Replacing “language” with ASL in each statement provides a sociolinguistic description of American Sign Language:

1.ASL is not just an instrument for communication among Deaf people. ASL is also a symbol of social or group identity, an emblem (badge) of group membership and solidarity among Deaf people.

2.ASL is simultaneously a store or a repository of cultural knowledge, a symbol of social identity, and a medium of interaction among Deaf people.

Many Deaf people feel strongly identified with other deaf people through the use of American Sign Language. ASL is a crucial requirement for membership in the Deaf community.

Language identity refers to the language in which a person is most at home, or chooses to be most at home. There are three general types of language identity among deaf people: American Sign Language (ASL), ASL/English (contact signing, formerly called PSE) and English. It seems clear that deaf people can have ASL or English as their language identity. Do deaf people actually use ASL/English (contact signing) or PSE as their language identity?

Again, there is little research focused on language identity among deaf people. In my research, deaf college students were ambivalent toward ASL and English. Also, NTID researchers (Meath-Lang, Caccamise, & Albertini, 1982) showed that deaf college students see English as an object or a thing, when they enter a classroom to study English. Yet, in my research, some students identified ASL/English contact signing as their language identity. They believed if they used a mixture of ASL and English, they were better off than those who used ASL. They learned from observing teachers who approved them when they used a mixture of ASL/English. They usually use ASL/English (contact signing) or English-like signing with hearing people.

I would also like to raise the question of the relationship between code-switching and language identity. When Deaf people are using ASL with other Deaf people and a hearing person enters the conservation, the Deaf people usually code-switch to more English-like signing and sometimes use voice to communicate. Why is this happening? There are three possible explanations:

1.Deaf people are conditioned to use English with hearing people;

2.Deaf people unconsciously please hearing people by meeting their needs and dealing with them on their terms;

3.Deaf people have low expectations of the ASL skills of hearing people.

If Deaf people refuse to code-switch to English with hearing people and use ASL, what does this mean? It could mean that the identity of the Deaf people is stronger and that they exercise their power to use ASL to make hearing people come to their terms. Also, it is possible that they want to prevent hearing people from understanding what they say. We need to explore the functions of code-switching in relation to language identity in the Deaf community.

All in all, a deaf person may be clear, ambiguous, or ambivalent about his or her language identity. The attitude toward language identity will directly affect social identity. Obviously, there is a great need for research on the relationship between language identity and Deaf identity.

Personal Identity

Personal identity or self-identity is how Deaf people see themselves or are aware of who they are. Prior to the 1970s, there were four general types of personal identity among deaf people: deaf, hard of hearing, deafened, or oralist. At that time, most people identified themselves as deaf. Within the last 10 years a new identity, “hearing impaired,” has emerged among deaf people. Now, more and more, young deaf people identify themselves as “hearing impaired.” Why is this? Even though the term has been imposed on them by hearing people as a euphemism, young deaf people seem to see it as an acceptable term to describe their identity.

This creation of a “new identity” begins to separate “Deaf people from “hearing impaired” people. The original definition of hearing impaired is generic and includes people with all types of hearing loss, ranging from birth to old age. Now, those who identify themselves as “hearing impaired,” seem to use the term “Deaf” to mean a person who is culturally Deaf, does not speak, cannot hear at all, or is from a Deaf school. They use the term “hearing impaired” to apply to deaf people who are from mainstreamed schools, can talk, can hear some, or are not culturally Deaf.

I suggest that the term, “hearing impaired,” is a new definition created by those who impose “hearing” values on deaf people. This only leads to more confusion among deaf people to the point where they identify themselves as “hearing impaired” for political reasons. For example, they might write “hearing impaired” on their job applications because they think that is what hearing employers prefer.

There is abundant evidence that young deaf people are confused about their identities. The following statements are based on anecdotes that deaf students at Gallaudet University shared with me:

1.they are told that they are not Deaf;

2.they are different from other deaf students;

3.they are almost like hearing people;

4.they are hard of hearing or hearing impaired;

5.they believed that when they grew up, they would become hearing;

6.they believed that they would die young just because they never saw deaf role models.

My point in relation to the above statements is that many deaf students are ambiguous or ambivalent toward their personal or self-identity as deaf persons. The more confused they are with their personal identity, the more ambiguous they are with language identity and social identity. Personal identity is crucial to the development of language and social identity among deaf children.

Social Identity

Social identity means the type of group a deaf person feels that he or she belongs to or fits into. There are three general types of such groups: Deaf people, a mixture of deaf and hearing people, and hearing people. More importantly, there are two ways of developing social identity for any group. One way is developing a sense of belonging, that is, a person feels that she or he belongs to this group. Another way is acceptance by the group of people. For example, often a deaf person claims that he or she is Deaf and belongs to a group of Deaf people, but the Deaf people reject him or her for various reasons: attitudes, inappropriate behaviors, or group norms. They may even call this person a “heafie.” (Note: The original meaning of this term, “heafie,” was a person who grew up culturally Deaf and rejected Deaf culture, choosing to act like a hearing person. Now the term labels all types of deaf people who act or think like hearing persons.)

What concerns me the most is that more and more young deaf people seem to be marginal, not fitting into any group of people. If their language identity is ambivalent, and their self-identity is ambiguous, then their social identity is marginal.

Educators’ Identification of Deaf Children vs. Self-identity of Deaf People

You can see that the issue of Deaf identity is a complex one. Professionals in the field of the education of deaf students and the community of Deaf people have different views on the identity of deaf children and adults. For example, educators have traditionally depended heavily on degrees of hearing loss to categorize or identify deaf children:

This categorization means nothing to the Deaf community. A deaf person does not bring an audiogram as proof of hearing loss in order to become a member of the Deaf community. How do deaf people identify themselves for membership in the Deaf community? Culturally Deaf people can sense that a person is culturally deaf by communicating with him or her in ASL or asking several cultural questions about his or her background.

The way educators identify deaf children can be the same as or very different from the way Deaf people identify themselves. This is demonstrated in the following schema:

In Categories I and II the audiogram indicates profound or severe hearing loss, but self-identity can be either culturally Deaf or attitudinally hard of hearing. In Categories III and IV the audiogram shows that the person is hard of hearing. But, while educators view a person as audiologically hard of hearing, the Deaf person may identify himself as culturally Deaf in the Deaf community. Hard of hearing children of Deaf parents often fit in Category III.

Educators generally still overlook the complexity of Deaf identity:

Language identity: They assume that deaf children are English monolinguals.

Personal identity: They assume that deaf children identify themselves as hearing.

Social identity: They assume that deaf children are members of the hearing community.

The assumptions of educators are certainly the source of some of the confusion, ambiguity, and ambivalence experienced by deaf persons regarding their personal and social identities.

What are the options of Deaf people/children with regard to their cultural identity? First, I will discuss how Italian-American children (Child, 1943) work out their identities:

a.The first group rebelled against their Italian background, making themselves as American as possible;

b.The second group rejected the American culture and fully adopted their Italian heritage;

c.The third group were withdrawn and unsure, refusing to think of themselves in ethnic terms at all.

Gardner and Lambert (1972) identified a fourth group while studying Franco-Americans: they were skilled in both languages, felt they were members of both cultural groups, and were comfortable with their bicultural identity. In the same way Deaf people work out their identities:

a.harmonious identification with both Deaf and hearing cultures;

b.identification with hearing culture, rejection of Deaf culture;

c.identification with Deaf culture, rejection of hearing culture;

d.failure to identify with either culture.

What is happening with Deaf identity among deaf people is that there is a growing polarity in Deaf identity among deaf people. On the one hand, there is a growing number of deaf people with a strong sense of identity, who understand Deaf culture and ASL. On the other hand, an increasing number of deaf people are marginal or ambivalent about their Deaf identity and accept hearing definitions of Deaf people. There is a danger that the true Deaf identity will be overwhelmed or weakened. That is where Deaf Studies can have a role.

The Role of Deaf Studies in Identity Development of Deaf Children

What is the role of Deaf Studies in identity development of deaf children?

Language Identity

Deaf Studies can:

• Develop respect for and recognition of the sign language of each country as a legitimate language.

Personal Identity

Deaf Studies can:

• Strengthen the identity of deaf children;

• Foster a positive self-image or self-worth;

• Create a sense of pride;

• Celebrate the abilities of deaf children, departing from the pathological perspective on deaf children.

Social Identity

Deaf Studies can:

• Create a sense of belonging (I am part of the Deaf community and, also, of the larger community/world.);

• Show that deaf children have role models, thus removing “can’t-ism”;

• Show that deaf children have a heritage worthy of recording.

This rationale only scratches the surface of what Deaf Studies can mean. The acceptance of Deaf Studies as a discipline has critical implications for the whole system of Deaf education. If the true meaning of Deaf Studies is understood, the educational system will be transformed from a vehicle of oppression of deaf people to a means of their empowerment:

• Deaf Studies must encompass the acceptance of and respect for American Sign Language as the language of Deaf people and Deaf Culture.

• Deaf Studies must tell the truth and face reality about Deaf people. For example, deaf students must be told the truth that they will never become like hearing persons and that they don’t need to.

• Deaf Studies can demonstrate the equality of Deaf people with hearing people. Deaf Studies can strengthen and broaden Deaf people’s rights by providing the conditions which allow Deaf people to exercise those rights.

• Deaf Studies must encourage a new and full recognition of the contribution of Deaf people to human achievement, e.g. linguistics, communication, and technology.

• Deaf Studies will ensure that Deaf people and issues of deafness are studied in a non-discriminatory manner as part of the curriculum, either in separate distinguishable Deaf Studies courses or in courses so transformed as to give Deaf people’s perspective its rightful place.

I would like to expand the phrase “give Deaf people’s perspective its rightful place” into recommendations. (If we Deaf people had our way regarding how Deaf children should be taught, the picture of Deaf Education would look very different.)

Recommendation #1:

One of the goals of educating deaf children should be harmonious identification with both Deaf and hearing cultures, but educators must strengthen the Deaf identity among deaf children first. Deaf children should be taught about the American, mainstream culture and not how to behave like hearing persons. What is really happening is that Deaf people and hearing people meet in the area of a third culture. We need more research to understand this area.

Recommendation #2:

There should be clear goals for teaching Deaf Studies courses.

Rationale: Historically, we all know there are confused goals of teaching subject matter to deaf students: to increase the knowledge of the subject matter, to practice speech drills, and to teach English at the same time.

Recommendation #3:

Deaf Studies should be incorporated into regular disciplines throughout the curriculum.

Rationale: We often teach Deaf Studies courses separate from regular courses. For example, what happened to Deaf Schools during the Civil War should be studied as a part of American History.

Recommendation #4:

There should be a Deaf teacher model to teach hearing teachers how to teach deaf children.

Rationale: In the past, Deaf people usually learned how to teach Deaf children the hearing way. Now it is time that we Deaf people teach hearing people how to teach deaf children using a Deaf Teacher Model. Research is beginning to tell us what that model is—for example, Mather’s work (1987, 1989), which deals with eye gaze and communication in a deaf classroom and visually-oriented strategies with deaf preschool children.

Deaf people will continue feeling ambivalent toward both languages and cultures as long as educators feel ambivalent toward deaf people. This means that teacher training institutions must incorporate a Deaf Studies curriculum. It is important for deaf people, educators, and parents to work for a bilingual/bicultural education system where the identity and reality of deaf persons is fully accepted and which fosters Deaf Studies throughout the K–12 curriculum.

Thank you!

About the Presenter

Dr. Barbara Kannapell, a sociolinguist and renowned private consultant, conducts workshops and classes on Deaf culture and bilingualism nationally and in Europe. She received her Ph.D. in linguistics from Georgetown University. She is a strong advocate of the incorporation of Deaf studies in the school curriculum from kindergarten through 12th grade. She also continues to have as her focus increasing the awareness of parents and teachers of Deaf children and especially Deaf people themselves about Deaf Culture. She is currently serving as a member of Gallaudet University’s Task Force on American Sign Language and Deaf Studies.

References

Child, I. (1943). Italian or American? The second generation in conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Erting, C.J. (1982). Deafness, communication, and social identity: An anthropological analysis of interaction among parents, teachers, and deaf children in a preschool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Washington, DC: American University.

Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1974). Linguistic anthropology in society. American Anthropologist, 76(4), 785–798.

Kannapell, B. (1985). Language choice reflects identity choice: A sociolinguistic study of deaf college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

Mather, S. (1987). Eye gaze and communication in a deaf classroom. Sign Language Studies, 54, 11–30.

Mather, S. (1989). Visually oriented strategies with deaf preschool children. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of the deaf community (pp. 165–187). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Meath-Lang, B., Caccamise, F., & Albertini, J. (1982). Deaf persons’ views on English language learning: Educational and sociolinguistic implications. In H. Hoeman & R. Wilbur (Eds.), Interpersonal communication and deaf people: Working Papers #5. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Stone-Harris, R., & Stirling, L. (1986). Developing and defining an identity: Deaf children of deaf and hearing parents. In Proceedings of the second research conference on the social aspects of deafness (pp. 26–30). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

1. Note: the term, “Deaf,” means the person is culturally Deaf which means that he or she has a working knowledge of ASL and Deaf Culture.