Diversity of Deaf Identities Study Notes
Overview of Deaf Identities
Researcher: Yael Bat-Chava, Director of Research, League for the Hard of Hearing, New York, NY.
Study context: Exploration of the diversity of deaf identities based on Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1981).
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1981)
Posits that minority group members can achieve a positive social identity through:
Individual mobility: Seeking integration into mainstream society.
Social change: Collaborating with other group members to instigate change.
People may employ a combination of both strategies.
Types of Deaf Identities Identified
Study Sample: 267 deaf adults; three main identities emerged:
Culturally Deaf Identity (about one-third of the sample)
Culturally Hearing Identity (about one-third of the sample)
Bicultural Identity (about one-third of the sample)
Self-esteem correlations: Individuals with culturally deaf and bicultural identities often displayed higher self-esteem.
Mechanisms of Identity Formation
According to Social Identity Theory:
Individuals attach themselves to group memberships that enhance their social identity and self-esteem.
If a group associated with one’s identity is stigmatized, individuals may try to distance themselves from that identity through:
Psychological distancing: Denying membership in the stigmatized group.
Physical distancing: Choosing to succeed in mainstream environments.
Claiming to defy negative characteristics associated with the group.
Paths to Identity as Deaf Individuals
Culturally Hearing Identity:
Aims for integration into the hearing world.
Relies on residual hearing (aided by amplifications or cochlear implants) and speech-reading.
Pursues academic and professional success.
Culturally Deaf Identity:
Utilizes American Sign Language (ASL) and engages with the Deaf community through social, civic, and political organizations.
Bicultural Identity:
Individuals may achieve success in hearing environments while also identifying with the Deaf community and advocating for social change.
Measurement of Deaf Identities
Resources to measure deaf identities adopted from earlier work by Glickman & Carey (1993) and Leigh et al. (1998) included three primary labels:
Hearing Identity: Understanding deafness solely as a disability.
Immersion: Viewing deafness as a culture.
Bicultural: Navigating both perspectives.
A potential Marginal Identity: For individuals ambivalent about deafness.
Influence of Family and School Histories
Deafness in Families:
Approximately 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents (Moores, 2001), often instilled with a perspective that deafness equates to disability.
Deaf children with deaf parents often experience cultural affirmation and engagement with Deaf community values.
Methods of communication within families play a crucial role; many hearing parents prioritized spoken language, limiting exposure to sign language (Jacobs, 1980).
Educational Pathways:
Spectrum of educational environments influences identity development, ranging from residential schools for deaf individuals to fully mainstreamed settings.
Engagement with deaf peers in schools shapes cultural perspectives on deafness.
Relationship between Identity and Self-Esteem
Social Identity Theory suggests no expected differences among identities concerning self-esteem.
However, alternative theories assert that stronger group identities lead to higher self-esteem via mechanisms such as valuing Deaf attributes and devaluing majority beliefs.
Research findings indicated that individuals with culturally deaf and bicultural identities showcased higher self-esteem compared to their culturally hearing and negative identity peers.
Study Methodology
The study employed two phases:
Questionnaire Study: Collected qualitative data via short questionnaires sent to a mixed demographic of deaf adults.
Interview Study: In-depth interviews conducted with a selected group within the original sample to gather subjective narratives about identity.
Participant Demographics
Total number of respondents: 646; response rate: 41%
Age range: 16 to 87 years (mean age: 42.9 years).
Family Background:
Hearing parents: 88.8%
Deaf parents: 10.5%
Mixed parentage: 0.7%
Data Analysis and Cluster Grouping
Cluster Analysis: Utilized a k-means clustering algorithm to segregate identities based on four variables: importance of signing, importance of speech, group identity, and attitudes towards deaf individuals.
Four distinct clusters identified:
Cluster 1: Culturally Deaf (33%)
Cluster 2: Culturally Hearing (24%)
Cluster 3: Bicultural (34%)
Cluster 4: Negative Identity (9%)
Conclusions
The predominance of culturally deaf, culturally hearing, and bicultural identities aligns with predictions of social mobility and social change mechanisms concerning social identity in stigmatized groups.
The study's nuances reveal the interaction of family backgrounds and educational environments in shaping self-conceptions among deaf individuals.
Future research must delve into how different demographics and contextual factors affect the evolution of deaf identities.
Future Directions for Research
Dynamics of Identities: Understanding that identities are often static but also influenced by life experiences.
Tracking the transitional paths taken by individuals: Those moving from culturally hearing to bicultural identities.
Investigating personality traits like openness, and the role of life stressors in prompting identity shifts.
Explore if demographic differences significantly contribute to shifts in identity through larger samples.
References and Acknowledgments
This study is based on the doctoral dissertation of Yael Bai-Chava under the guidance of Kay Deaux.
The author expresses gratitude to colleagues at the League for the Hard of Hearing for their insights.
References to original works cited throughout the notes.
Copyright Information: Use of the content governed by restrictions from the American Annals of the Deaf.