A Discourse on Deafhood

We have previously been discussing the role of collectivist and individualist constructs in cultural contexts.  Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) funnel these global constructs into the individual.  The self is composed of individualist and constructionist constructs which mirror the cultural constructs (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  Defining the self is the functional equivalent of establishing the premise of existence.  Self-definition is more complicated than merely thinking oneself into being.  A psychologist might claim that it is all well and good to accept existence as a result of thought; however, existence without substance is quite hollow.  For example, I am pretty sure that I am Jon.  What defines me as Jon is what gives me color.  Within me are two types of self-definition constructs: the individual Jon, or the Jon that I define through my own personal perspective, and the collective Jon, or the Jon that I create based on interactions with my culture and with society.  The collective Jon and the individualist Jon actualize differently.  I can emphasize my collective self, my individual self, or neither.  Much of my behavior within a society depends on which self dominates, something Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) called the “motivational primacy”.

The idea of duality in self-definition is very familiar for those of us who are exploring the actualization aspect of Deaf epistemology.  On one hand, we have the Deafhood process, which deals with the individual journey towards actualization and post-actualization internalization.  On the other hand, we have the Deafhood experience, which deals with the discourse aspect as well as community-based and cultural actualization activities.  Deaf people need to actualize themselves (process) and the community (experience).  If there are two aspects to the Deaf self to actualize and define, then which take definitive primacy?

Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) explains that there are three types of motivational primacy: the individual-self primacy, the collective-self primacy, and the contextual primacy.  The individual-self primacy is when an individual feels it necessary to define the self first.  The collective-self primacy is when an individual feels it necessary to define the self in relation to the group first.  The contextual-self is when an individual does not feel it necessary to define either the individual-self or the collective-self at the expense of each other (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).

A Deaf individual with an individual self motivational primacy may find it necessary to define and actualize himself or herself through the Deafhood process before understanding and defining the greater community (experience).  This makes an assumption that a Deaf individual can completely separate himself or herself from the Deaf community.  The focus on self does not say anything about whether Deaf culture is individualist, collectivist, or a swath in between.  What it does imply is that the culture exists separately from the community.  Is it possible that the Deaf community can be regulated a status other than “ingroup” without diminishing a Deaf individual’s cultural affiliation?  I believe it is possible.  Deaf people with individualist tendencies or idiocentric tendencies can maintain cultural identity without active community involvement, much in the same way that I still consider myself Sigma Phi Epsilon two years after leaving undergraduate university.  My old fraternity is very much an outgroup, but the experiences I had while it was an ingroup have become banked in my subjective consciousness.  That being said, there still needs to be encounter with the Deaf community in order to begin the Deafhood process (Parham & Helms, 1985).

Regardless of lack of actualization or definition, the self is self-evident and a rather stable construct (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  It is rare for a sane individual to completely lose his or her sense of self.  For example, regardless of any conflict I may have defining myself or actualizing myself, I still retain the concept and the word “I”.  There may be an evolutionary motive for the existence of individual knowledge of self (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).

The group also evolved as a means of preservation (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  While existing in a group, the collective-self is more important than the individual-self.  While the individual-self sets up the premise of “I”, the collective-self establishes the “we” and allows the group to function as a coherent entity (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  For example, when I am playing ice-hockey, my collective-self has primacy.  My individual-self may want to drive the puck to the post; however, my collective-self understands that in order for the group to succeed, I need to function as a valuable member of the group instead of focusing on my individual goals.  It’s nice to score, but my collective-self understands that if someone else is in a better position to score, then that person should score so that the entire group can succeed.

A hockey team provides a prime example to explain the relationship between the collective and the collective-self.  In the collective, my role is clearly defined.  I am a second-string left-winger.  My role is to moderate the offensive while maintaining control of the left crease and post.  I may also need to coordinate actions with the center during offensive maneuvers and fall back to help the left defenseman.  My individual-self controls my own personal desires on the ice.  I want to score.  I want to hit someone hard.  I want to impress the really cute girl in Section A, Row 3, Seat 5.  My collective-self regulates my interaction with the team and ensures that I comply to all social norms (no back-checking, no hooking, no slashing, no ignoring an open player on the ice, no anything fun, bad Jon).  The function of the collective-self in a group is universal, which is why athletes who rely on individual-self primacy are often reviled even though they may be productive (Kobe?).

The contextual primacy theory states that self-definition is extremely fluid and is dependant on the context in which the self needs to choose a directive (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  According to the contextual primacy theory, I can be an individualist or I can be a collectivist depending on the situation.  For the most part, it is necessary for me to maintain the collective-self while playing hockey; however, there are times when I need to define myself as an individual.  I am Jon; all-star hockey player, et cetera, ad nauseam.  

Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz (1999) studied how the individualist-self and the collectivist-self function together to provide a comprehensive self-definition.  What they found was that how people react to situations depends on which self has primacy.   If a person’s primary self-definition ins individualist, then any attacks on the individual causes the person’s self primacy to shift towards the collective.  For example, a Deaf person who identifies himself or herself as hard of hearing and is criticized for using his or her voice (a highly personal decision), the person might retreat into the collective-self (colonial or deaf cultures) in order to maintain his or her self esteem and sense of self.  This leads to possible retorts such as aligning closer to the colonist community (“I use my voice in order to fit in better with hearing people. After all, this is a hearing world”) or adapting oneself with the Deaf community (“Okay I won’t use my voice in a deaf context because it hurts members of the community”).   When the collective-self has primacy, the person shifts to the individualist-self when the collective is attacked.  For example, suppose a hearing person says that all Deaf people are stupid because the average deaf person reads and writes at the 4^th grade level.  A Deaf person might respond that he or she reads at an post-high school level.  When the collective was verbally assaulted, the individual-self emerged in order to cushion the psychological damage.

It’s important to remember that the individual-self, regardless of collectivist or individualist culture membership, take universal primacy over other types of self (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999).  Shifting towards the collectivist-self is a mechanism for defense of self and belonging to the group, or the collectivist, is an evolutionary development for self-survival.  That’s why it’s important to encourage and temper the Deafhood process while not rejecting those who consider the community an outgroup rather than an ingroup.  If the Deafhood process occurs as we think, then the community will eventually reap its rewards with actualized individuals who understand the needs of the collective-self.

Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Graetz, K. (1999). In search of self-definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76(1). 5-18. 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