Reconsidering history of pyschology’s borders
October 8, 2006
Scot Atkin’s comments on Critical Theory piqued my interest. I was particularly curious about how it differed from social constructionism. Krantz (2001)’s article about the history of psychology and potential applications of critical theory did not do much to distinguish critical theory from Gergen (1985)’s social construction movements. Both begin with the premise that knowledge is socially constructed (Krantz, 2001; Gergen, 1985). Both understand that positivist perspectives are inherently rooted in research behavior and are the foundation for most logical thought; however, socially constructed realities direct positivist research and makes false, but more socially acceptable research pervasive. For example, the media often uses dubious sources and politicians and lawyers can always find a scientist willing to back their views with “empirical” data.
Ladd (2003) mentions the impact socially constructed narratives have on empirical research. If we apply positivist research to the Deaf, we come to the conclusion that the average deaf adult reads and writes at the fourth grade level. From this conclusion, many people make the erroneous deduction that deaf people are generally not intelligent and are illiterate. Those who believe so will cite that there is empirical proof that deaf individuals cannot read and write well. A social constructionist working from critical theory will question the motivations of the researcher and the environment which produced the research (Krantz, 2001). Logically speaking, audistic environments produce audistic research. Can we prove that the research did not begin with the premise that all deaf individuals have problems reading and writing, and that the methodologies employed by the researcher may have subconsciously been working to subvert the abilities of the deaf who participated in the research? Until we can be absolutely sure that research conducted on the deaf is free of audistic taint, then it may be wise to critically assess empirical research on the deaf.
Not only does society influence researchers, but it also influences the kind of research conducted (Krantz, 2001). Society directs research through two means: socially acceptable norms, and reinforcement; generally through economic means (Krantz, 2001). Unpopular research is met with disdain or lack of funding. Popular research is met with social approval and lots of funding. In an environment which fosters oralism, which research will most likely be met with funding and general approval: research on bilingual education and the positive benefits of cultural dissemination, or research on phonetic cueing systems and applications for speech acquisition? Until society is conductive to deaf culture and deaf epistemology, it is unlikely that we will have an environment which completely nurtures the deaf way of life.
A critical component of critical theory which has current associations is that knowledge, which emanates through contextual means and is highly subjective, spreads quickly through social networks (Krantz, 2001). A good example of a social network is news media. Much of what we use to construe a global reality comes from the media. The media delivers a continuous stream of information. People are likely to only pick out information which is pertinent (Triandis, 1989). The media tends to use short bits of information which are use to chunk the information stream. These chunks are called sound bytes. Sound bytes are designed to give extremely short summaries of the information content. Because knowledge needs context to be completely understood, sound bytes are often biased or relatively inaccurate. Sound bytes; however, are a valuable tool for manipulating social networks because they are easily absorbed, quickly spread, and can distort the truth while being true.
Some blogs have complained that the current protests lack symbolism. To me, the bloggers appear to want a sound byte. The situation at Gallaudet cannot be described in clear terms. What agitates the students is not only that JKF is a poor leader, or that there is not enough sign on campus. The students clearly are protesting the systematic presence of audistic tendencies in a place designated the mecca of deaf culture. Even though the board is 51% deaf and even though many of the administrators have long histories of working with the deaf, they could not and are not avoiding the paternalistic attitudes which are associated with being in a position of power over the deaf. Ladd (2003) articulated the damaging effects paternalistic attitudes have in his chapters about missioners, particularly 1,001 Victories. One blogger, who pointed out that her dad was a board of trustee member, wrote that the board of trustees feels that the HMB lockdown was prompted by the faculty and that the protesters are being led on by the faculty. That the board has this opinion shows that they do not believe that deaf college students possess the intelligence necessary to think of such an action.
The students; however, appear to be unable to completely articulate what they are protesting against. I feel that is because the students lack the vocabulary necessary to explain systematic audism. This is not a reflection on the intelligence of the students, but rather, the education system that denies the culpability of socially acceptable audism. There are no sound bytes because there cannot be any sound bytes. Meanwhile, hearing people who listen to the news believe that the protest is about whether or not JFK is deaf enough, because that is a socially acceptable narrative and therefore can be sound-“bit”.
Critical theory shows us how language can be used to oppress, but also how language can be used to emancipate. Applications of critical theory and discourse theory will provide new vocabulary and narratives for the deaf, and hopefully change how society perceives its audistic tendencies.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
Krantz, D.L. (2001). Reconsidering history of pyschology’s borders. History of Psychology. 4(3). 182-194. Retrieved October 5, 2006 from psycARTICLES databse.
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: in search of deafhood. Tonawanda, NY. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review. 96(3). 506-520. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.
Entry Filed under: Deafhood, Discourse Theory, Social Constructionism. .
7 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Sara Stallard | October 9, 2006 at 3:29 am
Jon Henner? Whom I met at NAD 2002, and whose team my team beat in the College Bowl?
If that’s you, man, I’m glad to see the work you are doing now!
Ah, yes it is you—I just checked the “about” link on this blog
You said:
The students; however, appear to be unable to completely articulate what they are protesting against. I feel that is because the students lack the vocabulary necessary to explain systematic audism. This is not a reflection on the intelligence of the students, but rather, the education system that denies the culpability of socially acceptable audism. There are no sound bytes because there cannot be any sound bytes. Meanwhile, hearing people who listen to the news believe that the protest is about whether or not JFK is deaf enough, because that is a socially acceptable narrative and therefore can be sound-“bit”.
I agree.
I think it’s significant to observe how ASL is still primarily a language used in person with other people. And as beautifully endowed with the capacity for using unlimited loanwords from English (through the manual alphabet), ASL is still subject to certain aspects of our loosely defined culture which tend to favor a minimal use of such “Englishing” (as one of my peers would joke).
I have been observing events at Gallaudet, especially inside HMB, engaging in dialogue with the FSSA protestors and their supporters (I am a supporter, to some extent). We collectively seem to gravitate toward signed discourse, in person and on the blogs, especially in the pursuit of information.
Indeed, to be clear, there are dedicated readers currently ensconced in HMB, prowling the nets and writing letters or dispatches under the auspices of this or that particular campus group, doing their dutiful “Englishing” but I must admit, I have yet to witness a regular stream of students (protestors and their supporters, including faculty and staff) traipsing from HMB to the Library which is practically a hop down the Green, to peruse the Deaf Stacks which have made a new and more prominent home at the base of the staircase (instead of being tucked away in the back by the Archives). I am in the Deaf Stacks often, 4-5 times a week, for both my own reading and helping others find sources for their own research. I am usually alone among the stacks. Even during this past week. How’s that for contemplation?
Anyway, I need to go right now, but before I do, I also wanted to say, your other postings look great. I just skimmed through them quickly. I only just finally came across this blog and I can’t wait to read more.
I have a pretty good collection of texts myself, here at home, and now that I know there’s a good “discourse on deafhood” out there, my books will be accquiring many more new dog ears! Depend upon it.
Sara Stallard
2.
Anne Marie | October 9, 2006 at 3:32 am
Absolutely. Your critical explanation got the whole notion with the most recent movement pegged. It exactly articulates my sentiments, especially for students. Thanks Jon!
Anne Marie..catching up reading your thoughtful blogs.
3.
jhenner | October 9, 2006 at 11:52 am
Sara,
I am he. I am amused that your mnemonic chain associates me with a rather annoying 2002 lost, but I’m finding that a lot of people recognize me through that competition. I recently came across your former coach at the Vegas ASL-TA conference. While I didn’t recognize her, she came over and mentioned that her fondest memory of me, which is apparently captured on tape, was when I was chewing out another team member for ignoring my correct answer and possibly costing us the game (Actually, Adam Stone went on to get the next answer correct, so there’s no real way that we would’ve won based on that one question alone).
$750 is a nice consolidation prize, even though I ended up owing taxes on it.
I understand your frustrations that the printed word seems anathema for many Deaf. My opinion is that many have been conditioned to avoid English because they do not want to repeat their previous failures. In that case, I can understand, but not entirely excuse, their allergies.
Stay in touch.
Jon
4.
Katie Roberts | October 9, 2006 at 3:16 pm
John,
Thank you for providing us with a rich source of information and an academic perspective on this matter.
I am going to read through more of your texts when I get the time. i am particularly interested in how insitutional audism has taken roots in Gallaudet University. This is one thing that fascinates me most about this protest- how insitutional audism has colored the actions both of the protesters and of the administration.
Keep up the good work!
5.
jhenner | October 9, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Thanks Katie! If you find anything you feel might be useful to me, please sent it my way. I am increasingly having discussions on how inherent audism shapes how deaf people react to certain situations. I feel the answer to my curiosity is in Genie Gertz’s dissertation. I’ll be starting that next week and will be posting my analysis.
6.
netrox | November 2, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Interesting entry but being a deaf cuer, there’s a couple of misinformation about what you said regarding cued speech.
“In an environment which fosters oralism, which research will most likely be met with funding and general approval: research on bilingual education and the positive benefits of cultural dissemination, or research on phonetic cueing systems and applications for speech acquisition?”
Cued speech is really a misnomer since it doesn’t really represent speech sounds but rather linguistically revelant abstract phonemes of consonant-vowel languages. Cued Speech was termed by Dr Cornett who held a classical view that speech sounds and phonemes were the same. Now, we know it’s not the case anymore.
The consensus among the hearing cuers is that they shouldn’t be cueing what they hear but rather cue what they consider to be linguistically revelant to the meaning. For example, “latter” often sounds like “ladder” but if you’re cueing, you should never cue “ladder” but “la-tur.” It was clear that cuem has its own phonetic features separate from phonetics of speech. Additionally, the cues “e” and “t” are often ambigious to deaf cuers while “d” and “t” are very distinctive to them, but for hearing listeners, “d” and “t” are often ambigious while “e” and “t” are distinctive. Despite those ambigious phonetics, cuers and speakers are able to comprehend what’s being conveyed by using linguistic closure.
Cuem is a very powerful tool for the deaf, especially when the deaf wishes to learn English. The Deaf will only truly achieve equal access if they know cued English, a visual counterpart of spoken English. Cued English is a language using cuem and spoken English is a language using speech. Cuem is a visible modality while speech is an acoustic modality.
Knowing ASL well, I can say that there is absolutely NO WAY anyone can present English in signs. It just doesn’t work. Mouthing the words while signing is NOT the same as seeing English visually in cuem. Experiments proved signers wrong over and over no matter how deaf signers insist they see “English.” Many research papers comparing cued speech and SEE show that only cued speech has proven to give the deaf an accurate access to the phonological model of English (or any other languages). Cueing English allows the deaf to see English on a phonemic level and that is crucial for English acquisition. That is why most deaf cuers who were exposed to cued English since toddlers perform on the same level as the hearing who are exposed to spoken English.
In order to provide true Bi-Bi education, a deaf kid needs both cued English and ASL. To try to teach deaf children to read through ASL is just like trying to teach hearing children to read French by speaking English. Let the deaf acquire English through cuem and from there, the deaf would not feel frustrated with learning to read since they would have internalized the phonological model of English and recognized the relationship between cued english and written English, just like the hearing does with spoken English and written English.
7.
Scot | November 8, 2006 at 9:37 am
Jon:
You hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph:
“Critical theory shows us how language can be used to oppress, but also how language can be used to emancipate. Applications of critical theory and discourse theory will provide new vocabulary and narratives for the deaf, and hopefully change how society perceives its audistic tendencies.”
This is what I think is the key to all of this discourse. We all have subjective realities based on our upbringing, the social circles we fall in, education, etc. Critical theory assumes that when people become aware of their own situation, then they are likely to be called “into action”. Words like “institutional audism”, “dyconscious audism” need to be explained in conceptual terms that will encourage more dialogue and action. Critical theory is when discourse becomes action through the understanding of the oppression which occurs. As I may have mentioned before, Paulo Freire used specific language to help the poor people of Chile, and then Brazil to realize their own oppression and to do something about it through their discourse/action.
I think the key is to be able to have a discourse that is comfortable for all of the members of the community in which discourse is occuring. This is what is terrific about the current Deafhood courses coming from the folks in the Bay area- they seem to have been successful in breaking down the concepts in Dr. Paddy Ladd’s book into ASL and visual concepts and creating a phenomenal discussion on the topic of Deafhood. With a combination of courses, blogging, vlogging and just casual discussions on the topic, the discussions should become more rich and meaningful.