Diversity of Deaf Identities

Yael Bat-Chava

American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 145, Number 5, December 2000, pp.
420-428 (Article)

Published by Gallaudet University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0176

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/384063/summary

Access provided by Australian National University (29 Aug 2018 16:52 GMT)
Volume 14 5, N ο. 5, 2000

Diversity of Deaf Identities

ocial Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1981) posits that members of

minority groups achieve positive social identity by (a) attempting
to gain access to the mainstream through individual mobility or
(b) working with other group members to bring about social
change. Some people may use a combination of both strategies.
Through the use of cluster analysis, the existence of three
identities associated with these strategies was discerned in a
sample of 267 deaf adults: culturally hearing identity, culturally
deaf identity, and bicultural identity, each comprising about a
third of the sample. A subset of 56 people were interviewed in
depth; excerpts are presented to illustrate the identity types.
Qualified support was found for the prediction that people with
culturally deaf and bicultural identities would have higher self-
esteem.

Yael Bat-Chava According to Social Identity Theory
(Tajfel, 1981), an individual will remain a
member of a group if it contributes to
positive aspects of his or her social iden-
Bat-Chava is director
tity (e.g., self-esteem). If group member-
of research, League ship does not make such a positive contri-
for the Hard of bution—as in the case of groups whose
Hearing, New York, members are stigmatized by the major-
NY.
ity—the individual will attempt to leave
the group physically or psychologically.
One may effect psychological departure
by denying one's membership in the
group, attempting to achieve success in
the mainstream (the route of individual
mobility), or by claiming that the negative
characteristics associated with the group
do not apply to oneself. Leaving the
group, then, will result in higher self-es-
teem. Conversely, other members may
enhance their self-esteem by identifying
with their group and working toward so-
cial change. Such social change may in-
clude devaluing attributes and values of
the majority out-group (including disre-
garding the stigma associated with the in-
group), and valuing attributes and values
of the in-group.
These two strategies—individual mobil-
ity and social change—correspond to two
identities deaf people may assume.
Through the route of individual mobility,
deaf people may assume a culturally hear-
ing identity, assimilating as much as pos-
sible into the hearing world by using their
residual hearing (either through amplifica-
tion or cochlear implants) and speech-
reading. These individuals will achieve a
positive social identity through academic
and professional attainment. Through the
route of social change, other deaf people
may assume a culturally deaf identity,
coming together with other deaf individu-

Volume 145, No. 5, 2000 American Annals of the Deaf

als by using American Sign Language
(ASL) and participating in social, civic,
and political organizations and net-
works.
Although Social Identity Theory
posits the individual mobility and so-
cial change strategies as the two poles
of a continuum, other points on this
continuum may combine both strate-
gies. For example, some individuals
who are successful professionally in
the hearing world may identify with
the Deaf community and fight for so-
cial change. Such individuals could be
considered bicultural. Indeed, a scale
that measures deaf identities includes
these three, labeling them "hearing
identity" (perceiving deafness as a dis-
ability), "immersion" (perceiving deaf-
ness as a culture), and "bicultural"
(Glickman & Carey, 1993; Leigh,
Marcus, Dobosh, & Allen, 1998). A
fourth, "marginal" identity is proposed,
of people who are not sure about their
feelings toward their deafness.
Deaf Identities and Family
and School Histories
Deaf people with different identities
are hypothesized to have different
family and school histories. The de-
gree to which a deaf child is exposed
to other deaf children and adults in the
family and school is likely to have an
effect on the identity he or she will
develop as an adult.
Deafness and the Family
Most deaf children (90%) are born to
hearing parents (Moores, 2001), who
previously never thought much about
deafness. Therefore, health profes-
sionals and educators, who hold the
view that deafness is a disability,
shape parents' initial views of deaf-
ness. These hearing parents then
transmit this view to their deaf chil-
dren. (A minority of deaf parents may
themselves adhere to this view of
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
deafness as a disability. Such parents'
deaf children will likely adhere to this
view as well.) In contrast, deaf chil-
dren whose parents or siblings (or
both) are members of the Deaf com-
munity are more likely to be exposed
to the cultural model of deafness
through interaction with family and
the Deaf community.
A related feature of the family envi-
ronment is the communication method
used in the home. In the past, most
hearing parents were advised not to
use signs or gestures with their deaf
child, but rather to talk to him or her
(Jacobs, 1980). Heeding professionals'
advice, these parents tried to educate
their children by means of the oral
method (Swisher, 1989)· These prac-
tices, which are less prevalent today,
affected the participants in the present
study. Many hearing parents would
resist learning sign language even
when their children asked them to
(Foster, 1989). Culturally deaf parents,
by contrast, typically use ASL with
their deaf children, although in a study
of deaf students in local public high
schools, only 4% were reported to use
ASL at home (Kluwin & Stinson, 1993).
It is my hypothesis that children
whose parents are hearing or who
grew up in homes where spoken lan-
guage was the primary mode of com-
munication will be likely to adopt the
view of deafness as a disability, and
develop a culturally hearing identity.
Those who grew up with deaf parents
or in homes where sign language was
used will be likely to regard deafness
as a culture, and will identify them-
selves as culturally deaf.
Deafness and School
Another crucial factor in the develop-
ment of deaf children is the schools
they attend. Deaf children are placed
in different educational environments
that can be ordered along a continuum
of deafness to hearing, from residential
schools to full mainstreaming. The
culture within a deaf school facilitates
the construction of deafness as a cul-
ture (Johnston, 1997). A person who
has attended hearing schools, by con-
trast, is immersed in a hearing culture,
and absorbs the view of deafness as a
disability.
The mode of communication used
in the school is also important. Some
schools use oral English for instruc-
tion, while others use fingerspelling,
English-based sign systems, or ASL.
Attending schools where sign lan-
guage is used may foster the view of
deafness as a culture; attending
schools where sign language is not
used may foster the view of deafness
as a disability.
A person's identity may remain
static throughout his or her life, but
more often it changes as the person
develops. Emerton (1996) suggests
that most young deaf people today are
bicultural, as a consequence of expo-
sure to both the Deaf and hearing
communities. For deaf people who
grow up culturally hearing, frustration
with oral communication and a desire
for a richer social life may prompt the
learning of sign language and involve-
ment in the Deaf community. (Alter-
natively, some people may seek other
oral deaf people for social purposes
without learning to sign.) Deaf people
with a culturally deaf background may
seek greater involvement in the hear-
ing world if they become frustrated
with their more limited access to infor-
mation and to mainstream culture.
Deaf Identities and SeIf-
Esteem
Social Identity Theory predicts no dif-
ferences in self-esteem between
people with different identities. An-
other theory, however, proposes that
members of stigmatized groups who
have stronger group identity will have
higher self-esteem than those with
weaker group identity (Crocker & Ma-
jor, 1989). This is achieved through
American Annals of the Deaf
Deaf Identities
various mechanisms, such as devalu-
ing majority attributes (e.g., speech)
and beliefs (e.g., stigmatization of deaf
people), and valuing minority at-
tributes (e.g., signing) and values.
Research (Bat-Chava, 1993; 1994) has
shown that stronger deaf identities are
associated with higher self-esteem. I
therefore hypothesize that people with
culturally deaf and bicultural identities
will have higher self-esteem than
people with hearing identities.
In summary, the present study
sought to discern the presence of three
types of deaf identities (culturally deaf,
culturally hearing, and bicultural) in a
sample of deaf adults, and to identify
differences in family and school histo-
ries and in self-esteem in adults with
each of the identities. Quantitative
data on these groups are reported; one
person from each group is presented
to illustrate the types.
Method
Data were gathered in twro related
studies. First, a short questionnaire
was administered to deaf adults of all
ages, recruited from various sources.
In the second study, a subset of the
original sample was interviewed in
depth. Data from both studies are pre-
sented.
Questionnaire Study
Sample
Respondents were identified through
various sources: social/political
groups, service agencies, and organi-
zations that advocate either sign lan-
guage or oral communication. Partici-
pants wrere informed of the purpose of
the study in sign language when ques-
tionnaires were distributed in meetings
or classes, or in a cover letter when
questionnaires were sent through the
mail. Of 646 questionnaires, 41% were
returned. The 267 deaf adults (117
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
men, 150 women) who participated in
the study ranged in age from 16 to 87
years, with a mean age of 42.9 years.
The parents of 237 respondents
(88.8%) were hearing; 28 respondents
(10.5%) had deaf parents; 2 (0.7%) re-
spondents had one deaf parent and
one hearing parent. These percent-
ages are similar to those reported in a
national survey of deaf adults (Schein
& DeIk, 1974). Although respondents
were recruited from the New York City
area, many had grown up in other re-
gions of the United States, and thus
constitute a representative sample of
deaf adults. (Additional participant
characteristics are provided in Bat-
Chava, 1994).
Measures
By means of a short questionnaire,
several variables were assessed. Four
variables (described below) were used
to group research participants into
identity clusters. In addition, the ecol-
ogy of family and school histories, as
wrell as self-esteem—the outcome vari-
able—were measured. Membership in
identity clusters wras hypothesized to
be associated both with the ecological
variables and the outcome variable.
Questions were pilot-tested and re-
vised when necessary.
Cluster Variables. Language is con-
sidered a main feature of culture in
general (Sherzer, 1987) and of Deaf
culture in particular: "Within the deaf
community, communication prefer-
ence and skill, the relative emphasis
that members give to signing and
speaking, is an important basis on
which relationships are organized"
(Higgins, 1980, p. 49). A person who
regards signing as important, there-
fore, could be classified as adhering to
the model of deafness as a culture.
Those who believe that signing is not
important but that speech is important
can, conversely, be perceived as hold-
ing the view that deafness is a disabil-
ity. Based on Phinney's (1990) list of
ethnic identity components, two other
characteristics of cultural identification
can be discerned: (a) association with
other deaf individuals and involve-
ment with deaf institutions and organi-
zations, and (b) positive attitudes to-
ward deafness and deaf people.
The importance of sign language
and the importance of speech were
each measured by a single question,
answered on a 4-point scale ranging
from "not important at all" (1) to "very
important" (4):
Importance of sign: There are some
things that deaf people can do and
hearing people cannot. For ex-
ample, most deaf people can sign
better than hearing people. How
important do you think signing
skills are? (M = 3.40; SD = .80)
Importance of speech: There are
some things that hearing people
can do and deaf people cannot.
For example, most hearing people
have better spoken language skills
than deaf people. How important
do you think spoken language skills
are' (M = 3.23; SD= .87)
The construct group identification
was assessed by means of two items:
(a) percentage of deaf friends and (b)
level of involvement with the Deaf
community. (The question "Do you
feel that you are a part of the Deaf
community?" was scored on a 3-point
scale from "not at all" to "very much.")
The two items were highly correlated,
r = .71, p < .001. To achieve a com-
mon scale, percentage of deaf friends
was categorized into three groups (0-
33%; 34-67%>; and 68-100%), and the
two items were averaged to a common
scale from 1 to 3 (M = 2.38; SD = .75).
(Group identification measured identi-
fication with deaf people. No attempt
was made to separately measure the
level of identification with hearing
American Annals of the Deaf
people.)
To assess attitudes toward deaf
people, three items from the revised
Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons
scale, form O (ATDP-O), were used
(Yuker, Block, & Campbell, I960; re-
vised by Furnham & Lane, 1984).
Higher scores indicate more positive
attitudes. The items were: "Deaf
people are just as smart as hearing
people," "Deaf people are more easily
upset than hearing people" (reversed),
and "Deaf people are as happy as
hearing people." Questions were an-
swered on a 4-point scale ranging
from "strongly disagree" (1) to
"strongly agree" (4); M = 2.94; SD =
.55; alpha = .47. (Although this is a
relatively low reliability coefficient,
further analysis indicates that remov-
ing any one of the three items would
not result in a higher reliability coeffi-
cient. Moreover, correlations were
calculated between the three items of
this scale and the other scales de-
scribed in the method section of the
present study. All three items correlate
with the other scales in the same direc-
tion and the same magnitude. Thus, it
was decided to treat these three items
as a scale.)
Ecological Variables. Family deaf-
ness was assessed with an index of
two items: (a) family hearing status,
scored on a 3-point scale ranging from
O (no other deaf family members) to 2
(both parents were deaf); and (b) fam-
ily mode of communication, scored on
a 3-point scale ranging from O (oral
communication) to 2 (sign as primary
mode of communication). Scores
were summed to form a single scale
from O to 4 (M = .79; SD = 1.23).
School deafness was assessed with an
index of three items: (a) types of
schools attended, scored on a 3-point
scale ranging from O (hearing school)
to 2 (residential school); and (b) mode
of communication used in class and
(c) out of class, each scored on a 2-
point scale ranging from O (oral) to 1
(sign). The three scores were
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
weighted by number of years in atten-
dance at each type of school and
summed to a scale from O to 4 (M =
1.65; SD = 1.36).
Items also assessed participants'
age, gender, age at onset of deafness,
and ability to hear with and without a
hearing aid. These last two items were
scored O (no) or 1 (yes).
Outcome Variable. Self-esteem was
assessed with three items from the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(Rosenberg, 1979): (a) "I take a posi-
tive attitude toward myself"; (b) "On
the whole, I am satisfied with myself";
and (c) "Sometimes I think I am no
good at all" (reversed). Answers were
indicated on a 4-point scale ranging
from "strongly disagree" (1) to
"strongly agree" (4); M = 3-18, SD =
.55, alpha = .63.
Interview Study
Semistructured interviews were con-
ducted with 56 respondents, ages 16 to
42 years, who had completed the
questionnaire. The interview ques-
tions asked about family and school
histories, current involvement with
deaf individuals and organizations,
and attitudes toward the self, deafness,
and other deaf people. Excerpts from
the interviews are provided below
under the heading "Examples of Clus-
ter Members" to illustrate the identity
types derived from the quantitative
data.
Results
A ¿-means cluster algorithm (Hartigan,
1975) was used to discern identities
based on the four criterion variables:
importance of signing, importance of
speech, group identity, and attitudes
toward deaf people. The ¿-means pro-
cedure minimizes within-cluster vari-
ance on criterion variables and maxi-
mizes differences between clusters.
Scores on the four criterion variables
were first standardized so that scales
with larger variance would not domi-
nate the analysis (Rapkin & Luke,
1993)· Based on examination of
dendograms (tree diagrams of cluster
solutions), several solutions were
closely evaluated for interpretability,
and a four-cluster solution was se-
lected. Figure 1 portrays the profiles
of the four clusters. (The zero refer-
ence line is the mean, and scores are
expressed in standard deviations
above and below the mean.)
Description of Clusters
People with culturally deaf identities
(n = 81; 33%o of the sample) believe
that signing is very important, and that
clear speech is not. They are very
much a part of the Deaf community,
and their attitudes toward other deaf
people are neither positive nor nega-
tive. Those with culturally hearing
identities (n = 58, 24% of the sample)
believe that signing well is not impor-
tant, and that clear speech is very im-
portant. They do not feel at all that
they are a part of the Deaf community,
and their attitudes toward deaf people
are negative. People with bicultural
identities (n = 82, 34% of the sample)
feel that both sign language and
speech are important, their identifica-
tion with other deaf people is of aver-
age strength, and they have the most
positive attitudes toward deaf people
of all of the clusters. Finally, a small
group of people have negative identi-
ties (n = 22; 9% of the sample), feeling
that both sign language and speech
are extremely unimportant, and hav-
ing below-average levels of both
group identity and positive attitude
toward deaf people. (Because of miss-
ing data, only 243 of the 267 partici-
pants in the present study were classi-
fied into clusters.)
To examine whether any of the de-
mographic, ecological, and outcome
variables differentiated among the
American Annals of the Deaf
 Deaf Identities
clusters, a series of one-way analyses
of variance were conducted, with clus-
ter membership used as the indepen-
dent variable. When appropriate, post
hoc Scheffé tests were conducted. As
predicted, cluster membership was re-
lated to school deafness, F(3, 239) =
8.28, p < .001. People with culturally
deaf and negative identities attended
schools that were higher in deafness
orientation (Ms = 2.16 and 2.31, re-
spectively), compared to people with
culturally hearing and bicultural iden-
tities (Ms = 1.37 and 1.36, respec-
tively).
Cluster membership was also re-
lated to age, F(3, 239) = 3.25, Ï• < .02;
age at onset of deafness, F(5, 221) =
4.11, p < .007; and ability to hear with
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
hearing aids, Kd, 231) = 3.15, p < .03.
The culturally deaf group was signifi-
cantly older then the bicultural group
(Ms = 46.33 and 37.91, respectively),
culturally hearing people became deaf
later (M = 3.21) than culturally deaf
people (M = .41), and bicultural indi-
viduals could hear better with hearing
aids (M = .68) than culturally deaf
people (M = .44). Cluster membership
was not related to gender, or ability to
hear without hearing aids.
Contrary to prediction, cluster
membership was not related to family
deafness, although examination of the
means shows that culturally deaf indi-
viduals came from homes with higher
levels of deafness orientation (M =
1.09) than all other groups (M = 0.62,
culturally hearing; M = 0.68, bicultural
identity; M = 0.76, negative identity).
Cluster membership was only margin-
ally related to self-esteem, F(3, 237) =
2.36, p < .07. Culturally deaf and bi-
cultural individuals had higher self-es-
teem scores (Ms = 3-27 and 3.24, re-
spectively) than culturally hearing
people and those with negative identi-
ties (Ms = 3-05 and 3-06, respectively).
To enable a clearer understanding
of these clusters, excerpts from inter-
views are presented in the following
section, illustrating three of the four
identity clusters. (No participants from
the negative identity cluster volun-
teered to be interviewed.) Interview
excerpts are also used to introduce the
dynamic nature of identities.
American Annals of the Deaf
Examples of Cluster Members
Culturally Deaf Identity: Mark
Angus
Mark Angus (all names in this and the
following case studies are fictional)
exemplifies the culturally deaf cluster.
He is in his late thirties, and his par-
ents and sister are deaf. Growing up,
he attended an oral residential school.
He then attended college at Gallaudet
University and graduate school at a
hearing university. He now teaches
ASL at an interpreter training program.
During the interview he and I used
ASL to communicate.
Mark believes that skill in sign lan-
guage is crucial for deaf people. He
reports wishing that he had been al-
lowed to use sign in elementary and
high school, and said that he chose to
attend Gallaudet because "finally I
could sign in the classroom!" He also
believes that English should be taught
to deaf children as a second language
through ASL. Discussing the impor-
tance of speech, Mark said: "Having to
read lips in school was really frustrat-
ing; it was a traumatic experience....
Not until I finished school did I under-
stand that oralism was good for com-
municating with the hearing." He
rates his speech as "poor" and his lip-
reading as "fair," but he believes that
lipreading is important "for
survival...so people can help you."
About his group identity, Mark
commented: "Growing up, I used to
go to deaf church with my family, pic-
nics, and other events. Most of the
time we'd socialize with other deaf
people." As an adult, he said, "I have
more deaf friends than hearing, maybe
75% and 25%>." His choice of occupa-
tion, too, indicates a strong connection
to the Deaf community. He is a mem-
ber of many deaf organizations, and
he subscribes to deaf newspapers and
magazines. Asked about his attitudes
toward deafness and deaf people, he
said: "Deafness was given to me by
God; why fight it? Why object to it?
Why deny it? It's my life; I'm deaf,
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
that's it. I'm happy with who I am."
It is worth noting that Mark's iden-
tity as a culturally deaf person did not
shift between childhood and adult-
hood. He was raised as a culturally
deaf person and remains one later in
life.
Culturally Hearing Identity: Oliver
Garrison
Oliver Garrison exemplifies culturally
hearing people. Although he was pro-
foundly deaf from birth, his hearing
family strongly stressed oralism. He
attended hearing schools all his life,
and he currently works as an engineer.
He used speech and lipreading to
communicate during the interview.
Regarding the importance of sign,
Oliver said: "Sign language, I don't
believe in it.... I'm as uncomfortable
with sign language as someone else. I
don't understand it and I don't think
it's necessary for myself, for my situa-
tion." Oliver thinks that being able to
speak well is very important, and he
rates his speech as "very good" and his
lipreading as "excellent." He is proud
of his ability to read people's lips from
afar, saying, "Lipreading is great, it re-
ally helps me."
Oliver refers to himself as a "hear-
ing deaf man": "That means that I'm
deaf, but I consider myself a hearing
person. Being deaf does not hold me
back from being part of the hearing
world." He has very few friends, and
they are all hearing. He is a member
of the A. G. Bell Association for the
Deaf, an organization that advocates
oralism. Oliver expresses very nega-
tive feelings toward the deaf world:
"Being part of the deaf world scares
me. I don't agree with the philosophy
of institutions like Gallaudet because I
don't agree with a total deaf environ-
ment." He believes that two deaf
people should not marry lest they
transmit deafness to their offspring.
When asked, "If you could take a pill
and become hearing, would you do
it?" he responded, "Of course! That's a
ridiculous question, of course I would
do it!"
Like Mark's, Oliver's hearing iden-
tity is static. Oliver was raised in the
hearing world and remains in that
world in adulthood.
Bicultural Identity: Amanda Scott
Amanda Scott comes from a hearing
family. She attended an oral deaf
school and hearing schools; for col-
lege she attended the National Techni-
cal Institute for the Deaf. She has two
master's degrees and works in a hu-
man services agency with deaf clients.
We used a mix of sign and speech
during the interview.
Amanda recommends that ASL be
used in teaching deaf children, and
that deaf students have "as many deaf
teachers as possible and hearing
people skilled in ASL." Amanda re-
ports that her speech and lipreading
skills are good. She said: "Do I think
that it is important to speak clearly and
to read lips? Maybe. Sometimes yes
and sometimes no.... It's easier to use
speech in the hearing world; on the
other hand, there are more important
things to be concerned about than
talking; speech is important, but it
should not become the raison d'être of
deaf education."
Amanda did not associate with deaf
people during early adolescence, but
then decided to attend a college that
had many deaf students. "I started to
socialize with deaf people and I was
really in the deaf experience, in the
deaf world." Her preference for deaf
people extends to her employment.
She is employed in a deaf program
within a hearing agency, preferring to
work with deaf clients because of the
ease of communication: "It feels more
normal for me, more natural."
Amanda believes that deaf people are
just as intelligent and happy as hearing
people: "There is nothing negative
about being deaf in and of itself.
American Annals of the Deaf
 Deaf Identities
What's negative is other people's treat-
ment of deaf people. People should
focus on abilities, on health and
strengths, rather than on inabilities."
Amanda's identity underwent a shift
from childhood to adulthood. Al-
though she had a culturally hearing
identity earlier in life, in young adult-
hood she became involved in the Deaf
community and has remained in-
volved in it into her adulthood, with-
out abandoning some of the culturally
hearing values she grew up with.
Discussion
Three types of deaf identities were dis-
cerned in the present study. About a
third of the sample identified as cultur-
ally deaf, a quarter had culturally hear-
ing identities, and another third had
bicultural identities. In addition, a
minority of deaf adults had negative
identities. These findings support So-
cial Identity Theory, which asserts that
members of stigmatized groups vari-
ously use the individual mobility route
(in this case, culturally hearing iden-
tity) and social change route (in this
case, culturally deaf identity) in con-
fronting stigmatization by the majority.
In addition, some people use a combi-
nation of both routes (in this case, bi-
cultural identity). Although no previ-
ous studies used cluster analysis to
classify deaf identities, similar identi-
ties were found in samples of deaf
adolescents (Weinberg & Steritt, 1986)
and adults (Glickman & Carey, 1993).
The advantage of the present study
over previous ones is the use of only a
few questions to categorize people's
identities. In addition, whereas inves-
tigators in previous studies viewed
identity as a unidimensional construct,
the classification in the present study
considers attitudes about language
and communication modalities, and
toward deaf people, as well as in-
volvement with deaf people and insti-
tutions.
The relationships between cluster
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
membership and other constructs fur-
ther validate the meaning of the clus-
ters. For example, the finding that
people with culturally hearing identi-
ties were deafened later than those
with culturally deaf identities can be
explained in two ways. First, cultur-
ally deaf people come from families
that are more "deaf" than all other
groups (although this difference was
not statistically significant). Deafness,
then, is more likely to be genetic and
congenital, rather than acquired. Sec-
ond, hearing parents of children who
have learned spoken language before
becoming deaf are likely to try to raise
their children in an oral environment,
in contrast to parents whose children
were born deaf or became deaf before
acquiring spoken language.
Further validating the meaning of
the clusters is the finding that school
deafness is related to cluster member-
ship: People with culturally deaf iden-
tities attended schools with a stronger
deafness orientation than the schools
attended by those people with hearing
and bicultural identities. (This differ-
ence was marginally significant.) It is
likely that in deaf schools, students
interacted with deaf peers and learned
early that there were others like them.
Even in schools that used oral commu-
nication in the classroom, sign lan-
guage was used outside of classes with
peers and sometimes with school per-
sonnel (Janesick & Moores, 1992).
People who attended deaf schools
were easily integrated into the Deaf
community upon graduation. In con-
trast, fully mainstreamed deaf students
did not know other deaf students or
adults, and did not become part of the
Deaf community in adulthood. Be-
cause of recent shifts in deaf educa-
tion, with more children being edu-
cated in the mainstream than ever
before (Bowe, 1993), members of the
culturally deaf cluster wrere signifi-
cantly older than those from the bicul-
tural group.
The prediction that people with
culturally deaf and bicultural identities
would have higher self-esteem than
those with culturally hearing identities
received qualified support. Although
Social Identity Theory does not predict
differences in self-esteem, Crocker and
Major (1989) posit that members of
stigmatized groups with stronger
group identity would employ several
psychological mechanisms to protect
their self-esteem from the majority's
negative attitudes. As hypothesized,
the present study finds that deaf
people employ these mechanisms:
valuing deaf attributes and devaluing
hearing attributes. In addition, those
with stronger deaf identities (culturally
deaf and bicultural individuals) have
somewhat higher self-esteem than
those with weaker deaf identities (cul-
turally hearing and negative identi-
ties). As research with ethnic and ra-
cial groups and with other
marginalized groups has demonstrated
(e.g., Michaelieu, 1997; Walters &
Simoni, 1993), identification with one's
group is an asset to one's psychologi-
cal well-being. Further research will
need to show whether various deaf
identities have an effect on other posi-
tive outcomes, such as academic and
occupational achievement, as well as
satisfaction with various aspects of life.
The shift in deaf education over the
past two decades (Bowe, 1993) has
meant that more deaf children and
adolescents attend hearing schools
than in the past. In this educational
environment, deaf students have few
opportunities to interact with deaf
peers. Their self-esteem and their op-
portunities for an active social life and
participation in leadership roles are
therefore more limited. Introducing
adolescents who attend hearing
schools and who have hearing identi-
ties to deaf peers and role models may
lead to a more bicultural identity,
which would enhance these adoles-
cents' psychological well-being. Fu-
ture research may enable us to identify
adolescents who could benefit from
such a shift in identity, as well as aid
professionals in the field of deafness in
American Annals of the Deaf
designing environments that could
trigger this shift.
Static and Dynamic
Identities: Directions for
Future Study
The identities described in the present
article are static "snapshots" in time.
Personal experience as well as theo-
retical (Deaux, 1993) and empirical lit-
erature (Ethier & Deaux, 1994;
Hormuth, 1990), however, indicate
that identities shift and change. Most
of the people in the present study with
culturally deaf or hearing identities
reported no major shifts in identity
from childhood to adulthood. Indi-
viduals with bicultural identities, con-
versely, showed a shift in their identi-
ties. Most of them grew up in hearing
homes and schools and initially had
culturally hearing identities. In late
adolescence or early adulthood, how-
ever, they discovered sign language or
encountered deaf role models. This
"encounter," not unlike that described
by Cross (1971, 1991) among Black
Americans, prompted these individu-
als with hearing identities to learn sign
language and become involved in the
Deaf community. They did not, how-
ever, abandon some of the values
learned during childhood (such as the
importance of speech), and hence can
be regarded as bicultural. A small
number of oral deaf people inter-
viewed for the present study became
involved with other oral deaf individu-
als and organizations. They maintain
their culturally hearing identities and
foster social relationships with other
oral deaf individuals. Because of their
small number in the sample, it is im-
possible to determine if their level of
self-esteem is different from that of
those who became involved in the
signing Deaf community.
One major question about this
change in identity remains open: What
are the factors that differentiate people
with culturally hearing identities who
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
incorporate deafness into bicultural
identities from those who do not? The
majority of people in the present
sample who reported such a shift were
women (Bat-Chava & Lindermayer,
1995). Why would women be more
likely to experience an identity shift
than men? This finding needs to be
replicated with other samples. It is
also not known whether other demo-
graphic variables are associated with
such a change in identity. A psycho-
logical construct that has been hypoth-
esized to facilitate identity change in
adulthood is the personality trait of
openness to experience (Whitbourne,
1986). Another impetus for intentional
self-change can be provided by a
stressor (Kiecolt, 1994)—that is, indi-
viduals who experience more stress
related to their compromised ability to
communicate orally and to feelings of
loneliness may be more motivated to
learn sign language and to seek deaf
peers. Levels of loneliness and frustra-
tion with oral communication could be
assessed in future studies to determine
how these conditions relate to change
in identity.
Contextual factors may also have an
effect on identity change. Several in-
terviews with participants in the
present study suggest that an identity
change occurred with normative life
transitions. For example, a fully
mainstreamed student who started at-
tending a new high school discovered
deaf peers and sign language in a pro-
gram for deaf students in her school.
Another person recalled meeting other
deaf students for the first time when
she started attending college. Re-
search with other samples (e.g.,
Hormuth, 1990) shows that identity
changes as context shifts.
A larger contextual factor is the so-
cial, political, and historical environ-
ment in which deaf people live. The
present study was conducted several
years after the 1988 Deaf President
Now protest at Gallaudet University. It
is possible that a similar study con-
ducted before the protest or at a future
point in time would have shown dif-
ferent proportions of the sample ex-
hibiting the various identities. Simi-
larly, with the advent of more
sophisticated technological solutions
to hearing loss, children are now using
better hearing aids and some use co-
chlear implants. It is possible that
these technologies make oral commu-
nication less frustrating, and that
today's deaf children educated in the
mainstream will be less likely to turn
to the Deaf culture as a result of frus-
tration with oral communication. Fu-
ture research will need to examine
demographic, psychological, and con-
textual factors that affect deaf identities
as well as change in identity.
Note
This article is based on my doctoral
dissertation at the City University of
New York, under the supervision of
Kay Deaux. I thank my colleagues at
the League for the Hard of Hearing for
their comments on early drafts of this
paper. Correspondence regarding this
article should be addressed to Yael
Bat-Chava, Ph.D., Director of Re-
search, League for the Hard of Hear-
ing, 71 W. 23rd Street, New York, NY
10010 (e-mail ybat- chava@lhh.org).-
The Author.
References
Bat-Chava, Y. (1993). Antecedents of self-esteem
in deaf people: A meta-analytic review. Re-
habilitation Psychology, 38(4), 221-234.
Bat-Chava, Y. (1994). Group identification and
self-esteem of deaf adults. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 494-502.
Bat-Chava, Y., & Lindermayer, K. (1995, July).
Diversity and change in deaf identities. Paper
presented at the 18th International Congress
on Education of the Deaf, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Bowe, F. G. (1993). Getting there: Update on
recommendations by the COED. American
Annals of the Deaf, 138, 304-308.'
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and
self-esteem: The self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.
Cross, W. (1971). Toward a psychology of Black
liberation: The Negro-to-Black conversion
experience. Black World, 21, 13- 27.
Cross, W. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in
African American identity. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
American Annals of the Deaf
Deaf Identities
Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
19, 4-12.
Emerton, R. G. (1996). Marginality, biculturalism,
and social identity of deaf people. In I.
Parasnis (Ed.), Cultural and language diver-
sity and the deaf experience (pp. 136-145).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social
identity when contexts change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 67. 243-
251.
Foster, S. (1989). Social alienation and peer iden-
tification: A study of the social construction
of deafness. Human Organization. 48(Y).
226-235.
Furnham, A., & Lane, S. (1984). Actual and per-
ceived attitudes toward deafness. Psychologi-
cal Medicine, 14, 417-423.
Glickman, N. S., & Carey, J. C. (1993). Measur-
ing deaf cultural identities: A preliminary in-
vestigation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 18,
275-283.
Hartigan. J. (1975). Clustering algorithms. New
York: Wiley.
Higgins, P. C. (1980). Outsiders in a hearing
world: A sociology of deafness. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hormuth, S. E. (1990). The ecology of the self:
Relocation and self-concept change. Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, L. M. (1980). A deaf adult speaks oui.
Volume 145, No. 5, 2000
Washington. DC: Gallaudet College Press.
Janesick, V. J., & Moores, D. F. (1992). Ethnic
and cultural considerations. In T. N. Kluwin,
D. F. Moores, & M. G. Gaustacl (Eds.), To-
ward effective public school programs for
deaf students (pp. 49-65). New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Johnston, E. (1997). Residential schools offer
students Deaf culture. Perspectives in Educa-
tion and Deafness, 76(2), 4-5, 24.
Kiecolt, J. K. (1994). Stress and the decision to
change oneself: A theoretical model. Social
Psychology: Quarterly. 57, 49-63.
Kluwin, T. N., & Stinson, M. S. (Eds.). (1993).
Deaf students in local public high schools.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Leigh, I. W., Marcus, A. L., Dobosh. P. K., &
Allen, T. E. (1998). Deaf/hearing cultural
identity paradigms: Modification of the Deaf
Identity Development Scale. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 329-338.
Michaelieu, Q. (1997). Female identity,
gendered parenting and adolescent women's
self-esteem. Feminism and Psychology, 7.
328-333.
Moores, D. F. (2001). Educating the Deaf Psy-
chology, principles and practices (5th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adoles-
cents and adults: Review of research. Psycho-
logical Bulletin. 108. 499-514.
Rapkin, B. D., & Luke, D. A. (1993)- Cluster
analysis in community research: Epistemol-
ogy and practice. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 21, 247-277.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New
York: Basic Books.
Schein, J., & DeIk, M. (1974). '[he deaf popula-
tion of the United States. Silver Spring, MD:
National Association of the Deaf.
Sherzer, J. (1987). A discourse-centered approach
to language and culture. American Anthro-
pologist, 89, 295-309.
Swisher, M. V. (1989). The language-learning
situation of deaf students. Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly, 23,
239-257.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social cat-
egories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Walters, K. L., & Simoni, J. M. (1993). Lesbian and
gay male group identity attitudes and self-es-
teem: Implications for counseling. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 40, 94-99.
Weinberg, N.."& Steritt, M. (1986). Disability and
identity: A study of identity patterns in ado-
lescents with hearing impairments. Rehabili-
tation Psychology, 31, 95-102.
Whitbourne, S. K. (1986). Openness to experi-
ence, identity flexibility, and life changes in
adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology. 50. 163-168.
Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R.. & Campbell, W. J.
(I960). A scale to measure attitudes toward
disabled persons: Human resource study
number 5. Albertson, NY: Human Resources
Center.
American Annals of the Deaf