Self-image, Family Climate, and Deafness

The process of developing self-image in the deaf child is examined from the perspective of symbolic interactionist theory. Deaf children with deaf parents are compared to deaf children with hearing parents. It was predicted that deaf children with deaf parents would demonstrate more positive self-images because of the presence of family communication (the manual language of signs) and the less traumatic reaction of the family to a diagnosis of deafness. Evidence from test scores, teacher-counselor ratings, and family interviews indicates that the deaf children with deaf parents made more positive self-evaluations, as preclicted. It is suggested that differences in parental expectations for academic and communicative achievement, in relation to the child's ability to fulfill parental goals, is a prime influence on selfimage. The child's definition and interpretation of his own situation, relative to siblings and peers, is also important. T his paper reports the results of an investigation of the development of self-image in two groups of children who became profoundly deaf before the acquisition of language, thus being incapable of achieving a symbolic system of communication through the normal channels of speech. In addition to this linguistic or symbolic handicap, it may be assumed that they may be subjected to social attitudes which regard any physical defect as a stigmatizing mark. Because of the occasional genetic transmnission of deafness,' it was possible to locate a group of *This investigation was supported in part by a fellowship from Social and Rehabilitation Services. Preliminiary work was done in conjunction with an NIMH Training Program in Personality and Social Structure (Grant No. MH-8268). Particularly helpful in the development of the research design and analysis of data was Dr. John A. Clausen. In addition, I am grateful to Professors Herbert Blumer and Susan Ervin-Tripp, and to Dr. Constance Holstein and Dr. Lloyd Meadow, who offered suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. 1 The best and most recent attempt to delineate the characteristics of a deaf population is reported in John B. Rainer, Kenneth Z. Altshuler, Franz J. Kallman (eds.), Famnily anzd Mental Health Problemis in a Deaf Poputlation (New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute, Columbia UniThis content downloaded from 157.55.39.243 on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:50:03 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms S'ELF-IMAGE AND DEAFSESS 429 deaf children whose mothers and fathers were deaf. These children of deaf parents could then be compared to another group of deaf childlren, whose mothers and fathers were hearing. Inherent in this comparison are two separate but related "conditions" which are relevant to a consideration of the individual's "self" or of his "self-image" from the theoretical point of view of symbolic interaction. The first differential conclition which makes a comparison of cleaf and hearinig families with deaf children theoretically significant is the contrast in systematic systemns of commnunication which are available to them. The second (potential) differentiating conclition is related to attitudes toward deaflness and to the diagniosis of deafness in a very young child. The theoretical implications of these two conclitions will be discussed in turn. LANGUAGE AND THE SELF Language, as it relates to the development of the self, is of central importance to the sociological perspective of symbolic interaction elaborated in the writings of Mead and Cooley, and more recently by Blumer, Shibutani, andl Strauss, among others.2 At the core of this perspective is the notion that the individual is a human being, as opposed to an animal or a 1nere physical body, only insofar as he can see himself as others see him, and then act toward himself from the perspective of knowing, or imagining from prior cues, what their reactions to his acts may be. "The self" can become an object to itself by means of the manipulation of symbols, that is, througli the use of language. Thus, the incliviclual need not "see" the actual response of significant others to his behavior after the event, in orcler to "know" how they might react. He can make symbolic indications to himself, on the basis of previous experiences, imputed sentiments, a variety of situations, the interaction which is likely to follow a particular act. As noted above, language in the usual sense does not develop naturally amiiong deaf children as it does in normal hearing children. Neither receptive nor expressive communication with others through speech is available to a deaf child without a prolonged and arduous course of special training in lipreading and voice production. (Indeed many, if not most, deaf persons never achieve speech patterns whiclh can be understood by the general public.) Some deaf children, nevertheless, do acquire a viable system of communication at the age when normal children learn language through speech. These are the childlren of cleaf parents, whose regular means of communication within the family is the manual language of signs.3 This comparative availability of symbolic commuversity Press, 1963). These investigators found that approximately 7 percent of the deaf population have one or both parents who are also deaf (computed from table 2, p. 16). They found that almost 30 percent of the marriages where both partners were born deaf, and from 14 to 21 percent of those where only one partner was born deaf, resulted in deaf children, usually more than one. Among the factors perpetuating the size of our deaf population (present population frequency of early total deafness: 0.06 percent) are relatively high marriage and fertility rates, a possible compensatory trend toward larger family size in families with at least one child, an(d the assortative mating patterni that continues to be typical of deaf communities. In our sample, only 5 percent of women born deaf and less than 10 perecnt of those that became deaf at an early age have been foundcl to be married to hearing mcn. The vast majority have husbands who have been deaf since birth or early childhood (pp. 26-27). 2 George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934) ; Charles H. Cooley, Social Or-ganiation (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920), and HIufmain Nature and the Social Order (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902; rev. ed., 1922) ; Herbert Blumer, "Society as Symbolic Interaction," in Arnold Rose (ed.), Hitnan Behavior anld Social Processes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962), and "Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead," Aiwericait Journal of Sociology, 71 (1966), pp. 535-544; Tamotsu Shibutani, Society awd Personality (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1961); and Anselm Strauss, Mirrors and Masks, the Search for Idetttity (Glencoe, Illnois: Free Press, 1959). 3 There has been a good deal of debate concerning the nature and the quality of the language of signs. Those who would denigrate it insist that it is "lacking in syntax" and richness of expression. However, the fact remains that it is a viable means of communication among deaf adults, and it is this aspect which concerns us lhere. This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.243 on Wed, 05 Oct 2016 04:50:03 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms