The development of the deaf child and the nature of parenting deaf children are best understood from an ecosystemic perspective, since child development and parenting do not occur in a vacuum, but rather in a complex set of interrelated systems over a period of time. Bronfenbrenner’s (1992: 191) ecological systems theory, which was developed in the 70s, and revised in the eighties as the bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998: 996), has relevance for this study. The ecological systems theory is an example of a multidimensional model of human development (Swart & Pettipher, 2005: 10; Swart & Phasha, 2005: 214; Engelbrecht & Green, 2001: 8). According to this theory there are several layers of systems which interact, resulting in change, growth, and development. The relationships among the various systems are multifaceted and reciprocal; what happens in one system influences and is influenced by other systems (Swart & Pettipher, 2005: 10). The ecosystemic theory of human development explains the complexity of interrelationships between the child and various other systems that influence the child within the environment (Green, 2001: 3; Donald et al.,2002: 47).
At the centre of the ecosystem is the deaf child. However, the child does not live in isolation but within a family unit which, in turn, does not function in isolation but within a community. The community is an integral part of society in which other systems such as the school, clinic or hospital function in direct or indirect relation to the child and the family. An ecosystemic perspective of development takes into
25
consideration that the characteristics of the child “interact with the characteristics of the environment to produce a unique system that influences, and is influenced by, interactions in ever-broadening, hierarchically layered contexts” (Spencer, Erting &
Marschark, 2000: xviii).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecosystemic theory suggests that the environment can be conceived of as “a set of nested structures”, each contained within the next and therefore interdependent and interrelated. The four nested systems are the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem and the macrosystem, all of which interact with, and are influenced by the chronosystem (Swart & Pettipher, 2005: 10; Swart & Phasha, 2005:
215; Donald et al., 2002: 51). Microsystems are systems such as family, school, and peer group in which the child is an active participants and is involved in continuous, face to face interactions with familiar people. Mesosystems refer to a set of interrelated microsystems and the interactions that exist between them, for example, the interrelationships between the peer group, family and school. Exosystems include other systems in which the child is not directly involved as an active participant, but which may influence or be influenced by what happens in settings and relationships that directly influence the child. For example, the parent’s stressful relationship with an employer may indirectly affect the parent’s relationship with the child.
Macrosystems refer to the dominant social structures which include attitudes, beliefs, and values of a particular society or culture. For example, democracy, human rights and social justice policies, may influence or be influenced by other systems. All these systems are interrelated with the chronosystem, which marks changes over time.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory has direct relevance for our understanding of the deaf child’s relationships within the family, school, and classroom, the interrelationships within them, as well as how these systems are embedded in the community. Although the family, school and community are systems in themselves, they are interrelated within the broader social context. The multidirectionality of the relationships within and between families, schools and communities and the levels of interacting systems result in change, growth and development (Swart & Pettipher, 2005: 10; Swart & Phasha, 2005: 215; Donald et al., 2002: 47).
26
An analogy is made, using the concept of a spider’s web, to explain the multifaceted and reciprocal nature of these relationships. Anything that happens in any part of the web affects all parts of the web. Further, the ecosystemic way of thinking is that actions can trigger other actions within and between systems in a cyclical way. Thus the way individuals behave, feel, think, and develop is interwoven with the relationships, forces, and social structures that constitute their environment (Donald et al., 2002: 45-49).
In order to understand fully the development of the deaf child and parenting from an ecosystemic perspective the psycho-sociological and sociological determinants of parenting must be considered (Bornstein, 1995: xxiii). Just as the child’s development does not take place in isolation from the context of the family, home, school and social setting, so too does parenting not occur in a vacuum. The context in which parents nurture, educate and strive to understand their children as well as themselves as parents, is influenced by the forces that constitute the larger, socio-political world (Zigler, 1995: x). In order to strive towards the goal that “parenting practice must fit the child, the parents and the culture”, we need to understand the parenting process, the dynamics of the parent-child relationship, as well as the consequences for both parent and child (Hinde, 1995: xi).
Donald et al. (2002: 51) maintain that Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory of human development has probably been “the most influential contribution” to understanding how the development of children is shaped by their social contexts. The ecological systems theory involves different levels of interacting systems in the social context. Four interacting dimensions that are basic to Bronfenbrenner’s model are person factors (such as temperament or personal characteristics); process factors (such as the types of interaction that occur in a family); contexts (such as the family, school or local community); and time (for instance, changes take place over time in the child, parent or environment) (Swart & Pettipher, 2005: 10; Donald et al., 2002: 51).
Bronfenbrenner’s theory draws attention to the importance of the face-to-face interactions that occur in long term close relationships, (e.g. between parent and child), as these are most influential in shaping lasting aspects of development. These are
27
referred to as “proximal interactions” which are specific social interactions that bring about growth and development in the child. Described as “the mechanisms that produce development” (Bronfenbrenner, 2000: 129), they are influenced by person factors as well as by the type of contexts in which they occur. These factors associated with the process, person, and context are subject to change over a period of time owing to changes in the environment as well as the process of maturation of the individual (Donald et al., 2002: 51). Furthermore, the four levels consist of a hierarchy of systems moving from the innermost to the outermost levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1992:
226), and “extending beyond the immediate family to national and societal levels”
(Wall, 2003: 25).
The microsystem is defined by Bronfenbrenner (1992: 227) as follows:
The microsystem is a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical and material features, and containing other persons withdistinctive characteristics of temperament, personality, and systems of belief.
Bronfenbrenner (1992: 227) added to the original definition by including elements pertaining to the potential importance of “the developmentally-relevant characteristics”
of significant others participating in the immediate environment of the developing person (indicated in italics above). The definition of the microsystem, which is the innermost level of the ecological model, has been expanded to include other elements that link it to the “centre of gravity” of the bioecological paradigm (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998: 1013). In this study the deaf child is at the centre of the ecosystem.
The contemporary definition of a microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1994: 1645) is as follows:
A microsystem is a pattern of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical, social, and symbolic features that invite,
28
permit or inhibit engagement in sustained progressively more complex interaction with, and activity in, the immediate environment.
Thus, microsystems include the family, the school, and developmentally-relevant characteristics of others in the environment, with whom the developing individual is closely involved in continuous face-to-face interactions. Such systems entail “patterns of daily interactions, activities, relationships and roles”, and “it is at this level that the key proximal interactions” occur (Donald et al., 2002: 51). When two or more microsystems interact, they constitute a mesosystem.
The mesosystem according to Bronfenbrenner (1992: 227) “comprises the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings containing the developing person”, for example, the interaction between the home and school, the family and extended family or neighbourhood. The individual and the family are embedded in the broader mesosystems and the relations that develop or exist between the microsystems influence and are influenced by each other.
Thus, what happens in the home can influence the child’s performance at school; for example, the child who does not receive support at home may experience loving support and care from the educator at school. In this way a positive secure environment may be provided over a sustained period, which could compensate for the lack of support and feeling of insecurity experienced in the home (Swart & Pettipher, 2005:
11; Donald et al., 2002: 52). Similarly, a deaf learner who is marginalised by the other children in the neighbourhood because of the use of sign language, may find that the support of educators and peers at his school, where sign language is the medium of instruction, makes up for the shortfall in his social networks in the neighbourhood.
The mesosystem is embedded in the larger exosystem which is defined by Bronfenbrenner (1992: 227) as follows:
The exosystem encompasses the linkage and processes taking place between two or more settings, at least one of which does not ordinarily
29
contain the developing person, but in which events occur that influence the processes within the immediate settings that does contain that person.
The exosystem includes, for example, the broader education system, health and social services, the media, the parents’ workplace and local community organisations or professional agencies that do not involve the developing individual directly, but affect or are affected by what happens in the settings that do involve the individual (Swart &
Phasha, 2005: 215; Swart & Pettipher, 2005: 11; Donald et al., 2002: 52). For example, a parent of a deaf child who has a supportive employer may be allowed to take time off from work to attend regular parent guidance meetings or sign language classes arranged by the child’s school. This can have a positive influence on the home-school relations, which in turn can positively impact the child’s progress and development (Swart & Phasha, 2005: 215; Swart & Pettipher, 2005: 11; Donald et al., 2002: 52).
The macrosystem is defined by Bronfenbrenner (1992: 228) as follows:
The macrosystem consists of an overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristics of a given culture, subculture or other broader social context, with particular reference to the developmentally-instigative belief systems, resources, operations, and patterns of social interchange that are embedded in each of these systems. The macrosystem may be thought of as a social blueprint for a particular culture, subculture or other broader social context.
The main types of macrosystems that exist within a culture or subculture may be identified by social labels such as “social class, ethnicity, or region (e.g. rural vs.
urban)”. Other types include different professions, or different historical events, or life styles. In effect, this means that over time, new social structures may evolve, with the possibility of an emergent subculture thorough the development of a distinct set of values, lifestyle, and other characteristic feature of a macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1992: 229).
30
An example of the emergence of such a subculture is that of the Deaf, which espouses sign language as its first language. Writers have described the emergence of Deaf culture, Deaf communities and Deaf identities for over 150 years. They have identified three factors, namely, “deafness, communication and mutual support” that have led to the creation of Deaf communities as a consequence of the negative experiences of deaf people within hearing communities. Through interaction with other members of the Deaf community, as well as participation in various activities of this community, it is possible for deaf people to develop “a multidimensional sense of self-esteem”
(Marschark & Spencer, 2003: 153).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding not only the development of the deaf child but also the complexity of parenting. Swart and Phasha (2005: 215), Wall (2003: 25), Christenson and Sheridan (2001: 32), Seligman (2000: 60-62), as well as Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998: 997) maintain that parental involvement extends beyond the family, and also includes the school and community. The multi-directionality of relationships within and between families, schools, and communities emphasises the influence that each of these nested systems exert on one another and on the individuals within the systems. Seligman (2000: 62) draws attention to the influence of the larger social, economic, and political realities on the family, school, and community contexts. Inevitably, the effects of these systems on parents and other members of the family will also influence family-school relationships, and in turn, children’s learning and development.
The child and the family constitute a microsystem embedded in the innermost level of the ecosystem, while the family unit is nested in the broader mesosystems consisting of interacting units such as the extended family, peers, educators, neighbours, and close personal acquaintances. Further, these units are nested in the larger exosystem consisting of broader education, health and social systems as well as other social organisations and professional agencies that exert an indirect influence on parents and children. The broader social context in which various South African cultures and subcultures with different belief systems exist, under different socio-economic conditions and in different geographical regions, is likely to impact on the way different families experience the responsibility of raising deaf children.
31
Fundamental to the functioning of the family unit is the family’s interaction with members of the extended family, friends, the school, and the community. The ecological systems theory helps us to understand the influence of social factors such as discrimination, relocation, and poverty on family functioning and children’s development. Bronfenbrenner’s theory contributed to the interpretation of the crucial and on-going role of parents in the education of their children, and laid the foundation for the understanding and promotion of collaboration and cooperation between the most important systems influencing children’s lives (Swart & Phasha 2005: 215-216).
Figure 2.1 below represents the “nested systems” of the ecological model, showing the reciprocal interactions that occur between the family, school, and community.
Figure 2.1 An illustration of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, adapted from Seligman (Swart & Phasha, 2005: 215)
Macrosystem
Community Culture Ethnicity Religion
Exosystem
Education Health Social welfare
Mesosystem
Extended family Friends Neighbours Other parents Close personal acquaintances
Microsystem Child and nuclear family
School and Teachers Medical and support personnel Media Support groups Recreation Housing Employment
Economics Politics Legal system Policies
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory of human development focussed primarily on the environment as a set of nested systems in which human development occurs.
The current, evolving paradigm, referred to as the bioecological model places equal
32
importance on the biopsychological characteristics of the person in the role of development. The primary focus of the bioecological model is on proximal processes, defined as “the mechanisms that produce development” (Bronfenbrenner, 2000: 129), or as the primary engines of development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998: 996). In the bioecological model human development is seen as a continuous life course process that spans successive generations. Thus importance is accorded to “historical continuity and change” which are forces that impact indirectly on human development through their influence on proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner, 2000: 130).
The defining properties of the bioecological model are stated in the form of two propositions (Bronfenbrenner, 2000: 130; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998: 996):
Proposition 1:
Human development takes place throughout life through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment. To be effective the interaction must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time. Such enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment are referred to as proximal processes.
A corollary of proposition 1 pertaining to the proximal processes that involve other persons, reads as follows (Bronfenbrenner, 2000: 130):
The developmental power of proximal processes is substantially enhanced when they occur within the context of a relationship between persons who have developed a strong emotional attachment to each other.
It is essential for a close bond to be formed between parent and child especially in the early years. This is especially critical in the case of hearing parents raising deaf children to enable the parents to cope better with the stress and strain associated with child rearing. At the same time parents can be guided to be more aware of and
33
responsive to the child’s needs for attention, “thereby initiating and sustaining mutually rewarding interactions” (Bronfenbrenner, 2000: 130).
Proposition II focuses on four dynamic forces (Bronfenbrenner, 2000: 130;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998: 996):
The form, power, content and direction of the proximal processes effecting development vary systematically as a joint function of the characteristics of the developing person; the environment – both immediate and more remote – in which the processes are taking place; the nature of the developmental outcomes under consideration; and the social continuities and changes occurring over time through the life course and the historical period during which the person has lived.
These forces are played out in the way hearing parents experience raising their deaf children in this study. Both propositions are theoretically interdependent, and “the characteristics of the person function both as an indirect producer and product of development” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998: 996).
A specific meaning is attached to the concept of proximal process within the context of the bioecological model and it has certain important distinctive features that are worthy of mention. These features include the following: the person must participate in an activity for development to take place, and the activity must occur at fairly regular intervals, over a long period of time; for developmental effectiveness, activities must occur over a long enough period to become “increasingly more complex”; proximal processes that are developmentally effective are bidirectional, that is, interpersonal interaction must, to some extent, be reciprocal; proximal processes can also involve interactions with objects and symbols in the immediate environment, and for reciprocal interactions to take place, the symbols and objects must be the type that “invites attention, exploration, manipulation, elaboration, and imagination” (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998: 996-997).
34
The content, effectiveness and timing of proximal process undergo substantial changes as a result of the powerful moderating factors spelt out in the second proposition, e.g.
children’s developmental capacities increase as they grow older, while intervals between “increasingly more complex” interactions can become longer. Parents are the chief persons that young children interact with “on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time”. As children grow older they interact with “significant others”
including caregivers, siblings, peers, relatives, educators, mentors, close friends, spouses or partners, colleagues, subordinates or superiors at the work place. The realisation of human potential is influenced by biological and evolutionary factors as well as environmental conditions. In the absence of the necessary conditions and experiences, such potential for development will not be realised (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998: 997).
With regard to person characteristics, Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998: 1009) identify three types of characteristics that are regarded as “process-relevant”, namely, force characteristics, resources characteristics and demand characteristics.
Force characteristics are positive or negative behavioural dispositions that can shape human development. Developmentally generative characteristic can set in motion sustained proximal processes. These involve active behavioural dispositions such as curiosity, an inclination toward initiating and engaging in activity, readiness to engage in activities initiated by others, and willingness to defer immediate reward so that long term goals can be attained. In the case of this study, an example of such a positive force characteristic would apply to those hearing parents who shelve their personal goals in life and patiently endure the long journey towards developing their deaf children’s communication skills so that their adjustment to life in the family, school and community can be enhanced.
On the other hand, negative force characteristics, referred to as developmentally disruptive behavioural dispositions, can “actively interfere with, retard, or even prevent” proximal processes form occurring. Examples of such dispositions manifest themselves in the inability to exercise control over behaviour and emotions, or apathy, lack of interest, insecurity and an inclination towards non-participation in activity.