2.5 Research design
2.5.2 The research context
2.5.2.2 Deaf culture and its complexities
50
Many dilemmas and complexities are experienced as we promote a strong Catholic culture at the school. Firstly, despite Hilltop being a Catholic school, most of the learners and staff are not Catholic. Learners and staff represent a diversity of religions: various other Christian denominations, Hinduism, Islam and Zulu traditional religion. Such religious diversity raises complex issues against the backdrop of promoting a Catholic culture. Many staff members are not always accepting of the exclusive promotion of the Catholic faith. However, since staff members are advised before employment at the school that the school has a Catholic ethos, many comply with this ethos. The need for secure employment takes precedence. The tensions that underlie the issue of religion will be returned to as my narrative unfolds in the ensuing chapters.
51
Literature on Deaf culture and Deaf identity is very limited internationally, and has been difficult to access; hence, many of the key sources I use would be considered dated. There is a very small emerging body of research in South Africa (for example, Ram & Muthukrishna, 2011; Akach, 2010; Aarons & Akach, 2002). I provide some perspectives on Deaf culture and Deaf identity by drawing on the research I was able to access.
Deaf culture can be described as a distinctive culture that is underpinned by a social, communal and creative presence that is strongly linked to language (Ladd, 2003a). However, critics have pointed out that Deaf culture can be complex and difficult to define, and the meanings and constructions of Deaf culture are not fixed. All Deaf people are deaf by virtue of the physical and physiological description of not being able to hear. This conceptualisation cannot be denied since it is this understanding that attributes meaning to deafness (Heap & Morgans, 2006;
Haualand & Allen, 2009; Arroyo, 2011). However, there are the Deaf who identify themselves as Deaf as a consequence of their linguistic or cultural allegiance, and there are those who identify themselves as deaf because of their physiological loss. Pickersgill (1998) emphasises that Deaf people are members of a minority group and are identified as this minority specifically through their Sign Language and Deaf culture. A critical issue is that to the majority of Deaf people, deafness is not a deficit but a cultural identity (Heap & Morgans, 2006; Haualand & Allen, 2009).
Deaf people consider themselves to be a minority culture that has the foundational physiological condition of deafness and elect to set themselves apart from the dominant hearing culture (Ladd, 2003a). This forms the foundation for the construction of deafness as a cultural phenomenon and not a physical impairment.
Sign Language is central to and deeply rooted in Deaf culture. Sign Language exists as a mother- tongue for Deaf cultures internationally. In South Africa, South African Sign Language (SASL) is the recognised language for the Deaf. However, the perception that all Deaf people subscribe to the norms and values of the Deaf culture has been questioned. There are Deaf people who choose not to separate themselves from the hearing culture. They choose the oral form of communication and exclude themselves from Sign Language and hence Deaf culture. There are also those who are happy to vacillate between both cultures and live in both worlds.
The Deaf cultural community is defined prominently by the way in which the ‘D’ in Deaf is used.
Internationally there is a broad acceptance among deaf people that ‘Deaf’ (with a capital letter
‘D’) is linked to a unique social identity with strong allegiance to a specific social group and to supporting the use of Sign Language. The writing of ‘deaf’ (with a small letter ‘d’) is used by most academics and medical professionals to imply a definition based on medical descriptions of
52
deafness as measured against the ‘norm’ of hearing. The ‘lower case’ deaf community relies on oral styles of communication such as lip reading or speaking, rather than on Sign Language (Bat- Chava, 2000; Ladd, 2003a). Throughout this dissertation the word deaf will be used with a capital
‘D’, and D/deaf will be used specifically in the context described above.
Scholars argue that there is always a potential for conflict in terms of language and cultural allegiance since the Deaf do not live exclusively within their own culture. Despite the fact that many are in residential schools, one cannot deny that the presence of hearing people in their everyday environment influences their lives.
2.5.2.2.1 The role of the school in the transmission of Deaf culture
It is my contention that Deaf culture does not originate in the context of families and homes, but instead it originates in schools for the Deaf. Hilltop School, like most other schools for the Deaf, is residential in nature. Deaf learners begin their schooling at a very early age, usually at around three years old. It is in the school context that the Deaf are socialised into the behaviour patterns, values, norms and communication modes of the Deaf (Leigh, 2009; Ladd, 2003a). Bat- Chava (2000) emphasises that Deaf culture is unique in that unlike hearing cultures that transmit traditions from adults to children, the traditions of Deaf culture are transmitted from learner to learner, or from Deaf adult to Deaf learner/child as they co-exist mutually in classrooms and residential schools. These learners may vary in terms of their age, gender, race, social class, and religious and political affiliations, but show spontaneous and natural unanimity in their allegiance to the practices of Deaf culture (Ram & Muthukrishna, 2011). In my own experience, I have witnessed younger learners depending on older learners for support and companionship during their pre-school years. I have witnessed older learners unintentionally enabling and encouraging younger learners to learn the language, customs and values of Deaf culture.
In addition, for Deaf children life in the school dormitory is a very important aspect of their schooling. Ladd (2003a) maintains that it is in the context of life in the dormitories that learners are away from the structured control of the classroom and are introduced to the social life of Deaf people. Leigh (2009) points out that this may be understood as a peer-promoted culture and is an important part of the dynamics of Deaf culture. At Hilltop School, hostel life has a great impact on the environment of the school.
53 2.5.2.2.2 The role of mentorship for the Deaf
Internationally documented statistics reveal that more than 90% of D/deaf children are born to families with little or no experiences of deafness (Aarons & Akach, 2002; Heap & Morgans, 2006; Akach, 2010) Therefore, Patkin (2011) advocates that role modelling and mentorship are an integral part of the dynamics of Deaf culture. Like everyone else, the Deaf need inspiration and motivation to believe that they can succeed, especially if they are born to hearing parents whom they often view as different from themselves. He emphasises that it is important for young Deaf people to have Deaf role models who have been through similar life experiences, since many parents of Deaf children not only have limited experiences with deafness, but also lack an understanding of early childhood education and especially the importance of language acquisition.
Research by Foster & MacLeod (2004) further illustrates the integral role of mentorship in Deaf culture. They conducted a study of D/deaf graduates from the Rochester Institute in New York who became supervisors in primary hearing settings. Results of the study indicated that having a Deaf mentor was a primary and persistent element in their career success. Participants reported that having a Deaf mentor enabled them to break through barriers to career success in spite of experiencing various limitations to their skills and abilities. Research findings from the University of Utah, U.S.A also demonstrated that children (from birth to five years) who were part of a three-year mentorship programme gained significantly from having Deaf mentors. Diagnostic tests conducted on a six-month basis demonstrated that children with Deaf mentors showed greater gains in receptive and expressive language and performed better on other linguistic tests (including English grammar tests) than those children without mentors (Watkins, Pittman and Walden, 1998).
Thus mentorship can be viewed as being integral to the learning context of Hilltop School.