2. Dominant research paradigms: Review of methodologies used
3.4. An LD identity?
Behind my critical questions and pervading my discussion is the hidden question: is there an “LD identity?” As I identify themes in the data I will reflect on the learner’s changing self –identity. I argue for the shifting, dynamic nature of identity (Ryan & Deci, 2003). There is a small body of literature that examines the notion of “an LD identity,” but this is predominantly using the term ‘learning disabilities’ to refer to intellectual impairment, as discussed above in section 3.1 It therefore refers to an entirely different group and thus has no relevance here.
Chanfrault-Duchet (2004: 268) describes identity as: “a construction that articulates different components of the self.” Eakin (1999) cites Neisser’s five selves – of these my interest is in the three reflexive selves (Eakin, 1999:24), particularly the extended self and the private self. The extended self is described as “the self of specific experiences…and specific and familiar routines” (Neisser, 1988:36 cited in Eakin, 1999:23); it is the self beyond the here and now, the “self of memory and anticipation – the self in time” and, significant for my purposes because it is the self that is typically revealed in autobiography (Eakin, 1999:102). The private self on the other hand is described as “the only person who can feel this unique and particular pain,” in other words the nature of each experience is unique to the private self (Eakin, 1999:23 citing Neisser, 1988:36). This is also important for this study in that I wish to illuminate the experience of LD for
each of my informants, and in so doing explore their own “unique and particular pain.”
In attempting to answer the critical question – how do learners with LD experience their LD, I look at how their identity is or is not moulded around the ‘wearing’ of this label, in other words how the ‘wearing’ or
‘owning’ of this label impacts on the identity and self concept of the
‘wearers.’ I look at “the sufferers experience” of LD (Rickard, 2004). For my purposes then it is important to highlight how the structures, such as formal definitions, diagnostic categories, and school systems that are themselves defined, impact on the identity formation of my informants.
Stets and Burke (2003) refer to hidden structures too, those that are not obvious such as gate-keeping at schools and exclusion of certain groups.
This could include children who are excluded by virtue of high school fees, distance from school or lack of transport, even IQ scores.
I take the social interactionist view that identity is a social construction, in other words it develops in a social context (Harter, 2003). Our sense of self, or our self –identify, is shaped by society, particularly the social groups to which we belong (Devos & Banaji, 2003). Identity changes across the lifespan (Ryan & Deci, 2003). We therefore have multiple selves and present these depending on the group or context we are in. Usually we describe ourselves first by that which differentiates us from the group, that which distinguishes us from the majority. School is possibly one of the most significant social contexts or groups to which children belong, the context of school plays a significant role in the development of self–
identity. If this is indeed the case, one could posit that the identity of a child with LD should them be shaped during his school years to a large extent by the social milieu of the school and classroom. As the child with LD spends most of the day in a group where s/he performs differently, is judged to be different, can one expect him/her to reflect that “difference” or “deficit” in their identity?
The social interactionists’ notion of the looking glass self is particularly relevant. According to this theory, we see ourselves as we think others see us, particularly those we consider significant and whom we trust. Harter (Harter, 2003:268) asks: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, whose opinion is the most critical of all?” For school learners this includes parents, classmates and teachers. Harter goes on the say:
Significant others constitute the social mirror into which the child gazes in order to detect his or her opinions toward the self. These perceived opinions, in turn, are incorporated into the evaluations of ones worth as a person. (Harter, 2003:628) For me it is particularly significant because it is this feedback – especially from significant others such as peers and parents, that impacts on the way individuals think about themselves. For a child with LD and the low self esteem so typical of LD (Frank, 2002, Humphrey, 2002) this is particularly so. The implication here is that the child who thinks significant others see her as disabled, less than or ‘in deficit’ in some way is likely to see herself thus. The corollary of this is that if the child feels adequate in important areas, if s/he receives support from parents and peers in what s/he considers a “domain of importance,” this has a positive effect on self-worth (Harter, :628). Bjarnason (2000) found that how parents and peers viewed the adolescent with a disability, as well as their school experiences, had more of an impact on how they viewed themselves, and therefore their self – awareness and identity than the extent of the disability.
It is social comparison, in other words that which distinguishes or differentiates a child from the majority, that in particular influences the self concept of the child with LD, as s/he is frequently compared by others as well as him/herself to achievers in the classroom context. In other words, for learners with learning disability, in the classroom it is the failure that makes them different. In a remedial environment classmates see the learner with LD like them; in a mainstream environment the classmates see the child as different: weak; even ‘stupid.’ In the particular remedial
environments I have either worked in or visited, learners are constantly told by teachers, and in some cases parents, how lucky they are to have been chosen to attend the school. They are reassured that they have been
‘selected’ because they can achieve. This then feeds into a positive self esteem. What makes them different to their classmates or peers in this context may be their creativity, their hair, eye or skin colour, their athletic prowess and such. Learning difficulties and failure are no longer the things that set them apart or make them different to the group.
Self knowledge is acquired not only through social comparisons but also by
“performance feedback” (Kernis & Goldman, 2003) This is particularly relevant for the discussion that follows where I show how these factors have impacted on my informants’ self-knowledge. Actions, especially most recent actions, also influence self appraisal (the way the child thinks about himself) (Kernis & Goldman, 2003). In the case of the child with LD, if the immediate experience is of success, praise and positive feedback, this can then impact on the away we he views his LD. Thus opportunities for success and for achievement in other spheres become important, to counterbalance the classroom failure. I am therefore interested in how the opportunity to experience success changes their self identity, if at all.