DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 20
Deafness and Education International, 6(1), 2004 © Whurr Publishers Ltd
20
Deaf in my own way: Identity,
learning and narratives
STEIN ERIK OHNA, Skådalen Resource Centre, Norwegian Support System
for Special Education, and Stavanger University College
ABSTRACT
This article describes the development of identity in deaf persons. It examines how
deaf people learn to live under special conditions. Data is based on conversations
(interviews) with 22 deaf persons. A discussion, grounded in narrative theory, of
how the development of self-identity is closely related to interactions with deaf and
hearing people is presented. Further it seems that experiences from interactions with
hearing persons play a significant role. Within a frame of a dialogical perspective on
learning, a model is presented for the development of how a deaf person relates to
him/herself and to other deaf and hearing persons. The author is the hearing son of
sign lingual, deaf parents. For more than 20 years he has been working within the
field of deaf education, as a teacher and as a principal. The research project was
conducted when the author was a research fellow at the Department of Special
Needs Education at the University of Oslo, Norway.
Key words: Deaf studies, identity development, narratives, learning
INTRODUCTION
Deafness can be regarded both as an audiological disability and as a social and
cultural construct. Regarded as an audiological disability, the focus lies on the
ability to perceive sound and linguistically coded information mediated
through speech. When this ability is reduced or lost, it will affect the person s
life conditions, and different types of compensatory measures can be imple-
mented (e.g. hearing aid, speech therapy, special needs education, etc.). On
the other hand, if we regard deafness as a social and cultural construct, the
perspective changes from individuals with a hearing problem to deaf people as
a cultural and linguistic minority group.
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 21
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 21
With this background in mind, the following question was formulated in
the study (Ohna, 2001): What does it mean to grow up and handle interactions
with both hearing and deaf persons, under conditions which are associated with the
tension between a compensatory policy and a deaf cultural policy? This can be
viewed both from an existential perspective (Kierkegaard 1894/1960: see
Giddens, 1991 for a discussion) and an  experience-near (Geertz 1983)
perspective. The existential perspective is related to the most profound
matters. It asks questions about the existence of human beings, our free will,
and the responsibility of our choices. An  experience-near perspective
emphasizes the viewpoint of how deaf people themselves understand and
express their own experiences. Both the  experience-near perspective and the
compensatory perspective focus on the individual person, but they differ on
one important issue. While the  experience-near perspective emphasizes how
the people themselves express their experiences, the compensatory perspective
is an external perspective that is defined by hearing people for deaf people.
This article presents some results from the study. Focus will primarily be
placed on how we can understand the development of identity as a process in
deaf bilingual persons. First, the theoretical and methodological basis for the
study will be presented. The empirical data will then be exemplified by
presenting two cases where the subjects talk about their interactions with deaf
and hearing persons and how they react to conflicts that may arise. These
cases illustrate two different aspects in the development of identity. In the
conclusion, the cases will be discussed in relation to a sociocultural perspective
on learning and development (Wertsch, 1998).
The study was conducted in Norway in the last decade of the twentieth
century. There are several aspects of the Norwegian policy towards deaf people
which differ radically from the policy in other countries. With regard to
education, there is considerable opportunity for parents and teachers to learn
Norwegian Sign Language (NSL), as well as to access special syllabuses for
deaf pupils. These are matters that are highly important to the questions
raised in the study. In spite of this, there are reasons to believe that some of
the findings may be relevant outside of a strictly Norwegian context.
IDENTITY
 Identity is a frequently used concept, but it is understood in many different
ways in the social sciences. As a point of departure, identity can be defined as
 a person s understanding of who they are, of their fundamental defining
characteristics as a human being (Taylor, 1994, p.25). Identity is neither an
individualistic concern nor something that is determined by external affairs.
In the context of this article, it is especially important to be aware of how a
person s understanding of him/herself is closely related to recognition given by
other people:
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 22
22 Ohna
our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition
of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if
the people or society around them mirror back to them a conflicting or demeaning or
contemptible picture of themselves. Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm,
can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced
mode of being. (Taylor, 1994, p.25)
In this study, self-identity is a central matter. Its focus is more specifically on
how the person relates to him or herself, than on the general definition of
identity. The development of identity is an interactive process and there is a
close connection between our experiences, originating from interpersonal
processes, and the language we use to understand and to reflect upon our
experiences. The quotation from Taylor illustrates that it is not possible to
separate the personal and social dimensions of identity. The two dimensions
describe different aspects, but at the same time, they will influence each other.
Deaf cultural identity
Glickman (1993) gives an interesting contribution to the understanding of
deaf cultural identity. He presents a model for how we can understand how
 audiologically deaf people develop culturally deaf identities (Glickman 1993,
p.ix). The model  presumes that Deaf people s understanding of themselves
develops and goes through predictable and recognizable stages (Glickman,
1993, p.1). This process is assumed to be similar to other cultural and ethnic
minorities (culturally different people) but the content in the various stages
will reflect particular life experiences common to all deaf persons. In
Glickman s model, four stages of cultural identity development are described:
culturally hearing, culturally marginal, immersion identity and bicultural
Deaf. The model also indicates how the different stages connect to reference
groups, views on deafness and the Deaf community.
An interesting aspect of Glickman s model is that it shows how a deaf cultural
identity is not one single phenomenon, which is the impression given by the
dichotomy Deaf deaf. Rather it has to be understood as a result of a process that
can be described as a development through several stages. The model is also
anchored in empirical studies, something that strengthens its validity.
Glickman emphasizes that the stages are given precise descriptions, among
other reasons because he also uses the stages as a basis for an attitudinal test.
In such cases it becomes a problem when a person combines aspects from
different stages. Therefore, the model does not grasp how people s attitudes
and cultural identities are affected by variations in contextual conditions. The
model emphasizes that a person s identity develops through interactions with
significant others. However it does not specify how this process takes place,
beyond calling attention to the importance of sign language and contact with
other deaf people. In addition, the context is regarded as something static and
the model does not emphasize that the individual plays a role in shaping the
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 23
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 23
context in which he/she operates. The model assumes that the person s devel-
opment passes through fixed and predefined stages. Further this perspective
assumes that it is possible to define which actions and attitudes represent the
good or the final goal of development. Such a view can be described as philo-
sophical realism or essentialism (Appiah, 1994) and identity is regarded as
something that is buried deep inside the person. The goal for the deaf person
is a bilingual identity, associated with a particular view on deafness. It is a
political liberation perspective towards the good life as deaf and the models
become prescriptive for how people should behave. Furthermore, the model
presumes that people are always rational actors and that they are not able to
manage contrasting attitudes in their  heads at the same time. Therefore,
aspects such as ambivalence and dilemma are not considered in the model.
Self-identity
During the past decade, several researchers have presented important contri-
butions to the understanding of self and how it is possible analytically to use
this concept in a research project (Taylor, 1989, 1994; Giddens, 1991; Bruner,
1997). Giddens considers the development of identity in relation to the
development of modernity and describes the development of identity as a
reflexive organized project. The reflexive project of the self is  the process
whereby self-identity is constituted by the reflexive ordering of self-narratives
(Giddens, 1991, p.244).
A person with a stable sense of self has a feeling of biographical continuity,
which he or she is able to grasp reflexively and can communicate to other
people. Therefore, a person s identity is not to be found in behaviours or in
the reactions of other people,  but in the capacity to keep a particular
narrative going (Giddens, 1991, p.54). To be able to have a sense of who we
are, we have to have a notion of how we have become who we are and an idea
of where we are going. Giddens points out that the feelings associated with
identity are both robust and fragile. They are fragile because the biography the
individual reflexively holds in mind is only one story among other potential
stories that could have been told about the development of the individual. On
the other hand, they are robust because having a positive sense of identity is
often enough to handle conflicts or transitions in the social environment in
which the individual is living. In addition, the content of the individual
identity varies socially and culturally. This means that the environment in
which the biographies are constructed is affected by the society within which
the individual has been raised and lives.
Bruner (1997) also emphasizes how identity can be understood as a
narrative constructed phenomenon. With a point of departure in literary
theory, he shows how reports of the self have features in common with how
main characters and events in a fairytale are described. Both can be looked
upon as functions of the narrative s global structure.
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 24
24 Ohna
A central element in Bruner s theory is the role of trouble or the idea that
something is at stake. Narratives, as we know them, start with an explicit or
implicit indication of a stable, canonical situation of the world. This is
disturbed or destroyed with the onset of a complication. The narrative is then
developed through the plot and the consequences of this conflict. It reaches
its climax with an account of the endeavour to restore the original, canonical
situation or to restore what is destroyed. In this way, the narrative is a
specialized genre for handling the problems created when we meet something
that deviates from the normal.  Trouble, then, may not only be the engine of
narrative, but the impetus for extending and elaborating our concepts of Self.
Small wonder that it is the chosen medium for dealing not only with Trouble,
but for constructing and reconstructing the Self (Bruner, 1997, p.157).
THE STUDY
The study is based on unstructured interviews (conversations) with 22 deaf
NSL signing people. Thirteen people aged 18 22 years and nine aged 40 45
years were interviewed. Based on a phenomenological perspective (Kvale,
1996) the interviews focused on how the informants themselves described
their experiences. An interview guide was used, primarily to ensure that all
relevant themes were illuminated. The themes were childhood, school, family,
friends, work and interactions with deaf and hearing persons. Those in the
younger group were recruited from students in three different upper secondary
schools for deaf students, while the older group was recruited from several
clubs for deaf people. Sixty students in upper secondary schools and 22
members of deaf clubs were contacted by letter with a request to participate in
the study. Thirty-one of the students and eleven of the deaf club members
wanted to participate on a voluntarily basis. The researcher conducted all of
the interviews. In the interviews, the researcher and the informants used
NSL. The interviews were conducted at the university, at schools for deaf
students or in private homes. The interviews lasted from 1 hour to 3.5 hours;
most were between 2 and 2.5 hours. Altogether 48 hours of videotexts were
produced. The interviews were video-recorded by two small video cameras,
each trained on one person. The two pictures were then edited into a split-
screen picture, which was saved on a VHS cassette. Afterwards the interviews
were translated from NSL into Norwegian speech and subsequently into a
Norwegian written text. In this way there were two different texts provided
for analysis: a videotext in NSL, which was the primary text, and a written
text in Norwegian.
The translation was checked in different ways. All of the informants
received a copy of the Norwegian translation of the interview. The informants
verified the translation and some of them also wrote additional information.
Second, the Norwegian translation was constantly compared with the NSL
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 25
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 25
text during the analysis. Third, structural analysis of the NSL text was used to
verify the translation.
The analysis of the interviews is based on a narrative methodology
(Bruner, 1997; Ricoeur 1991, 1993; Riessman, 1990, 1994), using a combi-
nation of hermeneutic interpretation (Westin, 1994) and structural text
analysis (Fairclough, 1992; Engberg-Pedersen, 1998). Narratives allow us to
create who we are and to construct definitions of our situations in everyday
interactions. Narratives thus become a tool for linking disruptive events in a
biography to heal discontinuities, and allow us to make meaning by linking
past and present, self and society. Further, narratives are both an individual
and a social product, where the individual creates meaning in his/her life by
using the language offered by the society.
In the first phase of the analysis of the interviews, several themes and
categories are identified: communication  interaction, self  deafness,
independence  dependence and inclusion  exclusion. These are a combi-
nation of empirically generated and theoretically informed concepts, because I
exploited my own pre-understanding. Through the analytical process, the
concept  crossing (a translation of the Norwegian word  kryssing , which
indicates a crossroads), developed as a mean of conveying some important
aspects of the phenomenon I wanted to investigate. With reference to Blumer,
the concept  crossing can be regarded as a sensitizing concept which  suggest
directions along which to look (Blumer, 1954, p.7). Briefly, crossing refers to
situations where the informants experience that values in the  deaf world
contrast with values in the  hearing world . The concept is a way of conceptu-
alizing the ambiguity and ambivalence in the narratives about interactions
between deaf and hearing people.
The second phase of the analysis started when I constructed an interpre-
tative frame which consisted of four developing themes: (i) interactions
between parents and children, (ii) interactions with hearing persons which
break down, (iii) interactions with deaf persons contrasting encounters with
hearing persons, (iv) adult narratives reflecting the previous themes. The
construction of the four developing themes was related to a narrative model
for construction of self (Bruner, 1997) and represented an important turn in
the analysis. Instead of developing categories, I started to see the interviews as
expressions of a successive narrative construction of how the informants
related to their situation and a development of identity (Riessman, 1990).
The narrative construction managed to capture the important aspects in the
interviews about the informant s expressions of their special conditions and
how they handled this. Inspired by Ricoeur s (1993) concept  hermeneutic
bow , I used a structural text analysis as a means of interpreting the NSL texts.
Exploring the use of personal pronouns (I, we, they), provides access to how
social relations and social identities are constructed. In addition, analysis of
cohesion mechanisms such as text reference (locus), lexical cohesion and
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 26
26 Ohna
sentence coupling is used to gain access to the ideological function in the
text.
THE NARRATIVES
In this article, two subjects are presented (see Ohna, 2001, for the full study.)
In the first case, Gro (20 years old) tells how she, as a 12-year-old girl, could
no longer communicate with her hearing friends as she had done previously.
In the other case, Christine (40 years old) tells how experiences at the dinner
table in her own family presented her with new problems. While she had
previously regarded herself as a deaf woman and mother, she gradually had to
recognize that she was also a mother of hearing children. The common feature
in the two examples is the way that interpersonal processes force both Gro
and Christine to reconsider their earlier ways of looking at themselves. The
two narratives are used as a point of departure for discussing how deaf people
learn to live with special conditions.
Gro  a developmental perspective
Ever since she was one or two years old, Gro has been a pupil in sign bilingual
institutions, first in a kindergarten for the deaf and later in schools for the
deaf. Her parents attended courses for sign language shortly after the diagnosis
and they have always used sign language when communicating with her. As a
part of the school program, she attended her local municipality school once a
week from the first to sixth grades. A teacher from the school for the deaf
accompanied her as a teacher and as an interpreter.
153: Interviewer: When did you discover you were deaf?
154: Gro: (pause, 9 seconds) When? (7 seconds) that I don t remember. I only remember
my mother telling me when she discovered it. Now I don t remember what my
mother said.
155: Interviewer: What do you think?
156: Gro: I remember (4 second) that  I really discovered I was deaf when I became a
teenager, really 
157: Interviewer:  a teenager? (Interrogative)
158: Gro: Yes.
159: Interviewer: When you were 12 years old?
160: Gro: Yes, indeed when I was 12 years old. When I was supposed to be  an adult and
should act as an adult. Before, well, I knew I was deaf, but I didn t understand what it
meant to be deaf. I just went straight up to a man I didn t know, and then I said.  Hi,
I am deaf, you must use sign language with me . Even when he didn t know my
language, I said this. I took it for granted that everybody knew sign language because
I am deaf. So my mother explained to me then.  Oh yes. But I remember myself
because earlier when we children played, we didn t have to communicate, we only
played, we didn t talk. Children don t talk that much when they play. It is the same
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 27
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 27
with the deaf. There was no difference between hearing and deaf then. No difference,
it was a common bond. Afterwards as we became older and became teenagers, then
we wanted to talk more, about falling in love and boys and things like that and we
were curious about boys. So, we talked about that. Then I met obstacles  hearing
persons. I didn t comprehend what they said; I didn t comprehend what they said.
Perhaps I understood 20 per cent of what they were talking about, nothing more.
Everything went over my head. I didn t understand. I withdrew from hearing settings.
At that time, I had just become a teenager. I withdrew and I went towards  The
Club . I think it was then I discovered I was deaf. Because then, I understood the
difference, really, how serious the difference really is between being deaf and being
able to hear. I understood then. Yes, that is correct; hearing persons could talk to
each other.
163: Interviewer: You are saying, you discovered that you were deaf at about 12 13 years
of age?
166: Gro: Do you know why? I went to the school for the deaf. Then, I took it for granted;
I did not understand then that if you are deaf, you couldn t hear anything. Then you
are not like the others. Then you are different. I didn t understand that. I took it for
granted that I was deaf. As regards my family, when I was a little girl, I didn t talk so
much with my family when I was little, I was more content with playing, and
sometimes I would talk to them [the family]. I accepted that they talked together. It
went right over my head. I didn t understand. They were my family; I took it for
granted. I was used to them. But when I started to have friends on my own and I
wanted to talk with them and not with my family  then I met obstacles. That
became a great barrier. Bang.* Then I began to wonder about my family and friends. I
knew I was deaf when I was a little girl, yes, yes, I understood. Yes, of course, but
seriously I really understood when I became a teenager. I wanted to have contact
with friends, I met obstacles, I could not speak their language as well as they did. I did
not understand everything they said. Then I started to walk towards...
167: Interviewer: What were your feelings when you realized these things?
168: Gro: I felt like, why, why did this happen to me? Why, Why can t I understand what
they are saying? I had many questions, practical questions in my head at that time.
Why? I didn t understand. What was wrong, why is it like this, why can t I hear? I
started to wonder. I wondered  is this what it is like to be deaf? Is this what it s like
to be handicapped? Then I discovered that the deaf world is very small and the
hearing world is very big. Then I understood that too. Before, I never thought about
that. I never thought about that ... I was  deaf . I took it for granted. (Ohna 2001,
pp.238 40)
The above excerpt starts with Gro answering the question about when she
 discovered that she was deaf. This is a question she does not know how to
answer because it was her parents who discovered that she was deaf. To
discover deafness means to detect the hearing loss. After some thinking (9
+7+4 seconds), Gro presents an alternative answer to the question. Now she
relates her discovery of being deaf to the moment when she, as a teenager,
should behave as an  adult . She claims that she always knew she was deaf, but
previously she did not understand what it meant to be deaf. Her new under-
standing is related to the problems she experiences in interactions with her
* Her saying  bang strengthens the utterance. She doesn t use voice at all in the interview.
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 28
28 Ohna
hearing friends. The meaning of deafness changes when she has established a
connection between the hearing loss and her relationships with hearing
persons. It was this connection she did not understand until now.
In the interview, Gro expresses an existential feeling of loss or personal
defect as the consequences of deafness become more evident when interacting
with others:  why, why is this happening to me. Why, Why can t I understand what
they are saying? Now, being deaf also means that something is wrong and that
the difference between hearing and deafness matters. She can no longer relate
to deafness as something that is taken for granted, because it has consequences
for her communication with her hearing friends.
With reference to how Jerome Schein (1989) uses the concepts alienation
and affiliation, we can describe how her way of behaving towards herself and
others is changing. Deafness is understood in a new way when she is
confronted with a breakdown in interactions. For Gro, deafness becomes
something that makes her feel abnormal and inferior. This is analogous with
alienation. A central feature is the construction of They, whom she is different
from. These experiences are then contrasted with interactions with deaf
persons that can be interpreted as affiliation. Deaf persons, whom she can be
like and can identify with, are now constructed as We. In this way, alien-
ation/affiliation become two sides of the same coin in the construction of
self-identity and they function as the catalyst in her autobiography concerning
the development of her identity.
Christine  about ambivalence
Christine is a deaf woman in her forties who was raised in a deaf family by
non-hearing parents. In the interview she emphasized that she could always
participate in the conversation at home because her parents were deaf and
used Norwegian Sign Language. Today, she is married to a deaf husband and
they have two hearing teenagers. She is proud of her children and when she
describes their language, she emphasizes,  they use fluent sign language . She
never experiences problems in communicating with her family when they are
talking face to face. In the excerpt below, she talks about conversations
around the family dinner table. Just as we observed in Gro s story, interper-
sonal relations create the basis for a re-evaluation of how Christine relates to
herself.
Nowadays, I sometimes feel that they [her children] are talking [speaking Norwegian]
more together. It is because they are talking about school. They are the same age and it
happens that they talk. Sometimes I ask what they are talking about and then they give
me an answer in sign language. We [my husband and I] use sign language, and they can
understand what we are talking about. When we ask [them] a question, then they can
answer in sign language. But when we are using the silverware, they may converse with
each other. Sometimes I see this, and if I ask what they are talking about, I will get an
answer [in sign language]. (Ohna, 2001, p.179)
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 29
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 29
In spite of the fact that everybody at the table knows sign language, the
children do not use sign language when speaking to each other. It is not the
intention of the children to exclude the parents (as, for example, when
hearing people whisper if they do not want others to hear); rather it seems as
if it is unnatural for them to use sign language when communicating sponta-
neously with each other. The consequences are that the children can
understand what their parents are talking about but the parents cannot under-
stand what the children are saying. The parents are forced to ask the children
what they are talking about and while they always get an answer, we can see
this situation creates a tension in the text.
Christine wants everybody to have equal access to the conversation at the
dinner table. This is an ideal practised in the deaf world and it is contrary to
what many deaf persons experience when they are with hearing persons. In
her own deaf family, it should be possible for everybody to participate in a
joint conversation, like she did with her parents throughout her adolescence.
In spite of this, Christine accepts a different practice in her own family.
Although she, as a deaf person, wants to emphasize that everybody should be
able to participate on equal terms, this principle has to be considered against
another principle, namely the rights of her hearing children and their special
situation. As a mother, it is important for Christine that her children live on
their own terms and develop their own potential. Therefore, she makes the
same demands on herself as a deaf mother of hearing children that she makes
on hearing people; that is, to consider her situation as a deaf person. She sees
herself as a deaf person equal to hearing persons and demands equal access to
information. From an early age, this became a central part of her identity and
value system. As a mother of hearing children, she has integrated a new
dimension into her identity. Her respect for and recognition of her children as
hearing persons has done something to her. As a mother, it is her responsi-
bility to contribute to the development of her children and help them to be
true to their identity and their potential as hearing persons.
The interviews with Gro and Christine point to several important aspects
in relation to the understanding of identity in deaf persons. Gro s story focuses
on how self-identity can change from a taken-for-granted comprehension that
she is just like everybody else, via a comprehension that I am abnormal to an
understanding that being deaf means to be different from hearing persons and
that she can only be herself among other deaf persons. Christine s story
supplements Gro s story. It seems as though Gro is only telling half of the
story. There is something missing from Gro s story. Although Christine does
not know Gro, her story is not alien to her. Gro s story is a part of the context
in which Christine s story has to be interpreted. While Gro says  I can only be
myself with other deaf persons , Christine adds  I have to be deaf in my own
way . The key issue is related to the existential question of how to handle
their situations as deaf people. Christine s relationship with her hearing
children presents her with new demands which are not possible to handle in
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 30
30 Ohna
terms of her previous way of relating to herself. Instead of anchoring her
identity in a deaf cultural identity, it becomes important to rise above it.
DISCUSSION  LEARNING TO LIVE WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The two stories point to different aspects in relation to how deaf persons learn
to live with special conditions. Each in their own way, they express attitudes
about the same theme concerning identity: who am I, and what is it that
characterizes me as a human being?
The interaction-history and the self-history
The interaction-history represents the everyday interaction between the
subjects and deaf and hearing persons. The self-history represents how the
subjects reflect on their interaction history. Therefore, the two stories have to
be looked at in relation to each other.
Gro and Christine exemplify different ways of relating to interactions with
deaf and hearing persons. While Gro was a pupil at primary school, she had
contact with both deaf pupils at the deaf school and hearing pupils in her
neighbourhood school. Gradually, she experienced difficulties when she was
together with her hearing friends after school. She stopped spending time
with them and eventually attending a youth club for the deaf became more
important to her. Christine s story represents another narrative, concerning
interactive problems with hearing people. Although her hearing children
know the rules of visual communication very well and probably also identify
with their parents in valuing sign language, they sometimes choose to behave
in a way that is contrary to this. The children choose to use speech when
communicating with each other even when their parents are sitting at the
same table. The parents, therefore, are not able to understand what they are
saying. What is remarkable is not the situation in itself. Though it seems to be
in conflict with some norms in the deaf world, it is not an uncommon
situation. It is Christine s choice and her thoughts in this situation that is
interesting. As a deaf mother, she could have chosen to enforce the rule that,
at mealtimes, everybody should use sign language at all times, just as her
parents did when she was a girl. In this way, everybody can understand and
participate in the conversation. But she doesn t choose this strategy. Instead
she accepts that her children use articulated speech when speaking to one
another. She only insists upon two rules: they have to answer her in sign
language when she asks them what they are talking about and they have to
look at her when she is talking to them (elsewhere in the interview, Christine
explains that it is important for her that her children look at her when she
talks to them. Only then can they really understand what she is saying).
While the interaction-history focuses on different ways of behaving
towards deaf and hearing persons, the self-history focuses on the internal
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 31
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 31
dialogue of the subjects. This self-reflection plays a significant role in how a
person relates to him/herself and how deaf people learn to live with special
conditions. When Gro reflects on her experiences, she conceptualizes them in
a before and after perspective. Before, she knew she was deaf but she did not
understand what it meant. After, she emphasizes that being deaf is to be
different from hearing and that deaf and hearing persons do not understand
each other. At the same time, the borderline between the deaf world and the
hearing world is a significant one. While she previously would use sign
language with a strange person on the street, the arena for using sign language
now decreases. The deaf world becomes a small world and the hearing world
an immensely large world. Her way of thinking about herself also changes.
From being something that she had taken for granted, deafness becomes an
important dimension in relation to her interactions with others.
Christine s story is a narrative on a similar theme. At the same time, her
story illustrates the problems that arise when managing the dichotomy
between deaf and hearing. Such a strategy has a price. When Christine
reflects on her interaction-history, she emphasizes that her children are
hearing and that they talk about their friends and their school. She says that it
is natural for hearing children of the same age to use speech when communi-
cating with each other. But it is not a straightforward thing for her to choose
such a strategy. For herself, she accepts that deafness has a price but she will
not accept that her children have to bear all of the consequences of this by
having to adapt to their parents situation all the time. Christine is not only
deaf. The fact that she is a mother of hearing children is a vital part of her,
and it is her responsibility to help her children gain their autonomy.
For Christine, the situation around the dinner table represents a dilemma.
Her children are hearing and, for them, it is important to be able to talk to each
other in their own language about their experiences during the day. It seems that
their choice of language is dependent on the person they are talking to [the
children s strategy]. As a mother, Christine identifies with her hearing children.
This identification becomes a central part of her identity and she has to relate to
the tension this creates. She faces a moral dilemma (Billig et al., 1988) between
being deaf and being a deaf mother to hearing children. This creates an emotionally
difficult situation for her. If she accepts the strategy of her children, she will
inevitably be excluded from some of the spontaneous information she would get
if she had been hearing. When the children s strategy is in operation, it is
important that Christine always gets an answer from her children in sign
language when she asks them what they are talking about. In this way, her accep-
tance of their strategy gives her children apparent freedom but it also presupposes
that their answers are sincere and in sign language. It is a strategy based on trust
and respect for her children. At the same time, there is potential for misuse
because her children can manipulate what they are telling their parents.
This illustrates how Christine has given up the security tied to an under-
standing of deafness as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon. From a cultural
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 32
32 Ohna
perspective, it is important to respect NSL as equal to Norwegian as the
primary language for deaf people. At the same time, deaf people should have
access to sign language in the situations they consider important. Problems
arise in the encounter with  the other . To what extent can we prescribe what
is correct at the expense of other people? In other words, there may be a
conflict between the rights and needs of Christine as a deaf person and the
autonomy of her hearing children. By letting go of some of her ideals, she puts
something at stake. Her identity can no longer be anchored in being deaf
alone; she also has to relate to the fact that she is the mother of two hearing
children.
Christine s story illustrates how identity is something that has to be
negotiated discursively, and can no longer be tied to a social category or social
norms. When she claims that she is not only deaf, it is important not to think
that she regards deafness as something less valuable or something which has to
be corrected, as a compensatory perspective would assume. In some ways, we
could call this a  post-cultural perspective (although this is not an uncompli-
cated term). By post-cultural I mean a perspective that goes beyond the
cultural by including interplay between an individual condition and a cultural
community. Such a perspective would recognize deaf culture but it would also
emphasize individual possibilities and responsibilities towards oneself. When
this perspective also includes the hearing impairment as an unalterable aspect
of the deaf person, it can be criticized for being analogous with the compen-
satory perspective and can be perceived as a step backwards. However, it can
also be regarded as an example of how the deaf person has taken a step
forward. In this way, Christine s story can be understood as a contribution to
the understanding of how a deaf person has to learn to live within special
existential conditions. One of the things we can learn from Christine is that
we have an opportunity to make our own choices. Within the compensatory
perspective, the person has no choice; they are forced to operate within the
norms and values of hearing persons, in much the same way as the person
within the cultural perspective is forced to operate within deaf norms and
values. The recognition that we can choose; that we can make choices, is a
central point. Another aspect is the fact that it is the individual who makes
choices and that this is an existential fact from which the person can never be
free. However, the choices are anchored in one s own situation, not in the
norms of the hearing world or the deaf world.
A dialogical constructional perspective on learning
The point of departure in the study was to look at how people growing up and
learning to handle interactions with hearing and deaf persons are affected by
conditions arising from the tension between a compensatory policy and a deaf
cultural policy. The interpretation of the interviews shows how a person ties
together incompatible elements to create a coherent narrative of who they are
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 33
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 33
and how they relate to themselves and others. While the two narratives are
both similar and different, it is interesting to note how they present a
common underlying structure that can be conceptualized as four  phases . The
development goes from a taken-for-granted-phase, to an alienation-phase, an affil-
iation-phase and finally, to what I will call deaf-in-my-own-way. These phases
are not  predictable and recognizable stages as Glickman (1993, p.1) describes
in the development of a deaf identity. Rather, it is  the voice of the cultural
tool (Wertsch, 1998, p.99) the deaf person can use as mediational means
when producing utterances in the interview. The narrative is dependent both
on individual experiences from interactions with hearing and deaf persons
(alienation/affiliation), and on the language (the voice of the cultural tool)
which is offered to them by society. By looking at the interconnections
between the interaction-histories and the language the subjects use when
reflecting on their experiences, this can be regarded as a dialogical, construc-
tional perspective on learning. Besides being used as mediational means, the
phases can also function as a frame of interpretation for identifying some steps
in the development of the person concerned. To be able to formulate deaf in
my own way, the individual has to learn how to integrate experiences from
alienation and affiliation, where the two concepts both presuppose and
explain each other. The person will need experiences from deafness, as
impairment, connected to interactions which are suffering from a breakdown,
as well as experiences in a social community to cancel out the individual
obstacles, in order to move on.
In tables 1 and 2, each line item marks a phase in the individual s narrative
structure. The columns in the tables illustrate different ways of relating to
hearing persons, to deaf persons and to oneself. The ways of conducting
themselves towards hearing and deaf persons represent their interaction-
history while the ways of conducting towards oneself represent self-history.
The four phases do not represent a static demarcation of different ways of
behaving; rather they can be seen as a  repertory of phases the individual can
use. The person does not leave earlier phases behind, but the possible ways of
conducting themselves are dependent upon the actual context. In this way,
the narrative aspect will play a significant role because its function is to
eventually weave different ways of conducting together into a meaningful
unity.
In regard to a deaf person with hearing parents, the first phase can be charac-
terized as a taken-for-granted connection towards other persons, whether these
are parents or other hearing persons. The self-reflection can be described as  I
am deaf but it does not make any difference to me; I am like the others. This
taken-for-granted attitude is challenged in the second phase when the person
experiences the breakdown of communication with hearing persons. Hearing
persons become  those who do not understand me  those who are normal . The
self-reflection becomes  I am not like the others  I am abnormal . In these two
phases, it is unclear what kind of role other deaf persons play. To the extent the
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 34
34 Ohna
person has met other deaf people, the ways of conducting probably will not
differ from hearing persons. In the third phase, alienation towards hearing
persons is contrasted with affiliation towards deaf persons. The way of
conducting themselves towards deaf persons can be described as  we who
understand and know each other  the own . At the same time, the way of
relating to hearing persons has changed from  those who do not understand me
to  those who do not understand us . Hearing is no longer normal but  those
who are different . The self-reflection in this phase emphasizes that  it is with
other deaf persons that I can be myself  I am deaf . In the fourth phase, deaf in
my own way, the ways of conducting themselves towards hearing persons can
be characterized as  those who do not understand and we who do understand
each other in spite of the hearing impairment . Hearing persons become those
to whom I am ambivalent. The way of conducting themselves towards deaf
persons can be similarly described as we who understand each other but it is
not sufficient for me to be deaf. In spite of this, other deaf persons can be
characterized as those who are secure. The self-reflection in this phase can be
described as  I have to be together with both deaf and hearing persons and to
be able to do this, I have to be deaf in my own way . Deaf in my own way means
daring to risk something. It means recognizing that identification with hearing
persons can no longer can be handled as it was in earlier phases and that there
may be significant consequences from that. The different phases regarding deaf
persons with hearing parents are described in Table 1.
Table 1: Ways of relating to deaf and hearing persons, and oneself, for deaf persons with hearing parents.
(The shaded fields indicate overlap with similar field for those with deaf parents)
Phases Ways of relating Ways of relating Ways of relating to
to hearing persons to deaf persons oneself (self-reflection)
1. Taken-for-granted Taken-for-granted [ ? ] I knew I was deaf, but I
connection, I am like them did not understand
[they taken for granted] what it meant
[I am like the others]
2. Alienation Those who do not [ ? ] I am not like the others
understand me (unspecified)
[the normal] [I am abnormal]
3. Affiliation Those who do not We who do I am different from
understand us understand each other hearing persons and I
can only be myself
among deaf persons
[the different][the own] [I am deaf]
4. Deaf in my Those who do not We who understand each I must be together
own wayunderstand and we who other but it is not with deaf and
understand each other, in sufficient to be deaf hearing persons
spite of the hearing loss
[those to whom [those secure] [I have to be deaf in
I am ambivalent] my own way]
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 35
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 35
With regard to deaf persons with deaf parents, development is different in some
aspects. The first phase can be characterized as a taken-for-granted attitude
towards others, both deaf and hearing persons. The self-reflection can be
described as I am like the others. In a Norwegian context, a deaf person will
have contact with both deaf and hearing people and will probably not show
different ways of relating to one or the other. The transition to the second
phase takes place when the deaf person experiences problems in interactions
with hearing persons. Hearing persons become  those who do not understand
me  those who are normal . Deaf persons become  we who understand each
other  those who I know . The self-reflection in this phase can be described as
 I am different from hearing persons but this difference is characterized by
ambivalence. Like those with hearing parents, the third phase will be in
contrast to the previous one. The way of relating to hearing persons is
changed to  those who do no understand us  those who are different , and the
way of conducting themselves towards deaf persons become  we who under-
stand each other  the own . The fourth phase is identical to that presented on
the previous table. The different phases regarding congenitally deaf persons
with deaf parents are described in Table 2.
If we compare the two tables, some interesting observations arise. First of
all, it is worth noticing that the way of conducting towards deaf persons for
deaf persons with hearing parents is blank in the first two phases. This does
not mean that the deaf person has not met other deaf people during the early
Table 2: Ways of relating to deaf and hearing persons, and oneself, for deaf persons with deaf parents.
(The shaded fields indicate overlap with similar field for those with hearing parents)
Phases Ways of relating Ways of relating Ways of relating to
to hearing persons to deaf persons oneself (self-reflection)
1. Taken-for-granted Taken-for-granted Taken for granted I knew I was deaf, but I
connection, I am connection, I am did not understand
like them what it meant
[the taken for granted] [the taken for granted] [I am like the others]
2. Alienation Those who do not We who I am different from
understand me understand each other hearing persons
(specified)
[the normal] [the known] [I am ambivalent]
3. Affiliation Those who do not We who I can only be
understand us understand each other myself among
deaf persons
[the different][the own] [I am deaf]
4. Deaf in myThose who do not We who understand each I must be together
own wayunderstand and we who other but it is not with deaf and
understand each other, in sufficient to be deaf hearing persons
spite of the hearing loss
[those to whom ] [the secure] [I have to be deaf in
I am ambivalent my own way]
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 36
36 Ohna
years of his/her life. In a Norwegian context, most deaf children will meet
other deaf people during the pre-school period. Further, this does not mean
that the deaf person does not know that he or she is deaf. The important
thing is that being deaf is not considered something different from being a
hearing individual. This realization only happens when the deaf person
experiences problems in communicating with others because of the fact that
the other person is hearing.
The next point is that deaf people with deaf and/or hearing parents will
probably show different patterns in relation to self-reflection in the alienation
and affiliation phases. Those who have hearing parents will probably show a
more unspecified self-reflection than those who have deaf parents. When
those with hearing parents say  I am abnormal , those who have deaf parents
probably will have feelings of ambivalence in this phase. The emphasis on
difference will probably come later to those who have hearing parents. This
will have consequences for the third point, which is how to relate to deaf
people in the affiliation phase. At least in the opening part of this phase,
those who have hearing parents will be more cautious and wary than those
who have deaf parents.
Probably the most interesting aspects of the tables are not related to the
differences between deaf and hearing parents (the shaded fields), but the
transition from the third to the fourth phase and how to conduct themselves
towards deaf and hearing persons in the fourth phase independent of deaf or
hearing parents. In the fourth phase, deaf persons can be described as the
secure and hearing persons as those to whom I am ambivalent. This indicates
that the self-reflection in this phase is characterized by a latent instability,
which in many ways will contrast the greater extent of stability in the affili-
ation phase. This in turn can explain why the moral dilemma becomes an
important factor between the affiliation phase and the  deaf in my own way
phase.
At the same time, this emphasizes that deaf in my own way is something
more than having experiences ranging from alienation to affiliation. First of
all, this is a perspective that focuses on the deaf person s existential situation
where he or she has to relate to both deaf and hearing persons. However, in
order to be able to disengage from the conventional norms where the identity
is anchored in a cultural identity, the person needs a minimum of existential
security (Giddens, 1991). The person has to take a risk, and accept the conse-
quences of the recognition that it is not possible to handle identification with
hearing persons within the framework of the earlier phases. In addition, there
is a need for experiences from encounters with other hearing persons that he
or she comes to consider his or her own. Deaf in my own way represents a way
of relating to the deaf and hearing and a construction of deafness which is a
(preliminary) keystone in development. While conventional identity is
anchored in a collective, the discursive construction deaf in my own way
presupposes that the individual shows his or her true colours. The process of
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 37
Deaf in my own way: Identity, learning and narratives 37
constructing identity takes place in the social environment. It is visible and a
risk is involved. Another aspect is that it was the 40-year-olds in particular
who expressed ambivalence towards hearing persons. The 20-year-olds
probably were too young because they had not experienced how interactions
with hearing people also represent some existential choices. It seems that deaf
in my own way is not reachable for most 20-year-olds, since certain life experi-
ences must be endured and experienced first. These experiences go beyond
what a 20-year-old has generally been exposed to in schools and with families
in the course of their young lives. Of course the entry into any phase is
dependent on the individual s life experience, which is unique. This can be
formulated in the following statement: Deaf in my own way is actualized when
the person has recognized the consequences of alienation and affiliation and
in spite of this, lifts his or her head towards the world and meets the stranger
as a you, as a subject to be dealt with, one way or the other.
REFERENCES
Appiah A. Identity, Authenticity, Survival: Multicultural Societies and Social Reproduction.
In Gutmann A (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Billig M, Condor S, Edwards D, Gane M, Middleton D, Radley A. Ideological Dilemmas: a
Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: Sage, 1988.
Blumer, H. What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review 1954; 19: 3 10.
Bruner J. A Narrative Model of Self-Construction. In Snodgrass J G and Thompson R L (eds)
The Self Across Psychology. Self-recognition, self-awareness and the self-concept. New
York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
Engberg-Pedersen E. Lćrebog i tegnsprogs grammatik. [Textbook in sign language grammar].
Copenhagen: Center for Tegnsprog og Tegnstłttet Kommunikation-KC, 1998.
Fairclough N. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
Geertz C. Local knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretative Anthropology. Third Edition, New
York: Basic Books, 1983.
Giddens A. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1991.
Glickman N. Deaf identity development: Construction and validation of a theoretical model.
Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, School of Education, 1993.
Kierkegaard S. Begrebet Angest. [The concept of anxiety]. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1844/1960.
Kvale S. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 1996.
Mead G H. Mind, Self, & Society, from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Ohna SE. Šskape et selv. Dłves fortellinger om interaksjoner med hłrende. [Creating a Self.
Deaf persons narratives concerning interactions with others] Thesis for doctoral degree.
Oslo: University of Oslo, 2001.
Ricoeur P. Narrative identity. In Wood D (ed) On Poul Ricoeur: Narrative and interpretation.
London: Routledge, 1991.
Ricoeur P. Vad är en text? [What is a text] In Ricoeur P. Från text till handling. [From text to
action]. Stockholm: Brutus Östlings bokforlag, 1993.
Riessman C K. Strategic uses of narrative in the presentation of self and illness: A research
note. Social Scence and Medicine 1990; 30(11): 1195 1200.
DEI 6.1_crc 1/27/04 2:06 PM Page 38
38 Ohna
Riessman C K. Making Sense of Marital Violence: One Woman s Narrative. In Riessman C K
(ed). Qualitative Studies in Social Work Research. London: Sage Publications, 1994.
Schein J. At home among strangers. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1989.
Taylor C. The Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge, MS: Harvard
University Press, 1989.
Taylor C. The Politics of Recognition. In Gutmann A (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the
Politics of Recognition. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
van Dijk TA. Prejudice and Discourse: an Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in Cognition and
Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1984.
Wertsch J. Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Westin C. Från registrering av uppgifter till tolkning av texter [From registration of acts to
interpretation of texts]. In Eriksson B E and Näsman E. (eds) Samhällsvetenskap och
vardagserfarenhet: teori, praktik, etik. [Social Science and everyday experience: theory,
practice, ethics]. Stockholm: Liber Utbildning AB, 1994.
Address correspondence to: Stein Erik Ohna, Stavanger University College, PO Box 8002, N-4068,
Stavanger, Norway. Telephone: [phone] (office hours); e-mail: [e-mail]