Young South Asian deaf people and their families: negotiating relationships and identities 1

© Blackwell Publishing/Editorial Board 2002

South Asian deaf people and their families 21

© Blackwell Publishing/Editorial Board 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road,Oxford OX4 1JE, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.

Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 24 No. 1 2002 ISSN 0141–9889, pp. 21–45

Young South Asian deaf people and theirfamilies: negotiating relationships and identities1

Karl Atkin, Waqar I.U. Ahmadand Lesley Jones

Centre for Research in Primary Care, University of Leeds

Abstract This paper explores how various and competing identity claimsare negotiated by young deaf people and their families. Ourfindings, based on group and individual interviews with youngSouth Asian deaf people and individual interviews with theirfamilies, illustrate the complex realities of identity negotiationand how this process occurs against the backdrop of ethnicity,religion, gender, racism and deafness. More generally, thestructures against which these negotiations take place influencethe identity choices to be negotiated. Equally, the strugglesto define self-hood in meaningful and fulfilling ways showagency and ingenuity at work. This helps us to understand afundamental tension facing young South Asian deaf peopleas they make sense of their deafness. Deaf culture representeda source of strength and inclusion in a community, whichreaffirmed and respected their difference as deaf people, whileat the same time denying and undermining their ethnic andreligious difference.

Keywords: Ethnicity, identity, deafness and family relationships.

Introduction

Making sense of social identity has always been central to sociological thought(see Keith and Pile 1993). Knowing who we are and seeking legitimacy forthis understanding of ourselves is at the heart of social life, combining the‘most mundane of things’ with ‘the most extraordinary’ (Jenkins 1996: 3).At its most straightforward, identity marks the way in which individualsand collectives are distinguished in their social relationships from other indi-viduals and collectives (Simmel 1971). Identity, however, also embraces ‘being’and ‘becoming’; thereby reflecting practice and process, (Jenkins 1996).

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM21


22 Karl Atkin, Waqar I.U. Ahmad and Lesley Jones

Several recent writers, for example, have emphasised the flexibility, situa-tionality and hybridity of identity claims, according to which it is possibleto identity a dynamic interplay as we make sense of the different influenceson our life (Hall 1990, Papastrergiadis 1998). In this way multiple identifica-tions become possible. At the same time, modernist notions of identity,in which structural constraints limit the range of identity claims one canmake, remind us of the importance of power, ideology, politics, structureand history in legitimating people’s sense of identity (see Bauman 1995).There is thus some limit to the identities we can assume.

Consequently, identities are neither chaotic and liable to constructionaccording to free-will, nor wholly structured and pre-determined (Bourdieu1977). They are actively cultivated within a variety of structures and ideo-logical frameworks. The formation and maintenance of identity occurs withina dynamic space involving negotiation and engagement (Giddens 1991). Thefamily forms an important part of this dynamic space, embodying structuraland personal factors as well as historical and current social relationships(see Brannen et al. 1994, Jenks 1996). Family life is thus both constitutedand constitutive, mediating the ways individuals come to understand them-selves and present this understanding to others (see Bourdieu 1977).

In this respect, family life becomes a dynamic combination of individualand social action (Calhoun et al. 1993). Consequently, the role played by thefamily in reproducing values and behaviours is vital in understanding anindividual’s identity (see Ahmad et al. 1998). The reproduction of culturalvalues of honour and shame, identity and religion, obligations and expecta-tions, relationships with kin and gender roles, including sexual morality areregarded as essential to family responsibilities (Anthias 1992). And suchnorms may be constructed and policed in relation to the perceived opposingvalues of out-groups.

The family, therefore, represents a site of cultural reproduction as well asthe realisation of cultural norms and values (Rex 1991). This has particularsignificance for South Asian families living in the UK and, as such, family-based socialisation serves the twin functions of imparting religious and cul-tural values and countering, what may be seen as, the conflicting or corrupt-ing influences of the wider society (Anwar 1979, Afshar 1994). Perceptionsof new freedoms as threatening to the continuation of traditional culturalvalues, such as parental authority and obligations, possible changes inmarriage choices, and concerns about sexual permissiveness are held stronglyby the older generation of South Asian people (Anwar 1979, Modood et al.1994). Young people, for their part, adopt their own views seeking susten-ance from different and often conflicting value systems. Changes to parentalvalue systems may not come solely from a rejection, a relatively rare pheno-menon, of these values, (see Drury 1991), but from partial and conting-ent acceptance and reinterpretation of some of them – thus constructing‘hybrid’ identities (see Papastergiadis 1998). Both through globalisation – themovement of people, goods and cultural artefacts – and through living in a

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM22



multi-racial society, young people can have access to a variety of otheridentity claims. This variety includes being a ‘young person’ within a Westerncontext – with its emphasis on independence and autonomy – as well as themore mundane realities of school, home life and social networks (see Skeltonand Valentine 1998).

Identity politics, therefore, is especially salient in terms of the presumedpredicament of the ‘second generation’. Academic policy and lay discoursestend to over-emphasise ‘cultural conflict’ between young people and theirparents, thus racialising the routine negotiation of values and behavioursbetween generations (see Brah 1992). And, although generational change isobserved within South Asian communities, it is characterised by changesother than those relating to age, such as education, class, social and culturalcapital, and a different engagement with the state compared to the parents’generation (Drury 1991, Afshar 1994, Modood et al. 1994). Literature oninter-generational relations presents a picture of cultural retention and suc-cessful negotiation of identities; outright rejection of ethnic and religiousidentities remains rare in the second generation.

More broadly, this cultural retention embodies notions of language,religion, ethnicity, nationality and a shared heritage (Fenton 1999). Aswell as offering a form of self-identification, a symbol of belonging, prideand mobilisation (Samed 1992), cultural reproduction can also have a widerpolitical significance, defining exclusion by a powerful majority. A sense ofdifference, enforced by racism and discrimination thus remains an import-ant influence in how South Asian young people make sense of their lives.

Deafness can offer a similar form of pride, resistance and mobilisation,in response to how the ‘hearing world’ classifies people who are deaf. Deafpeople’s struggles for a positive identity rest on a re-framing of the disad-vantage they experience; the disadvantage results from the negative attitudesof a hearing society which fails to communicate effectively with deaf peoplein either sign or spoken language. Society thus infantilises and marginalisesdeaf people because of their difference. Such oppression is legitimised by therange of professionals who work with deaf people; according to Lane (1993),oppressors wearing the ‘mask of benevolence’. This powerful and necessarycritique of the hearing world’s response to deaf people has led to the develop-ment of an ascribed Deaf culture. Through this, deaf people can come tocelebrate their difference, by asserting a collective identity, based on a com-bination of social, linguistic and political gateways (Ladd 1991). British SignLanguage (BSL), for example, has emerged as a predominant symbol of Deafidentity, facilitating communication and supporting a positive sense of ident-ity, which enables deaf people to distinguish their experience from hearingpeople. Deaf social clubs further facilitate this cohesion.

The construction of Deaf culture, however, is itself open to criticism at avariety of levels. Of particular importance to this paper, is the criticism ofthe, largely white, ‘Deaf community’, by minority ethnic deaf people andtheir families for not responding to ethnic and religious diversity, and for

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM23



racial marginalisation of minority ethnic deaf people (Ahmad et al. 1998).As well as providing young people with an alternative cultural framework inwhich to make sense of their life, the predominant symbol of a Deaf identity,British Sign Language, poses a potential barrier between parent and child.For example, parents and young people often do not share a language andso have problems in conveying their thoughts and feelings to each other;developing positive relationships when there is little communication is farfrom easy. One of the central mediums of socialisation and cultural repro-duction – routine family life with a shared language – is thus compromised(see Beasley and Moore 1995, Corker 1998). Parents, especially those fromminority ethnic groups, may see Deaf culture in opposition to their owncultural and religious norms, while the young person somehow has to nego-tiate between Deaf identity and other identities. This paper explores theterritory at the intersection of these different and, at times, oppositionalidentity claims.

The study

To allow an exploration of complex and contingent perspectives, behavioursand inter-relationships, we used group interviews and in-depth individualinterviews with deaf young people, and individual interviews with their par-ents. We conducted 14 group interviews (43 respondents). Each group, withno more than four participants, was gender specific, and had respondents ofsimilar ages who attended the same school or social group. We also carriedout individual interviews with 15 deaf young people of the same age. Build-ing upon this first phase and exploring emerging issues in more depth weundertook a further 12 interviews with the same age group.

The sample of young people was generated through contacts with com-munity groups, schools, colleges, education authorities, social groups andnetworking in three localities in the North of England and one in Scotland.The interviews with young people were held in schools, colleges and youthclubs.

The sample of 70 deaf young people included 36 males and 34 females.The mean age of the sample was 15 years 9 months: 16 years 9 months formen and 14 years 11 months for women. Eighteen respondents were < 14; 30were 14–17; and 22 were 18–29 years of age. In terms of religion, 59 wereMuslim, three were Sikh, seven were Hindu and one was Christian. Forty-eight of the young people interviewed were at school, nine were at college,one attended University, seven were working, two were unemployed, onewas on a training course and the remaining two were carers at home. Mostyoung people lived at home with their parents. One lived with her mother –who was separated from her father – and with an aunt and uncle. Twoyoung people were in shared accommodation with other young people. Ofthe total sample, three were married although one was still waiting for her

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM24



husband to come from Pakistan, two and a half years after the wedding.Two of the young people lived with white partners (one deaf and one hearing)with whom they had children.

To supplement the material obtained from conversations with South Asiandeaf young people, we spoke to 15 hearing family members, who assumedparental responsibility for a deaf young person. These included 10 mothers,three fathers, one aunt and one sister. Three of these families had two ormore deaf children.

The 15 parents consisted of 11 Pakistani Muslims, two Indian Hindus,one Indian Sikh and one Indian Muslim from East Africa. Eight of thesewere relatives of a young person whom we had previously interviewed.

A topic guide, for use in both group and individual interviews, identifieda number of key themes developed from a literature review, discussions withkey informants, advice from an ‘expert’ advisory committee and relevantprevious work (Ahmad et al. 1998 and Chamba et al. 1998). The interviewsfocused on home life, family relations, language, education, use of free time,peer networks and religion. The themes raised by the group interviews wereexplored in more detail during the individual interviews with young people.To aid discussion of these issues with deaf people, some of whom hadminimal language skills in either BSL or spoken language, we used photo-graphs (of a deaf party), drawings (of a young man and young woman) andshow-cards (with single words denoting ethnicity, religion, deaf/disabledidentity, gender etc.). Informants drew or wrote on the drawings the issues,which were important to them, chose and rated cards, and discussed thephotographs in relation to ethnicity, deafness, gender, etc.

The narratives of young people informed our discussions with otherfamily members. These interviews aimed to cover the same topics as withthe young people but from the family’s perspectives.

Young people were offered a choice of interviewer (in terms of BSL orEnglish, and gender of interviewer). They decided the language of the inter-view: BSL or Sign Supported English (60) and English (10). The interviewsin BSL were interpreted with a voice over by a BSL/English interpreter. Theinterviewer asking the questions in English, however, was also a fluent BSLuser and could therefore assess the voice over by the BSL/English interpreter.A discussion after every interview was able to clarify any possible areas ofmisinterpretation. Parents were offered a similar choice (in terms of languageand gender of the interviewer). Eight interviews were conducted in Punjabi,five in English, one in Urdu and one in English/Punjabi. Those conducted inPunjabi and Urdu were translated into English for analysis. All interviewswith young people and parents were tape-recorded.

Transcribed interviews with parents and young people were organisedaccording to analytical headings. Following accepted conventions of qualitat-ive analysis (see Gubrium and Silverman 1989), information was taken fromthe transcripts and transferred onto a map or framework, allowing com-parison by theme and case. The respondents’ accounts were organised by

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM25



categories and sub-categories, suggested by the topic guides as well asnew categories that emerged from analysis of transcripts. The materialincluded under each heading reflected both the range and the frequency ofrespondents’ views on particular issues, and formed the basis of generalisingtheir experience. This enabled a comparative analysis of different aspectsof experience, as well as the significance of the individuals’ background inmaking sense of this experience. In the accounts below, pseudonyms are usedto protect respondents’ identities.

The accounts of young people and their parents

In presenting the narratives of parents and young people, we explore fourbroad and inter-related themes: interpretation of deafness; language andcommunication; socialisation and cultural reproduction; and responses toDeaf culture and BSL. The concluding section takes up the main findingsand locates them within wider debates about identity and family relationships.As we have noted, the sample was largely made up of young people (59 outof 70) and parents (11 out of 15), who could be best described as ‘PakistaniMuslim’. Where possible we use the experience of the smaller number of‘Indian’ families who practice Hinduism or Sikhism (still a sizeable groupof 10 young people and four parents) to draw out possible similaritiesand differences with the Pakistani Muslim families. However, our materialshows little, if any divergence in perspectives or experiences within theSouth Asian group. We acknowledge, however, that the small number ofHindu and Sikh young people could have an effect upon the production ofnarratives, making it especially difficult, for instance, to explore fully ideasof ‘difference’.

Understanding and making sense of deafnessHaving a deaf child has social and psychological consequences forhearing parents (see also Chamba et al. 1998, Gregory et al. 1995). Theseinclude feelings of guilt, frustration, anxiety, helplessness, isolation, notionsof unfairness and resentment. These responses mirror those of parents ofchildren with chronic illnesses and disabilities (Beresford et al. 1996).Many viewed the birth of a deaf child as a tragedy, difficult to com-prehend as well as threatening in terms of its consequences for the childand parents2.

Chronic and disabling conditions have an important impact on personalbiography and identity (Schou and Hewison 1999, Atkin and Ahmad 2000)and the parents’ own response to deafness affected the young persons’ viewsabout being deaf. For example, 15-year-old Bushra Khan, was aware thather parents resented having a deaf child. They loved her but had little con-fidence in her abilities:

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM26



My mother panicked. She was upset. She didn’t know how tocommunicate. She felt it would be impossible. She wanted me to behearing like everyone else. She did not want a deaf child.

This is a reminder that loving relationships do not always promote a positiveDeaf identify. We return to this below. Many parents believed that deafnessmade their children socially and morally more vulnerable, and limited theirlife chances. Maryam Fiaz, speaking of her 18-year-old daughter, said:

She does not have much understanding. When you get married youhave to be responsible for so many things, looking after the house,cooking for the person you get married to, all kinds of things.

Parental concerns focused on issues such as the ability to successfully nego-tiate transitions they deemed ‘normal’ for hearing children: a good education;social skills; knowledge of parental religions and cultures; and assuming adultroles such as having a job and being married. Parents felt that deafnesspresented additional barriers for their children. Parents also noted thechanging nature of problems faced by young people as they got older. Thisworried Maryam Fiaz:

A mother who has deaf children does not get over her difficulties,you are always thinking about it. My daughter is now an adult. Othergirls her age are married . . . who will marry her when she has so littleunderstanding? It’s when you start thinking of these kinds of things,where do these thoughts lead you? Pain, that’s what.

Other evidence confirms how parental concerns are heightened as their deafchildren grow older (Chamba et al. 1998, Ahmad et al. 1998).

Perhaps, not surprisingly, young people felt that their parents’ view ofdeafness undermined their own confidence and made it difficult to sustain apositive self-image. Many young people, for example, felt that their parentstreated their hearing siblings more favourably. Fifteen-year-old Bushra Khan,remarked:

It seems as though, because I was deaf, they kept me in thebackground. They always involve my younger sister. I think it’sbecause I’m deaf. They don’t think I can handle things.

Bushra, who wanted to be a schoolteacher, went on to describe her parents’surprise that she was able to learn English. Deafness thus subverted ‘normal’family hierarchies; the roles the deaf person would usually be entitled toperform were passed onto hearing siblings. Young people resented such‘lack of respect’, a term used repeatedly to describe their treatment by bothfamily and hearing people. Such social diminution, or what Finklestein(1993) describes as ‘social death’, within the family sometimes reflected the

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM27



marginalisation they experienced in the wider society. However, as we shallsee, family life is not always so negative.

Stereotypes of supportive extended South Asian families are common(critiques by Ahmad 1996; Atkin and Rollings 1996). Recent evidence, how-ever, finds that the extended family is often a mixed blessing (Chamba et al.1998) and sometimes oppressive, providing moral policing but little practicalsupport (Katbamna et al. 2000). In our study, the extended family was ofsome help but also posed many challenges for the deaf young person andtheir parents. Parents sometimes found themselves blamed for their child’sdeafness. Parents and children also felt socially isolated and ostracised.Shahab Khan, father of an 18-year-old son, described his family’s reaction:

They said we must have sinned to have a deaf child. My mother andsister used to say I must have done something wrong . . . There was astrong tradition of politics in our family and [grandfather] wanted hisgrandson to be a lawyer. [Grandfather] used to cry about him being deaf.

Most parents attempted to adjust to the deafness by treating children ‘as ifthey were normal’. Mr. Bachan, father of 16-year-old Amitabh, typified thisresponse:

I mean our son is normal in a way apart from hearing. We do notconsider him deaf. That is why he didn’t go to a special deaf school.This is why he does not learn sign language. It wouldn’t be good forhim (our emphasis).

Numerous studies report such constructions of normalcy, by discountingthe specifics of a condition (e.g. Atkin and Ahmad 2000). As we shall see,such an approach, however, meant parents can sometimes fail to recognisethe benefits for their children both of Deaf culture and of associating withother deaf people.

Not all young people felt excluded; those who experienced exclusion wouldstill describe a generally loving family atmosphere. Parents often criticisedthe extended family for having negative views of deafness, albeit that par-ents’ own perspectives could also be negative. This reflects the complexitiesof the parents’ response. They do have a sense of sadness at having a deafchild, but at the same time they wish to ensure the best opportunities for theirchild. More specifically, deaf young people and their families can describeloving and caring relationships similar to those described by their non-deafpeers (see Brannen et al. 1994). Seventeen-year-old Shazia Akhtar, whenasked about her relationship with her parents commented:

I think we are a close family. We all look after each other. My mumand dad love me and I love them.

Parents were vital allies for their children, while at the same time makingdeaf children feel excluded and less valued because of poor communication.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM28



Some young people felt fully included in family life. Ayub Ahmed, aged 21,when asked if he felt valued by his parents, remarked:

Everyone in the family is treated the same. There is no preferentialtreatment. I’d support my brother and sister and they’d support me.In this family there is equality.

Twenty-year-old Ibrahim Nabi was asked the same question and commented:

My parents try hard not to exclude me and I do feel part of the family.Basically we’re together. That’s good.

Others described themselves as the family favourites, having a greater say infamily affairs than hearing siblings.

Language and communicationLanguage is symbolic of culture, ethnicity and heritage and a central vehiclefor constructing shared identities and defining out-groups. Minority ethniccommunities have struggled hard to maintain their linguistic heritage and toshare it with their children. Such linguistic heritage also connects generationsand countries and plays a crucial part in sustaining community and religiousties (Anderson 1983, Ahmed 1992). This is why any perceived threat to homelanguage may also be seen as a threat to family and community relationships,cultural reproduction and religious adherence. This represents an importantpart of the background for understanding the use of language between deafchildren and their families.

In our study communication remained limited between most young peopleand their families and for many there was no common language. Two reasonsexplain this. First, few hearing family members knew BSL and most parentssaw BSL as a threat to, rather than a vehicle for, enhancing family relations.We will return to this later in the paper. Second, many family members hadlimited access to the child’s other language, English, and few children whoused spoken language, had skills in or were supported in developing theirhome spoken language. Not surprisingly, most young people bemoanedthe lack of communication at home. For example, Mohammed Waseem, a12-year-old BSL user, finds it difficult to communicate with parents. Theyspeak Punjabi, which he does not know: ‘It’s boring at home. There’s nothing.No communication’. South Asian parents, like other hearing parents, missednot being able to speak to their children in the home language, or fully toinvolve them in family conversations (see Fletcher 1989)3. Equally, young deafpeople resented being at the margins of the family, excluded from conversa-tions and other important aspects of family life – although this was notuniversally experienced.

A few families had begun to use BSL, usually with support from the child’sschool. Mothers and siblings, especially sisters, were more likely to learn

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM29



BSL than fathers. Learning BSL, however, was not seen as easy. Manymothers felt that their ability to learn BSL was compromised by their limitedskills in English3. Siblings had greater success in learning BSL than mothersand thus became important mediators between parents and deaf children.The siblings who interpreted were very often also the deaf young person’smajor source of emotional support. The reliance on particular hearing familymembers as go-betweens with the deaf family member is also reported forwhite families (Jones et al. 1987, Hetu et al. 1992). The fact that mothersand sisters make greater efforts to acquire the skills to communicate with thedeaf young person is also reflective of the importance of women as ‘carers’,keepers of tradition and in holding families together (Anwar 1979, Atkinand Ahmad 2000).

However, brothers too sometimes played an important role in facilitatingcommunication. Twenty-two-year old Adeeba Ahmad said:

If I tell my brother things he will tell my parents but [if ] I tell myparents, they don’t understand really.

Older deaf brothers, in particular, were important role models for youngerdeaf brothers. They helped in cultural socialisation and, in particular, inreligious teaching and observance. They also partly compensated for thefathers’ relative absence from their deaf children’s lives. Strong relationshipsbetween fathers and deaf young people were thus uncommon. Fifteen-year-old John Kang’s mother knew basic signs but there was little communica-tion with his father. Fathers were also described as ‘too busy’ to learn signlanguage. This seemed to reflect ideas about the role of men in family life(see above) as well as more practical influences such as the need to work.Many of the BSL classes, for example, were held during the day. In ourfieldwork sites, it was almost exclusively mothers who attended BSL classesaimed at South Asian parents. Nonetheless, in some families, fathers didplay the lead role as communicators. This, however, had its own problems.Maryam Fiaz described the problems that arose as a consequence of herhusband being their daughter’s main source of information:

He has always been the best with her. But now my daughter is 18 andhas problems with her periods, her father cannot be as involved withthat, can he? That is up to me but I don’t know how to make herunderstand.

Limited communication, typical of most families, allowed them to ‘get by’although, as noted, deaf young people often felt excluded, and the lack ofcommunication with certain family members hindered the development ofstrong ties. Respondents specifically bemoaned their compromised ability tocommunicate ‘deep things’. Being able to explore ‘deep things’ became moreimportant with age. Mother, Arifa Begum, explained:

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM30



He nags us all the time. We haven’t got the signs to make him realise.As he has got older, his wishes are getting bigger. We can make himunderstand all the routine things but not the deep things.

Madhu Patel, whose daughter is 20, agreed and cited specific examples:

About sex education and about religion as well. I find it difficult toexplain sometimes.

In recognition of the limited communication, parents sometimes avoidedexplaining certain things, or excluded deaf young people from particularactivities or discussions. Frustration at not being able to communicateproperly, on the part of both deaf young people and family members, wascommon. Salma Jabbar, a mother, explained:

If sometimes he doesn’t understand what I am saying, he startsthinking what has my mum said to me. Obviously he gets upset andhe sits down. So I don’t try and make him understand too muchbecause he can’t understand a lot. I go quiet and then I get upset.

Salma Yousef (aged 12) remarked, ‘I can’t follow things. I’m deaf. It’sdifficult for me . . . That’s my life. I’m on my own’. This pattern was repeatedin most families and young people’s frustration could not be summed upmore strongly than in the eloquence of 14-year-old Ismael Kamal: ‘Yourhands are waiting to say something and there’s nobody to say it to’. Thesadness of family members, especially mothers, and the loneliness of familylife for many deaf young people was, therefore, a common theme in ourdiscussions with young people and parents. Twenty-two-year old AdeebaAhmad also has a deaf brother:

They all sit chatting away at dinner and my brother and I are justsitting. We are really missing out. No one will talk to us at all. Theytreat us as being lower down than them. It can be very, very lonelyat times.

The number of families where the young deaf person faced no communica-tion problems and felt highly valued was relatively small, but such examplesshowed how parents and children could build strong relationships with goodcommunication.

The isolation and limited communication at home, many young deafpeople felt, dented their confidence to face the wider, ‘hearing’ world. Socialnetworks were difficult to develop with hearing young people and theirattempts to develop networks with deaf peers were sometimes resented byparents (see later). Whilst most young people as they grew up developedresources and networks to overcome their isolation, a few remained extremelyisolated and had low self-esteem.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM31



Communication and socialisationSocialisation into cultural and religious values, against the backdrop of apotentially hostile majority culture, is a major concern of minority ethnicgroups (Rex 1991, Anthias 1992, Modood et al. 1994, Ahmad 1996). Thepoor communication hinders routine socialisation. Equally, the possiblegreater freedoms afforded to some deaf children, introduce them to influ-ences many parents would wish to guard their children against (see Ahmad1996). The limited access to a family’s networks compromises the deaf youngpersons’ ability to learn through observation and participation in routinefamily and community life (Ahmad et al. 1998). The resultant loss of socialand cultural capital makes it difficult for young deaf people to function asfull members of their families and communities. This creates potential diffi-culties for the relationship between parent and child.

For example, most young people and parents, irrespective of deafness,employ various strategies to avoid conflict (Drury 1991, Afshar 1994, Modoodet al. 1994). This is usually done through using particular and flexible inter-pretations of cultural rules, employing different cultural symbols to counterparticular arguments, and avoiding open displays of behaviours which wouldcause offence. For example, a woman may use her identity as a ‘Muslimwoman’ to challenge restrictions, which she argues, are located in ‘ethnicculture’. People negotiate ‘deviant’ behaviour against the backdrop of nor-mative assumptions by emphasising the unique features of their situation,giving a legitimate excuse to contravene norms without damaging identitiesor severing relationships (Finch and Mason 1994). Such negotiations ofbehaviour, if they are not irreparably to damage one’s social or moral iden-tity, require cultural understanding and social skills. Both deaf adults fromminority ethnic groups and their families have argued that deaf people areexcluded from acquiring such understanding both by their communities andinstitutions (Ahmad et al. 1998). Their sometimes crude understanding oftheir families’ ethnic and religious values sometimes made it difficult foryoung deaf people to negotiate behaviour in this way.

One particular area of concern in our study was the problem of teachingdeaf young people about their religion. Mosques and temples, which providesuch teaching, seemed to make no BSL provision or show any Deaf awareness.Perhaps, not surprisingly, few young people valued their attendance at mos-ques or temples as places of instruction, religious observance or social life.Equally, both young deaf people and parents bemoaned the young people’slimited religious knowledge. Twenty-two-year old Adeeba Ahmad complained:

I don’t know anything about Islam. I have no idea about it. I neverwent to mosque. My parents have not told me anything . . . I knowwe eat halal meat but I don’t know what it is.

Twenty-year-old Gurdev Singh, a Sikh young man goes to the temple withhis parents:

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM32



I can only hear a little bit. I don’t understand it all really. It just goesover my head. There’s nobody who signs there. My mum and daddon’t explain at all. They don’t understand that I can’t understandwhat’s happening in the temple.

In an extreme case, one reportedly Hindu child could not tell us his religion.Deaf young people’s limited understanding of their religion, both in termsof scripture and values, concerned parents greatly. The young people’sreluctance to attend mosques or temples was resented by parents.

However, despite concerns about limited religious understanding, mostyoung people knew enough about their families’ cultural values to avoidconflict and to negotiate appropriate behaviour, and are thus able to buildsupportive family relationships. Some parents proudly talked of theirchildren’s religious understanding, particular since they were aware of thedifficulties of communicating such knowledge. Arifa Begum said of her 20-year-old son: ‘He understands Islam well. Thank God, he does have Islamicknowledge’. Nighat Hassan said of her 20-year-old brother:

He never touched alcohol, he never touched a woman and he neverwent clubbing. He goes regularly to mosque. He reads the Qur’an andprays five times a day. He wants to learn more and he feels because ofhis hearing he probably has missed out on a lot.

The deaf girls emphasised the socially sanctioned, importance of modestyand sexual morality to their own and family identity. The comments of17-year-old Shehnaz Akhtar sum up both her basic understanding of modestyand appropriate gendered behaviour, as well as the rigidity of some of herunderstanding:

I know it is important to wear a scarf. If someone comes, you have togo upstairs and fetch your scarf. Wearing a scarf shows respect’.

So far, this is a model summing up of the symbolic significance of the scarf.However, she then goes on:

[Mother] also told me, that if a man comes into the house to visit usand I don’t have a scarf on, they could marry you . . . If you wear yourscarf, it means you’ve already been married or something like that.Oh, I don’t know.

The example she uses, although illustrating some misunderstanding, conveysthe message concerning the symbolic importance of modesty to female sexualmorality. To this extent, Shehnaz is well socialised into cultural moresregarding gendered behaviour.

A few young people showed a high level of sophistication in theirunderstandings, which allowed them to challenge parental views from a firm

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM33



basis. Seventeen-year-old Misbah Nabi’s views on clothing and modestyindicate a challenge to ‘ethnic values’ from the position of ‘religious’understanding:

My mother says clothes, for example, like skirts and tops, mother saidI’m not allowed to wear that. I think that is strange because it’s allright. It’s long, so my mother is wrong. As long as I’m covered up, it’sOK. I used to say to my friends, ‘Does your mother and father let youdo that’, and their mother and father says, yes they can but my mothersays no. And that’s made me realise that my parents are wrong.

Finally, an important symbol of cultural reproduction is marriage withinthe ethnic and religious community. Modood et al. (1994), for example,note that their African Caribbean older respondents bemoaned the tendencyamong younger people to set up families with white partners; this was per-ceived as a threat to the survival of African Caribbean identity. Within theDeaf community, there are debates about marriages to Deaf and hearingpeople; the concerns are not just pragmatic but also political. Marriagesacross ethnic or religious boundaries are rare among South Asians, especi-ally Muslims (Modood et al. 1997). Among our respondents, both youngpeople’s and parents’ attitudes to ‘appropriate’ marriage partners followedthis pattern. Some gender differences were, however, observed. Young menwere more likely, although still few in numbers, to express a wish to marrywhite partners than young women. There were more mixed views onmarrying a hearing or deaf partner.

The few young men who would prefer to marry a white hearing girlbelieved this would counter the disadvantages of being both deaf and SouthAsian. Ikram Hussain explained:

It is not a good idea for deaf people to marry deaf people. How wouldyou cope? It would also help if they were white and spoke English.They would understand a lot more about what is going on. Deaf peopleneed that.

Most young people, however, emphasised the importance of having apartner from the same religious and ethnic group and of accepting parentalwishes. Eleven-year-old Shehla Naz explained:

My parents want me to marry a South Asian man, a Muslim man.I wouldn’t marry a white man, no, definitely not, because of religiousdifferences, that’s why.

For parents, deafness was a particular concern in making decisions aboutthe appropriateness of a potential partner, although parents would some-times disagree between themselves and with their children on such choices.Ghulam Nabi, father of two teenage deaf children, remarked:

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM34



I want them to marry someone they like because it is their life. I willtry and introduce them to suitable partner and let them decide.

Parents, however, because of generally negative attitudes towards deafness,were keener than their children to suggest a hearing partner. Adeeba Ahmad,aged 22, said:

[Father] says, I will have to change my mind [and marry a hearingman]. I said, it’s my life. I want to be able to communicate with myhusband and I think it’s not fair. I think communication is reallyimportant. I don’t want to be sitting in the house not even able totalk to one another.

Encountering Deaf culture and British Sign LanguageYoung people did have a sense of deafness, although as we have seen this isentwined with the question of family networks. Over 90 per cent of deafchildren are born to hearing parents (Ahmad et al. 1998). A Deaf identity isthus rarely developed through family-based socialisation. A sense of belong-ing and identification with Deaf culture, if it occurs, is engendered throughthe use of BSL, peer groups and attendance at Deaf events and institutions.Young people who had such contact found it helped them to legitimate theirsense of deafness as well as making sense of the discrimination they faced.To this extent, Deaf culture was reaffirming, provided confidence and locatedthe disadvantages associated with deafness in the oppressive practices of thehearing world. Twenty-year-old Sadhna Patel expressed a strong sense ofidentity; for her contact with deaf people:

[They] helped build me up, if you like, make me feel positive, one stepat a time. I had to think how to become strong. I’ve learnt to developmyself.

Developing and sustaining a Deaf identity within the context of family rela-tionships was, however, far from straightforward. Minority ethnic parentambivalence towards Deaf culture and BSL has been noted (Ahmad et al.1998) and this was certainly reflected among the parents we interviewed.There was also a fear that schools were doing little to consolidate children’sreligious or cultural identity. At worst schools and Deaf culture were seen asa threat to children’s ethnic identity, summed up in the comments of onemother: ‘I send my son to school and he comes back an Englishman’ (Ahmadet al. 1998). Studies of South Asian communities’ inter-generational relation-ships and cultural reproduction recount similar concerns about religiousand cultural erosion and external threats to cultural values (Afshar 1994,Modood et al. 1994, Ahmad 1996, see also Anthias 1992).

As part of this, many parents prefer the child not to learn BSL. LearningBSL, when parents have no skills in this language, was seen as emphasisingthe linguistic divide between the hearing family and the deaf child. This

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM35



sometimes created the fear, among parents, of their exclusion from the child’slife and of excluding children from their life, and of potentially losing theirchild to the (white) Deaf culture. Kaneez Rasool, whose 17-year-old sonhad learnt BSL, commented:

They understood us more when they were little. Now they have theirown language, not just our way of communication (our emphasis).

Some prohibited their child from using BSL at home. Nighat Hassan said:

I used to tell him, put his arms down and start trying to communicatewith me properly (our emphasis).

These references to ‘their own language’ and ‘communicating properly’ areindicative of parental ambivalence towards BSL; it is neither ‘proper’ nor isit ‘our language’. Some parents celebrated the ‘fruits’ of resistance to BSL.Another parent, Arifa Begum, noted: ‘It is good, a person should be able totalk’. Parents’ responses also relate to the normalisation strategies we notedabove. As we have seen, however, in most cases BSL is little used at homebecause of the reluctance of the hearing family members to learn to use it.Young people often have to shift between using BSL and lip reading, whilenot feeling particularly confident in either. Such shifting of languages iscommonly employed by multi-lingual children; however, it is more difficultwhen a deaf child has limited speech and when little professional support isavailable in learning spoken home language (see Chamba et al. 1998 andAhmad et al. 1998).

The use of BSL was also talked about in terms of parents’ suspicion ofDeaf culture, which they believed would divide them from their children.Not being able to communicate with the child compromised their ability toshare their children’s world and to protect them. To some extent, youngpeople were sympathetic to these views. Three themes help us make senseof this.

First, association with Deaf culture (Deaf friends, attendance at the Deafclubs, use of BSL) was sometimes regarded as a threat to religious andethnic values and family solidarity. Deaf culture was seen as no more thanan extension of the white culture and parents felt threatened by their child’sincursions into these networks (see also Ahmad et al. 1998). Parents mentionedindividualism, their fear of the young person becoming over-westernisedand about sexual permissiveness in the Deaf clubs. They also saw the useof alcohol in social activities at the Deaf club as culturally and religiouslyunacceptable. Kishore Kumar, a Hindu parent, noted:

I think it is important to keep our own ways and customs. Just becauseEnglish people do it, it doesn’t mean that we should do it. I want tokeep the difference between us.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM36



Such narratives also illustrate how essentialising discourses are also a partof the ways in which ethnicity is produced by people from minority ethnicgroups4. Parents also feared that because of better communication betweentheir deaf children and the Deaf community, they might find it difficult toretain their child’s affection; ‘losing’ the child, both symbolically and liter-ally was a strong fear. This fear was not without foundation. For example,in one of the localities, conversion of several young South Asian deaf peopleto a Christian group with strong networks in the white Deaf communityterrified the parents. That some of these converts were involved in an officialcapacity with deaf young people damaged the integrity of local services inparents’ view.

Young people, although finding their parents’ views restrictive, shared atleast some of their concerns. Twelve-year-old Salma Yousef noted:

[White deaf people] mess around, they’re silly, they say rude things.There are pubs there and boys and a lot of messing about.

As part of this some of the older deaf children were also beginning to beaware of possible tensions between their wish to identify with the culture oftheir parents and associating with Deaf culture. That this was a responseas much to the white and Christian culture as to the Deaf culture is clearfrom parents’ and young people’s more favourable views about South Asian(largely Muslim) Deaf clubs. Not all localities included in our study hadsuch facilities. One, however, was particularly lively with a strong and regularmembership. The perceived role of the Deaf club in relation to respectingreligious and cultural sensitivities, in providing gender appropriate activities,observing food and drink rules and safeguarding moral identities of the youngpeople was an important arbiter of its acceptability. Ahmad et al. (1998) notethe popularity of Deaf-led social groups among minority ethnic deaf peoplewith most concentrating on reaffirming and celebrating their religiousand cultural heritage. In the present study, young people as well as parentsperceived the South Asian Deaf clubs as vehicles for re-socialising youngpeople into their religion and ethnic culture. The one well-established club,with recent success in securing funding for two half-time developmentworkers, was holding sessions for men and women on separate nights. Andclose liaison had been developed between the project staff and parents, tothe extent that parents and young people used project workers as a generalresource of advice and support. Deaf identity was also consolidated throughattendance at these groups; but, importantly, it was no longer in conflict orcompetition with ethnic or religious identity. Young people shared parentalapproval of such clubs. Nadira Hussein, aged 16, had learnt much about herethnicity and religion by attending the club: ‘My mother says I can comehere now because I am learning about Muslim religion’. Others found theclub fundamental in explaining the Qur’an to them, something to whichthey could not have access through the family or the mosque.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM37



South Asian clubs, however, had some limitations. One young attenderhad stopped using the above club; his mother described how he resented theincreasingly religious atmosphere of the club. A few young users expressed apreference for mixed gender groups, which were ‘more fun’. Equally, Ahmadet al. (1998) note the precarious funding mechanisms and limited resourcesof such initiatives.

Secondly, both parents and young people complained of racism withinthe Deaf community, something also reported by Ahmad et al. (1998). Thisfunctions at the level both of non-recognition of cultural or religious differ-ence as well as overt racist behaviour. For example, 17-year-old ShehnazAkhtar, wished there was a Deaf South Asian club in her area, as she felther parents would support her attendance at such a club: ‘Everything is forwhite people, there is nothing for South Asian people’. This is part of moregeneral concerns expressed by minority ethnic deaf people about the slowprogress within the Deaf community in recognising ethnic diversity andtackling racism (Ahmad et al. 1998). Overt racism in Deaf clubs was animportant issue. Kishore Kumar described a recent incident, at a Deaf club,involving his son:

There was an English man, he started making comments about Indianpeople, asking why they came to this country, saying they do all thesethings. He [son] didn’t say anything and then the man threatened to hithim and he got scared. He ran home and he was crying. He lost a lotof confidence.

Thirdly, gender played an important part in how parents responded to theirdeaf children’s relationship with the Deaf community. Most, as we haveseen, felt that deafness made their children vulnerable. Parents respondeddifferently to young men and women because of the gendered nature of moralidentities. Muslim, Hindu and Sikh parents shared these views. Young deafmen were afforded greater freedoms, almost as a compensation for beingdeaf, than their hearing peers. Conversely, perceived threats to young deafwomen’s moral identities were countered by resisting their incursions intothe Deaf culture. Female moral identities are perceived to be more easilydamaged and less easy to repair within South Asian communities, havingconsequences for the individual and the family and affecting marriage pro-spects (Wilson 1979, Mumtaz and Shaheed 1987, Katbamna et al. 2000).While one can bemoan the sexism of these normative values, their conse-quences for the families and young people are real and serious. KishoreKumar commented:

They see English people do this so we can do it, children do say that,don’t they. They learn these things. In our culture if a girl does awrong act then she can’t get married all her life, you know, how badshe is considered to be.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM38



This offers another example of the process of racialisation. Threats to moralidentities could be dealt with firmly. Sixteen-year-old Nadira Hussein,described how her family stopped her from attending college because ofher friendships with young men:

My family are quite strict and they found out something that was aproblem, so they finished college. So I have to stay at home andthere’s been quite a bit of problems.

This change had consequences for Nadira: ‘So my confidence is not verygood. It’s very difficult and also being deaf as well’. Drury (1991) notes thatyoung South Asian women complain that their male counterparts are affordedgreater freedoms, including sexual indiscretions; something certainly true ofour respondents.

Finally, not all parents resisted their children’s relationship with theDeaf community. Although they wished to safeguard their children fromthe perceived excesses and potentially corrupting influences of the Deaf/white cultures, they also recognised the children’s need to develop links withthe Deaf world. Concerns about isolation led to some parents encouragingattendance at the Deaf clubs, especially South Asian Deaf clubs.

Conclusion

Young people’s assertion of independence and autonomy is negotiated withinthe context of family relationships as well as external structures and networks.This informs more specific debates about the construction of Deaf identity.The constructions of identity are often contested, with the tendencies toargue that certain identities are more authentic than others or that one cantry out or discard identities at will, as if these were consumable items. Thepolitical mobilisations around ‘black’, ‘disabled’ or ‘deaf ’ identities privilegethese definitions of self-hood over others (Sivanandan 1990, Lane 1993,Oliver 1996). Lane’s (1993) important work, for example, purports the notionof a global Deaf identity or culture; others go as far as to argue that deafpeople constitute an ethnic group (see also Ladd 1990). On the otherhand, post-modern arguments about identity, emphasising the malleability,situationality, historicity and hybridity of a potentially infinite number ofidentity claims sometimes fail to locate self-hood within the material andpower axis (Papastergiadis 1998, reviews some of this work). There has beenspecific criticism of those who apply this view to Deaf culture (Smith andCampbell 1997, Wrigley 1996).

The findings from our work show the complex realities of identity negotia-tion in the lives of young South Asian deaf people and their parents, againstthe backdrop of ethnicity, religion, gender, racism and deafness (both in itsphysical and symbolic sense). The structures against which these negotiations

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM39



take place influence the identity choices to be negotiated. Equally, thestruggles to define self-hood in meaningful and fulfilling ways show agencyand ingenuity at work. Identities, therefore, were neither totally imposednor did they represent consumables to be donned or discarded at will.

That language structures thought and is a potent symbol of being is atruism. Having a shared language symbolises much more than an ability tocommunicate; it signifies a shared identity, a collective heritage, and facilitatesthe imagining of ties (Anderson 1983). Language is also inextricably linkedto defining out-groups and of experiencing religion as a lived phenomenon(Ahmed 1992). Having a deaf child in a hearing family can seem for some,to threaten all these imagined certainties. Family-based learning, religiousobservance, establishment of religious and social institutions, minorityethnic media and businesses all play a part in this cultural maintenance andreproduction (Rex 1991, Anthias 1992, Modood et al. 1994). Alongside this,parents and families protect their younger members from the perceived threatsfrom outsiders (Ahmad 1996). Having a deaf child poses threats to thesecertainties. Deafness is thus more than a physical phenomenon; it is perceivedto be a threat to the deaf young person having full membership of the familyand community. The sense of loss experienced by parents, the resistance torecognising the difference of their child and, for most parents, objection tolearning BSL (described as ‘their’, i.e. deaf people’s language) all symbolisethis threat.

However, the strategies employed to deny ‘deafness’ serve young deafpeople poorly. Cultural isolation, religious marginalisation and the lonelinessof family life were the sad realities for some young deaf people. Some aspectsof the ‘social death’, described by Finklestein (1993), were symbolised bytheir more diminished role in the family and community. This, however,was far from straightforward or universal; some parents and young peopledescribed strong and loving relationships, in which parents were trying tosecure the best opportunities for the child. The negotiation of deaf andethnic/religious identities had to take place against this complex process.

Possession of social and cultural understanding is an important marker ofidentity. Having limited cultural understanding is, for example, reported tohinder minority ethnic deaf people’s attempts to negotiate behaviour (Ahmadet al. 1998). Both the parents and young people confirmed problems inacquiring cultural and religious understanding. The conversion of some youngpeople to a Christian minority sect, was seen by families as a symbol ofhaving weak religious and cultural roots. Equally, it symbolised the threatsposed by the white/Deaf world. Most young people, however, felt they haddeveloped sufficient religious and cultural roots to enable them to live theirlives, to negotiate behaviour and protect their identities. Some young people,for example, articulated arguments about the cross-cutting and conflictingvalues of religious doctrine and cultural traditions to counter one against theother. Some young women could provide sophisticated articulations of theimportance of dress appropriate to female modesty, dress which covered

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM40



the body. Using this construction, arguments could be mounted to wearlong skirts and tops as opposed to shalwar-kameez; the latter formulated as‘ethnic’ dress. Equally, being deaf did not threaten the negotiation of marri-ages within their own ethnic and religious group. These aspects of identitywere non-negotiable to most young people and parents alike. Where theydiffered was on the potential desirability of deaf (preferred by young people)and hearing partners (favoured by parents). To this extent, South Asiandeaf young people seem no different from their South Asian hearing peers(Modood et al. 1994).

Gender played an important part in both family life and excursions intothe Deaf culture. The enhanced role of mothers and siblings as interpretersor ‘relay stations’ between the family and the deaf young person was notsurprising. This resides perhaps in the mothers’ role as ‘carers’ and keepersof tradition. However, the relative absence of the fathers from the lives ofyoung deaf people had consequences for family life and social relations. Deafyoung women more readily mixed with female family members and seemedmuch better socialised into their ethnic and religious culture than youngmen. The latter were often lacking in family-based role models. In the absenceof a shared language, developing social relationships with family members(other than the go-between) was difficult – young people’s complaints ofbeing marginalised within the family are thus easy to understand.

Gender was also important in how parents responded to their sons anddaughters. This difference resides in differential importance of damage tomale and female identities (Wilson 1979, Drury 1991). Deafness was talkedabout by parents as making young people more vulnerable to the perceivedharmful influences of the ‘white’ Deaf culture – difference in sexual moralitybetween South Asian and white cultures was a major concern. Parents seemedto respond to this differently for young men and women. Deaf young menfaced fewer restrictions in liaising with Deaf peers and attending Deaf clubs,although parents remained worried about their activities. Such ‘risks’ wereless commonly taken with daughters’ moral identities – damage to whichwas perceived to be impossible to repair. As reported by others, similaritiesin views between parents and young people were more common than con-flicts (Drury 1991, Modood et al. 1994). However, as Drury notes someyoung women resent and resist the harsher policing of female moral identities.

Young deaf people’s and their families’ encounters with Deaf culture raiseimportant questions about singular identity claims. The marketing of thenotion of a global Deaf culture may deny the importance of other identityclaims. Recognising and responding to this diversity is at the heart of in-creasingly separate organisation of minority ethnic deaf people in Britain(Ahmad et al. 1998, see also Steinberg et al. (1997) account of Hispanic deafchildren and their families, in the USA). Deaf culture was perceived to bean extension of white and Christian cultures by parents, and ambivalentlyimagined by young people. Deaf culture seen as potentially threatening toreligious, ethnic, linguistic and moral identities. White Deaf culture was also

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM41



perceived to be marginalising and racist by some. Deaf culture was equatedwith a hostile white and Christian culture which was contrasted with themore positive relationship with the few South Asian Deaf groups. Whereasthe ‘white’ or mainstream Deaf clubs were seen to undermine ethnic andreligious identification, the South Asian Deaf groups underlined this. Buyinga ‘Deaf identity’ at the potential cost of sacrificing religious or culturalheritage was seen as too high a price for parents. Perhaps because of this,many young deaf people retained an ambivalent relationship with the whiteDeaf culture.

Exploring identities is a complex undertaking, especially when the potentialaxes of identity claims are so numerous and contested, as in our study. Ourwork offers no support to notions of singular identities or of a hierarchy ofidentifications. Nor does it show that identity claims of deaf young peoplewere negotiated and contingent, allowing freedoms within contexts in whichethnicity, religion, gender, social status, racism, generational relations andthe symbolic meaning of being Deaf were important considerations.

Address for correspondence: Karl Atkin, Centre for Research in Primary Care,University of Leeds, Nuffield Institute for Health, Hallas Wing, 71–75Clarendon Road, Leeds, LS2 9PLe-mail: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the ESRC (Project number 000237122) Our thanks goto the many young people, parents, teachers and other professionals for their time;to Ranjit Singh, Tasneem Ahmad and Ghazala Mir for advice and help with inter-viewing; and to Margaret Bairstow, Sheila Caley, Alan Haythornthwaite, MoragDonnelly, Carol Kyle, Kyra Pollitt, Clare Marsden and Pauline Ridgeway for BSLinterpreting. We would also like to thank the three referees for their helpful andconstructive comments.

Notes

1 The terms ‘Asian’ or ‘South Asian’ are largely a British construction, puttingtogether ethnicities, nationalities and religions perhaps better known for theirmutual antipathy rather than fraternal relationships. Consequently, such ‘fictiveunities’, dressed up as authentic identities, often obscure ethnic, religious andlinguistic diversity (Werbner 1990). Our sample was predominantly of PakistaniMuslim respondents. However, we still had a sizeable sample of Hindu and Sikhrespondents of Indian origin. Analyses showed that many perspectives and experi-ences were shared across these different groups.

2 The parents we interviewed were all hearing. Deaf parents are reported tohave more positive views about having a deaf child (Ladd 1990). However, it isimportant to note that most deaf children are born into hearing families.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM42



3 BSL is usually taught by the ‘immersion’ method and ideally by a d/Deaf BSLnative language user. Theoretically this means that English is not used in classesand that just as in a French or Italian class, the teacher uses only BSL as themedium of teaching. It is, therefore, interesting to note that most of the parentssee English as a prerequisite of learning BSL. In a previous study it becameapparent that some BSL teaching for South Asian mothers was being providedby hearing teachers who used spoken language as the medium of teaching (Ahmadet al. 1998).

4 Young people and their parents often used essentialising discourse in makingsense of their ethnicity. This often disguised the complexity of the respondent’snarratives and the ways in which essentialist themes can come to reflect a varietyof different concerns, often utilised with reference to a specific context. To thisextent ethnicity came to embody notions such as language, culture, religion,nationality, and a shared heritage. Ethnicity was also increasingly recognised asa political symbol; one which defines not just exclusion by a powerful majoritybut also self-identification as a symbol of belonging, pride and mobilisation.

References

Afshar, H. (1994) Muslim women in West Yorkshire: growing up with real andimaginary values amidst conflicting views of self and society. In Afshar, H.and Maynard, M. (eds) The Dynamics of ‘Race’ and Gender. London: Taylor andFrancis.

Ahmad, W.I.U. (1996) Family obligations and social change in South Asian families.In Ahmad, W.I.U. and Atkin, K. (eds) ‘Race’ and Community Care. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Ahmad, W.I.U., Darr, A., Jones, L. and Nisar, G. (1998) Deafness and Ethnicity:Services, Policy and Politics. Bristol: Policy Press.

Ahmed, A.S. (1992) Islam and Postmodernism. London: Routledge.Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities. London: Verso.Anthias, F. (1992) Ethnicity, Class, Gender and Migration. Aldershot: Avebury.Anwar, M. (1979) The Myth of Return: Pakistanis in Britain. London: Heinneman.Atkin, K. and Ahmad, W.I.U. (2000) Family caregiving and chronic illness: how

parents cope with a child with a sickle cell disorder or thalassaemia, Health andSocial Care in the Community, 8, 1, 57–69.

Atkin, K. and Rollings, J. (1996) Looking after their own? Family caregiving amongSouth Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities. In Ahmad, W.I.U. and Atkin,K. (eds) ‘Race’ and Community Care. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bauman, Z. (1995) Life in Fragments. Oxford: Blackwell.Beasley, S. and Moore, M. (1995) Deaf Children, their Families and Professionals:

Dismantling Barriers. London: David Fulton Publishers.Beresford, B., Sloper, P., Baldwin, S. and Newman, T. (1996) What Works in Services

for Families with a Disabled Child? Barkingside: Barnardos.Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.Brah, A. (1992) Women of South Asian origin in Britain. In Braham, P., Rattansi,

A. and Skelllington, R. (eds) Racism and Atiracism: Inequalities, Opportunities andPolicies. London: Sage.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM43



Brannen, J., Dodd, K., Oakley, A. and Storey, P. (1994) Young People, Health andFamily Life. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Calhoun, C., Li Puma, E. and Postone, M. (1993) Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives.Cambridge: Policy Press.

Chamba, R., Ahmad, W.I.U. and Jones, L. (1998) Improving Services for South AsianDeaf Children. Bristol: Policy Press.

Corker, M. (1998) Deaf and Disabled or Deafness Disabled? Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Drury, B. (1991) Sikh girls and the maintenance of ethnic culture. New Community,17, 3, 387–99.

Fenton, S. (1999) Ethnicity: Racism, Class and Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Finch, J. and Mason, J. (1994) Negotiating Family Responsibilities. London:

Routledge.Finklestein, V. (1993) Disability: a social challenge or an administrative responsibil-

ity. In Swain, J., Finklestein, V., French, S. and Oliver, M. (eds) Disabling Barriers– Enabling Environments. London: Sage.

Fletcher, L. (1989) A Language for Ben. London: Souvenir Press.Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. London: Routledge.Gregory, S., Bishop, J. and Sheldon, L. (1995) Deaf Young People and their Families.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gubrium, J.F. and Silverman, D. (1989) The Politics of Field Research. London:

Sage.Hall, S. (1990) Cultural identity and Diaspora. In Rutherford, J. (ed) Identity:

Culture, Community and Difference. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Hetu, R., Getty, L. and Jones, L. (1992) Intimate relationships and hearing loss,

Canadian Journal of Audiology, 32, 363–81.Jenks, C. (1996) Childhood. London: Routledge.Jenkins, R. (1996) Social Identity. London: RoutledgeJones, L., Kyle, J. and Wood, P. (1987) Words Apart: Losing your Hearing as an

Adult. London: Tavistock.Katbamna, S., Bhakta, P. and Parker, G. (2000) Perceptions of care-giving relation-

ships in south Asian communities. In Ahmad, W.I.U. (ed) Ethnicity, Disabilityand Chronic Illness. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Keith, M. and Pile, S. (1993) Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Routledge.Ladd, P. (1990) Making plans for Nigel: the erosion of identity by mainstreaming.

In: Taylor, G. and Bishop, J. (eds) Being Deaf: the Experience of Deafness. London:Pinter.

Ladd, P. (1991) The modern deaf community. In Gregory, S. and Hartley, G.M.(eds) Constructing Deafness. London: Pinter.

Lane, H. (1993) The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. NewYork: Random House.

Modood, T., Beishon, S. and Virdee, S. (1994) Changing Ethnic Identities. London:Policy Studies Institute.

Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S. and Beishon,S. (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage. London: PolicyStudies Institute.

Mumtaz, K. and Shaheed, F. (1987) Women of Pakistan. London: Zed.Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: from Theory to Practice. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM44



Papastergiadis, N. (1998) Dialogues in the Diaspora: Essays and Conversations onCultural Identity. London: River Oram.

Rex, J. (1991) Ethnic Identity and Ethnic Mobilisation in Britain. Warwick: Centrefor Research in Ethnic Relations.

Samad, Y. (1992) Book burning and race relations: political mobilisation of BradfordMuslims, New Community, 18, 4, 507–19.

Schou, K.C. and Hewison, J. (1999) Experiencing Cancer. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Simmel, G. (1971) On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress.

Sivanandan, A. (1990) Communities of Resistance: Writings on Black Struggles forSocialism. London: Verso.

Skelton, T. and Valentine, G. (1998) Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Culture.London: Routledge.

Smith, M. and Campbell, P. (1997) Discourses on deafness: social policy and thecommunicative habilitation, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22, 4, 437–56.

Steinberg, A.G., Davila, J., Collaz, J., Loew, R. and Fischgrind, J. (1997) A littlesign and a lot of love: attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of Hispanic families withDeaf children, Qualitative Health Research, 7, 2, 202–22.

Werbner, P. (1990) The Migration Process: Capital, Gifts and Offerings amongBritish Pakistanis. London: Berg.

Wilson, A. (1979) Finding a Voice: South Asian Women in Britain. London: Virago.Wrigley, O. (1996) The Politics of Deafness. Washington: Gallaudet Press.

SOHC02 1/18/02, 10:57 AM45

Young South Asian deaf people and their families: negotiating relationships and identities 1

Documents

Transcript of Young South Asian deaf people and their families: negotiating relationships and identities 1