Epilogue. Debra H. Zand and Katherine J. Pierce

Transcription

1 Epilogue Debra H. Zand and Katherine J. Pierce We first envisioned preparing a book on what it means to be resilient and deaf 8 years ago when our daughter turned two and was diagnosed with a profound hearing impairment. As parents, we needed to know that our daughter would be okay. We live in a centrist society and wanted to know that our daughter would be successful among her peers. In these early years, we mostly read about outcomes and negative trajectories. We learned that among youth, social and academic competence levels of the deaf and hard of hearing fell behind that of their hearing peers (Bain, Scott, & Steinberg, 2004; Holt, Traxler, & Allen, 1992). We read that it is was not uncommon for deaf and hard of hearing adults to experience social isolation in the workplace and to perceive fewer opportunities to advance professionally than their hearing coworkers (Backenroth, 1997). We did not want this for our daughter. We then began to hear about the exceptions : deaf doctors, deaf lawyers, deaf psychologists; deaf individuals who had overcome the odds and had become successful. During this period, the diagnosis of a hearing impairment signified an adversity which we believed our daughter needed to overcome. We adopted the mainstream definition of resilience as positive adaptation within the context of adversity. Concretely, for our daughter, this meant achieving developmental competencies in the context of being deaf. For us, as her parents, this meant finding ways to facilitate the processes of making this happen. We knew that being deaf and resilient was not the norm, it was the exception. We were so wrong on so many accounts. Raising our daughter, while birthing the present book, has been a painful, joyous, confusing, complicated, enlightening, and incredibly rewarding process. As our daughter and chapter authors have taught us, resilience within the context of being deaf is a complex construct and is not easily transferred from the hearing to the deaf world. The chapter authors definitions of adversity, within the context of being deaf, were as diverse as the deaf population itself. While some authors adopted a traditional definition of adversity, identifying hearing loss as the key hardship, others began to challenge the concept itself. For the latter, adversity became a dynamic process that was contextually dependent and focused primarily on communication. Throughout the book, underpinning all definitions was a tension regarding the onus D.H. Zand and K.J. Pierce (eds.), Resilience in Deaf Children: Adaptation Through Emerging Adulthood, DOI / , Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

2 392 D.H. Zand and K.J. Pierce of the adversity. Conventional viewpoints typically assumed that the burden was on the individual. Specifically, the individual s hearing loss placed him/her at risk. Following this logic, modifying risk primarily focused on professionals (and parents) working with deaf individuals to facilitate their mastery of developmental competencies within mainstream environments (e.g., learning to speak, read, write, etc.). Straying from the time-honored view of resilience as ordinary magic, (Masten, 2001) with the majority of children at risk doing just fine, this hearingloss risk view placed only a select few as overcoming the odds (Werner, 2000), with the majority of deaf persons never achieving positive developmental trajectories. Challenging this belief, other authors placed the burden of the risk outside of the deaf individual. For these authors, deaf unfriendly environments, which impeded communication, were to blame. Modifiers of risk included the environment changing to become language accessible to all and to value diversity. In the absence of such change, resistance to the environment and the development of self-worth and a deaf identity became protective processes. Interestingly, in the environment-risk view, the concept of equating socially constructed outcomes with positive adaptation became nebulous and potentially harmful. Instead, the question of at risk for what? became fodder for discussion. A new concept of positive adaptation was introduced and defined as the process by which deaf individuals navigate their environments. The study of resilience among deaf populations is in its infancy, and the current edited volume represents an early attempt to disentangle the elements of this construct. Ultimately, the book raises more questions than it answers, including whether resilience is a relevant area of inquiry. For parents, it may offer hope. For professionals, it may offer new possibilities for interventions and for investigation. For others, it may represent a new packaging of old views that deafness equates with adversity. What remains to be asked, however, is what it means to the youth. Although the present authors generally adopted the mainstream definition of resilience as positive adaptation in the face of adversity, less agreement occurred on how adversity and positive adaptation were defined. Clearly, more theoretical work surrounding definitional issues needs to be conducted. It will be important for scholars to define explicitly the components of resilience and to develop culturally relevant measures of the construct. Akin to the mainstream resilience literature, the study of resilience among deaf populations will undoubtedly move in waves (Masten & Wright, 2010). Clarifying definitional issues will pave the way to studying complex, integrative processes and to testing interventions. This process may indeed be transformative. References Backenroth, G. A. (1997). Social interaction in deaf/hearing bicultural work groups. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 20, Bain, L., Scott, S., & Steinberg, A. G. (2004). Socialization experiences and coping strategies of adults raised using spoken language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9,

3 Epilogue 393 Holt, J., Traxler, C., & Allen, T. (1992). Interpreting the scores: A user s guide to the 8th edition Stanford Achievement Test for educators of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Research Institute, Gallaudet University. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development. The American Psychologist, 56, Masten, A. S., & Wright, N. O. (2010). Resilience over the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resistance, recovery, and transformation. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp ). New York: Guildford. Werner, E. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In J. Shonkoff & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4 Index A Adaptive distancing, 264, 266, 275 Aspirational capital, Attachment insecure avoidant, disorganized/disoriented, 31 resistant, secure, 27 29, 32 41, 43, 44, 47, 54, 57, 58, 72, 119, 120, 123, 135, 202, 290 Attachment-in-the-making/discriminate signaling, Audism, 244, 253, 257, 291, 292 Audist, 232, 233, 257, 264 Authentic presentation of self, 150, 383, 384, 391 Autonomy, 30, 107, 108, 215, 221, , 241, 282, 361, , B Bicultural competency, 377 C Clear-cut attachment, Community cultural wealth, Competence, 11, 13, 32, 40, 41, 69, 79, 82, 95, 105, 129, , 190, 199, 201, 214, 221, 232, 235, 239, 243, 250, , 267, 288, 292, 293, 317, 324, 327, 345, 364, 365, 367, 374, 377, 380, 382, 386, 390, 393 Comprehensibility, 173, 201 Cultural capital, , 294, 295 Cultural specific competency, 377 D Deaf identity, 5, 82, 259, 269, 282, 284, 362, 364, 374, 394 Deaf literacies compatible, 244 non-compatible, 244 partially compatible, 244 Domesticated others, 236, 241 E Early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI), 34, 57, 92, 93 Ecological model, 304, 320, 322, 328, 329, 333 Emerging adults, 349, , 377, 378, 384, 387, 389, 391 Emotional reciprocity, 106 Emotional regulation, 31, 32, 67, 72 73, 84, 128, 333 Emotional understanding, 142 Emotion recognition, 124, 125 Environmental assets, 11 Environmental mastery, 366, 368, 370, 372 Executive functioning, 118, 126, 128, , 333, 380 Exosystem, 319, , 331, 332 F Familial capital, 287 Family-work conflict, Family-work facilitation, 347, 349, 351 Fourth environment, , 270, 271 I Individualization of resilience, 8 10 Infinity, 241, 242 Integrative developmental model,

5 396 Interactional synchrony, 45, Intuitive parenting, 50, 51, 67, 69, L Linguistic capital, M Macrosystem, 319, , 332 Manageability, 173, Mastery motivation, 90, 95, , 225, 333 Maternal sensitivity, 44 48, 53, 54, 58 Meaningfulness, 173, 201, 202 Mental health, 5, 70, 100, 134, 149, , 240, 256, 266, 267, 271, 282, 290, 291, , 365, 366, 374, 384 Mesosystem, 319, 322, , 331, 332 Microsystem, , 328, 331, 332 N Navigational capital, 285, , 295 P Person-in-environment perspective, 231 Phonocentrism, 9 Pre-attachment/indiscriminate signaling, Q Quality of life, 91, 173, 175, 179, 185, , 195, 222, 367 R Reframing narrative story telling, 266 Relatedness, 214, 367 Resistant capital, Index S Self-acceptance, 366, 370, 372 Self-concept, 105, 106, 118, 119, , 134, 135, 257, 259, 266, 284, 365, 366 Self-determination/autonomy, 215, 367 Self-efficacy, 11, 143, 282, 333, , 364, 380 Self-esteem, 11, 17, 32, 81, 82, 106, 118, 119, , 143, 202, 236, 259, 263, 264, 267, 269, 270, , 284, 287, 317, 361, 362, 365, 367, , 382 Self-regulation, 71, 72, 105, 106, , 222, 225, 324, 333 Social acceptance, 143, , 152, 367 Social capital, 271, 272, 288, 295 Social competence, 11, 13, 32, 79, , 221, 235, 288, 365, 367, 374, 380, 382, 386 Solitary (solitaire), 120, 235, 237, 259, 260, , 268, 302, 333 T Temperament, 52, 70 72, 74, 76, 98, 104, 255, 274, 389 Theory of mind (ToM), 82 83, 118, , 135, 142 U Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), 89, 91 93, 98, 109 W WFC. See Work-family conflict WFF. See Work-family facilitation Work-family conflict (WFC), Work-family facilitation (WFF), 347, 349, 351