being deaf and being other things: young asian people negotiating identities

Social Science & Medicine 55 (2002) 1757–1769

Being deaf and being other things: young Asian peoplenegotiating identities

Waqar I.U. Ahmad, Karl Atkin, Lesley Jones*

Centre for Research in Primary Care, Nuffield Institute for Health, University of Leeds, 71-75 Clarendon Road, Leeds LS2 9PL, UK

Abstract

This paper explores how Asian deaf young people negotiate identity claims against the backdrop of deaf politics,

ethnicity, religion, gender and age. The paper is based on a qualitative study of Asian (mainly Pakistani Muslim) deaf

young people and their parents in the UK. The findings provide little support for notions of singular or primary

identities (as, for example, ‘Deaf’ people or ‘Muslims’) which may make other identity claims irrelevant. Instead, young

people’s identifications were multiple, complex and contingent. However, resources and structures remained important

for identifications to be cultivated and gaining legitimisation. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Deaf young people; Ethnicity; Asian deaf people; Deaf community; UK

Introduction

South Asian young Deaf people living in the UK

potentially have a number of identity claimsFethnicity,

religion, Deaf, linguistic, and disabled identities among

them. Work in these different areas tends to prioritise

these identities, posing some as the primary or only

legitimate identification (Lane, 1993; Sivanandan, 1990).

For example, Deaf culture articulates ‘Deaf’ identity as

the primary identity (Lane, 1993), emphasising the

shared oppression of Deaf people by a hearing society

and a unity in terms of language (in case of Britain,

British Sign Language or BSL) and values. This

approach, however, does not recognise the diversity

among deaf people. The Deaf community is diverse, not

just in terms of onset and nature of deafness and

language, but also in terms of ethnic, religious and other

differences (Ahmad, Darr, Jones, & Nisar, 1998). The

Deaf community represents a small minority of the

people who are hard of hearing, deafened as well as deaf,

most of whom do not have a strong notion of a political

Deaf identity. The Deaf community’s position is akin to

that of early feminists and anti-racists, who likewise

argued for privileging gender and ‘race’ over other

identity claims, and feared that a recognition of

diversity within their (feminist or anti-racist) move-

ments would play into the hands of their opponents and

dilute efforts towards equality and dignity (see for

example, discussion by Carby, 1982; Parmar, 1982;

Sivanandan, 1990). The notion of a global Deaf culture

is criticised as too simplistic by some critics (Wrigley,

1996; Smith & Campbell, 1997). However, this lack of

recognition of diversity is keenly felt by minority ethnic

deaf people, signified strongly in self-organisation

around ethnic and religious identity symbols (Ahmad

et al., 1998).

The politics of disability can provide another frame-

work in which deaf people can make sense of their

experience. However, the relationship between Deaf

people and disabled people’s organisations remains

ambivalent. Disabled people have also argued for unity

of struggles against a society which ‘disables’ people

with impairments by not recognising their difference or

providing choices which would allow those with

impairments a full stake in society. This too has been

criticised as relegating important identity symbols for

minority ethnic disabled people to the bottom of the

political agenda, and marginalising them within the

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-113-233-4835; fax: +44-

113-233-4836.

E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Jones).

0277-9536/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 2 7 7 - 9 5 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 0 8 - 2

wider disability movement (Hill, 1993; Stuart, 1996).

Importantly also, there is disagreement between disabled

activists and those who represent the Deaf community

on whether Deaf people are part of the disability

movement. To become part of the movement is to

recognise deafness as an impairment; to articulate

struggles around linguistic oppression is to set them-

selves apart form the disabled people’s movement

(Finklestein, 1993; Corker, 1998). This is a necessarily

brief and somewhat crude representation of these

debatesFCorker (1998) addresses the relationship

between disabled people’s movement and Deaf people

in more detail.

Finally, both through globalisationFfor example,

movement of people, goods and cultural artefacts and

internationalisation of mediaFand through living in a

multi-cultural society, young people have access to a

variety of other identities. This variety includes being a

‘young person’, with both its popular images of fashion,

entertainment and other symbols of youth culture as

well as the mundane realities of school, home life and

hierarchical relationships with parents and other adults

(see Skellington & Valentine, 1998). While choosing

identities is not akin to shopping for consumables nor

are identities as easily discarded as used clothing, a

number of writers have emphasised the flexibility,

situationality and hybridity of identifications, according

to which we may hypothesise a dynamic interplay

between ethnic, religious, gender, youth, Deaf and other

identifications (Hall, 1990; Papastergiadis, 1998). And

yet modernist notions of identity remain important, in

which structural constraints limit the range of identity

claims one can make and the ability to have these

legitimated by others remain important. For these

young people both ‘race’ and being deaf may pose

important structural barriers to be faced in acquiring

sufficient cultural capital to have identity claims

respected; conversely, they may be the predominant

symbols of identification. The identification of minority

ethnic disabled people with the disabled people’s move-

ment and of Deaf people with Deaf culture, and

feelings of ‘race’ related alienation within these

largely white and sometimes racist structures show the

complexities of negotiating identities (Ahmad et al.,

1998; Hill, 1993; Stuart, 1993, 1996). As many have

argued, identities can only be made sense of as complex

and dynamic interplay between agency and structure

(e.g. Bourdieu, 1977; Giddens, 1991). In the case of

South Asian deaf young people, these identities have to

be cultivated and negotiated within a variety of

structures and ideological frameworks, implicating

debates about ethnicity, religion, youth, disability and

being deaf. This paper addresses these complex issues

relating to identification and negotiation of competing

identity claims. Following a description of the study

methods, we explore how our respondents ‘chose’

different identities; the meaning and sustenance of Deaf

identity; religious and ethnic identification; and hybrid-

ity and situationality of identities.

The study

To allow an exploration of complex and contingent

perspectives, behaviours and inter-relationships, we used

both group and in-depth individual interviews with deaf

young people and in-depth interviews with their parents.

We conducted 14 group interviews (43 respondents).

Each group, with no more than four participants, was

gender specific, and had respondents of similar ages who

attended the same school or social group. We also

carried out individual interviews with 15 deaf young

people of the same age. Building upon this first phase

and exploring emerging issues in more depth we

undertook a further 12 interviews with the same age

groupFa total of 70 young people.

The sample of young people was generated through

contacts with community groups, schools, colleges,

education authorities, social groups and networking in

three localities in the North of England and one in

Scotland. The interviews with young people were held in

schools, colleges and youth clubs.

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 for men and 14 years

11 months for women. Eighteen respondents were o14;

30 were 14–17; and 22 were 18–29 years of age. In terms

of religion, 59 were Muslim, 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, one was on a training course and

the remaining two were carers at home. Most young

people lived at home with their parents. One lived with

her motherFwho was separated from her fatherFand

with an aunt and uncle. Two young people were in

shared accommodation with other young people. Of the

total sample, three were married although one was still

waiting for her 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 conversa-

tions with Asian deaf young people, we spoke to 15

hearing family members, who assumed parental respon-

sibility for a deaf young person. These included ten

mothers, three fathers, one aunt and one sister. Three of

these families had two or more 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 these were relatives of a

young person whom we had previously interviewed.

W.I.U. Ahmad et al. / Social Science & Medicine 55 (2002) 1757–17691758

A topic guide, for use in both group and individual

interviews, identified a number of key themes developed

from a literature review, discussions with key infor-

mants, advice from an ‘expert’ advisory committee and

relevant previous work (Ahmad et al., 1998 and

Chamba, Ahmad, & Jones, 1998). The interviews

focused on home life, family relations, language,

education, use of free time, peer networks and religion.

To aid discussion of these issues with some deaf

people who had minimal language skills in either BSL

or spoken language, we used photographs (of a deaf

party), drawings (of a young man and young

woman) and show-cards (with single words denoting

ethnicity, religion, deaf/disabled identity, gender,

etc.). Informants drew or wrote on the drawings the

issues, which were important to them, chose and

rated cards, and discussed the photographs in relation

to issues such as ethnicity, deafness and gender.

This enabled us to introduce complex and abstract

ideas about identity in terms that young people could

relate to. The rest of the interview could then build

on this.

The narratives of young people informed our discus-

sions with other family members. These interviews

aimed to cover the same topics as with the young people

but from the family’s perspectives.

Young people were offered a choice of interviewer

(in terms of BSL or English and gender of interviewer).

They decided the language of the interview: British Sign

Language or Sign Supported English (60) and English

(10). The interviews in BSL were interpreted with a

voice over by a BSL/English interpreter. A bilingual

interviewer conducted interviews with parents: eight

in Punjabi, five in English, one in Urdu and one in

English/Punjabi. Those conducted in Punjabi and

Urdu were translated into English for analysis. All

interviews with young people and parents were

tape-recorded.

Transcribed interviews with parents and young people

were organised according to analytical headings. Fol-

lowing accepted conventions of qualitative analysis (see

Gubrium & Silverman, 1989), information was taken

from the transcripts and transferred onto a map or

framework, allowing comparison by theme and case.

The respondents’ accounts were organised by categories

and sub-categories, suggested by the topic guides as

well as new categories that emerged from analysis of

transcripts. The material included under each heading

reflected both the range and the frequency of res-

pondents’ views on particular issues and formed the

basis of generalising their experience. This enabled a

comparative analysis of different aspects of experience,

as well as the significance of the individuals’ background

in making sense of this experience. In the accounts

below, pseudonyms are used to protect respondents’

identities.

Being deaf and being other things: negotiating identities

The findings presented here concentrate largely on

young people’s accountsFonly a passing reference is

made to parental experiences and perspectives (reported

more fully in authors’ paper in press). The first section

reports on the exercise with ‘identity cards’; the cards

young people felt ‘belonged’ to them and how they rank

ordered these. The second section explores the meaning

of being deaf and how this identity relates to other

identity claims, resources and constraints. The third

section focuses on religious and cultural identity and

their relationship to being deaf. Finally, we discuss the

hybrid and situational nature of these identity claims.

‘Choosing’ identities

We begin with a discussion of competing identity

claims in the lives of our deaf respondents. The emerging

issues are revisited later in the article in greater depth.

To accommodate the diversity within the South Asian

deaf young people, we deliberately interviewed a broad

range of respondents in terms of type of school, degree

of hearing impairment and to the extent it was possible,

language preference and ethnic and religious back-

ground. This last category we found difficult to fulfil

as the overwhelming religion of respondents was Muslim

reflecting the population in the schools, colleges, etc.

This clearly influences the findings.

We began to explore how young people defined

themselves by asking them to choose from a list of 21

‘identity cards’. These identity cards represented the

major fields of identification, based on previous work as

well as preliminary fieldworkFethnicity, religion, gen-

der, Deaf/hearing identity and use of language, age and

disability. The exercise proved invaluable in exploring

issues which are often abstract, and which we were

finding difficult to discuss with deaf respondents,

especially those with little communication. The use of

cards allowed respondents, who otherwise may have

been excluded, to enter into this debate; albeit for

some, at a relatively superficial level. Some had difficulty

understanding the words; for these respondents,

the words were translated into BSL and, if necessary,

explanations given. A total of 56 young people took

part in this exercise, as a gameFresults are presented

in Table 1. Young people were invited to choose as

many of the cards as they felt ‘belonged to them’.

They then rank ordered them from ‘most important to

them’ to ‘least important to them’. This exercise with

cards, as we shall see, shows how young people had

multiple identifications, making arguments about ‘pri-

mary’ identification as ‘Asian’, ‘Muslim’ or ‘Deaf’

difficult to sustain in isolation from other identity

claims.

W.I.U. Ahmad et al. / Social Science & Medicine 55 (2002) 1757–1769 1759

We start with a discussion of identification with Deaf

or hearing identity, and relatedly, language. Forty-five

of the 56 respondents who completed the ‘identity cards’

exercise, chose ‘Deaf’ as ‘belonging to them’, a high

number considering that many of the young people

came from mainstream schools and oral communica-

tion. Significantly, most (42) also identified themselves

as BSL users; invariably, the two went together with

those choosing one card also choosing the other. Thirty-

eight of the 45 who identified with being ‘Deaf’ ranked it

fourth or higher. Of the 42 who identified with BSL use,

28 ranked it fourth or higher and a further 10 ranked it

fifth or sixth. Relatively few (8) identified themselves as

hearing with around a third, choosing ‘partially deaf’ as

a meaningful identification. Those who chose these

identifications, in most cases also identified with the

category ‘Deaf’. Perhaps indicative of their schooling, 30

identified themselves with ‘oral’ languageFbut 25 of

these also identified with using BSL. This finding

suggests that there is a higher crossover between BSL

and spoken language users than might be expected.

Although one of the areas chosen was in an area with a

bilingual policy of BSL/English use in schools, another

one had a strong overall emphasis in education. This

was illustrated by the fact that one respondent changed

from speech to BSL and one from BSL to speech during

the interviews as a language choice had been offered at

the outset. This suggests that the lines are not so clearly

drawn between language use and that more young

people move between languages from necessity as well as

preference. Interestingly then, Deaf/hearing, and BSL

user/oral language user identities were not mutually

exclusive for our respondents. The relative salience of

these identities is likely to be situation and context

related. Later in the paper, we explore strategies for

maintaining a Deaf identity and the threats to its

maintenance.

Defining ethnicity is a far from neutral exercise and

the term itself embodies notions of language, culture,

religion, nationality, a shared heritage and so on

(Fenton, 1999; Modood, Beishon, & Virdee, 1994).

Ethnicity is increasingly recognised as a political symbol;

Table 1

Young people’s rank orders of ‘Identity’ cardsa

Identity categories

(n=number who chose the card) Rank order

1–2 3–4 5–6 7–8 9 or lower

Deaf identity

Deaf ðn ¼ 45Þ 25 13 3 2 2

Partially deaf ðn ¼ 19Þ 2 11 3 2 1

Hearing ðn ¼ 8Þ 2 2 3 0 1

BSL user ðn ¼ 42Þ 12 16 10 2 2

Oral ðn ¼ 30Þ 4 14 8 3 1

Ethnicity

Asian ðn ¼ 19Þ 8 6 3 1 1

Pakistani ðn ¼ 35Þ 8 12 8 7 0

Bangladeshi ðn ¼ 5Þ 1 3 0 0 1

Indian ðn ¼ 7Þ 2 1 2 1 1

British ðn ¼ 36Þ 7 13 8 7 1

Black ðn ¼ 3Þ 0 1 1 0 1

Religion

Muslim ðn ¼ 48Þ 28 12 5 3 0

Hindu ðn ¼ 2Þ 0 0 1 0 1

Sikh ðn ¼ 1Þ 1 0 0 0 0

Christian ðn ¼ 2Þ 0 0 0 0 2

Gender

Man/boy ðn ¼ 35Þ 11 10 10 3 1

Woman/girl ðn ¼ 30Þ 5 11 8 4 2

Age

Young ðn ¼ 35Þ 7 7 16 5 0

Disability

Disabled ðn ¼ 15Þ 4 3 3 5 0

aNote: Cards were used with only 56 young people. Each card had one identity category on it (e.g. Deaf). Young people were asked

to select as many cards, which they thought applied to them, from the pile of 21 different cards. They then rank ordered them from

‘most important’ to ‘least important to them’.


one which defines not just exclusion by a powerful

majority but also self-identification as a symbol of

belonging, pride and mobilisation. Indeed, the 1980s

were an era of organisation around the political symbol

‘black’, an identification some still argue as equally

applicable to those of African as well as South Asian

descent. As Table 1 shows, the term, being chosen by

only three people, it could be suggested that it had little

meaning for our young respondents. Modood (1988), in

a well cited article, had argued for a notion of ‘Asian’

identity, itself a largely British construction which puts

together ethnicities, nationalities and religions perhaps

better known for their mutual antipathy rather than

fraternal relationships. Such ‘fictive unities’ dressed up

as authentic identities themselves reflecting a response to

the new structures and ethnically targeted funding

provided by the British State (see Werbner, 1990).

Nineteen young people chose this as a meaningful

identificationF14 of them ranking it fourth or higher in

the cards they selected. There were relatively few Indians

and Bangladeshis in the sample of 56 who completed the

cards and hence we do not make much of the fact that

few ‘chose’ these ethnicities. Thirty-five chose Pakistani

as a category which ‘belonged to them’, only seven of

these ranked it lower than sixth and 20 ranked it in their

top four. Modood et al. (1997) note that ethnic

identification is particularly strong among the Pakistanis

and Bangladeshis as measured by remittances and visits

to countries of origin, use of traditional ethnic dress and

maintenance of extended family networks. The relatively

large number of young people choosing ‘Pakistani’ as an

important identification is therefore not surprising;

however, as we discuss later, this identification remains

ambivalent.

Minority ethnic people’s adoption of ‘English’ or

‘British’ identities remains complex; such claims are

sometimes difficult to sustain because of the racialised

nature of British identity with Britishness carrying

notions of European heritage, white colour and a

colonial past (Ahmad & Husband, 1993; Bulmer and

Solomos, 1999). However, younger people are challen-

ging such racialised constructions of Britishness and this

is also evident in 36 respondents choosing ‘British’ as an

important identity (one more than chose ‘Pakistani’).

Later in the paper, we will explore why these Deaf young

people may, in particular, find identification with

Britishness as particularly meaningful, an argument

which relates closely to being Deaf and being accorded

more ‘respect’ within British than Pakistani contexts.

Religion has risen in importance as a symbol of

identification and mobilisation in recent years (Ahmed

& Donnan, 1994; Samad, 1992). The decline of class and

colour based analysis and mobilisation in relation to

ethnic and race relations in recent years has gone hand

in hand with an increasing recognition of the signifi-

cance of cultural and religious identifications. Some

groups argue that class and colour based organisation

has not served them well when the threats they

experience are more commonly articulated in religious

terms (Samad, 1992). Indeed both the Commission for

Racial Equality and the Runnymede Trust, the two

major ‘race’ related watchdogs in Britain, have cam-

paigned for ‘religious’ discrimination to be outlawed in

its own right (see CRE, 1998). For our discussion, two

developments are significant in this regard. First, recent

years have witnessed a re-imagining of Islam as a global

religion, stripped of its ethnic identifications (Ahmed &

Donnan, 1994)Fmovements such as Young Muslims

are built very much around such notions. Secondly,

claims to religious identification can be sustained with-

out religiosityFfor example, debates about damage to

Muslim image and honour caused by Rushdie’s Satanic

Verses were as likely to take place in Bradford pubs

among young Muslim people as in Mosques.

Ahmad et al. (1998) report that a common complaint

from minority ethnic deaf people and their families was

the relative lack of religious and ethnic/cultural capital

possessed by the deaf people. The routine socialising

processes for instilling religious valuesFhome based

teaching and religious observation, mosque schools

Frelied on spoken language, often home languages,

from which many deaf young people were excluded.

Consequently, many felt estranged from their religious

and ethnic culture as young deaf people, but were re-

discovering and celebrating these identities as young

adults, both as a positive assertion of a neglected aspect

of their self-hood and in response to marginalisation

from the ‘racist’ Deaf community.

How would our young Asian deaf respondents relate

to religion? Perhaps surprisingly, our results show a

striking acceptance of religious identity. Table 1 shows

48 respondents chose the category ‘Muslim’ as ‘belong-

ing to them’. Twenty-eight of these ranked it first or

second, a further 12 ranked it third or fourth. For

Muslims then, religious identification was important. As

we will explore later, this does not necessarily indicate a

detailed knowledge of either Islamic values or religious

observance. Indeed their relative lack of religious

knowledge and limited interested in observance troubled

parents (Atkin, Ahmad, & Jones, 2001). Religious

identification seemed less salient to other groups,

although the overall small numbers make generalisa-

tions difficult. Interestingly, although we identified only

one Christian in our sample, two respondents chose this

card as ‘belonging to them’. This can be explained in two

ways. Knowledge of family religion was low among

some respondents, with one child expressing some

confusion on whether she was a Hindu or Sikh, and

this may explain why a non-Christian child may select

such a card. However, there is a more plausible

explanation. In some of the study areas, a Christian

sectFfeared and distrusted by many young people and


especially their familiesFwas active in proselytising its

values among young Asian deaf people. A small number

of young people (largely in their 20s) had converted

while some others were sympathisers. This would

explain why a young person from a Hindu or Muslim

family may choose to identify with Christianity. We

explore this more fully later.

The final three identity categories in Table 1 are

gender, age and disability. Gender identification was less

strong than may have been predicted. We combine the

categories man and boy, and woman and girlFmost of

the respondents in fact chose their age related gender

categories of boy and girl. Consistent with this, 35

identified with the term ‘young’, interestingly, the

identification was less strong than for some other

categories such as ‘Deaf’ or ‘Muslim’ in that only 14

of the 35 ranked it four or higher. The importance of

youth identity is explored later. Finally, as noted the

political disability movement emphasises the united

oppression of those with impairments by a disablist

society. Perhaps reflecting the ambivalence of the Deaf

community towards identifying with the label ‘disabled’,

only 15 of the 56 respondents identified with the

category ‘disabled’; and of these only 7 ranked it fourth

or higher.

Deaf identity: its meaning and sustenance

Up to now, we have discussed identification at a

broad level, and potential hierarchies of identification.

Here we focus in more detail on issues around ‘Deaf’

identity. ‘Deaf’ identity is not separable from questions

of language and community. Deaf identity is thus

entwined with questions of resources, structures, family

and networks. Deaf young people need the environment

and resources in which to develop and articulate this

‘Deaf’ identity. This applies irrespective of ethnic

background. The previous section shows that 45 out of

the 56 young people, who participated in the ‘identity

cards’ exercise, identified with the term ‘Deaf’. Although

choosing this card is not in itself indicative of feeling

part of the Deaf community, for many young people it

did signify a Deaf identity because these young people

also identified with the most prominent symbol of being

part of the Deaf community, British Sign Language.

Deaf identity offers an alternative framework for

conceptualising the experience of being deaf; it is

potentially reaffirming, signifies normalcy rather than

deviance, emphasises language skills, provides confi-

dence and support and locates the stigma and dis-

advantage associated with deafness in the oppressive

hearing society’s attitudes towards deaf people and their

language. Deafness is thus not an impairment or deficit,

it has a linguistic minority status. That so few young

people identified with the term ‘disabled’ is thus not

surprising: as Naseem Boriwala (12) notes, ‘Disabled is

when someone cannot work’. Another young respon-

dent aligned disability with using a wheelchair and being

hearingFthe assumption being that people with physi-

cal disabilities are usually hearing.

Socialisation into a Deaf identity is interesting. Over

90 per cent of deaf children are born to hearing parents

(Ahmad et al., 1998). A Deaf identity is thus rarely

developed through family based socialisation; indeed the

role of the hearing family remains ambivalent in relation

to the Deaf culture. Instead, a sense of belonging and

commonality is engendered through horizontal sociali-

sation, through the use of BSL, peer groups, attendance

at Deaf events and institutions:

I stay mainly with Deaf people. We understand each

other. Because you know, some of the others laugh at

you because you know, they think you’re stupid or

something (Salma Yousef, age 12 years).

Salma attends a mainstream school with a deaf unit.

Having confirmation about the legitimacy of their Deaf

identity against threats to this identity was important: ‘I

mean all the teachers agree with me that deaf people are

cleverer than hearing people’, said 11 year old Taqdeer

Alvi. More often though such legitimisation came from

other deaf people and deaf institutions. Networks with

deaf people and attendance at deaf clubs and other

gatherings were thus important sources of affirming

Deaf identity. Shehla Naz (aged 11) recognised the

importance of meeting other deaf people: ‘It’ll be really

great. It’ll be really exciting, you know, to meet others

like me’. Such contact confirmed it was ‘alright to be

deaf’. Sadhna Patel (20) was an articulate student with a

strong sense of Deaf identity. For her, contact with

other deaf people:

helped build me up, if you like, made me feel positive,

one step at a time. I had to think how to become

strong. I’ve learnt to develop my self.

Sadhna emphasised the need to be involved in deaf

networks; without such networks, there was a risk of

being socially isolated and internalising the negative

attitudes towards deaf people held by the hearing

people. Such sentiments were strongly expressed by the

older respondents with a strong sense of being part of

the Deaf community. Ayub Ahmed (age 21) articulated

the dangers of deaf young people not participating in

deaf networks:

They stay at home all the time, their minds

deteriorate, they don’t develop any skills. It’s

important to encourage them.

Such encouragement also required positive deaf role

models, which one could only access through involve-

ment in the deaf community:


I would like to have a deaf town, a deaf community. I

want to be involved in a deaf community. Yeah, I’d

like to feel welcomed and part of the deaf commu-

nity. I don’t want to be on my own (Ajaib Khan, age

26).

Developing and sustaining a Deaf identity was,

however, far from straightforward. To begin with, the

hearing family members regarded Deaf identity with

ambivalence. ‘Deaf’ identity, for many families was no

more than an extension of white, Christian identity.

Accepting Deaf identity was to accept their child’s

difference, something many parents were reluctant to

accept. Use of BSL by the Deaf young person

symbolised this perceived threat and many families

persevered with spoken language as a means to not

‘losing’ their child to the ‘alien’ Deaf community. Poor

communication between hearing family members and

the Deaf young person hindered conventional socialisa-

tion into cultural values, and religious observance and

knowledge. Cultural and religious reproduction was

vitally important to parents. They felt compromised at

two major levels: because of their lack of a common

language, they felt less able to impart cultural and

religious values to Deaf children; and the Deaf young

person’s contact with the (white) Deaf culture meant

that parents were less able to police identity boundaries

and ‘protect’ them from what parents regarded as

threats to the young people’s moral, cultural and

religious identity. This is not to argue that there were

no loving or fulfilling relationships between young

people and their families. Families and young people

tried hard to maintain positive relations. In most cases,

however, communication remained poor; in some the

young people as well as families felt communication to

be very poor, with the young person feeling excluded

from family life. We have discussed these issues and

ambiguities in a related paper (authors’ paper under

submission).

Young people frequently confronted barriers; many

felt isolated and under-valued within the family. Parents,

on the whole, regarded the child’s deafness as a tragedy,

with implications not just for their future life but also for

the child’s religious and cultural identity and family life.

Expectations of young deaf people were often low:

My father is not aware of what deaf people are

capable of. He doesn’t think we can do anything at

allySo I don’t get any respect. He treats my sister as

being the most responsible one because she’s hearing

and I can’t possibly be the most responsible one in

the family because I’m deaf (John Kang, age 12).

Many young people referred to this lack of ‘respect’ in

the family and wider hearing world, symbolised by being

ignored, marginalisation in the family where one or two

family members become the ‘relay station’ between the

deaf person and the rest of the family, subversion of

conventional age related hierarchies (as noted by John

Kang above), and their deaf peers being viewed with

suspicion by parents. Low expectations on the part of

parents meant that young people’s potential in relation

to education, work and social life was under-estimated.

Some internalised these negative views. Talking about a

party scene in one of the photographs we used for

discussion, Ajaib Khan (age 26) thought the people must

have been hearing; he did not associate having a party

and enjoying oneself with a deaf status.

The marginalisation by hearing society symbolised the

low status according to Deaf people:

Some hearing people are very cruel and they say, ‘Oh,

you’re deaf, you’re crap and you’re no good. You

don’t know anything. We don’t like you and some

people feel that. That’s why hearing people are cruel

(Shehla Naz, age 11).

Such views on part of hearing peers led to bullying

and teasing in school, and according to some respon-

dents, were shared by some hearing teachers. Having a

strong Deaf identity, allowed young people both to find

sustenance in Deaf friends and to challenge such views.

Thus Shehla Naz could respond to her teasers:

‘Oh, shut up, stop being stupid. You don’t know

anything about deaf peopley You’re stupidyyou’re

not learning about deaf people’.

Deaf young people also had friendships with hearing

peers, with varying degrees of success. Sadhna Patel (age

20), an undergraduate who has strong networks within

the Deaf community, also has friendships with hearing

peers:

Because I’d become deaf, I was alone. I had no

friends. But over time I built up friendship with

hearing people. I learnt to communicate with them

by reading and writing messages to one another.

In most such deaf/hearing friendships, the partici-

pants used writing or gestures to communicate. It was

uncommon for hearing peers to learn BSL to sustain

friendships. Often, deaf young people feel marginal in

such peer groups, unable always to follow conversations

between hearing group members. Having such friend-

ships, however, remained important. It reminded young

people of other aspects of their identityFbeing Deaf

was an important part of their life but other identity

claims as young people, or Muslims, or girls were also

important. Thus, being part of the youth culture was

important to Khalida Anwar (age 15). Khalida enjoyed

Eastenders and Top of the Pops, with teletext, and was a

keen fan of the pop groups, All Saints and the Spice

GirlsFthese interests seemed no different from those of

hearing young women of similar age. Maqsood Shah


(age 15) emphasised his ‘normalcy’ through his networks

with predominantly hearing peers:

They’re normal. We like to play cricket and football

together. I will go out with them and we have a laugh

and talk like normal.

That identity claims owe much to the environment

and resources is reflected in both Khalida and Maq-

sood’s comments: both attend mainstream schools with

a largely oral approach to communication. For some

respondents, being able to pass as ‘hearing’ was a cause

of pride. Gurdev Singh’s (age 15) oral skills allowed him

to claim: ‘I’m now in the hearing world’. Faisal Ali (age

13) argued: ‘It’s important to be oral. [Otherwise] how

can you make others understand you?’ Mohammad

Waseem’s (age 12) parents were ‘very proud’ of his

speech. Many parents emphasised being able to speak as

‘normal’; some because they held negative views of BSL,

others because they perceived their children as socially

and economically disadvantaged without being able to

speak. Success in communicating with hearing people,

on hearing people’s terms, often carried the costs of

isolation from the Deaf community and peers. Limited

access to the Deaf community was a particular issue for

some girls whose potential involvement with the Deaf

clubs was feared by parents.

Age and gender both played a part in identification

with Deaf culture. Parents regarded Deaf clubs as

threatening places for their children’s moral identity.

Moral identities of women were regarded as more

vulnerable and less easily repaired than those of men

(such as Mumtaz and Shaheed, 1987; Drury, 1991). This

often led to greater restrictions being placed on young

women’s than on men’s networks within white Deaf

culture. That this was largely a fear of white culture

rather than Deaf culture became evident in parents’

greater support for their children’s involvement in the

few Muslim Deaf clubs that were emerging. Rather than

being regarded as a threat, these Muslim clubs were

often regarded as a key resource for cultural and

religious socialisationFsomething we explore in a

related article (authors’ paper under submission).

‘Deaf’ identity is thus difficult to conceptualise in

isolation from other identity claims. That the dominant

notion of Deaf culture aligns it with a predominantly

white and Christian culture, raises issues about how

Deaf young people relate to their ethnic and religious

cultures, something we turn to now.

Religious and ethnic identification

The exercise with cards clearly shows the importance

of religious identificationFa very large number of

respondents identified with a particular religion, and

for the largest group (Muslims) 58 per cent (28 out of 48

who chose this card) placed this first or second.

However, the meaning of such identification is complex,

as we explore below. Ethnic identification remained

ambivalent at two levels. First, as many young people

identified with being ‘British’ as with being ‘Pakistani’.

Of those who chose these identifications, less than a

quarter ranked it first or second. And while the exercise

with cards differentiates between religion and ethnicity,

in reality lived religion is often impossible to differenti-

ate from ethnic cultural mores and expectations

(Ahmed, 1988; Ahmed, 1992). In this section, therefore

we discuss a number of inter-related issues: religion,

ethnic culture, gender-appropriate behaviour, how deaf-

ness is perceived in different settings, and the inter-

sections of these factors.

Young people did not have the same access to

religious and cultural socialisation as their hearing peers

(see also Chamba et al., 1998; Ahmad et al., 1998).

Communication at home was often poor and conducted

through crude gestures or through one or two family

members with limited sign language skills. Young people

had poor access to wider family networks. Many felt

isolated and estranged from their own communities. A

particular problem was religious education and the role

of mosques and temples. The emphasis on rote learning

in mosques and temples, the total reliance on another

spoken language (usually Urdu), the teachers’ lack of

acknowledgement of the deaf young person’s commu-

nication needs did little to enthuse young people about

religious educationFwe explore these issues in a related

paper (authors’ paper in press). Parents bemoaned their

children’s lack of religious understanding and obser-

vance; those whose children had acquired such under-

standing against the odds reported this with pride.

Interestingly, despite these advantages, most young

people knew enough about their religious and cultural

values both to feel they belonged to their religious

community and to behave ‘appropriately’Fexamples

include, knowledge of culturally appropriate gender

roles and rules about foods.

However, conflicts did arise. Partly these were over

definitions of religious vs. cultural restrictions. Some

young people challenged parental restrictions about, for

example, codes of dress by arguing these were based on

ethnic culture and not on religious values; the latter were

given privilege and used to argue for concessions (see

later). The separation of an idealised notion of Islam

from lived religion, perceived to be corrupted through

conflation with ethnic customs and traditions, is an

important tool for seeking concessions (Mumtaz and

Shaheed, 1987; Ahmed, 1988). These arguments im-

plicated parental countries of origin with which many

respondents had an ambivalent relationship:

Pakistani culture is a completely different culture.

Even though, they’re Muslims, we’re not allowed to


wear trousers in Pakistan. It’s confusing. I don’t want

to know anything about Pakistani culture, I would

prefer to remain in Britain with the English culture of

Muslims. A lot of Pakistanis make up things, they

make it up and say you’re allowed to do this and

that, the other. Rather than follow what the Qur’an

says, which is the Muslim faith, which you should

read the Qur’an, but they don’t (Musarrat Shaheen,

age 20).

Not following parental guidance could thus be

justified on religious grounds:

I’m going to follow my own way. My family are very

strong in Pakistani culture. I’m not. I’m into Islamic

culture, so it’s different, different way I live. The

reason why is that my family are a little bit narrow

minded. I’m much more broad-minded and that’s the

difference between us (Amer Sohail, age 19).

Equally, some young women offered powerful chal-

lenges to restrictions on western dress using Islamic

arguments. They argued that restrictions were ethnic

and not religious. Religious requirement is simply for

modesty and thus any dress, including skirts or frocks,

which preserves modesty is thus consistent with this

Islamic requirement:

yMother said I’m not allowed to wear [skirts and

tops]. I think that’s strange because it’s alright, it’s

long, so mother’s wrongyAs long as I’m covered up,

it’s OK (Misbah Patel, age 17).

However, relatively few respondents had a sophisti-

cated understanding of their religion, or the crosscutting

of religious and ethnic values. Although we do not have

comparative data for hearing young people, there is

some evidence that hearing young people may have a

more sophisticated understanding of religious and

cultural traditions, and be better equipped to use these

as flexible resources (Drury, 1991; Ahmad et al., 1998;

Basit, 1997). Some were attracted to the white Deaf

culture both because of the affinity with other Deaf

people and for the freedoms this afforded them. John

Kang (age 12) likes being with white Deaf peers:

White people are more open and more able to talk.

Muslims and Asian people are too afraid to talk

about things. White people, they talk about every-

thing. You can communicate. We have deep con-

versations about men and women having

relationships. That type of thing.. You couldn’t talk

to Asian people about that, it would be difficult. You

wouldn’t talk about sex with them but with my white

friends we can discuss more openly (John Kang, age

12).

It feels like home. It’s a deaf community, it’s the deaf

world, I felt this was great. (Sadhna Patel, age 20)

Other young respondents and almost all parents

expressed reservations about Deaf clubs and socialising

with Deaf friends. Schools were not seen to be doing

enough to safeguard children’s ethnic and religious

values. Ahmad, Darr and Jones (2000) note these

parental concerns, powerfully summed up by a Bangla-

deshi mother who stated: ‘I send my child to school and

he comes back an Englishman’. A feeling of lack of

respect for cultural and religious diversity was an

important objection. White Deaf clubs were also

criticised for racial marginalisation of non-white users

and the lack of culturally appropriate facilities for South

Asian young deaf people was bemoaned by parents and

some young peopleFa strong theme in some previously

reported work (Ahmad et al., 1998). Najma Khatoon

(14) noted:

I like being with Asian deaf people. It’s a good laugh,

but white people, you know, they just mess abou-

tythey tease girls, they’re really rude and the girls

are the samey

Others complained about lack of resources for non-

white Deaf people and their families.

These reservations become significant when consider-

ing that a small number of young people in our

fieldwork localities had converted to a Christian

minority sect. The threat to all Asian young deaf

people’s religious identity that this was perceived to

represent was recounted by some respondents, both

young people and parents. A Deaf Asian worker of

Muslim background in one of the localities had

converted to this Christian sect and was a strong

advocate of this new religion. Through him, several

young people (Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs) became

attracted to this religion, engendering a sense of betrayal

on part of families and other deaf young people, and

resulting in a distrust of local deaf services. Yet,

the alienation of the converted from their previous

religion, and attraction to the respect which their new

religion affords to their Deaf status, is also easy to

understand:

I used to go to Mosque with my father. Then I

stopped going because what was the point of going. I

didn’t understand what was going on, everyone was

just praying. How was I to get to know what was

going on. It was my decision. It was hard to explain. I

finished being a Muslim and I now go to [name of

Church]...They understand my deafness (Ayub

Ahmed, age 21).

As well as identification with religious and ethnic

cultures, contact with parental country of origin is an

important symbol of ethnic identification (Basit, 1997;

Modood et al., 1997). Links are cemented and

reinvented through visits, remittances, transfer of


cultural goods, foodstuffs and clothes, and marriages

between young people in Britain and in countries of

origin (Modood et al., 1997). The views of young

people about parental countries of origin varied.

Some had positive views and experiences: ‘This is where

my parents come from. So we’re Pakistani. I feel

Pakistani. My heart is Pakistani’ (Maqsood Shah, 15).

Many held negative or at best ambivalent views.

Complaints ranged from restrictive practices and

corrupted notions of religion to negative attitudes

towards deaf people. Time ‘dragged’ in these countries,

where ‘it is hot’, with ‘funny houses’ and the ‘shops are

not so good’. In particular, the sense of isolation young

people felt, because of the inability of relatives to

communicate in sign language and their negative

attitudes towards deaf people alienated the young

respondents:

It was boring. I just stayed at home all the time I was

there. No one ever talked to meyI think Pakistan

just isn’t right for me. I was always just left on my

own. It made me very depressed. No one was able to

communicate with me. I feel much better in UK.

Because you are deaf, they ignore you in Pakistan

(Musarat Shaheen, age 20).

I liked here, there’s more deaf people here. It’s easier

to communicate here. In India, there’s no commu-

nication. There’s more access here than there is there.

They ignore me in Indiay they are not really aware

of deaf people’s needs. In Britain, it’s better. The

attitude is better (Charanjeet Singh, age 16).

Often, parents share these views about parental

countries of origin:

‘My mum thinks [that Pakistan is boring] and wants

me to stay here to get the education. Because in

Pakistan, there’s nothing because I’m deaf’ (Shehnaz

Akhter, age 17).

Basit (1997) notes the importance of identifying with

countries of parental origin for her largely schoolgirl

respondentsFtheir sense of Britishness was often a

pragmatic and legalistic reflection of being born and

living in Britain. For our respondents, the reservations

and negative experiences we outline above, perhaps

enhance the young people’s sense of Britishness.

Britishness was regarded as being more deaf-friendly

and offering opportunities and respect for deaf people.

This has strong echoes of Steinberg, Davila, Loew and

Fischgrind (1997) work on Hispanic families with deaf

children, who felt that their deaf children had better

opportunities in their chosen country. This perceived

better quality of life and greater respect for deaf people

aligned Britishness with being Deaf. Najma Khatoon

(age 14) felt that: ‘My heart belongs to England’. A third

person to use this phrase said ‘I think my heart is in

Pakistan’ and seemed to be choosing this term as a way

of distinguishing practicality from ‘soul’ as she prefaced

it by saying:-

‘I prefer England to Pakistan. There is nothing there

because I’m deaf. No schools, no interpreters. Here

there’s lots of friends’.

This young woman aged 17 years, recognised the

balance which she was trying to maintain between her

own needs and that of her parents’ cultural origins. She

wants to meet other deaf people because they ‘under-

stand’, however her mother does not want her to attend

the local Deaf Club because of ‘Western Influences’. She

explains ‘My mother says you’ll be the only Asian

person here, if you’re with Asian people it’s OK. My

mum is worried I will have a sly drink’. The balance she

tries to maintain is between her parent’s view and her

desire to meet more deaf people because she felt isolated

but also to follow her religion. She prays regularly and

identifies Pakistan and her parents with her religion

rather than the pragmatic need for friends and contacts.

Her solution is to have an Asian social club. Others had

a more pragmatic approach overall to their sense of

Britishness: ‘I’ve grown up all my life here in England’

(Tayyaba Khan, age 17). Afzal Ahmad (age 16) is

comfortable with different ethnicity and nationality

claims: ‘I suppose I am British and Asian. It’s no big

deal’. For many though, Britishness was also associated

with youth and consumer cultures. The term ‘normal’ or

‘natural’ was used in opposition to what their parents

did, ate, wore or expected. Thus they preferred ‘normal’

food and ‘normal’ clothes. John Kang (age 12) liked

‘normal’ food and clothes: ‘Nobody wears Asian

clothes’. Junaid Khan (age 17) felt a ‘little bit

embarrassed’ wearing Asian clothes. Ghulam Kader

(age 14) thought ‘English clothes look cool’. These

young men’s views about clothing were similar to

what would be expected of their white (deaf and

hearing) peers. For many it was not enough to wear

‘normal’ clothes: ‘posh clothes’ with designer labels were

contrasted to ‘I mean Asian clothes, they’re old

fashioned and they have no name’ (Mohammad Naeem,

age 15).

Young female respondents’ also had a strong relation-

ship to youth culture. Wearing smart and fashionable

clothes was important as was an interest in music and

friendships. However, being trendy was not always

equated with being westernised. Many talked about

Asian fashionable clothesFIndian films, Asian satellite

television, Asian clothes shops and fashion magazines all

provide visions of ‘coolness’ and being fashionable.

Some took part in making appropriate clothes at home.

Western dress, for some young female respondents and

families, was also deemed to be at odds with require-

ments of modesty and honour.


Hybridity and situationality in identity negotiation

That identities are situational and flexible, is a truism

(Hall, 1992; Westwood & Rattansi, 1994; Papastergia-

dis, 1998) and perhaps particularly true of diasporic

communities. Globalisation, transcultural family con-

nections, the flow of cultural symbols, images and goods

across national and continental boundaries, the greater

ease of international travel all provide facets which can

be adopted into, and used to reinvent personal and

group identities. We have already seen that our

respondents had multiple identifications, some held

more strongly than others, and many becoming parti-

cularly salient in certain circumstances or places.

Treatments of contemporary processes identity for-

mation have pointed to the increasing lack influence of

tradition (Giddens, 1992). The cultural effects of

consumption and the new culture industries has

arguably had a profound effect on identity by producing

a certain fluidity, ‘choice’ or negotiation that contrasts

to more rigid identities formed in the social relationships

of production (Featherstone, 1991). More recent treat-

ments of ethnic and black identity formation have also

been portrayed as more complex, fluid and negotiable.

Hall (1991), for example, speaks of identity as an

incomplete and emergent process that always involves

ambivalence and signification in narrative. The idea of

black identity as intrinsic or fixed is challenged. There is

an emerging literature that maps the complexity of

racialised subjectivities among British black commu-

nities (Modood et al., 1994, Mama, 1995). In a study of

Asian, African and Caribbean women and black identity

in Britain, Sudbury (2001) notes a tendency to privilege

religious rather than racialised communities in identity

debates. She argues that there has been a shift, ‘‘From

the policing of authenticity claims to a more open and

fluid collectivity (p. 29).’’ She suggests that identity

claims are an important part of making alliances

between different social groups. A similarly complex

process of identity negotiation seems to be taking place

with the young people in this study who, in some

situations, appeal to Deaf identity and in others to

gender, national or religious identities.

Here, we provide exemplars demonstrating this

complexity. First, as others note, clothes were used as

symbols of identification. We have already discussed

clothing as being symbolic of membership of youth

culture. Young people also used dress as signifier of

religion or ethnicity. For example, those young men who

attended the mosque were likely to wear shalwar-

kameez, traditional Pakistani dress for this purpose

rather than their otherwise preferred ‘normal’ (western)

clothes. Secondly, young people used different languages

to sustain social relations with different people. Use of

BSL or sign supported English alongside lip-reading

spoken languages and writing things down, was the

norm. Switching between languages in response to

differing contexts is reported for both hearing South

Asian and for deaf young people (Ahmad et al., 1998).

Steinberg et al. (1997) discuss how Hispanic deaf

children adopt different languages with families and

others as does Nuru (1993) about differences between

black and white deaf people’s signing. Ahmad et al.

(1998) have noted the changes which BSL is undergoing

because of opposition to some signs from minority

ethnic Deaf BSL users, and invention of new language to

accommodate new cultural contexts. As noted this

switching was not sufficient to ensure good communica-

tion with all family members or other potential social

relations, but respondents’ language use was situation-

ally influenced. Thirdly, the ambiguity felt by some

respondents in some settings demonstrated strong

identifications with other symbols. For example, many

Asian Deaf young people, as part of the wider Deaf

community felt that their ethnicity and religion were not

respected. Ahmad et al. (1998) note that the self-

organisation by minority ethnic deaf people is based

largely around ethnic and religious identifications such

as black, Asian, Islam and Judaism. Equally, many felt

alienated from their ethnic and religious communities

because their needs as Deaf people were not acknowl-

edged and catered for. As noted, a small number

converted to a Christian minority sect which they felt

to be sympathetic to their Deaf identity and which

offered access through BSL. And, Muslim Deaf groups

were prized by users and families alike, for very similar

reasons; they could underwrite the various identifica-

tions valued by usersFDeaf, religious and cultural

identities, and respect for gender sensitivities. We have

already noted that the ease with which people could

move between different identifications or hold them

simultaneously was resource and context dependent.

Conclusion

Discussing identities with these young people was a

complex undertaking; a task which may well have

proved impossible without the use of flexible tools and

methods. And yet, all had something to say on the topic.

Respondents simultaneously or situationally held on to

different identity claims. Being Deaf or hearing, gender,

ethnicity and religion were all important identifications.

The inter-relationship between these identifications was

complex. Being part of the Deaf community required,

for many, a high cost. Deaf culture offered many

advantages; but it failed to recognise and provide for

religious and cultural sensitivities. For parents, in

particular, it posed a major threat to the young people’s

religious and moral identity; the conversion of some

young people to Christianity made parents and many

young people suspicious of Deaf community. For their


part, some young people liked frequenting Deaf clubs

exactly for the greater social and sexual freedoms they

provided.

Young people found it difficult to become full

members of their religious and ethnic communities.

Religious instruction made little allowance for deafness;

for many, communication with family members was

often poor. This is not to argue that they had no

religious or cultural awareness, or that all young people

faced this problem. Despite these disadvantages, most

young people managed to acquire a working knowledge

of religious and cultural traditions and identified with

their family religion and ethnicity. A few demonstrated a

sophisticated understanding of how religious and ethnic

traditions intersect and used these arguments to

challenge parental perspectives or expectations.

The study clearly demonstrates the complex nature of

identity. Identities were not so closely tied to single

issues or symbols that you could only be one thing;

young people held multiple identifications, some more

strongly than others, and used these flexibly according

to situations. Identifications also demonstrated hybrid-

ity, a variety of historical, international, ideological and

political factors influencing their sense of self-hood and

relationship with others. These identifications were far

from ethereal, disconnected to questions of power,

structure and history. Structures and resources were

closely tied to people assuming or discarding identity

claims. The structures, however, were sufficiently flexible

to allow most young people to be not only ‘Deaf’ but

other things as well. Whether or not these remain so in

the present political climate remains to be seen.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the ESRC (Project

number 000237122) Our thanks go to the many young

people, parents, teachers and other professionals for

their time; to Ranjit Singh, Tasneem Ahmad and

Ghazala Mir for interviewing and consultancy; and to

Margaret Bairstow, Sheila Caley, Alan

Haythornthwaite, Morag Donnelly, Carol Kyle, Kyra

Pollitt, Clare Marsden and Pauline Ridgeway for BSL

interpreting.

References

Ahmed, A. S. (1988). Discovering Islam: Making sense of

Muslim history and society. London: Routledge.

Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and gender in Islam. New Haven,

CT, London: Yale University Press.

Ahmed, A. S., & Donnan, H. (1994). Islam, globalisation and

identity. London: Routledge.

Ahmad, W. I. U., Darr, A., Jones, L., & Nisar, G. (1998).

Deafness and ethnicity. Bristol: Policy Press.

Ahmad, W. I. U., Darr, A., & Jones, L. (2000). I send my child

to school and he comes back an Englishman: Minority

ethnic deaf people and issues of identity. In W. I. U. Ahmad

(Ed.), Ethnicity, disability and chronic illness. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Ahmad, W. I. U., & Husband, C. (1993). Religious iden-

tity, citizenship and welfare: The case of Muslims in

Britain. American Journal of Islamic Social Science, 10(2),

217–233.

Atkin, K., Ahmad, W. I. U., & Jones, L. (2001). Young South

Asian deaf people and their families: Negotiating relation-

ships and identities. Sociology of Health and Illness,

accepted for publication.

Basit, T. N. (1997). Eastern values, western milieu: Identities and

aspirations of adolescent British Muslim girls. Aldershot:

Ashgate.

Carby, H. (1982). ‘White woman listen’, in Centre for

Contemporary Cultural Studies (Eds.), The Empire Strikes

Back. London: Hutchinson.

Chamba, R., Ahmad, W. I. U., & Jones, L. (1998). Improving

services for Asian deaf children. Bristol: Policy Press.

CRE (Commission for Racial Equality) (1998). Annual Report,

London: CRE.

Corker, M. (1998). Deaf and disabled or deafness disabled.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Drury, B. (1991). Sikh girls and the maintenance of ethnic

culture. New Community, 17(3), 387–399.

Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture and postmodernism.

London: Sage.

Fenton, S. (1999). Ethnicity: Racism, class and culture.

Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Finklestein, V. (1993). The commonality of disability. In J.

Swain, V. Finklestein, S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.),

Disabling barriersFenabling environments. London: Sage.

Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (1989). The politics of field

research. London: Sage.

Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and Diaspora. In J.

Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Culture, community and differ-

ence. London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Hall, S. (1991). Old and new identities; old and new ethnicities.

In A. King (Ed.), Culture globalisation and the world system.

London: MacMillan.

Hall, S. (1992). New ethnicities. In J. Donald, & A. Rattansi

(Eds.), ‘Race’, culture and difference. London: Sage.

Hill, M. (1993). They’re not our brothers: The disability

movement and the black disability movement. In N. Begum,

M. Hill, & A. Stevens (Eds.), Reflections: Views of black

disabled people on their lives and community care. London:

CCETSW.

Lane, H. (1993). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf

community. New York: Random House.

Mama, A. (1995). Beyond the masks; race, gender and

subjectivity. London: Routledge.

Modood, T. (1988). ‘Black’, racial equality and Asian identity.

New Community, 14(3), 397–404.

Modood, T., Beishon, S., & Virdee, S. (1994). Changing ethnic

identities. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P.,

Virdee, S., & Beishon, S. (1997). Ethnic minorities in Britain:


Diversity and disadvantage (Fourth PSI survey). London:

Policy Studies Institute.

Nuru, N. (1993). Multicultural aspects of deafness. In D. Battle

(Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural populations.

Stonehaven: Andover Medical Publishers.

Parmar, P. (1982). Gender, race and class: Asian women in

resistance. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies

(Eds.), The Empire Strikes Back, London: Hutchinson.

Papastergiadis, N. (1998). Dialogues in the Diaspora: Essays and

conversations on cultural identity. London: River Oram.

Samad, Y. (1992). Book burning and race relations: Political

mobilisation of Bradford Muslims. New Community, 18(4),

507–519.

Skellington, T., & Valentine, G. (1998). Cool places: Geogra-

phies of youth culture. London: Routledge.

Smith, M., & Campbell, P. (1997). Discourses on deafness:

Social policy and the communicative habilitation. Canadian

Journal of Sociology, 22(4), 437–456.

Steinberg, A. G., Davila, J., Loew, R., & Fischgrind, J. (1997).

A little sign and a lot of love: Attitudes, perceptions and

beliefs of Hispanic families with deaf children. Qualitative

Health Research, 7(2), 202–222.

Stuart, O. (1993). Double oppression: An appropriate starting

point? In J. Swain, V. Finklestein, S. French, & M. Oliver

(Eds.), Disabling barriersFenabling environments. London:

Sage.

Stuart, O. (1996). Yes, we mean black disabled people too. In

W. I. U. Ahmad, & K. Atkin (Eds.), ‘Race’ and community

care. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Sudbury, J. (2001). (Re)Constructing Multiracial Blackness:

Women’s activism, difference and collective identity in

Britain. In: Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 24 No. 1

January (pp. 29–49). London: Taylor & Francis.

Werbner, P. (1990). The migration process: Capital, gifts and

offerings among British Pakistanis. London: Berg.

Westwood, S., & Rattansi, A. (Eds.), (1994). Racism, modernity

and identity: On the Western Front. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Wrigley, O. (1996). The politics of deafness. Washington:

Gallaudet Press.


being deaf and being other things: young asian people negotiating identities

Documents