Identity vs. Language

I've recently read an article for one of my classes that dealt with deafness as its own culture or, perhaps more correctly, subculture. It brought up some very interesting realities about deafness and the deaf culture, especially with regards to their own identification and language.

The article discussed the deaf culture in America; specifically, how deafness, to the deaf, is not a disability but a culture, while mainstream America views it as more of a medical disability. Something that needs to be solved or corrected rather than integrated. It discussed how the majority of deaf Americans view themselves as their own subculture, complete with their own language, ASL (American Sign Language). This is a culture, according to the article, that does not wish to be forced into step with mainstream culture and learn an auditory language they will never completely master. They do not wish to have their "condition" corrected by modern medical procedures. Rather, they seem to desire to be as they are and have their environment and surrounding culture recognize them as being more than disabled.

What it left me with is this question: what comes first, identity or language? Does language define our identity or does our identity define our language?

This question goes far beyond ASL and the deaf culture, it is a universal question and applies to any culture and any language on the planet. It's a bit of a chicken and egg question, but can it be answered? Myself, I've always held that identity precedes and supersedes language. How we identify ourselves, I would argue, has little to do with our language. Language enters the picture when we attempt to understand our relationship to others and how we perceive their identity. Identity is personal, language is relational.

Language helps us to understand, or at least perceive, those who have at least some similar experiences and gives us a sense of comfort and recognition. For example, I lived in Atlanta and even still carry some traces of a southern accent and vocabulary. I say y'all quite often. I even do all the crazy stuff with y'all, like y'all's, y'all're, etc. When I hear someone speaking in a southern accent and dialect, I immediately know at least a few small facts about that person and can probably find some shared or similar experiences very quickly in conversation. This then builds a connection of security and/or familiarity with that person typically leading to greater openness and relationship that may not have been possible otherwise. Yet it would be a terrible assumption to believe that, purely based on a shared vernacular, I could perceive that person's identity. We may be able to communicate at a high level, but that says nothing about whether we truly have anything in common from the standpoint of self-identity. And it says even less about whether I'll be able to comprehend that person's identity and world-view, even though they could describe it to me in their natural language.

Coming back to the original article, what does this mean for deaf America? From what I've read in the article, my impression is that the deaf culture fears a loss of its own identity should deafness be "corrected" via any means. I would contend that they would not lose their identity but how they relate to each other and to other cultures. The same thing would also happen if all of America were forced, or chose, to learn ASL. If English has branched out into hundreds of variant dialects and vernaculars, who is to say that ASL wouldn't do the same exact thing? Then, a deaf person might be faced with the harsh reality of traveling from one area of the country to another and still being unable to fully communicate. Just like the rest of us.