Deaf Identities

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that forms of access to schools were insufficient to meeting the challenge of an airborne pathogen. The many forms of accommodation needed as a result of this pandemic have reinvigorated interest in what it might mean to consider forms of Universal Design and equity in learning situations. Such conversations, whether in the media, informal discussion, or academic publications, act as reminders that schools have yet to fully ensure that students of all capacities, languages, and other forms of difference have equitable access to information, communication, and opportunities for flourishing through learning. Such conversations, too, act as reminders that, while schools may gesture towards welcoming pluralism, they nonetheless lag on robust inclusion of all differences. This paper focuses on how schools exclude a particular group within Deaf communities that shares a set of similar beliefs, values, and practices, which is known as Deaf culture, and shares a common signed

In this chapter, it will be argued that there are two fundamentally different ways in which deafness can be conceptualized: as a pathological medical condition (deafness) and as a distinctive linguistic, cultural, and social identity (Deafness). The characteristics and attributes of the Deaf cultural community (called the DEAF-WORLD in American Sign Language) will be explored: the role and place of its vernacular language (ASL), the awareness of group identity shared by its members, its distinctive behavioral norms, its endogamous marital patterns, the cultural artifacts that are most closely associated with it, its shared, insider

As deaf/Deaf/hard of hearing scholars with wide‐ranging expertise in literary studies, rhetoric, disability studies, and Deaf Studies, we have deep reservations about this article. It makes generalizations about deafness and sign language which universalize a broad, complex, and diverse population while perpetuating inaccuracies regarding signed languages and Deaf Studies. Below, we address some of these inaccuracies and suggest resources for medievalists and literary scholars interested in these topics. First, the article displays limited knowledge of scholarship on signed languages and Deaf Studies. Take, for instance, its use of " Deafland, " one of its titular terms. This word is cited in a footnote as coming from a brief anecdote by Jennifer Nelson, a Deaf professor of English at Gallaudet University. Nelson mentions Deafland as a humorous response she offers when people ask about her deaf " accent " or where she is from. Nelson's tongue‐in‐cheek response is interpreted in Robinson's article as " a somewhat bitter joke " because no one geographic location can be associated with d/Deaf people (1). However, within Deaf Studies, this concept has been addressed often, in terms of a sense of place or the feeling of being " at home " when with other Deaf people (Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989). The use of " Deafland " in this article, then, ignores the fact that the iconic, gestural, and mimetic elements of signed languages enable Deaf people from different countries to establish communication very quickly. The article also makes hyperbolic claims about identity politics arguments that are more than 20 years old and have generally lost their relevance in Deaf Studies (4), overstating the tenor of current intellectual conversations and ignoring recent conceptualizations of Deaf/deaf identity and community such as Deafhood (

Reading this revolutionary book, packed with new information that will change many people's lives and ways of thinking has been a major and wonderful learning and reflecting experience, as I am sure it will be for thousands of others. Most of us hearing people have been used to reading mainly about problematic aspects of being deaf, and the struggles the Deaf have waged, trying to get a voice and trying to get at least some basic rights. Then came articles and books where the Deaf were/are consciously trying to " find themselves " , getting the right to define themselves and their needs, also in education, rather than being defined from the outside. The Deaf were " discovering " Deafhood and Deaf culture and starting to name them and getting rid of " handicap " and " victim " ideologies while at the same time using some of the few benefits that defining themselves ALSO as a " disabled " group may give. But this forward-looking book is the first one which has collected and consistently stayed with the positive gains that Deafness, sign languages, d/Deaf people and Deaf culture represent. Not " loss " (except in relation to those societal political issues which cause hearing people to believe in and act in audistic ways), but GAIN. And gain not only for the Deaf themselves (I will use the capital D from now on as a general term, except when d is warranted), but a gain for the whole of humanity. In keeping with the gain for humanity is also the paradigm shift towards a position that is not only " routinely " talking about the value of " difference " and " diversity ". This can be done in vague almost wishy-washy non-duty-inducing terms, found in many Prefaces of declarations, recommendations, charters, conventions, covenants. Some of us often call this Unescoese… In the paradigm shift that this book advocates, " normalcy " is questioned in much more intriguing and more theoretically AND empirically grounded ways than in most philosophical and cultural writings. Likewise, some of the consequences of this questioning for all of us, deaf or hearing, are spelled out, and more are hinted at. The incredibly thorough and concise theoretical foundations, the solid empirical evidence and the really broad multi-and transdisciplinarity make the book absolutely unique. I don't think I have learned so much from one single book for many years, if ever.

African Americans have a long tradition of using language as a way to construct identity, from oral stories passed down from generation to generation, to the dozens being played among friends after school to the sidewalk songs young girls create to pass the time. The same holds true for African Americans who are Deaf and use American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary mode of communication among friends and peers.  From signing outside the box, to using exaggerated facial expressions and body movements these nuances and subtleties in the language can alter and change the meaning of what is being conveyed; especially if an interpreter is not aware of the cultural context of what is being said.
Drawing on research conducted with African American Deaf people in the Seattle area, this paper examines:  What does it mean to sign ‘Black’, what elements mark the language as being ‘Black’? Conversely, what does in mean to sign ‘white’? How do interpreters stay true to conveying the spirit of what is being said beyond the signs that are being used?  How do interpreters voice the nuances of the African American style of ASL.

This paper explores how individuals who are both Deaf and African American2 navigate their many identities. For some of these individuals finding a place to belong is a process of negotiation. I explore the following questions: where do individuals who are African American and Deaf find and make community? To which communities do they perceive they belong? Is their primary identity African American, Deaf or something else? Does belonging to one community conflict with membership in another?

More than 30 years ago, Tom Humphries coined the term ''audism'' to describe audiocentric (based on hearing and speaking) assumptions and attitudes of supremacy. Only a handful of scholarly articles mention the concept of audism and not one of those is published outside of Deaf Cultural Studies. In this article, audism is broadly defined in the ideological contexts of individual, institutional, metaphysical, and laissez-faire prejudices. Audism is further explained in the context of overt, covert, and aversive practices of discrimination. Examples of the intersections of the theory and practice of audiocentric privilege are explored. Based on critical observations of audism as a stratifying system of oppression, four recommendations are made: increasing public awareness of Deaf American contributions to society (multiculturalism), infusing Deaf-centric curriculum content in education (equity), advocating intergroup dialogues as a transformative pedagogy that further exposes audism as a social injustice (intercultural responsibility), and promoting community service opportunities (ethical citizenship) for students to do volunteer work in the Deaf American Community.

Australia and New Zealand are two South Pacific nations with a shared history of British colonisation and close links maintained through kinship, travel, shared media and business relationships. Our public education systems also reflect a shared history of educational ideas and responses to the challenges of increasingly heterogeneous populations. In both countries, most deaf students are integrated into regular schools, and at the same time official recognition has been given to native sign language. We illustrate the ways in which inclusion can expose and dismantle -or alternatively, serve to fortify -the barriers of 'ableist' tenets; and contend that the presence of deaf students in regular classrooms must be underpinned by transformative practices that go beyond 'simple inclusion'.