Deaf Identity Revisited 133
Before going into identity transformations and affirmative power, Jerry’s narrative
illuminates the “hard core of power,” the constraints of fixed categories for deaf
identity, and the limited forms of thought that were prevalent in the 1960s to 1990s
in Flanders:Oh no, I feel happy. I am deaf and that is fine; I accept it. Before, I was often
irritated. But what made me most sad was that hearing people often had
wrong representations about the deaf, so wrong. In the first place: deaf peo-
ple can do a lot more! In the second place: deaf people have much to say. Be-
cause of the communication problem, deaf and hearing people never under-
stood each other; deaf people had limited opportunities and hearing people
misunderstood. Hearing people thought that deaf people were not capable
of many things, but that is not true. We never ever got opportunities, and if
we did, only a few. If we receive more information, we can do all those things,
I know. The way deaf people are represented is often wrong; that annoyed
me so much. I often felt inside: that is not right. Now I feel the situation has
changed. Deaf people are accepted more and more. I am glad about that.
Before, I also was a bit angry with my family. I noticed that my hearing family
members wanted to do things for us deaf members. I felt that we were per-
ceived as inferior. I thought: no, we are equal, the same! Others, too, always
tried to decide for us. No, deaf people have to decide for themselves! I still no-
tice that with other deaf. Interpreter awareness is an issue. “My mom is accom-
panying me.” I ask why they have no interpreter. “It’s comfortable; my mom
knows all about me.” Oh, that makes me... Family! Even now, many deaf peo-
ple feel like: “Mom and Dad can decide better about... .” No, no! After we got
married, we had our first baby, who was deaf. Then our second baby was deaf,
too. Our priest said: “Oh, two deaf? They better go to the deaf boarding school.
They can raise the kids better there.” But I wanted to see my kids every day at
home. The priest said: “No, no, better not. They better stay over in the dorms.
The school knows how to deal with that, for the future, and will educate them
well.” I was surprised at what he said. But my wife... she has hearing parents.
When he left, she started crying. And I said: “Come on, you don’t have to
listen to him, do you? We can decide for ourselves. I have seen that with my
deaf parents. Hearing people are often right, but also often wrong wrong
wrong. We will move away so that the kids can come home every day.” Later,
my wife was grateful. The priest had said: “You have to do that and that and
that. It’s better that way.” You see. That’s the proof. The priest says the school
can raise deaf people better, knows better, and then the kids can develop
better. That’s not right.
School made me feel so sad. I didn’t understand a thing. Their mouths
were moving, they were talking to each other, took my hand, took me some-
where, met up with someone else, other mouths moved, they dropped me,
and I didn’t know what was going on. I just walked and followed.Methodologically, revealing the power relations that are in play and employing the-
oretical perspectives while being sensitive to the political context could be called