138 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
Simultaneously, deaf people’s limited access to discussions on BSL and the general
need for a high standard of BSL skill sparked a renewed claim of BSL “ownership”
by deaf Britons (Denmark & Elton, 2006; Elton, 2007).
Also, in the Nordic countries, after the strong politicization of deaf identities,
there was a shift toward individualization and a weakening of the boundary between
“deaf” and “hearing.” The social-democratic welfare system, early sign language re-
search, and bilingual educational programs contributed to emancipation. Another
factor is the Nordic Council of the Deaf, founded in 1907, which has served as an
information exchange medium, such as in regard to the adoption of the term “sign
language users.”^
Ethnographic interviews with three generations of deaf people point to a con-
nection between deaf cultural identities and changes in education (Fredang, 2003).
The oldest generation identifies itself collectively as a subculture that is subordinate
to hearing people. The second generation identifies as a linguistic and cultural
minority group. In a country where large parts of society have become accessible to
deaf people and sign language is widely accepted, the perspective of the youngest
generation is more inclusive. Sign language is perceived as a communication mode
rather than a boundary marker, enabling young deaf people to individually develop
friendships with both deaf and hearing signers based on common interests.
These findings are similar to those of a study in Norway with deaf people aged
16 to 20 (Haualand, Gronningsaeter, & Hansen, 2003). Political identity claims are
maintained but are connected with a more open identity construction. In a plu-
ralistic society, young deaf people are included in family and educational contexts
through the use of sign language, move freely between the deaf and hearing world,
and participate in global settings where they readily adapt their language, use In-
ternational Sign, and/or pick up the local sign language. Common life experiences
strengthen the bonds among deaf people from different places. Fostered by glo-
balization and increased access to economic resources, young deaf people travel
extensively and develop transnational deaf identities (Breivik, 2005).
In Finland, Luukkainen (2008) found three different kinds of identity construc-
tions in deaf people aged between 25 and 35 depending on the language that was
dominant in the family environment. Luukainen observed that these people draw
on a collective source of stories, identifying with an inclusive and diverse society
and building global identities. However, themes such as inequality, belittling, and
exclusion still occur in their narratives. Hence, their opportunities to present and
enhance their personalities are still limited.
In summary, as a transnational movement, a politicization of deaf identities can
be found in the United States and northwestern European countries; simultane-
ously, these notions seem to be locality specific, as they are embedded in local socio-
cultural, political, and social policy constructions and settings.
From an overview of these studies, a three-stage model of emancipation seems to
emerge. Before the 1970s, under the influence of oralism, deaf community mem-
bers identified collectively as a subculture and withdrew from society, in a subordi-
nated position. After the 1970s, they challenged mainstream society by employing
the strategy of a collective orientation with claims of a separate linguistic and cultural