160 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
Who the Other is, may switch anytime, which brings along a continuous uncer-
tainty and risk in its “never-ending... quest for belonging” (pp. 396–397):Autochthony needs movement as a counterpoint to define itself. It is precisely
this basic instability that makes it such a dangerous discourse. It seems to
offer a safe, even “natural” belonging. But it is haunted by basic insecurity:
apprehension about its own authenticity, the need to prove itself by unmask-
ing “fake” autochthons, that inevitably leads to internal division and violence.
(p. 403)This global scene undoubtedly afflicts deaf identities, making it perhaps worthwhile
to reflect on the possible hidden influences on them. Since the very beginning
of the field, deaf studies has been flirting with notions of autochthony, describ-
ing and defining criteria of deaf community membership (also see Chapter 2).
Notions of ethnicity and Deafhood have also continued to be intertwined in recent
theorizing (e.g., Ladd & Lane, 2013). The strategic essentialism in frameworks
such as Deafhood might be appealing to young people given the formation of
oppositional identities that may be fostered by the exclusion of sign language and
deaf cultural practices in education and a time frame that embraces unified no-
tions of identity.
A naturalized stance, as worked out in Chapter 2, and the cartography of narra-
tives in this chapter enable us to situate essentialized notions of deaf identity in a
social, historical, and cultural context. This stance also makes it possible to lay the
finger on double discursiveness and deaf people’s creative identification and dis-
identification with reified identities for multiple affiliations and choices in practice
(also see section titled “The Evolution of the Flemish Deaf Community: Exploring
Sustainable and Colorful Futures in an Ongoing Emancipation Process” earlier in
this chapter).
This section has presented tales of (second) birth: stories of a deaf girl who does
not meet the community’s expectations of success, of young deaf people entering
the deaf community, of an older deaf woman, and of deaf migrants. Each story
challenges the essences and counterpoints to which deaf studies and collective re-
sources have clung in the quest for identity, destiny, and autochthony.
Through entering the stage, narrating the story, and showing who they are, they
have opened new beginnings, changing community resources while drawing on
them. According to Arendt, never-ending beginning, which is unpredictable and
relational, is the predicament of human plurality. Through capturing moments of
dialogue, this section has also “embrace[d] intense moments that activate processes
of change” (Braidotti, 2006, p. 85). These moments mark the shift from an ontol-
ogy of being deaf, towards an ontology of becoming, which is a post-identity stance of
multiple belongings.
The storytellers’ courage; the platform’s openness; and its space for silent
observation, active participation, and dissent indicate that deaf subjects have
moved beyond essentialized readings of (the quest for) deaf identity, shaping