Deaf Flourishing 17
the lives of deaf adults, and room for multiple ways of knowing and learning (also
see Chapter 8). Because a large number of the country’s deaf schools have been
founded and managed by deaf directors and the leadership and community already
share concerns (such as teacher training and payment, school fees, and program
quality), the community might find an opportunity to organize itself in the area of
deaf education. However, all deaf schools are private, and the lack of structured gov-
ernmental support has been a hindrance in terms of consolidating such a platform.
Turning to Flanders, a generational breach has been a topic of discussion in
recent years, following decreased interactions among younger and older commu-
nity members due to mainstreaming and less inflow to deaf clubs. This is also related
to social mobility and a growing sense of competition and individualism, fueled by
the promotion of deaf identity constructs wrapped in neoliberal notions of success,
as described above and explained further in Chapter 6. For example, in the pursuit
of such success, the magazine of the Flemish Deaf Association (Fevlado) featured
a series of interviews with deaf doctoral students and recipients to expose the com-
munity to deaf role models. Another series presented deaf people who managed
their own businesses. However, this social mobility, seen among young people who
have been able to pursue professional work or advanced study, has moved grassroots
members into the shadows, compounded by a dearth of initiatives for community
empowerment.
This breach has given rise to pointed questions such as, What are we doing for
deaf people who have not been able to achieve these successes? Does this mean that
their lives are not sufficiently meaningful to be presented in the magazine? The
more hopeful perspectives of some members of this community contrast with other
members’ restricted social, cultural, linguistic, and psychological capital. The latter
sometimes struggle to “compete” in educational and employment contexts and are
left to deal with perceptions of failure, both within themselves and in society. The
definition of a deaf role model may have become too narrow or, as a deaf school
principal articulated it, “How are our students, some of whom have multiple disabil-
ities, able to put forth their views, and who is creating space for them?”
This generational clash and need for shared decision making was the basis for
Flemish Deaf Parliament, a citizenship platform developed regionally in six Flem-
ish deaf clubs. It was initiated by Ghent University (as part of my postdoctoral
research project) and Fevlado, was launched on International Deaf Awareness Day in
September 2013, and took place from January to April 2014. over 350 deaf commu-
nity members participated, demonstrating their motivation to contribute to the dis-
cussion of a sustainable future. Through open debate, they generated responses to
employment and social mobility issues, major changes in the educational landscape,
and the decline in deaf community membership, including sensitive topics such as
experiences of exclusion within the community (see Chapter 6 and De Clerck, 2016).
Challenges for the future include strengthening the sense of solidarity that was
perhaps more evident in earlier times; recognizing deaf people’s experiences living
with barriers and disability in contemporary society; bolstering hope and optimism;
increasing the room for individual trajectories; and, most significantly, promoting
full citizenship. The community has already united around core aspects of advocacy.