26 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
“awakening” of the deaf community should be viewed as a clear protest. Then, as
a starting point, the knowledge and behavior prescriptions related to deaf/signing
people should be changed for the next generation.
Critical thinking, empathic capacity, and the ability to engage in dialogue are skills
young people need to be able to deal gradually with these differences and to come
to the shared understanding that is necessary to solve problems in an increasingly
diversified society (nussbaum, 2010). Against the background of a shared learning
process toward partnership, a particularly valuable concept is the “narrative imagi-
nation”; that is, “the ability to imagine what it would be like to be in the position of
someone very different from oneself” (nussbaum, 2010, p. 89). This concept allows
for the envisaging of identity positions that may be useful in organizing schools and
research enterprises. Furthermore, such a capability approach situates current ed-
ucational challenges within a context of globalization and raises additional issues,
such as multilingualism, cultural plurality, and epistemological equity.
This alternative of inclusive thinking also facilitates a certain exclusivity of learn-
ing settings and processes in a relatively closed peer group.^2 As members of rela-
tively closed communities, deaf people have continued to be viewed with wonder.
De Clerck and Pinxten (2012a) hope that, with empathic imagination and human
dignity, we will not only move toward an understanding of the narratives, frustra-
tions, dreams, and wishes of signing deaf people, but that we will also learn to deal
with deafness and deaf culture as components of a plural, multilingual, and cul-
turally diverse world. For example, we can learn sign language as one of the many
human languages, rather than characterizing it as a tool associated with disability.
The long road toward the 2010 ICED statement is not only illustrative of the
emotionally loaded history of deaf education, but also of the protracted struggle
to attain involvement in decision making. The challenges of moving toward part-
nership—and the emotions that come into play in facing these—also arose at the
WFD Conference on Endangered Sign Languages in norway in november 2011.
Here, two presentations were given on threats to sign languages stemming from
biotechnological and educational developments, one focusing on the netherlands
(Tijsseling, 2011) and the other on Denmark (niemelä, 2011). Corrie Tijsseling
questioned the position that, since spoken language is the first language of 99%
to 100% of deaf children due to them receiving a cochlear implant or “bionic ear”
around their first birthday and the limited sign language proficiency of most par-
ents and teachers, sign language cannot be their first language and any reliance on
signing is therefore a threat to language development.
Tijsseling (2011) also mentioned the argument that sign language should not be
the language of instruction, but only a subject in the curriculum, and that it is no
longer essential for the development of deaf children as it may have been 20 years
ago (this has been published as Knoors & Marschark, 2012). Tijsseling went on to
question the ethics of this point of view, which does not recognize sign languages
as bona fide languages; marginalizes children who do not have cochlear implants;
avoids the discussion of educational goals and the failure of deaf education in the- See Pinxten, 2011, for an extended discussion of the notion of inclusion.