36 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
the interest of humankind (Pinxten & note, 2005; Tanesini, 1999). The second and
third sections, respectively entitled “Deaf Epistemologies and Alternatives to the
Practice of Science” and “objectivism and Relativism” explore the feasibility of deaf
epistemologies, that is deaf worldviews, through relating this debate to philosophical
critiques asserting that science is produced in a socio-cultural context, which not
only influences the knowledge that is generated, but also its status.
Deaf epistemologies challenge scholars and others to reflect on audism in the pro-
duction of theory and knowledge. This is compatible with the radical stance toward
science found in Marxist criticism, postcolonial and subaltern criticism, feminist crit-
icism, and black/Afrocentric criticism that provides the basis for critical discussion of
the social and cultural structure of knowledge production and the influence of epis-
temic theorizing on daily life (e.g., Aldridge & James, 2007; Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin,
1995; Collins, 1990; Dei, 2010; Higgs, 2008, 2010; Tanesini, 1999; Tyson, 1999; see also
Moores & Paul, 2012). As a young and interdisciplinary field, deaf studies has heavily
relied on these disciplines. Deaf epistemologies are oriented toward emancipation and
are motivated by the wish of deaf people to live equal lives and to fulfill their potential.
Although the concept of deaf culture has led to a deaf cultural critique of science,
it was not until recently that epistemological issues were explicitly addressed in deaf
studies. This argumentation is worked out in the fourth and fifth sections of the chap-
ter, which are titled “Deaf Epistemologies as a Critique and Alternative to the Practice
of Science” and “The Emancipatory value of the Deaf Culture notion.” The sec-
tions “Global Perspective and Cultural Critique in Deaf Studies” and “A Culturally
Sensitive and Inclusive view on Learning and Education” engage in a discussion of
global-local dynamics in deaf identity, deaf culture, and deaf education, with the aim
of developing a culture- sensitive line in deaf studies. The last section deepens this
metatheorizing through “ Conceptualizing the Debate on Essentialism as an Episte-
mological Debate.”
Uniting in solidarity and enabling all deaf people to flourish necessarily implies tak-
ing into account the heterogeneity among deaf people and deaf communities, the com-
plex and multiple identities of deaf people, differences in deaf people’s sociocultural
positions, and the “structural violence” (Farmer, 2010) that deaf people face. Deaf
people in some parts of the world have little or no access to deaf education (see also
Haualand & Allen, 2009). A new era of partnership and collaboration also means
that rather than focus on individual problems, we should reframe these problems as
a collective responsibility and as social justice (see also Dei, 2010; nussbaum, 2006).
The exploration of deaf epistemologies (i.e., deaf people’s worldviews) is vital for
understanding “deaf flourishing” and the possible meanings this notion may have for
deaf citizens and deaf communities (also see Chapters 1 and 7).AnTHRoPoLoGy AnD THE DEvELoPMEnT
oF A nonCoLonIAL SCIEnCE
In my exploration of deaf epistemologies from a global perspective, with the aim of
situating the deaf epistemologies notion and debate into evolutions in science and
deaf studies, I have found inspiration in the self-reflexive movement in anthropology.