Era of Epistemological Equity 49
are alike, but in how we are different, and how we have adapted to our differences
in very human ways.” De Clerck and Pinxten (2016) notice that human beings are
intrinsically diverse clusters of identity: “deaf culture” has emerged as an instance of
this human predicament. However, as the overview of research studies in this chapter
and Chapter 5 on the Cameroonian deaf community illustrate, the notion of deaf
culture is a complex one. The practice of studying deaf culture has evolved beyond
a static, homogeneous conception of deaf culture that needs to be defined along a
list of characteristics. new theoretical and epistemological approaches are needed
to achieve insight into deaf indigenous practices and concept formation (these are
explored in Chapter 8).
To this end, the naturalized stance I take in this chapter in regard to studying deaf
cultural practices differs from that described by Mindess (1999) and Ladd (2003).
Mindess draws on the field of intercultural communication, founded on the work
of anthropologist E. T. Hall, to study deaf culture. Intercultural communication
was developed in the early 1950s as a means of training diplomats for interactions
abroad. It was also used to prepare Americans to host foreign students and to help
Peace Corps volunteers gain awareness about multiple cultural identities. Mindess
employs a categorical framework (e.g., collectivism–individualism, high culture–low
culture, time orientation, and reasoning–rhetoric) from the point of view of inter-
preters moving between the American hearing and deaf cultures, and described
American deaf culture as collectivist, low culture, polychromic, and past-oriented,
and rhetorically moving from the specific to the general (in contrast to hearing
culture). However, in intercultural negotiation (see also the criticism on Hofstede,
1991, whose model was based on empirical research in 50 countries), the challenge
is to avoid starting from static notions of culture and a priori categories that are
likely to be Western rather than objective (also see Pinxten, 1997b, 1999).
Ladd suggests continuing along Mindess’s line of reasoning in exploring “deaf
cultural features” and working to “identify commonalities which could inform the
development of a central ‘core’ of cultural identity, similar to those being attempted
for the ‘Black Atlantic’ and for Jewish culture” (2003, p. 406). It is questionable
whether a return to an essence is an adequate answer to deal with both deafness
and intrinsic human diversity—and, as illustrated by the studies discussed in this
chapter, deaf people and human beings are intrinsically diverse clusters of identity
(also see De Clerck & Pinxten, 2016). Instead, comparative research, specifically re-
search on non-Western sign languages, deaf cultural practices, and deaf indigenous
knowledge, is needed to critically complement the knowledge we have built so far
and may lead toward a posteriori universals. For the theoretical foundation of this
epistemological stance, I refer to the earlier discussion of objectivism and relativism.
In documenting deaf communities and deaf people, researchers have analyzed
the intertwining of axes of difference in the lives of deaf women (e.g., Brueggeman
& Burch, 2006), black deaf people (e.g., Williamsen, 2002; James & Woll, 2004),
deaf gay and lesbian people (e.g., Breivik, 2005), and other deaf minorities. For ex-
ample, narajian (2006) interviewed 10 college-educated deaf women in Rochester,
new york, and Boston, Massachusetts, on their mothering practices. This empirical