Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning

66 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning

The difference between the dominant rhetoric of oralism and the counter- rhetoric

of deaf culture that led to Flemish deaf people’s waking up is summarized in

Figure 3.1. The arrow in the chart illustrates the gradual character of the changes

in deaf people’s worldviews from negative perceptions of themselves and their lan-

guage and culture, as well as the absence of discussion, to positive deaf identities,^7

deaf cultural and linguistic pride, and opportunities for discussion.^8 This process

has been called positive revaluation, a transformation that has also been experienced

in African American communities and gay communities (Moos, 1990).

Filip verstraete’s narrative connects the coming into contact with deaf cultural

rhetoric to the experience of a different everyday life in a deaf dream world, or a

7. Becoming strong and developing a strong deaf identity are also themes in Chapters 4, 6, 7, and 8.


8. Chapters 4, 6, and 8 also look into the role of discussion and exchange in deaf identity formation
   and citizenship.

Figure 3.1. Rhetoric of oralism versus deaf cultural rhetoric as experienced by Flemish deaf role

models.

Note. Capital letters are used to represent signs in English translation (Padden & Humphries, 1988). Flemish

Sign Language signs are translated into Dutch, then translated into English.

BEFORE = NEGATIVE

(oralism)

NOW = POSITIVE

(deaf cultural rhetoric)

DEAF CANNOT DEAF CAN!!!

HEARING CONTROL

SIGN UGLY (= MONKEY)

DEAF DISABILITY

DEAF ASHAMED

DEAF THAT-IS-THE-WAY-IT-IS

DEAF WHAT MEANS?

DISCUSSION NEVER

ARGUMENTS NO, ANSWERS NO

DEAF THEMSELVES DECIDE!!!

SIGN LANGUAGE

NATURAL LANGUAGE!!!

DEAF CULTURE!!!

DEAF PROUD!!!

THAT MUST CHANGE!!!

DEAF WHAT MEANS?

DISCUSSION!!!

ARGUMENTS, ANSWERS!!!