80 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
people’s identities. Political lobbying has been successful, and young deaf people
have grown up with the use of sign language in different realms of life (family, edu-
cation, and larger society) and are able to take a more equal and inclusive position
in society. Although a political basis is being maintained, being deaf is viewed as an
aspect of diversity in a pluralist society. This development can be illustrated by the
re-labeling of deaf people as “sign language users” (e.g., Fredang, 2003; Haualand,
Gronningsaeter, & Hansen, 2003).
Simultaneously, an evolution toward transnational deaf identities has been noted
in young deaf people. Deaf people from different communities easily communicate,
adapting their sign languages, using international signs, and/or picking up the
local sign language. The development of transnational deaf identities is facilitated
by a shared life experience of being deaf. Fostered by globalization, technological
inventions, and economical resources, many young deaf people travel extensively
and develop translocal identities (e.g., Breivik, 2005; Haualand, Gronningsaeter,
& Hansen, 2003).
Anthropological and social studies in non-Western countries have created conflicts
among culturally situated identities and brought them to the forefront, calling for a
critical perspective on monolithic and one-dimensional conceptualizations of deaf
identity, deaf culture, and deaf community. This is discussed further in Chapter 2,
which also describes generational conflict resulting from transnational contact, sim-
ilar to that explored in naka mura’s (2005) recent anthropological study in Japan.
Inspired by American deaf activists, young deaf people have developed political deaf
identities, advocating for a “pure” sign language. Growing up mainstreamed, they
experienced linguistic and social exclusion, so in their identifica tion, they differ
from a senior generation of deaf people who attended deaf schools and later deaf
clubs. As they practiced voicing while signing, older deaf people view sign language
as a mode of communication that does not fundamentally differ from Japanese.
nakamura (2005) has raised the question of whether ethno-linguistic discourses will
be able to find recogni tion in a homogeneous Japan that lacks the ethnic minority
frame that American cultural constructions of deaf identity have drawn upon; in
Japan, deaf people have achieved recognition from the government as a disability
group.
Woodward (2003) sketches a complex picture of deaf identities and sign language
variation in Thailand and vietnam.^6 As in villages in other parts of the world where
an increased proportion of the population is deaf, hearing and deaf people in Ban
Khor developed an indigenous sign lan guage that is used in the local context. The
majority of hearing people also know the sign lan guage. Consequently, deaf people
are included in all parts of life, and there are no social institutions for deaf people.
They do not develop separate linguistic or cultural deaf identities and do not readily
identify with culturally deaf people in other parts of Thailand.- There is debate in the field of linguistics on the methods of lexicostatistics and the Swadesh list;
these methods have been complemented by Woodward through historical information and ethno-
graphic interviews.