Translated Deaf People Moving toward Emancipation 83
here were read, approved, and sometimes edited by the research participants, who
also decided upon their identification or anonymity.
Since the cultural turn in deaf studies, anthropological and sociological frames of
reference, methods, and analytical tools have been used to examine the lives of deaf
peo ple (see Chapter 2); this study has benefited from these theoretical frameworks
and employed analytical tools that are sensitive to the complexity and dynamism
of identity constructs in deaf people who have moved to Gallaudet. In this transna-
tional experience, they also continue interacting with their home countries, which
they may periodically visit and/or return to permanently. According to Ulrich Beck
(2002), as human beings, our interactions are no longer tied to geographical prox-
imity: “the sphere of experience, in which we inhabit globally networked life-worlds,
is glocal, has become a synthesis of home and non-place, a nowhere place” (Beck,
2002, p. 31). He argues that an epistemological shift is needed in the social sci-
ences for adequate knowledge construction of a transnational world. A “method-
ological cos mopolitanism” (Beck & Sznaider, 2006) is “a frame of reference for
empirical explo ration for globalization from within, globalization internalized” (Beck,
2002, p. 25).
To bolster this exploration of internalized globalization, particularly the shifts
and tensions in deaf identity that are experienced by international deaf people
along their global journey, I have also drawn on the identity framework of Pinxten,
verstraete, and Longman (2004) from a post-colonial perspective and through
cross-cultural comparison. The frame work responds to the debate on multicultural-
ism, interculturality, and the danger of essentialized concepts of culture and identity
that are increasingly employed. These authors argue that the category of “culture” is
not able to take into account other factors that are in play in intercultural conflicts,
a topic that is mentioned in Chapter 2 with respect to how the notion of deaf culture
may sometimes be inadequate when describing identity practices. The open-ended
cross-cultural identity model has been used successfully to describe different cases
around the world.
More specifically, the framework conceptualizes identity dynamics as a complex
of processes of three material units interacting on the same level: the individual,
group (individu als in face-to-face contact), and community (virtual interpersonal
contact). Identity is constructed through dynamic interaction between these units,
which are on par with each other. For example, individuals are constitutive to the
identity construction of groups and communities; belonging to different groups
and communities is part of the identity construction of an individual (for further
discussion on competing group affiliations, also see Chapter 6).
Each material unit is constituted by and organized into dimensions of personal-
ity, sociality, and culturality; the values on these dimensions are constantly chang-
ing (see Appendix). Personality refers to the characteristics described in personality
studies in psychology; for example, individuals, groups, and communities can be
assertive, strong, etc. The difference between sociality and culturality is conceptual-
ized as analogous to the syntax-semantics difference in linguistics. Whereas people
are mostly not aware of sociality characteristics and experience those characteristics