Deaf Identity Revisited 139
identity. Young deaf Europeans, who have grown up signing in various realms of life
and are able to participate in society on the basis of greater equality and inclusion,
maintain a political basis. A boundary weakening between the hearing and deaf
communities can be noticed, as well as greater individualization. If the theoreti-
cal framework applied to minority groups is drawn upon, this dilution of a long-
standing distinction suggests an evolution toward a more inclusive and intercultural
perspective in these countries. Rather than going deeply into the specific circum-
stances of different countries, or into models of emancipation and integration, this
chapter looks for patterns of emancipation dynamics in deaf communities. In par-
ticular, identity transitions toward greater equality and inclusion are emphasized.
Further research with young deaf people can more brightly illuminate the cycle of
emancipation and the complexity of identity transitions. For instance, the research
of Valentine and Skelton (2007), with young deaf people in the United Kingdom,
reflects on belonging and boundaries within and outside the community, and how
they shape their identities through participation in both worlds, developing their
own definitions of “success” and “failure,” which is palpable in Agnes’s earlier. Simi-
larly, the framework sketched herein for understanding contemporary shifts in deaf
identity and emancipation is based on stories from Flanders, in a broader perspec-
tive of on-going transitions in societies, and uncertainty caused by these challenges.
Since deaf studies research has often drawn on minority studies, and the deaf so-
cial movement has evolved alongside others of the 1960s, perhaps it is not surprising
that this model of emancipation becomes salient. Parallels with studies on migration
cannot be ignored. Scheffer (2008) looks at the societal dynamics of migration. He
points at the cycle of avoidance, conflict, and accommodation in immigration soci-
eties that came to the fore in early 20th century American sociological studies. This
cycle is useful for understanding contemporary dynamics of migration, even though
reality tends to be more chaotic and complex. The cyclical view corresponds with
time periods or generations. Under the influence of an environment that avoids
contact, initially, migrants withdraw from society. Subsequently, immigrants claim
a position in society, which leads to conflict and forces society to face the question
of whether its various components can live together. If a society is able to answer
this satisfactorily, full participation becomes an evident possibility in the third stage
of the cycle. In the case of the Netherlands, Scheffer wonders whether the second
generation of immigrants made enough progress for the third to be a full part of
society. He recognizes the unmistakable and continued growth of the middle class,
the ambition in groups of migrants, and opportunities for young people’s talent
to develop. Yet, he notes that there are also experiences of belonging “nowhere”
among what should be a second generation, one perhaps more aptly described as
“between the first and the second.” The experience of barriers in the realms of
family, education, and employment have led to alienation, while the ideologies and
political principles of a multicultural society may have contributed to increased in-
equality and consequently to (sometimes violent) cultural conflicts. The barriers ex-
perienced by migrants are also indicators of problems in general society, which has
failed to transmit citizenship and responsibility in these areas. Scheffer argues that
migration changes both migrants and the inhabitants of the host country; he tries to