28 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
and sign simultaneously to deaf children so that the benefits of bilingual
acquisition in two modalities can be passed on to each new generation of deaf
children. Instead the trend is a dangerously regressive one, threatening to
return to the oralist project of the late 19th century. (Padden & Humphries,
2005, p. 169)This fear stems from their experiences of not being able to shape their histories and
their uncertainty about being able to influence their futures. Taking into account
such emotions, and exploring possibilities for inclusive approaches of speech teach-
ing and rehabilitation, Breda Carty has questioned whether younger deaf people
will sustain the community’s reticent stance toward auditory tools:So should we ask ourselves, “In a world where amplification and speech teach-
ing are less invasive, are taught more holistically, and have relatively greater
chance of effectiveness, does the Deaf culture still reject speech and audi-
tion?” [.. .] Many Deaf people will say, “What we really object to is excluding
sign language from deaf children’s education. Teaching speech and audition
is all very well but not if signing is barred.” There is, after all, no evidence
that the use of signing precludes success with speech and audition. However,
perhaps despite this we retain a deep distrust of spoken language, seeing it as
a “tool of the masters.” Perhaps we are seeking to expand the available space
for signed languages in the lives of Deaf people and unconsciously resist the
insidious incursions of spoken languages like English, with their global reach
and sprawling literatures. Whatever the manifestations of these attitudes,
there is considerable ambivalence in the Deaf culture about the use of speech
and hearing devices. But young deaf people will challenge us with their
choices and attitudes. Are we willing to reexamine and debate this traditional
view? Such a dialogue would also, of course, hold great potential for increased
understanding between Deaf people and educators. (2011, p. 167)This long-standing hegemony might be contested through processes of awakening,
empowerment, and advocacy for equal opportunities. A movement toward partner-
ship requires role shifts in professional settings and policy making, as well as careful
consideration of how educators can support deaf empowerment. What are possible
roles for educators in partnerships? How can educational settings provide room for
a practice of partnership that puts the development process of deaf learners in the
center, enables them to take active roles, and creates bridges to a broad learning en-
vironment that supports social capital? How can dialogical processes be facilitated,
and what forms should they take?
A stance of self-reflection within deaf communities is sensitive in a time when their
very survival may be at stake, even though there have probably never been more in-
struments in place for protecting sign languages (for overviews of sign languages
in Europe, see Wheatley & Pabsch, 2012; for sign languages elsewhere, see Jepsen
et al., 2015). However, many sign communities are indeed dealing reflectively, dy-
namically, and resiliently with sign languages and deaf cultural heritage and iden-
tity (e.g., see Chapters 6 and 8 for examples from the Flemish and Cameroonian