32 Deaf Epistemologies, Identity, and Learning
among ethical, explanatory, and ontological individualism: “It is crucial to under-
stand that a commitment to ethical individualism is not incompatible with an ontol-
ogy that recognizes the connections between people, their social relations, and their
social embedment” (p. 108). This notion of citizenship merits further research, and
the theoretical framework of deaf flourishing presented here aims to contribute to
this exploration.
Using such relational models, the challenges that deaf people and their allies have
faced in dealing with deafness/Deafhood/difference can indeed be understood
as involving a relationship with “the other.” Drawing on the work of philosopher
Emmanuel Levinas, De Wachter’s (2012) point of view on individual responsibility is
that although the face of the other opens a sense of being that is beyond our scope,
it is in the face of the other that we can give meaning to the world. Social, political,
and economic structures, as well as the larger ethical system, may not be sensitive to
the individual needs of a unique other, and they need to be complemented by par-
ticular, moderate, and concrete “little deeds of goodness.” The “ miracle of the little
deeds of goodness” (De Wachter, 2012, p. 280) is a conscientious response from
one person to the call of another in a specific setting or situation.^4 In these concrete
circumstances, the call of the other’s face is a personal role and an individual ethical
responsibility, and it cannot be replaced. This casts a different light on educational
debate, dialogue, and partnership.
Starting from the interdependency of human beings, in the final section of this
chapter I have explored deaf flourishing from a relational perspective, illustrated
by critical debates on partnership in deaf education (exemplified by the 2010 ICED
statement). Referring to the processual development of human rights and the
UnCRPD, these partnerships’ and societies’ ways of dealing with diversity are con-
ceptualized as learning processes. These processes are sensitive and involve myriad
emotions, especially in the current time of change that reminds deaf citizens of
enduring hegemonic relations and historical struggles to design their own desti-
nies, especially in the area of education. But these processes also call upon people’s
resilience and creativity in the formulation of sustainable responses, such as the
strength of an Extreme north leader who opened a dialogue on a flourishing deaf
community in Cameroon through dance (see Chapter 8), and it is our responsibility
to constructively recognize these alternative responses. other challenges in partner-
ship are the development of an inclusive approach to deaf education, human rights,
and universal design, as well as the representation of deaf people from non-Western
countries, including their practices of language, culture, and learning. It is through
daily life actions, little deeds of goodness, and human connections that citizenship
and deaf flourishing are being realized; research on deaf epistemologies can be
inspiring. Consequently, these dialogical and intercultural skills should be part of
formal education, while informal participatory platforms should also be fostered,
encouraging learners to understand different views and identity positions.- The phrases “little deeds of goodness” and “the miracle of the little deeds of goodness” are both
my translations from the original Dutch.