Deaf signers around the world appear to share some common features, making it possible to speak about a cultural universe of Deaf people. Indeed, the types of relationships signers establish, the interactions which occur in sign language, and the concept of time are all part of a specific cultural identity which is shared among Deaf people. Poetry, stories, rhymes and typical narrations in sign language all contribute towards improving this sense of belonging within the Deaf community.
Although nowadays general standardization processes supported by the implementation of technologies tend to unify the Deaf community, the attempt to define its boundaries still remains a complex task.
Deaf identity is based on the awareness of sharing the same language and fighting for the same purpose: the possibility to gain equality in a dominant hearing society. There is a similarity here to other historical communities which were considered minority cultures, for example ethnic or linguistic minorities who fought against the pressures of colonialism and racism towards black people, or those countering prejudices and violence directed toward the gay and lesbian communities.
On the basis of these similarities, it is possible to consider Deaf culture as a microculture. The anthropological studies of Deaf people are still trying to defend the autonomy and the integrity of this culture, although the definition of Deaf Culture is elusive and much debated. According to a model proposed in 1989 by two American researchers, Carol Erting and Robert Johnson, Deaf culture is based on two factors: patrimony and paternity. Patrimony refers to the unit of norms, uses and behaviours of Deaf people in addition to the positive disposition to learn and share knowledge; while paternity concerns the biological status of deafness, which is a crucial factor in being part of the Deaf culture in the strict sense. People who share both these features are part of the Deaf culture, while people who only share sign language and some of the uses of this culture are only part of the Deaf community. Indeed, Deaf community is a broader concept and involves all the people who have professional or personal relations with Deaf culture. On the basis of this theory, three different types of people can be considered part of the Deaf community: the group of native signers born into Deaf families, the Deaf people who cannot be considered native, and all the remaining people who know or use the sign language and have contacts with the Deaf culture. As shown before, the hard core is composed by native signers (circle A, below), deaf children with deaf parents who have used sign language since their birth. This group is very small and represents 8/10% of signers. Another group is composed of Deaf signers who started to sign later in life (circle B, below), thanks to educational institutions or for personal reasons. Finally, a broader group is composed of hearing people (circle C, below), who have professional or personal relationships with the Deaf community. This group includes the relatives of deaf people, interpreters, educators and teachers who share variable competence in sign language. In this way, the third group represents the ideal society where Deaf and hearing people have no communication barriers thanks to the shared knowledge of sign language. The space with the letter (D) represents, instead, all the remaining hearing part of society, with respect to which Deaf culture often defines itself.
Figure: Composition of the Deaf community (recreated from Russo Cardona & Volterra, 2007: 40)
The subcategories within the definition of Deaf are much more complex. Indeed, the Deaf group is far from being homogeneous, and in fact the concept of deaf can be subdivided into more specific categories such as inborn/acquired, pre-linguistic/post-linguistic, signer/oralist, child of deaf parents/child of hearing parents, with prosthesis/without prosthesis. The first refers to the period of life when the condition of deafness first appeared, namely congenital deafness or acquired. The second subcategory reflects the condition of deafness with respect to language acquisition. The third defines deaf people in relation to their linguistic choice of either the sign or spoken language. In the fourth opposition, the deaf or hearing condition of the parents can affect the social, psychological, emotional and linguistic development of the deaf child. Finally, a prosthesis or implant, generally considered as a facilitation tool for spoken language acquisition, may also affect the social, psychological, and emotional sphere and, in some cases, the linguistic competence of Deaf people and their Deaf identity.
However, all these background conditions could be considered as irrelevant if the deaf person identifies himself/herself as part of Deaf culture. Elements relating to deaf backgrounds can only be relevant in the social status of Deaf people within Deaf culture. Indeed, if a Deaf person descends from generations of Deaf people, his/her status will be proudly considered as pure Deaf.
Another sensitive topic inside the Deaf community concerns the cochlear implant. In some parts of pure Deaf groups, implants are considered as a process of cultural genocide and people who have been implanted are generally not considered pure Deaf anymore. The discussion over cochlear implants is part of broader fears shared among many Deaf people about the possibility that the Deaf culture may disappear in a few decades. Technological and scientific progresses treat deafness as an illness, trying to find a cure for it. The debate about cochlear implants is complex and implantation is far from being the final solution for acquiring the hearing status. The Italian Deaf community is divided on this topic. Deaf people are scared they might lose their sign language and they might disappear, as happened to many other minority cultures before.
A group closely related to the Deaf community is represented by Deafblind people, an almost unknown community counting 198,000 people in Italy (ISTAT, 2013). Not being able to see, hear or speak are conditions which can lead to a complete form of isolation. This is one of the reasons why Deafblind people struggle to be recognized as a community. Deafblind people communicate in different ways depending on the nature of their physical conditions, their education and their backgrounds. Method of communications include: i) the use of residual hearing or sight, for example signing with a restricted visual area, ii) Italian Tactile Signs Language (LISt) or adapted LIS, and/or iii) other communication strategies, as Screen Braille Communicator, and iv) alphabetic methods, as the Malossi method or the tactile dactylology. Similarly to LIS for Deaf people, LISt has been created and evolved among those Deafblind people who chose tactile sign language as a preferential communication channel.
In Italy, the first network among Deafblind people was founded in 1964 by Sabina Santilli, a Deafblind woman born in a little village of the Abruzzo region. The founded association is the Lega del Filo d’Oro which still today represents one of the main clubs supporting Deafblind people’s rights in Italy.