Deaf Hospitality, in Differánce: A Fluid Take on Derrida’s Ethics of Hospitality
by Kristine Meneses

       The Deaf people consider themselves a cultural-linguistic ethnic group that are geographically unbounded. We identified various theoretical models of our perception on what deafness is and what it means to be Deaf. The main reason we fail to truly understand who the Deaf really are is having excluded them in our conversations. Our unwelcoming disposition to listen to their stories is a blatant neglect to see their personhood in their own terms. The field of philosophy is equally guilty of the non-representation of the Deaf in its discourse. The Deaf can engage with established philosophies, but the hearing Other, seems to doubt the capacity of Deaf and thus are denied of a space in the discourse equation.This paper aims to include the Deaf in the philosophical discourse, who has been dismissed in the equation in both academic and ordinary conversations. Though I am not physically Deaf, nonetheless my Deaf colleagues consider me culturally Deaf. In my years of affiliation and exposure with the Deaf, I have struggled with inclusion of the Deaf in academic and social discourses. In this paper I intend to present the Deaf ethic of hospitality, which we commonly thought is unilaterally afforded by the hearing Other to the Deaf, but this presentation reverses the flow, not only in the binary thinking of hearing/Deaf, but more so on the hearing perspective. In a sense,   you will hear a Deaf orientation in this paper…

“Peaceful, Rational and Non-violent?”: A Critical Feminist Review of Embedded Movement Culture of Hong Kong Umbrella Movement
by Yu Fung Ping (Esther Anselm)

       The Hong Kong Umbrella Movement ended in 2014. The social movement was presented to be a ‘Peaceful (Heping), Rational (lixing) and Non-violent (feibaoli)’ resistance to express Hong Kong people’s dissatisfaction to political reforms. However, it is questionable for a social movement to solely embrace and advocate a dominating concept, as it, on the other hand, suppressed other alternative possibilities. A common observation throughout the movement was the presence of some activist groups that expressed their criticism and constructed their counter-discourse to the ideology. In this essay, I argue that ‘Peaceful, Rational and Non-violent’ is actually a sugar coating of the patriarchy that implicitly restrain and control the social movement by generating discourses of a power play, and as a consequence, suppressed the possibilities of other ideological discourses…