"Interpreters demonstrate respect for all consumers and their diversity."
I understand that the term ìrespectî is intended to convey obligation to ìall consumersî, but I was hoping that the committee working on this revision would address clearly the notions of impartiality, fairness, and/or reciprocity as an ethical stance on behalf of the organization as a whole. I suggest that it really matters that we use one of these terms ñ problematic as they are! ñ in order to move the practice of interpreting away from being a testing ground for deaf empowerment and toward a more consistently enacted relational event among the interlocutors. Without a clear institutional stance from RID/NAD, the issues of power, oppression and empowerment are ìlocked inî to the microsocial dynamic between deaf interlocutors and non-deaf interpreters.
In my mind, this is the single most pressing issue that this revision can, should, and needs to address; instead, the current draft exacerbates the problem with principle 4.2:
"Interpreters recognize the rights of consumers to make informed decisions. Choices could include but are not limited to, selection of interpreter, seating arrangements, and interpreting dynamics."
I think this principle should be deleted, period. First of all, letís take the notion of ìinformed decisions.î The plain truth is that neither the deaf nor the non-deaf interlocutors have the ìinformation.î Thatís our job! Iím not suggesting we donít respect preferences when possible, but principle 4.3 takes care of this quite nicely: ìInterpreters work closely with consumers to ensure that interpreting services are delivered in a manner that is mutually satisfying.î As Don said, delegating this decision-making ignores our qualifications and training as interpreters. His example: no patient gives a doctor their opinion about how to do surgery! It goes to the heart of trust and competence issues. I know that these are genuine concerns, but if we codify them we guarantee that they will continue!
Hereís where Iím really going to get in trouble (!), if Iím not already. :-) The habit that has developed in the field, is when a problematic dynamic occurs, the interpreter is supposed to ìinformî the deaf interlocutor(s) and let them decide what, if anything, to do about it. This brings me to the experience of time that I wrote about in a another post. ìTRAIN GONE SORRY!î Itís a nice sentiment, a friendly gesture that demonstrates the desire to improve or mediate conditions for deaf interlocutors, but it shifts the agenda from whatever the communicative/relational task is that the group is ìsupposedî to be doing to larger macrosocial issues of social justice. Donít get me wrong! The larger issues must be addressed! But during an interpreted event, between the deaf interlocutor(s) and the interpreter(s), is not the time or place!
Oh boy. Oh grrl. Is my head going to roll? If not for my comments here, itís definitely on the chopping block with Angela, because in my desire to warn her that Iíd teased her in the blog, she whacked her knee (probably requiring stitches or even a cast) in approaching me and itís All My Fault! I can only plead for mercy. Not only that, but turns out David was the rude guy who tried to cut in front of me at the registration desk the other night, except that he felt the vibe of my near-psychotic rage as my impatience manifested totally inappropriately. (sigh - I am doomed.)
Leave a comment