Last night I was part of a spirited group discussion providing feedback on the proposed "Code of Professional Rights and Responsibilities." Todd got us started by questioning the differences between Tenet 4 & 5 ñ didnít they say the same thing? Until we clarified that they really are speaking to two different relationships: the one interpreters have with each other (#5) and the one interpreters have with interlocutors (#4). David kept us laughing with his enumeration of what principle 4.2 meant by ìchoicesî: ìI can sit here or stand there. In the hall isnít an option.î ìYou can have chocolate or vanilla. Strawberryís not on the menu.î Cid kept generously reminding us of what the intent of the wording probably was, and all of us asked questions of each other and challenged each otherís assumptions and understandings. Respectfully ñ although I think David has a guilty conscience because while I was giving an example using the sign ìFINISHî he thought I was telling him to knock it off. :-0 Anna (there are a lot of Annaís here) and Joanna (variation on the theme?!) both had concerns about whether feedback could be specified as a requirement of mentoringÖ.after some discussion we decided that mentoring is a practice still coming-into-being, and therefore couldnít be so clearly specified. They were frustrated though, by not receiving enough during some of their internships.
We spent most of our energy on Tenet 4:
"Interpreters demonstrate respect for all consumers and their diversity." And especially sub-point 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 know Todd did a great job recording our comments officially for the committee, but I wanted to summarize my own stance, which I was able to clarify greatly because of the quality of our discussion.
Overall, this document has the potential to change the entire profession. New interpreters will be trained according to its precepts, assumptions, and biases and this will affect the way that they practice - they way that they do their job.
My first concern is that it doesnít go far enough to counter the predominant view that Deaf persons are the primary (one could even say privileged) consumer. The definitions section defines ìconsumersî as
ìIndividuals and hiring entities who are part of the interpreted communication event. This includes individuals who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, members of the general public, and hiring entities.î
I understand that this is intended to include the non-deaf persons who are part of the interpreting scene, but ñ in practice ñ there are so many ways in which we act as if our main responsibility is to the deaf person(s). I know Iím in dangerous territory here, and I hope no one reads me wrong. Subtly, this idea pervades interpreting practice, training, and discourse. Sometimes not so subtly! If one thinks about the implications of using the term ìallyî as a way to describe a model of interpreting, what it means is that we are on the ìsideî of the deaf and ìagainstî the non-deaf.
I understand the intent of the term ìconsumerî to include everyone ñ deaf and non-deaf, and even the agency/organization hiring the interpreter(s) and setting the context for the entire interaction ñ it just doesnít seem to go far enough in explicitly confronting the historical notion that our responsibilities to the deaf interlocutors exceed, or are more important than, our responsibilities to non-deaf interlocutors.
Concrete suggestion: perhaps inclusion of the term ìnon-deafî in the definition of consumer would be more explicit, since both deaf and hearing people are members of ìthe general publicî (which David effectively convinced me is proper English for the notion of ìhearing peopleî ñ at least from the non-deaf point-of-view).
Why does it matter how we conceive of who is the consumer and to whom do we ìoweî the most responsibility? Because the institutional framework influences not only how we do the job itself, but it sets the boundaries (so to speak) for what is even possible. Which brings me to Tenet 4 (next post on "respect").
Leave a comment