December 2008 Archives

It occurs to me that I have an occasionally-troubled relationship with time. The patience of the Dutch impresses me: the decades and generations, for instance, of carefully reclaiming land from the sea. The paintings of Johannes Vermeer and the woodcuts and lithographs by M.C. Escher, bespeak a lifetime of deeply-responsive and engaged living. Vermeer, we are told, shows us not what he saw, but what he wants us to see, while Escher displays a full range of perception, from the mystic to the gory. Meanwhile, in contemporary cultural Holland, one is to walk with averted eyes past each other's open windows. Apparently there is nothing to hide, and equally nothing to display. Or (?) if there is, one must pointedly not look in order not to see.

I could hardly have chosen two more counterposed artists to see in one day. Vermeer is sensual, smooth, projecting pure tranquility. Escher seems stoned, depicting fantastical images worthy of hallucinogens (and the curators seem to agree). Yet each man is obviously the product of his times - offering up images that refract the psychosocial dynamics of their era according to their respective sensibilities. Vermeer (1632-1675) spends his entire life in Delft, leaving no traces except his paintings. Guesswork fills in details, the critic's gaze and audience's imagination craving the lush life his paintings portray.

Pondering the post-war psychological commentary about the "View of Delft," painted six years after the explosion of 1654, I hopped on the tram to Scheveningen. Vermeer, argue the curators, presented the life he wished, obscuring all unpleasant details.

Musing on the forces that brought me to Holland (personal, biographic), I enjoyed seeing the sea. The interlude was necessary (it seems, in retrospect) to enable some distance from the calm vision of Vermeer to the disruptive designs of Escher. The light streaming in the window onto the photography of Thijs Tuurenhout in the upper gallery of the Vermeer Centrum also turned out to be a kind of prelude.

Maurits Cornelis Escher's choices (1898-1972) are distinctly different than Vermeer's. Escher draws on Moorish imagery, Christian mythology, biology, and warfare. Good and evil, light and dark are pitted in constant competition. The primal contest of living with its everpresent companion death is represented starkly, without reserve, and disturbingly balanced: who knows which side will prevail?

I was startled by his range: mathematical precision in rigorous interaction with inspirational and indigenous knowledges. Some work reminds me of the art of American Indians of the Pacific Northwest, others of the hints and whispers of Goddess-worshipping pagans. The psychological entwines with the institutional . . . did he know how much the Swans (1956) begin to resemble the double helix? Could he have imagined that Magic Mirror (1946) evokes the quantum mechanics discovery of wave-particle duality? I imagine the powerful representations of war and violence in Escher's work have been well mined, but what about his prescience about the environment, as seen in Puddle (1952)?

I did not take many pictures of (what I react to as) the creepy stuff. It occurred to me that maybe this is a difference between liberals and conservatives in the U.S.? Liberals want everything to be happy, and conservatives know it just ain't so. Too simplistic, of course, but it was a new lens (for me) on that divide. Can you see the skull in the center of this eye?

Hurled at the audience in mockery of our mortality, these questions form part of the text of the three-dimensional "Virtual Reality" video of Escher's work (by Wennekes Multimedia 2007, too bad I can't find it online). Escher played knowledge against perception, daring us not to fear the miscegenation. Somehow, he managed to merge these modes into coherent art. Each single piece captures an aspect of universal complexity, while the oeuvre illustrates a purposeful trajectory.

Me? I get caught between trying to catch the essential qualities of lived moments and the progression toward a larger, cumulative contribution. The insight with which I opened this blogpost involved the spirit of my parents' lives as I was growing up: their ambition to be part of the class-conscious carnival with its exaggerated pleasures and lapses of ennui between episodes of spectacle. This may explain a deep kind of patterned cycle that I find occasionally interrupting otherwise steady progress towards my own longterm goals.

Oliver Morton is referring to galactic history, but the sentiment explains my desire for ceremony concerning the annual return of light. Over the last five years, I have intentionally cultivated this religious impulse into a celebration of human diversity: the need for solar nurturance is universal, encompassing all modes of spiritual practice and transcending every form of social and institutional division.

We human beings alive today live on the verge of the future - as this wonderful video demonstrates, "we live in exponential times." What we accomplish, and what we fail to accomplish, will set the limits for succeeding generations. A verge is "something that borders, limits, or bounds." The verge is a measurement in time.

The iconicity of the Earthrise photograph, taken by astronaut Bill Anders in 1968 (when I was five) as a proof of technological prowess and singular human interconnectedness, competes in the modern age with old, established ideologies. Our visual and visceral senses are immersed in strategic and incidental ways to inspire the gamut of human emotion. Mundane hopes, grand visions, and primal fears are inspired to motivate daily participation in the increasingly complex structures of interconnected global societies. The contemporary class values of intellectual and creative freedom require deep investment in the construction of social infrastructures that enable strong human ties across the many diversities which compose human experience and inform human wisdom.

The trick is how to institutionalize systems that enact the precious balance between control (by which I mean reliability of the system actually doing what it is directly intended to do) and democracy (by which I mean the actual freedom of individuals to pursue activities they value - see Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom).

The crucial tension, it seems to me, is a certain level of unlearning our confidence in prediction so that we develop a few more risk-taking skills. In Wouter's words from earlier today:

In everyday life, we generally do know what will happen if we turn left - we arrive at our intended destination - unless something happens, and suddenly we find ourselves in the middle of an adventure we never intended and do not necessarily want. Institutions are designed to eliminate - or at least minimize - such unexpected happenings. But by ruling out the spontaneous and sporadic, institutions also instill modes of conformity that threaten to mold us into compliant complacency. Then we - taken in aggregate as masses of indistinguishable people - are easily provoked into outrageous mobilizations including the co-production of horrifying violence - be it formal war or stealth co-optation of resources driving others to despair.

As Tumbleweed explained it the other day, we have the accumulated knowledge to predict how discourses play out over time if they are not interrupted immediately:

"First people say, 'They own the bakeries and the banks.' Then you have Kristallnacht and next thing you know we're liberating the Jews from Auschwitz."

But how does one intervene in such discourses without falling into another kind of fascism?

Merely regulating what people can/cannot say is hardly an answer; the repressed attitudes simply work themselves out in another way. Rather, we need a few mechanisms which routinely, habitually embrace the discrepancies of our differences as a matter of course. Olivia Judson argues playfully for "The Ten Days of Newton" to "embrace the discrepancy" of Newton's actual birthdate (which is different pending which calendar one uses), posing this as a new holiday to encompass all the variations currently celebrated at this time of year around the globe. She names Newton's foundational role in terms of the way we now understand our place in the universe, highlighting (among other achievements) his work with prisms. Newton proved that

The point is that we have the incredible decision-making power to invent systems composed from the vast array of imaginative potential in combination with increasing predictive competence. The question is whether we deal deeply with revealed knowledge or insist on creating new prisms (or keeping old ones) to distract us from what we already know is there. The desire for security binds the individual to institutional control, but safety (perceived and real) constantly fluxes with the organic compulsion to grow.

How many times can a person reinvent themselves? As often as necessary - if

• confidence in the relative security of life is guaranteed, the


• skills of reading the immediate for future implications are cultivated, and


• responding inter/co/pro-actively is modeled and implemented.

(I'm not promising its gonna be easy!)

Reflexivity got scooped! Alyssa describes her experience of last night's Winter Solstice event:

My molecules are still buzzing today. :-) Talk about an infusion of goodwill and high spirits to draw back the sun! Mahtab expresses exactly how I feel:

Alyssa's summary is terrific - read hers first (why not?!); she gives context for the following details . . .

FOOD:

• Ugandan smoked salmon salad
• Czech potato salad (special for christmas)
• American macaroni-and-cheese (thanks Ruth!)
• mangoo and fried salami from the Dominican Republic
• very special Iranian rice
• mini-chicken curry puff pockets (homemade dough, too!)
• and was that Trinidadian chicken?!
• not to mention Nigerian popcorn (!)
• and various fresh veggies with dips,
• assorted chips, nuts, cheeses and
• desserts galore.

PERFORMANCES:

• Patricia - Phantom of the Opera (a capela, English)
• Jose & Annmarie - a cop and two crows (see poem below): the poor guy probably doesn't have a clue what hit him! (Flemish & English)
• Steph - Life, Love & Laughter by Donovan; Come Along by Titiyo; and Miles From Nowhere by Cat Stevens (courtesy of iTunes; American Sign Language)
• Marse - the Czech National Anthem (a capela, Czech) and a large photography book of Czech natural beauty.
• Annmarie & Steph - poetry by Leonard Peltier, My Life is My Sundance, and "Some Days You Get the Bear" MariJo Moore (Dutch, English, and American Sign Language)
• Tolu - inspiring us all to dance to Gongo Aso (Igbo)
• Gen - boldly leading a communal drumming circle (stools, tabletops, silverware, bowls and beerglasses)
• Mahmoud & Bouchra - drumming and belly dancing (Egyptian & Moroccan)
• Katelijn, Anneleen, & Oriana - a sonata (Trio in F Major) by Telemann, two lengthy improvisations, and a smattering of playfulness (cello, bass clarinet, flute)
• Alyssa, Anneleen, & Oriana - improvisation (cello, bass clarinet, flute)
• last, but not least, Steven's photography: next time he'll have to manage to arrive a little earlier! (black-and-white with occasional bursts of color).

I agree completely with Alyssa that the best part of the closing performance was the improvisation. This was the first time these three women have played together - which makes the perception of Alyssa's trained ear even more significant: they sounded as if they have played together for years. The trio sounded just as good when Alyssa was on cello, too!

Annmarie joined in spontaneously with more poetry from MariJo Moore. Annmarie's strong speaking voice merged seamlessly with the voices of string, reed, and wind. I felt the power in the moment; now, remembering and reflecting, I wonder if part of the poignancy of that moment was the way the chosen lines added punctuation, providing (perhaps, in some way) an embodiment of the interpretation I had finally decided upon for the trickiest line in Titiyo's song: "lets be the thorn in the rose." After a week (literally) of thinking about meaning and context, I chose to sign: "accept beauty and still critique."

Alyssa and Marse added vocalizations at various points along the way. Everyone's lightheartedness made the music all the more sweet: sharing with each other the full range of humor and talent made "the sphere [of our gathering]," as Jose said, "great and peaceful."

Finally, during the last beautiful improvisation, Annmarie offered up an original:

At that point, I had joined the 'circle of crows' to interpret. On first hearing Annmarie's poem, I could only attend to the prominent (dominant?) sense of "sound," missing the homonym and Annmarie's intentional double meaning. She has been working on that one for five years, so we figure I may be able to generate an adequate ASL interpretation by approximately 2013.

Until then, all my gratitude for this a once-in-a-lifetime composition of kindred spirits, and

The foundational premise of my dissertation research, Simultaneous Interpretation and Shared Identity in the European Parliament, is that the ways we communicate with each other influences everyone's identity: "mine" and "yours," and - when you add the relational element together, "ours."

That brief overview continues in the Index: SI squared (first round of conversations with MEPs), which includes links to research-related blog-posts in the blog-category, Parliamentary Adventures. In that blog-category, I summarize first impressions from the direct 'discourse data collection' of conversations with Members of the European Parliament.

The links indexed in this blogpost, Index: Action Learning (implementation for SI squared, part one), are theoretical and methodological in scope. They compose a blog-category named Call this Action Learning - a somewhat defiant title (!) chosen in response to a dissertation committee member who seemed frustrated that there is not one convenient pigeonhole that neatly categorizes the knowledge being strategically deployed and, hopefully, generated through this research project.

(You can also get to these categories via links in the main header, The Dissertation = Parliamentary Adventures and the lifework = Call this Action Learning.)

Early developments:

Although the quote refers to my first visit to Luxembourg, I like to think it applies to this research project, too: "it must be unforgettable!" (12 December 2008). This blogpost is about an internal training for staff of the European Parliament about "communication and its languages." I asked a question of the academic and institutional experts that was premised in a ritual view of communication, receiving responses that were a bit 'sideways' of what I had hoped for. In this blogpost, I try to explore what happened and provide more background for my central question:



Can we imagine simultaneous interpreting as a cultural practice that retains difference while creating a shared communication ritual, thus contributing to a sense of common identity?


Why such negative framing? (1 November 2008) is the main question to arise from a combination of reading about languages in the European Parliament and the first batch of conversations with Members of the European Parliament.

In road bump: asymmetrical patterns of language access (24 November 2008), I come up against the hard reality of selective access to the privileged resource of simultaneous interpretation. I explain the worry that research results will be skewed because it may be that the Members of the European Parliament who need interpreting the most are structurally-inhibited from talking with me. :-/

Trying to learn Dutch is giving me brain cramps (25 November 2008). I extrapolate to the challenges other language-learners face under different circumstances.

Immersion:

Explanations and reasons for using English abound: this is data (6 October 2008). I recognized the pressure to conform - to go with the easy, dominant flow - previously, and was still stunned by its strength. For the record (!), responses to the translations have been quite positive - it is worth all that effort! :-)

Background to Foreground (15 October 2008) explains how this research project hopes to cast new light on an aspect of daily working life in the European Parliament that is generally taken as mere routine. "Once we decide," I argue, "to keep the fact of constant, continual interpretation in mind, what matters is not the matter of interpretation itself, but the frames of reference that inform the interpretation." The blogpost continues to explicate and question my own frame/s of reference, however the main 'work' of this blogpost is to articulate the fact of tangible, material effects from the use or non-use of simultaneous interpretation.

In "Dare to Know" (Kant) (25 October 2008), I argue for the relevance of simultaneous interpretation as a site of tremendous importance by using three different texts to discuss language, interaction, and knowledge. This long post tries to show the philosophy from which I approach this research on simultaneous interpretation and shared identity: an equation I imagine as SI squared. Can the terms be sufficiently defined so as to produce a result widely agreed as valid? I borrow the standard for success proposed by Appleby, Hunt & Jacob, 1991:



"Success comes when the found knowledge can be understood, verified, or appreciated by people who in no sense share the same self-interest" (p. 9).

Their definition of success is metonymic, in my view, with the co-construction of understanding among people using different languages.

Initiation:

Over a superb lunch (26 September 2008), a wide-ranging intellectual discussion inspired musing on conditions requiring standardization in tension with the variable mix of desired and unwanted results of standardization. I assert that results of this study will "enable more efficient, efficacious, and effective use of simultaneously interpreted language as a creative resource, rather than as a perceived barrier to intercultural, inter-institutional, and interdisciplinary understanding."

I make an effort to understand the language crisis in Belgium in "the fragile, groping thread of communication" (17 September 2008 quoting Isaac Asimov).

Many positive signs accompanied my journey over the Atlantic, "...flying over a cloud" to a multi-hour layover in London prior to the last legs to another magical place in Antwerpen. (14 September 2008)

Growing enthusiasm!

I made a fledgling attempt to learn some French - la belle langue! (1 August 2008) - before arriving, not knowing that my incremental progress would be shifted - and repeated! - with Nederlands (Dutch/Flemish).

waving my light saber (11 August 2008) is a celebration of establishing links in the blogheader that (hopefully!) make it easier for people to navigate only to the blogpost in reflexivity relevant to the study of simultaneous interpretation in the European Parliament.

Discourses are not contained:

grant hurdle 41 - cleared (6 July 2008) reflects a citizenship moment that brings the privilege of international travel into sharp focus.

I think I'm pregnant! (9 July 2008) reflects a moment of optimism about creating a Facebook Group concerning the process of translating the research invitation into 23 languages as part-and-parcel of the participatory, action-learning premises of this study. I wonder if I am a node participating in an emergence of new consciousness/es.

I tease myself about challenging institutionalized authority (emphasis on the institution, not the authority) in just a few details . . . (13 July 2008). (The point was also to remember and recognize friends without whose support I would be beyond lost.)

In foreshadowing (28 July 2008), I reflect on friends' thoughtful responses at being asked to translate the research invitation into the 23 official languages of the European Parliament evokes the questions and concerns (i.e, the attitudes and worldview, perhaps even an ideology?) about language diversity and simultaneous interpretation that I intend to study.

Method is applied theory, and theory inspires method:

A colleague introduces me to Homans: The Human Group (7 June 2008) and I expound on a tension between cognitive science and communication theory.

I use my friends as sounding boards, always (and tease them at the same time) in risque (10 June 2008). My argument (explained) is that we are always engaged in "interpretation" - the presence of a simultaneous interpreter only makes the process more obvious. The problematic is to define the field of action in which SI has tangible social, cultural, political and economic effects.

The earliest formation of asking for participation in this research study: an invitation to help me gaze (24 June 2008). It concludes with the suggestion that



the most important question to ask of your interpreter is not "did you say what I mean" but "did you say what will accomplish for me the end I seek?"

Overlapping with the content category, Parliament Adventures, as the time for fieldwork approaches:

Grip of the Committee (defending the prospectus, 13 May 2008)

visual perceptions (and relative distance from the object of study, 14 May 2008)

Cast Concern Where You Will (teasing from and to friends, 21 May 2008)

my new best friend is . . . (inspiration for the name for the blog category, 22 May 2008)

"Mahmoud is een wonder!" Anne teased him at the moment when comprehension dawned: the lightbulb went off and Mahmoud got it: heel goed! I can tell you that I need a few more miracles if I am going to pass de examen in Januari.

I agree with Amin, who said "remembering" when we were discussing our various challenges with learning Nederlands last week:

"Heb ben jullie problemen?"
"Amin hebt een probleem speciale!"
"He's so young for Alzheimer's!"
Maar Amin is niet alleen.
Me too. :-/

Marinela answers questions on my behalf when I am too confused! (Even though a few weeks ago she was, like, uh, "How many different ways are there to say the time?!") Bouchra lets me look at her huiswerk. Excellent examples of teamwork! Topi is my role model: she thinks for awhile to see if she can figure out what Anne is asking, then she asks, "Wablieft?" Come again? Yea, and if you repeat what you said about zeven times maybe I will get it. Misschein. (sigh)

The propaganda about America and the European Parliament that I distributed for fun is obviously not enough. Papa Obama or not: ik weet het niet = nul! And I'm referring only to the vocabulary - the grammar is totally guesswork as anyone with a smattering of Nederlands is painfully aware. :-/

Marsi - even though she abandoned us to jump to level 1.4 (!) - has dropped in twice: once with candy from Sint Niklaas and just before the break (eergisteren) with cookies she says she baked herself. Uh huh. (Mahmoud had to be convinced to share them with the rest of us . . . ) Meanwhile, Tolu tells me I look like a teenager (?!) and Patricia says, "Steph is a teenager." The nerve! :-)

My accent is also awful. Tim had to ask me, "Wat?!" after nearly everything I tried to say in Nederlands. "You think I can jump that high?" I asked him. "I hope so," he replied, fervently. Jammer! I did give Susan a double take when I pronounced "Daag" properly - a feat I am not sure how I accomplished and probably cannot repeat. Marsi will never let me live down that I said smakelijk is the opposite of moeilijk. (The right answer is gemakkelijk.) [You understand why she is amused: easy, not tasty, is the opposite of difficult.]

The three days I was absent hurt. Gewledig! Big time problem. Although I did realize our infamous soap opera was poking fun at Amerikanen, even before Anne reminded everyone that I'm American. ;-) Neemt u mij niet kwalijk! We're not all bad! Then the soap turns and makes fun of itself, touching on very politically incorrect topics with the kind of humor that would not find its way into most language classes in the United States. The videoprogramma generates a special voor buitenlanders (that's us in this level one course: strangers from another land) to address kultuurimperialisme and profile the karacter op de Belg.

positief karacteriesteken op de Belg:

• diplomatic talent
• anti-authoritarianism
• respect for privacy

with accompanying negatief karacteriesteken op de Belg:

• indirect communication (niet zo open)
• separated (individualistic rather than communal)

All of this talk of stereotypen led our conversation back to kultuurshok. I realize part of my trouble with the trams and trains is that I am used to driving - which requires paying attention. When someone else is 'driving,' my mind goes elsewhere - with a book, writing, or daydreaming - then whooooooooooooooosh those stops just fly right on by! I'm amused by the supremely ordered traffic lights - specifically designated signals for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians - which nearly everyone obeys! There is no "language of klaxons" as Mahmoud labeled the incessant honking he, Amin, and Patricia miss from Egypt, Iraq, and the Dominican Republic. The food, we agree, is good and (!) - nearly everyone has a dish or several that they miss from home. Except for Bouchra. No kultuurshok. Grrl got it all together.

:-)

Yep, it's official.

I will co-present with two colleagues at Dialogue Under Occupation III in March.

In this presentation, we argue that the "discourse of resolution" offered by such a politically-charged conference as DUO should be conceived of as more than just the transmission of information from speakers to audiences. Indeed, as we turn our gaze inwards, we seek to analyze last year's DUO II conference as not just an incredibly valuable "brainstorming session," but also as a salient venue for the creation and management (through language use) of a structured, meaningful cultural and political world. To that end, we undertake a discourse analysis of a wealth of fascinating conversations emanating from DUO II, which we categorize as follows: 1) conference metadiscourse (i.e., talk about the language used in various DUO materials, released before, during, and after the conference), 2) purpose-related discourse (i.e., talk about the nature and feasibility of DUO's goals), and 3) interpersonal discourse (i.e., communication between DUO II's participants that continues to shape a highly heterogeneous "community").


Speakers at previous DUO conferences have recognized that language is the premier system for expressing meaning in all human communities. This presentation takes that assertion one step further in arguing that language is also the premier locus of meaning-making. As such, "conferencing" is as much about the creation and management of "culture," as it is about the transmission of concrete information. The conference-related communication, as well as the texts produced by the presenters themselves, are all instrumental to the acknowledgment, critique, and ideological prioritizing of personal and community-wide values, beliefs, norms, assumptions, and expectations. Believing with James Carey that "our attempts to construct, maintain, repair, and transform reality are publicly observable activities which occur in historical time," we perform a qualitative discourse analysis of DUO II-related literature to assess the manner in which individuals associated with the conference make use (directly or indirectly) of this cultural function of communication. Finally, we suggest ways in which both past and present participants could take advantage of alternative models of communication.

Blogposts from DUO II at Al Quds University, East Jerusalem, West Bank, Palestine (November 2007)



Blogposts from DUO I at Northeastern Chicago University, Illinois, U.S. (November 2006)

The premise of my dissertation research is that the ways we communicate with each other influences everyone's identity: "mine" and "yours," and - when you add the relational element together, "ours."

The technical term from communication theory is constitutes: to constitute is to do an action that leads to something tangible. General definitions from Princeton's wordnet say that to constitute is to form, establish, or compose. The phrase I am drawn to the most as I write today is "to cause to stand" (from wiktionary). In short, constituting is a kind of making that persists into the future.

Participating in simultaneous interpretation is a basic structural component of working in the European Parliament. Using the professional inter- and cross-cultural language skills of simultaneous interpreters to communicate is a special and unique communication practice with significant implications for culture and identity. But what are these implications? That is what this research aims to discover.

First impressions based on my first conversations with Members of the European Parliament are recorded in the blog category, Parliamentary Adventures. Relevant musings about theory and methodology are recorded in the blog category, Call this Action Learning. (You can also get to these categories via links in the main header, The Dissertation = Parliamentary Adventures and the lifework = Call this Action Learning.)

First Conversations:

Why such negative framing? One of the most stark characteristics of the general discourses about simultaneous interpreting that I consider highly significant. (November 1, 2008)

another music? Some distinctions emerge concerning listening, speaking, fluencies, and desired uses of interpreters by MEPs. (November 9, 2008)

What goes unsaid . . . More depth develops as new perspectives and considerations are raised concerning MEPs' desires for using simultaneous interpretation. (December 1, 2008)

arrival:

The setting: fellow Fulbright grantees, one of my gracious hosts, and surrealistic Belgium (September 16, 2008)

The context: as evaluated in the 2005 Report and Motion on EP Interpretation (September 29, 2008)

Some seeds prior to arrival:

Grip of the Committee (defending the prospectus, May 13, 2008)

visual perceptions (and relative distance from the object of study, May 14, 2008)

Cast Concern Where You Will (teasing from and to friends, May 21, 2008)

my new best friend is . . . (inspiration for the name for the blog category, May 22, 2008)

Fog shrouded my arrival in Luxembourg, persisting through the first day. The second morning dawned grey but sparkling.

What a treat to listen through headphones to an interpretation into English of Professor Joanna Nowicki's talk on intercultural communication, or - as she prefers to label it - intercultural mediation. Her critique of 'the American way [of teaching about] intercultural communication" was quite sharp: it "becomes one dimensional very fast." She generalized about management programs that simply direct their students: "with people of this nationality, do that, with people of that nationality, do this." I am not convinced that my friends in the School of Management at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst are receiving so stark a reduction, but I am familiar with trends in my department (Communication) that could lend themselves to such simplistic categorizations. No doubt Professor Nowicki's critique applies in general, if not to every case. She also describes "the American way" as "very pragmatic," explaining that, for Americans, the results of research must be useful.

Research and the real world

Personally, I am inclined to agree with the goal of research needing to have practical use: theory alone is dancing in air. Beautiful, yes. And exclusive. Again, however, it is unclear to me how generally this categorization applies to all American research, as there is only one official pragmatist in the UMass Communication Department and the critical emphasis leans strongly toward the theoretical. Application to the real (not abstract) world receives rather short shrift. Perhaps I am a bit more European in style, as I conceptualize theory and practice as blended in actual experience. Where Professor Nowicki did nail me in my American-ness was with her characterization of American researchers of intercultural communication moving quickly to "giving advice." ☺ Uh oh!

At the end of the seminar on "Communication and its languages," I ventured to pose a question. The topics of the day reflected my skills and interests: from

• the ways human beings imitate each other in communication (taking on the body language or mannerisms of the other, as illustrated by Guy Bilodeau), to


• reframing the language of disability away from individual subjectivity to the environmental conditions that inhibit accessibility (as explained by Pirkko Mahlamäki), to the


• questions of power and distance raised by Juana Lahousse in her talk on the connections between written translation - i.e., translators - and science and knowledge).

Matters of power, distance, and the construction of knowledge are constitutive elements of simultaneous interpretation as a communication practice. The way these elements are handled by all participants in a simultaneously-interpreted communication event generate rituals which can be understood as cultural.

Participant-observation and a ritual view of communication:

In the spirit of participant-observation as a touchstone of my action research methodology, I asked if the idea I have makes any sense: Can we imagine simultaneous interpreting as a cultural practice that retains difference while creating a shared communication ritual, thus contributing to a sense of common identity? I mapped out two drafts in my notes before asking in order to be as clear and direct as possible. I considered that the interpreters would have no background on my wild notion and sought to chunk the components concisely. I was puzzled by the two responses I received. True to the dictates of the generally negative discourse about interpreting (shame on me!), my first thought involved some problem with the interpretation. The second thought was that I had transgressed - as an American outsider, I should have just kept my mouth shut. :-/ (Gauging the proper limits of social etiquette in specific instances has been a lifelong dilemma, alas!) As luck would have it, a few participants from the seminar approached me during the cocktail hour and I was able to inquire about their view.

Dialogue takes time

Aha! Of course - my formulation of identity, dialogue, and the role of language stated "identity" first, necessarily relegating "dialogue" to the background. I did not consider the cultural mediation necessary to convey "identity" as the minor objective contingent upon the major goal of "dialogue." Now, after the fact of the exchange, time joins the play. Professor Nowicki emphasized that the key to intercultural mediation (which she may have been using, at least sometimes, as a synonym for dialogue) is to maintain enough difference so as to keep interest, but not so much as to promote fear.

At the break, Lena, Mary Jo, Laura and I talked about this notion of emphasizing the relational - the links and connections between oneself and the other - as Professor Nowicki advises. We started speaking of the idea of a neutral descriptive language - wondering how such words look and feel, what they convey. Some illustrations were provided of words that offend by accident. These can be things one says simply as the word one knows while being unaware that the word has strong negative associations for others. "Comrade" used by west Germans with Germans of the former East Germany was one example. Laura relayed a story of a classmate from one of the Baltic countries rejecting writing on the chalkboard in red because "that's the color of communism." In such instances, I mused, is where the relational enters. Lena clarified with an aphorism:

Listening like a giraffe

A giraffe, goes the logic, has the largest heart of all animals on earth. Coyote (poor feller) got chosen by someone as the bad counterpart, the predator who scavenges for that which gives offense. If your heart is big enough, then you engage the relationship with the other. Even though offended, you take the time and put your energy toward not allowing the offense to define the interaction. Instead, you find another way to make a link, you find another way to pursue connection. I teased about being the one to lay that long neck out on the line . . . ! Meanwhile, listening like a hunter suggests the barbarian inside that Professor Nowicki mentioned. (Hopefully someone will provide me with the list of authors/titles so I can reference properly - and see if there are translations!)

This internal barbarian is one element of the "hot" European heart I touched with my question about identity. The shared history of Europeans with each other is not pretty, a fact still viscerally alive in the memories and consciousness of these people with whom I interact everyday as a relatively innocent American. The violences I have known are not the horrors of war; my insensitivity to the problematics of a common European identity got put on display. And yet . . . I defend the proposal, because constructing participation in simultaneous interpretation as a cultural communication practice is an activity that anticipates a shared identity in the future rather than seeking transformation in the roots of the past.

Anticipating the future

I agree wholeheartedly that I have no business meddling in the historical foundations of when, how, why and which Europeans become European. My own opinion is that engaging in those debates will keep the divisions real, rather than actually resolving them. (Which is not a full-blown endorsement for not talking about them either - it's rather that how the talking gets done matters more, in my view, than the contents of what actually gets said - at least in principle. Part of the how is that an outsider ought to steer fairly wide of the mark until invited. Unless ;-) one is an American culturally prone to giving advice!)

Speaking about the lessons and potentialities of simultaneous interpretation, however, is something I actually know a little bit about. So I hope (!) I'm not completely off my rocker suggesting that the kind of infrastructure of professional training and provision of quality services that exists for the American Deaf Community is an example of what could be created in Europe to address some of the complexities of intercultural mediation. This, afterall, is what simultaneous interpreters are professionally trained to do, and - going on the testimonies of everyone associated with simultaneous interpretation at the European Institutions, trained professionals actually do a mighty fine job of it.

I regret that I was unable to stay for the second half of Professor Nowicki's lecture, and missed Guy Bilodeau's session entirely. The primary subject of research calls. Snow began blowing shortly after the train began the journey to Brussels; it looks like it might stick. This quick first trip to Luxembourg was indeed unforgettable: from the pleasure of being allowed to attend, through all the intellectual stimulation, mutual curiosity ("Infiltration?" Me? Never!) and heartwarming hospitality. For the record, I do not believe for one minute that Clare has led a sheltered life!

There is "the problem no one talks about," one Member of the European Parliament (MEP) explained, referring to the lack of relationship between MEPs and the interpreters. This gap poses a barrier for developing the kind of rapport that makes simultaneous interpretation most effective.

There is also the reason for using simultaneous interpretation which is "so obvious it doesn't need to be said," according to another MEP. Everyone, he elaborated, "argues better in their mother tongue." I remain puzzled, however, at (what seems to be) an unquestioning acceptance of trends minimizing the need for interpretation. If - as so far everyone I have spoken with agrees - people do argue better in their mother tongue, why is there not an argument on behalf of building the capacity of interpretation services in order to facilitate people's best intellectual engagement?

Of course many MEPs are fluent enough in another language to communicate well, certainly well enough to express disagreement and offer their own ideas. No doubt some MEPs can also negotiate fine points and discern subtleties of inference leading to the identification of commonality and thus the generation of consensus. But, alongside the polyglots are equally smart monolinguals and those with various degrees of language fluencies who are forced to go along with using a second or third language because (as the story goes) there are not enough interpreters to go around. (And, the rest of the story rationalizes, more interpreting would cost too much. Not to mention, dang it all, interpretation takes so much time!)

The negative framing of simultaneous interpretation is perpetuated in another lauded commentary on the European Parliament (EP). Six Battles that Shaped Europe's Parliament, by former EP President Julian Priestley, describes the requirement of twenty-three working languages as

an objective constraint that "acts as a deadweight imposing on [the European Parliament's] organization, timetable and finances a number of inescapable consequences" (emphasis added, 2008, p. 80).

Deadweight. The cultural and linguistic inheritance of Council Regulation No. 1 of 1958 is framed not with joy, gratitude, nor celebration; rather the requirement of linguistic diversity is presented as a heavy and cumbersome burden - an obligation, a negative, constraining limit.

Imposing. Priestley contextualizes his comments of Regulation No. 1 as the matter of working languages being an area over which the EP has "little or no discretion" (p. 2). The October 2008 issue of "The EP Staff Magazine" grants a bit more prestige to this bedrock regulation, although in a backhanded way:

Looking back, it is not insignificant that the regulation laying down the official languages was the EU's first - "Regulation no. 1 of 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community" (OJ L 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385). ~ "Speaking each others languages." Newshound, No. 28, p. 14.

Inescapable. "Transitional arrangements," Priestley explains, "have had to be agreed for certain less-used languages out of sheer necessity (there are simply not enough Maltese or Irish linguists to cover all the different activities" (p. 2-3). There are not now enough trained professional interpreters, however this does not need to remain the case - capacity can be built through the deliberate construction of a language-training infrastructure.

Consequences. The rationalization of professional scarcity is a hidden undercurrent of the vast public promotion of "multilingualism" in the European Union. The Newshound team defines multilingualism to mean "the ability to use two or more languages" (p. 14). By circumscribing multilingualism to refer only to the knowledge of more than one language, a discourse trajectory is promoted which silences the other crucial component of maintaining linguistic diversity: the skills of using simultaneous interpretation to communicate within difference. Don't get me wrong: I am all for language learning! However, an exclusive emphasis on such a narrow form of multilingualism is more a move toward sameness than it is a proactive strategy for retaining linguistic distinction.

In this view, language itself is perceived as a problem: an inert mass imposing inescapable consequences. The discourse engaging the problematic of language poses a restricted definition of "multilingualism" as the solution. The power of the discourse is such that this solution is generally understood as the singular answer. Because of the way the problem has been posed, no other answer is conceivable - at least, not as long as one stays within the boundaries of the discourse. Because of the power of the discourse, the answer conveys a common sense assumption of the nature of the language problem - conversely, then, the answer shapes the question, limiting possibility. This is, I propose, not insignificant.

Thanksgiving in the Verenigde Staten is a holiday and a protest. The mood at the dinner hosted by the American Club was celebratory, although rumblings went round during an aggressive invocation I admit I could have done without. I was also a bit disappointed that no mention was made of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai - they suffer (in part) for their friendship with us, no? Granted, I was affected because of personal connections and an upcoming trip. Otherwise, with the exception of the one-dimensional pumpkin pie (!), the company was outstanding and the meal delicious (especially the mushroom and green bean side dish and the perfectly-roasted turkey).

Conversations were typical I guess? Politics. Who's traveling home for the holidays, who has family traveling here. Why. Why not. Food. Wine. Needing to buy a t-shirt. I got really jazzed when John started to talk about his work as an engineer, especially when he said:

THAT, my friends, is a metaphor for the language-based concept of indexicality!

John makes mongo agricultural equipment. The design gets done somewhere in the US, the product testing gets done somewhere else (I forget), and then John gets to do the actual production. Just like machine shops where I have occasionally interpreted, a significant engineering challenge is to design and build the machine that makes the tool which can generate the exact part which is needed for the machine to be able to do what it is designed to do. That isn't all we talked about, we also broached working in seven dimensions (and here I thought I was doing good by adding a fourth!), and John and Kathy went totally off on the Bernouli Principle, which, btw, doesn't apply in supersonic space.

A few days prior to Thanksgiving, I had begun collecting links and thinking about what I might write. The draft I started was titled, mistakes are for learning. The list I compiled of situations we still need to heal included a story on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's opposition to American Indian Rights, the illegal occupation of Hawai'i by the U.S. since 1898, books accomplishing more than bombs in Pakistan, the need to work for peace in the Middle East, and the problem so many people still have with lesbian and gay rights.

The whole eclectic collection went out of my head instantly when a pal posted a twitter feed on Facebook as the terrorist attacks in Mumbai commenced in the wee hours of the morning. While relieved that my friends and their friends and families are all ok, I continue to consider that the more people I know the smaller the world becomes. I ache for the people who've lost loved ones, and for the families of the terrorists - not all of whom can be happy at what their children have done. Amitav Ghosh has written a thoughtful, clearheaded critique of the rush to compare these attacks to 9/11, reminding us that "9/11" refers

also to its aftermath, in particular to an utterly misconceived military and judicial response, one that has had disastrous consequences around the world.

Consequences. This brings me back around to that concept, indexicality. And the metaphor of a machine shop.

An index is the part of a word or phrase that points to something. Indexing is a referential act, a component of how we make meaning together, the core of what is understood when we achieve understanding. The notion of an index implies time, is perhaps even predicated upon time - at least if we understand time in a granular fashion, as a kind of motion that builds incrementally upon itself, accruing into sediments of meaningfulness. (See, if you can, this BBC documentary, Do You Know What Time It Is? by Professor Brian Cox)

So here's the deal, as I see it. Our language really matters. What we say has substance. Our words effect the world. We elected Obama: he and his team are leading with language. Yes, they are putting together a centrist adminstration, but think "center" as in core. I've rarely been prouder to be American than in being part of Obama's election, but we've got to get past the self-absorbed ways in which we sometimes celebrate being American as if the identity came to us pure. It did not. What is special and unique about America is that despite the terrible tragedies of our history, we absorb the lessons and move on. Now, 'moving on' means dealing well with the two extremes of radical diversity and horrific disenfranchisement. The former we must preserve and the latter requires redress.

The core must be solid; the boundaries must be clear. We - every single one of us who believes that there is a chance to finally turn the tide, as Ghosh says, in a long, long battle - we must use the words that signal a future that embraces everyone, instead of words "inviting" those who disagree to step outside the room. It is up to us to listen to the words and phrases of Obama and his team and make them, similar to the language of mathematics, "mean what they say, and say what they mean" (p. 14).