A. History and practice of using interpreters within culturally, and linguistically diverse communities

Transcription

1 National Multicultural Interpreter Project Decision Making in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities - Creating Authentic Teams Lecture Notes I. Ethical Codes of Conduct for Interpreters A. History and practice of using interpreters within culturally, and linguistically diverse communities What is known about the historical perspective of the use of spoken language interpreters in general, and in specific sign language interpreters by non-english speakers of culturally and linguistically diverse communities? This question is a logical place to begin the discussion of decision-making in the context of multilingual, and multicultural sign language interpreting. A review of the professional models in most commonly used interpreter textbooks addresses the changes in the interpreting models to date. This will demonstrate that our profession is dynamic, and not stagnant. There is an ongoing and deepening understanding of our professional roles. This should further reinforce the concept that a continuing exploration of the delicate and very personal role of an interpreter is a necessity. Historically, as the Deaf community has evolved in its own cultural definitions, empowerment processes, and in the development of its expectations of an interpreter s primary and secondary roles so have the models. The need, demand, and use of interpreters in ever wider professional assignments has expanded. Technology itself has added entire new dimensions to this most personal role of providing the spoken voice, and signing expression for an entire range of human communication circumstances. Thus, the need to reexamine and adapt the professional model of interpreting to the new realities of current times has followed. The reality of the rapidly changing demographics of the American Deaf Community is no exception. Much has been written in interpreter textbooks about the four models of interpreting: helper, conduit, facilitator, and cultural mediator. There is an additional model of ally that is currently being discussed at many conferences and workshops. These resources are readily available and provide a comprehensive explanation of each model. Therefore, they will be mentioned only in a multicultural perspective, and in the evolution of a more holistic perspective on multicultural interpreting. Each model still has its place, for example, the conduit model may be the most appropriate in a situation where a deaf individual is bi-cultural and fluent in English, and desires a verbatim transliteration in a specific communication setting. A helper model may be essential in an emergency situation involving a young Deaf child. However, in the United States, it is both timely and necessary to add another important dimension that has been lacking in most of the literature - the culturally and linguistically diverse Deaf perspective. Lori Whynot has written, It has been long noted that American Sign Language interpreting is a relatively new profession and as such, it is often not viewed as one by those uninitiated to Deaf communities. It has taken years to arrive at a point where an ASL English interpreters work is making strides towards being recognized in increasing circles as a job, not just as a thing one volunteered to do. Since 1979, when the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf wrote their professional code of ethics, interpreter practitioners have continued to dialogue ethical issues and decision-making in interpreting situations. In addition, the National Association of the Deaf has promulgated a code of ethics...historically, the code has been aligned with the machine model of interpreting, and as noted earlier, new models have arrived. (Whynot,1999). As the NMIP team leaders have been in the field listening to, and recording the input from Deaf consumers and interpreters from culturally diverse backgrounds, several themes have emerged from these discussions. The first is the strong perception that the RID Code of Ethics, or a perception that many practitioners interpretation of the Code of Ethics, was, and is based on a dominant United States cultural perspective and was not originally written with the full access and input of culturally 1

2 and linguistically diverse individuals. The second, is the understanding that a specific community s use (or lack of use) of sign language interpreters is often based on the historical experiences of using interpreters in general, when communicating with English speakers. And third, the specific cultural community s view of the individual decision-making in relationship to the family or group dynamics may directly impact the communication goals, and processes. It is to be noted that the NAD/RID Task Force on Interpreting has recently made an authentic effort to reach out, survey and collect information from the broadest of constituencies possible. In an effort to develop revised testing procedures, and policies that will be more inclusive of the diverse communities that we all serve. There is much more information that needs to be collected. As this document goes to press. These codes of ethics and philosophical tenets are formally being reviewed by the joint appointed NAD/RID members to the National Council on Interpreting (NCI) for possible revisions. The RID Code of Ethics and the NAD Code of Ethics as well as other professional guidelines are geared towards empowering the consumer s rights as an individual who functions independently in a larger society made up of individuals. Interpreters frequently interact with Deaf consumers who are functioning as independent consumers. The interpreting profession initially used a helper model of interpreting when consumers were generally unaware of the hearing systems, and cultures in which they needed to communicate and interact. Over the past thirty years, as the Deaf Community became more knowledgeable of hearing cultural, and communication systems, and began to use interpreters as professional service providers, this model was replaced by the subsequent models of machine, communication facilitator, cultural mediator, and recently the conferences discussing the ally model. All of which recognize the various levels of linguistic, and United States cultural self-sufficiencies a Deaf person may have acquired. Gary Sanderson often points out, in his interpreter education workshops, that Deaf consumers often may not know which type of model a non-familiar interpreter may be operating under. This frequently leads to some degree of uncertainty in a variety of situations. As the models changed, there was not always a parallel process for consumer education. Generational differences also occurred within the larger United States Deaf Community as older members of the Community who had been raised and educated at state schools for the Deaf experienced the various changes in models differently than the younger generations who are increasingly being educated in mainstreamed day school programs where exposure to educational interpreters can begin in kindergarten classes and continue through high school courses. These ethical codes have incorporated certain beliefs and values that are reflective of the mainstream United States culture. Key tenets are generally to protect the rights of the individual to self-determination, and independence, and to guarantee the provision of confidential services. It leaves the decision to accept, or reject assignments based on the discretion, and to render the message faithfully, to the professional judgement of the interpreter who must ultimately still self identify their own proficiencies in any given situation. There is an expectation of market driven monetary compensation for services rendered, request judicious compensation. There is also the implied ethical view of interpreters as a professional equivalent to other professions, such as lawyers, social workers, and physicians. Other professions, such as social workers, are now implementing specific accreditation guidelines for multicultural competencies to be included within their educational programs. Currently, in the United States, there are many thousands of Deaf individuals who are, increasingly, from a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. There are thousands of individuals who were not born in the United States, but who have immigrated, as either children, or young adults. They bring with them another set of cultural attitudes, behaviors, values and historical experiences that bring a very different perspective to any professional code of conduct. 2

3 Angela Roth, NMIP Hispanic/Latino Team Leader explained, When considering the code of ethical conduct for interpreters as is generally noted within the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, there are several unique factors that need to be taken into consideration when we look at the Hispanic/Latino Community. Historically, within the United States, spoken language interpreters have been used more often in legal or governmental situations. For example, a spoken language interpreter is often used when one government is negotiating, or dealing diplomatically with another government. The interpreters that are most often used for the Deaf came more out of the family, the churches, or the neighborhood spectrum. Definitely, this was at the other end of the scale in the social system so to speak. We also do know that hearing Euro-Americans in the United States have had dominance and control economically, and socially, and thus more opportunities. While at the same time, the same situation occurred within the White Deaf Americans. While it is true that Deaf, as a whole have not fared as well as their Hearing counterparts, nonetheless, within the Deaf structure, we find that those levels of opportunities were paralleled. There were better opportunities for those Deaf persons who were White than those who came from culturally, and linguistically diverse backgrounds. So when it came time to start advancing the concerns of the Deaf Community, at that time the ones who were involved were primarily the White Deaf Community along with the White Interpreters, many of whom were the Hearing children of Deaf adults, and so, the concerns and values that permeate the Code of Ethics came from that perspective. B. History of culturally and linguistically diverse communities use of interpreters in English-speaking situations Within culturally and linguistically diverse communities, there are different histories in the use of interpreters in general, and specifically, sign language interpreters. This information has not been well documented at the individual level. So much of this interpreting has been invisible to outside communities. As with the Deaf Community, in non-english speaking communities, there has been a history of using family, and community members as interpreters. The dynamics of interpreter use by a culturally and linguistically diverse community within English-speaking situations have been varied. In some foreign countries, the interpreters would be the agents of the government. Therefore, it is important to have a larger perspective of the individual s, as well as the collective experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse community s view of interpreters, because it may influence their view of a sign language interpreter s role(s). However, this may, or may not, relate to any individual s, or family s unique, or personal experience. To illustrate this point, there could be a Deaf adolescent who has had relatively positive experiences of using a sign language interpreter within a school environment, and now they are in a medical situation where the attending family members are fearful that the interpreter working with the hospital s social worker, who is a government employee, and will report his father s questionable immigration status to the authorities. Therefore, a general background of some of the issues of other experiences sets a framework for the application of decision making within a multicultural framework. C. History of using family and community members as interpreters Historically, many of the interpreters for the Deaf Community came from the ranks of children of deaf adults or CODA s. Many were raised both, bilingually, and biculturally in both Deaf and Hearing culture, and also having skills in English, and ASL. Currently, the interpreter training programs are attracting a group of individuals who have had no prior experience or affiliations within the Deaf Community when it was composed of White Deaf individuals using ASL. These individuals face years of language learning and interpreting skill development while at the same time they will need to acquire cultural competencies in Deaf culture. Political self-advocacy has been primarily for the White Deaf Community, many of whom have been active since the 1960's in advocating the civil rights of Deaf individuals. Many members of this group may have had a thirty-year history of exposure to the practices, and ethics of interpreting. Within this group, interpreters are still engaged with understanding the dynamics of the cross-cultural conflicts and the need for mediation. This has 3

4 given rise to the model of the interpreter as cultural mediator and the recent discussions of the ally model. This model again focused on mediating between a Deaf and Hearing paradigm, and the discourse differences between English and ASL. The interpreter is presumed to have professional understanding, and competencies in both cultures and languages. Gary Sanderson, a nationally respected interpreter, interpreter educator, and a CODA points out that problems have occurred when the recent graduates of two year programs, and/or novice interpreters are sent into situations to work with a variety of Deaf individuals, while they are still acquiring bilingual, and bicultural nuances. There is a tendency for them to over-generalize some of the Deaf Culture s rules as they learn the cultural nuances, and not to see the subtle variations that exist within this new culture. If one adds, to this complex experiential learning task, the additional challenge of attempting to learn the registers, discourse patterns, communication styles, gesture and eye-gaze systems, and signing languages, and variations of every other Deaf cultural, and ethnic group, it immediately becomes obvious that other collaborative strategies are required to train these new interpreters and sensitize existing interpreters to these complexities. In the United States, there has not been a parallel history of CODA s of color entering the interpreting field for a variety of reasons. These reasons differ from community to community and cannot easily be generalized over the various groups. Some of the common factors have been a lack of access to interpreter education programs, a lack of awareness of interpreting as a profession, a lack of financial support to complete an education, a lack of role models in the field, and a lack of mentoring opportunities. Some students, and community interpreters have not had their cultural experiences validated by educators, colleague interpreters, and/or by interpreter coordinators. Over the past four years, NMIP has opened a dialogue with interpreters of color, interpreters who work within multilingual and multicultural situations, and consumers, family members and service providers, especially interpreter coordinators, to analyze and discuss how interpreters and more importantly interpreting partnerships, and teams can maximize the effectiveness of interpreting within complex multilingual, and multicultural situations, and interpreting relationships. D. Need for culturally and linguistically diverse community s cultural view of sign language interpreter s role(s) The most obvious need is that more individuals, both Deaf and Hearing, who have been raised, or who have extensive life experiences within a specific cultural community, such as Cuban, Korean, Sri Lankan, Hopi Indian, or Jewish need to be recruited, encouraged, and utilized within the profession. One quickly realizes the impossibility of this training scenario, the expectation to be able to train individuals to function as linguistic, and cultural mediator in every conceivable combination. The second strategy is to develop a set of multicultural competencies that allow individuals to heighten their awareness of these cultural and linguistic differences. Our field will require a variety of cultural specialists, just as we have developed specialty areas in artistic, legal, medical, and other fields. If one person cannot provide the unique blend of language and cultural competencies, then the next obvious strategy is a cultural partnership or a multicultural team. To date, there is not a strong theoretical research base or theory to adequately express all of the complexities of situations that we, as NMIP staff, consultants and team members have encountered, but we have created a dialogue within the profession that has allowed many factors to be identified. The first step has been raising the level of awareness and dialogue across the nation. Without true and authentic multicultural partnerships with both Deaf and Hearing interpreters from a diversity of backgrounds, experiences and cultural competencies, we will not be able to effectively meet these challenges. With the development of increased access to technology, transportation, and organizational networking, we no longer have to function as Super Interpreters who must know understand all languages, know all cultures and be all things to all communities. With the development of multicultural partnerships, agencies, teams, and training programs, we can develop the true respect and appreciation for our colleagues in this dynamic field. 4

5 E. Implications of some culturally and linguistically diverse values to the mainstream values of RID Professional Codes of Ethics The RID Code of Ethics promotes independence and self-determination for Deaf consumers. This is a reflection of our United States values of independence, and equality. These values are positive, and worthy in the context of the United States culture. The DACUM participants asked NMIP to analyze the code of ethics relative to the culturally specific experiences, and values of the various groups of consumers, and to compare and contrast the use of interpreter services by both Deaf and hearing persons within their communities. The following are some implications of some potential contrasting culturally linguistically diverse community values to the mainstream values espoused in the United States professional codes of ethics for interpreters. 1. Keep all assignment related information strictly confidential. This is generally interpreted to mean at the individual level. Many cultural communities may function at a more collective level including family, extended family, or other significant community persons into the umbrella of confidentiality. A family representative may need to receive information to be carried to other hearing members who may or may not be present. In contrast, in other cultural communities, there may be a heightened sensitivity to the confidentiality issues due to the even smaller number of individuals in a given community. There may be a stated preference for an interpreter who is not from the community. 2. Render the message faithfully always conveying the content, and spirit of the of the speaker using language most readily understood by the persons whom they serve. With culturally and linguistically diverse communities there are variations in high context, and low context cultures. The ethical application is related to the level of mediation in both register and context. It can be posed, should a cultural message that is vague, indirect, or unsaid be made explicit? Or, what is direct and explicit be translated to be more indirect to make a cross-cultural, and linguistic mediation? Can the specific cultural affect of a culturally and linguistically diverse person be faithfully conveyed only by someone from that cultural and linguistic background? Doesn t the phrase using language most readily understood imply the need for multilingual or intermediary interpreters in critical situations for persons for whom ASL and English are second languages? 3. Shall not counsel, advise, or interject personal opinions. This tenet may challenge some consumers assumptions who are from culturally, and linguistically diverse communities that have very different assumptions, expectations, and perceptions of the interpreter s role. In some communities, if an interpreter is accepted then there is a trusted friend relationship which is required to receive the approval of the community. This creates a potential conflict for the interpreter, because, in conflict with the code, there is a community expectation for counsel, advise, and personal opinion to be injected into the situation by some cultures. This creates a delicate balance of input to the communication, cultural implications, and mediation critical versus counsel, advise, or a personal opinion. a. Culturally, and linguistically diverse community s assumptions, expectations and perceptions. - In many cultures, family members are expected to be language intermediaries. Thus, the second and third generations of immigrant children are expected to interpret for other non-english speaking family members. Extended family members who can speak English are expected to perform these services for other family members, extended family members, or even neighbors. How is the role of these family members respected, and integrated, or transitioned into the communication and interpreting process? 5

6 b. Individual rights and empowerment. - The tenet also expresses the value that the Deaf person is viewed to be an independent consumer of interpreter services. The United States mainstream culture regards men and women as equal in legal status and equal ability to self-determination after the age of majority, generally age 18. In several cultures, if a consumer is female, she will generally defer to her male family members, for example, the father, or eldest brother, or their husbands, or boyfriends. In the United States culture, women are expected to be able, after high school, and the age of 18, to enter into freely, or leave personal relationships, educational, or occupational programs, and make their own independent decisions. It may be that during an interpreted situation, information is expected to be provided, or interpreted to family members and other significant family representatives for the benefit of the deaf individual and/or the family members. Providing interpreting services only for the direct benefit of the deaf individual may be non-inclusive of the overall goals of the communication and the family s cultural dynamics. c. Hierarchical, group and/or family decision-making processes - With several cultural groups there may be a collective decision-making process at work, as in many traditional Asian and Hispanic families. The decisions are often made in a hierarchical manner, generally, by the elder male. There may also be a family liaison, or representative who functions as a go-between and who functions as a family negotiator in many situations, such as in business, and personal affairs. The actual decision maker may, or may not be present when the go-between is conducting the family business. This may also be a manifestation of the in-direct communication style, and therefore prevent a perceived challenge to authority or a direct loss of face. The go-between protects the loss of face for all parties. 4. Shall accept assignments using discretion with regard to skill, setting, and all consumers involved. In accepting interpreting situations, there needs to be more prior information provided to the coordinator, and the accepting interpreters, thus, giving them the necessary knowledge to make a thorough analysis of the assignment for general content and skills and to determine the salient cultural affect and linguistic competencies required. 5. Shall request compensation for services in a professional and judicious manner. There are several ethical issues that relate to access to interpreter services for persons and community organizations who are economically disadvantaged. How does one determine appropriate compensation relative to community pro-bono work? Is there a fair compensation in the provision of services in exchange for the development of knowledge and experience in a cultural community? What rules apply if the individual or community offers a gift? How can Deaf individuals and hearing individuals who are brought into situations as language and cultural intermediaries receive appropriate compensation? 6. Shall function in a manner appropriate to the situation. What specific cultural knowledge and norms of a specific background are required to be known to function appropriately in that specific cultural environment? 7. Shall strive to further knowledge and skills. This tenet now includes participation in national, state, and local culturally linguistically diverse communities and organizations. It further implies the professional support of culturally and linguistically diverse community Interpreters. 8. Shall maintain high professional standards. This tenet implies a profession in which all members participate in the establishment of professional standards that are affirmed and supported by all of its members and consumers. 6

7 As with all aspects of interpreting it depends now must also include a reframing of questions related ethical decision making in the light of cultural relevancy. Case studies and ethical dilemmas cannot be all cast assuming that the participants are equally enculturated into the mainstream U. S. Deaf and Hearing cultural norms. Resources: Gish, S. (1990). Ethics and Decision Making for Interpreters in Health Care Settings A Student Manual, The College of Saint Catherine, Minneapolis, Minnesota. This manual provides an excellent set of materials and value clarification activities relating specifically to the RID code of ethics. Humphrey, J. Decisions? Decisions! This text provides a discussion of the metaethical principles and an overview for decision-making models. 7

8 II. Themes in the Experiences of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Deaf Communities To date, there have been scant formal research projects to determine a more complete historical and contemporary view(s) of interpreters, and the known cultural preferences of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals and their use of interpreters. One survey conducted by John Lewis has begun to collect some preliminary data on this topic, but he has not collected a sufficient quantity of respondents to have a sufficient pool from all groups to generalize the trends. There appear to be within different groups some trends when there are some preferences. The NAD/RID Task Force has also collected data and anecdotal information from town hall meetings, surveys, and participation at various conferences. NMIP Team Leaders, staff, and consultants have collected critical incident stories on videotapes, and in personal interviews. Several themes are emerging. A. Deaf Immigrant Experiences Upon arrival to the United States, many immigrants are faced with interpreting needs from their home language to English. Interpreters are not always mandated by law in many situations for non- English speakers. There are exceptions, such as specific legal situations, and other situations covered by civil rights access. Many kinds of community interpreting needs are often taken care of by a family member, an extended family member, or by a trusted friend who has fluencies in English. Many times, any office worker, or staff person, from a bilingual nurse, or secretary to a janitor, is brought in to assist in many emergency language situations. Hopefully, this is changing. Often, in large minority communities, individuals are hired for their bilingual capabilities, but have not been trained as interpreters, or compensated for this value added service. Generally, most of these people are enculturated bilingual speakers interpreting for dominant culture monolingual English service providers. There is also a historical tradition of using family, and community members for communication similar to the practice of using CODA children as interpreters. Many second, and third generation children grow up being the in-family interpreter for telephone, written, and often in face-to-face interpreting. Most deaf individuals coming into the United States have had little or no experience with professional sign language interpreters. At this time, in many countries, there is no equivalent legislation to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Some countries do provide interpreting services through an emerging network of church, education, and community oriented individuals. Many international interpreters have begun to network with related United States organizations such as the National Asian Deaf Congress, National Alliance of Black Interpreters, and the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. The United States is seen as a model for sign language interpreting services. Many Deaf individuals indicated that they immigrated to the United States for better access to educational and other opportunities.. B. Asian American and Asian Immigrant Deaf Experience Jan Nishimura, NMIP Team Leader, and consultants Martin Hiraga, Geri Mu, and Mary Mooney have interviewed a number of Asian Deaf individuals and interpreters, and they have identified a number of themes and experiences. Most Asian communities view disabilities as a loss of face and often will not expose, or limit exposure of the Deaf family member to the outside world. From the NMIP interviews it appears that in Asian countries, that there are few professional, or formally trained sign language interpreters. The practice of using interpreters within Asian and Pacific Islander communities with deaf population is limited and newly emerging. 8

9 Deaf Asian families may prefer an outside culture interpreter when having to discuss personal or family business matters possibly fearing a loss of face within the community if personal business is known by some same culture interpreters. However, in situations where religious practices, or cultural ceremonies are involved an interpreter who is familiar with the culturally specific Asian protocols and traditions is highly desirable, such as in a wedding or a funeral. Asian/Pacific Islander D/deaf students often encounter their first interpreter in an educational environment. They are frequently embarrassed to admit, they do not know, or understand the interpreter as they are struggling with both signs, and English terminology. They will not ask for personal attention during the group interpretation. They are reticent to share that they did not understand the signs. In one to one, or small group situations they often prefer interpreters who explain the cultural meanings behind words or signs, without calling undo attention, and who are willing to help them understand the complex United States systems. In several situations, Asian students requested help to understand a concept, find a location on campus, fill out a form, or who have requested advice on how to approach a situation in the United States. In several NMIP interviews, foreign born Deaf individuals from Asian countries were often offended, and taken aback, when interpreters, or other service providers would sign literally Do Self or Think Self. Their expectation was that help and assistance is personal, caring, and involved. It would be an Asian expectation to go with someone, or show someone, a new place, or system, for example, how to ride public transportation, how to apply for a service. Therefore, the traditional boundaries of the role of an interpreter was not in their experience. The SELF sign was perceived as abrupt and very impersonal. They would like educational interpreters to be more cordial, be aware of their embarrassment, and learn about their culture after class, and during various Asian cultural and social events. Most younger Asian Deaf individuals encounter their first interpreters in educational situations. They generally prefer a friendly and caring interpreter who understands, and can fill in some of their cultural, and linguistic gaps without embarrassing them. In business, and professional situations, an interpreter from the dominant culture may represent an attributed status to the individual. Asian business people are in the practice of utilizing liaison, and escort interpreter services when visiting and conducting business in other countries. It is generally not expected that outsiders can speak Mandarin Chinese, or conduct business in Japanese. Interpreting by the Asian Deaf Community is seen, as a serious, and responsible profession. When they pose the question of Why did you decide to become an interpreter? They are surprised if the answer is, I just love signing; it is so much fun! This answer appears somewhat frivolous and based on whim, rather than a measured decision. Asian consumers expect interpreters to have entered the interpreting field as a serious profession. Many Asian professionals, and students, respect the professional compensation for interpreters. For private, social, and religious events, family members would be expected to provide, and pay for, the interpreting services. Asian interpreters who work within the communities are often expected to provide services to the community without mention of money. If non-family members, are employed they may be paid directly by the family, or hired through an agency. Asian Deaf organizations may ask for interpreting services as a favor, but a gift, or recognition is often bestowed upon the interpreter. It can generally be considered an honor to be asked to interpret for these activities. The preference for an interpreter of Asian heritage when compared with a non-asian interpreter may be based on several factors. There are many situations in which skill is the primary concern. There are many Deaf Asian professionals who have high academic credentials, and business acumen, they desire an interpreter who can represent their language register, corporate, and social standing, and technical competencies. There may be the perception that a non-asian interpreter 9

10 bestows a more professional status to a business, or some other social situation. The interpreter may be seen as a reflection of the perceived higher status of the dominant culture, such as a White, male interpreter. An interpreter s educational, and certification credentials are respected. On the other hand, there are often strong cultural preferences for culturally appropriate community interpreters if the event involves religious, or spiritual components. Families may prefer to hire an outside interpreter to conduct family business meetings, rather than risk a member of the community knowing their private matters. Confidentiality is highly valued. C. Hispanic/Latino American and Immigrant Deaf Experiences The Deaf Hispanic/Latino experience in the United States is broad and multi-generational. Mary Mooney, Yolanda Zavala, NMIP staff, and Angela Roth, the NMIP Hispanic/Latino Team Leader, have collected a number of anecdotal themes from a variety of individuals and groups. Angela Roth in a presentation summarized: When considering the code of ethical conduct for interpreters as is generally noted with the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, there are factors that need to be taken into consideration when we look at the Hispanic/Latino Community. Within the Hispanic/Latino community, many times the interpreter is generally seen in the role of a helper, a supporter, an advocate, and certainly all-knowing. So, an interpreter for the Hispanic/Latino community needs to be prepared for the fact that the cultural values reflected within that culture are different. The RID Code of Ethics, are written from the White Deaf and Hearing community viewpoint, and are vastly different from the traditional Latino Family cultural paradigm. Additionally, the RID Code of Ethics stresses the individual s right to self-determination. However, within the Latino community, it is often noted that family decisions are made in a different manner, one person s business is everyone s business. Therefore, decisions are made more often as a group determination. This is a very different system, with a very different ground rules than those of the dominant culture. The goal with Deaf consumers, from the White American interpreter s perspective, is to pay attention to, and, be involved only with the Deaf consumer while they make their own decision. But, within the Latino family, decision making is a process that must include the family, and other individuals that are significant. There needs to be a serious consideration of the families needs as a whole. From the United States White perspective this situation is not one that promotes selfdetermination as being a highly valued right. Because in this family network the person who is the most knowledgeable and/or who has the best communication ability may be the individual who funnels very critical information to the rest of the group. The family members then, based on either experience, or the information give their input. Then, ultimately, they come to a group decision that addresses the concerns, and is in the best interests for all involved. So, within a Latino family, the person who has the ability to communicate best, and can get this information for the family is very critical in the process of decision making. Serious consideration needs to be given to what could occur if that process is impeded by the sign language interpreting process or focus. Certainly the value of self-determination is important, because we don t want to say that a Deaf person is incapable of making decisions, and therefore must be taken care of. Certainly that paternalistic view would not allow an individual to grow. But, by the same token, in crisis situations, as has been pointed out by a colleague, Leo Hidalgo, who has a Master s Degree in Social Work, and who is now working in the Orlando, Florida area, that removing the network, or disrupting the network in a crisis situation could be the worst thing that could occur. It is this network that can provide the support, feed the information to, and make sure that all necessary parties are involved. This can be a very positive factor that may be lacking when we have an individual that is very independent, but also has been isolated from a network system. So, before quickly jumping to a conclusion, and judging 10

11 that the Code of Ethics should be applied within the context of just self-determination for an individual, the family, and group dynamics must be taken into consideration when interpreting within the Hispanic community. In a very tangible way, the interpreter needs to be aware that on a given assignment when they show up to interpret for a particular person, they may not necessarily encounter just an individual client. The interpreter may encounter several people who have come along to be a support network, to make sure the information is getting through, and that this person is connected and well supported. An interpreter going out on an assignment may expect to find family members and community members, who are viewed basically as if they were family, with authority to assist that individual for the good of that Deaf person. Another aspect that needs to be considered is the payment for services, or pro bono work. When individuals are coming from Hispanic/Latino countries, the only interpreters they may have ever seen are a.) family members who help for free, or b.) government workers. Depending on the country that the individual comes from, they may have a tremendous fear, and distrust of someone who is getting paid by the government. Therefore, they wrongly assume that the interpreter must be a government worker. The Deaf person could then feel that they may be in danger, or that the interpreter will then pass the information on to government officials because that s who they think the interpreter s employer is. So, there may be a tremendous reticence for them open up and give needed information to the interpreter. An interpreter needs to be careful that their role is clearly specified, it is part of our professional conduct as interpreters to make sure that our role is clearly delineated, so that the Deaf person understands who is sending us, and what the interpreter can, or can t do. So, again we need to be prepared to expand our role as interpreter s when working with a Hispanic/Latino family who may not be aware of the differences in how interpreter s deal with their assignments here in the United States versus whatever Latino/Hispanic country they may have originally come from. Another aspect that needs to be considered is that because, within the Euro-American value system the emphasis is put on your credentials, ability, whether you graduated, where you are from, and what your skills are. You will hear educated Deaf individuals, who have absorbed the White Anglo value system in the United States, asking about matters such as the certification level of the interpreter as the basis to judge whether, or not, they are getting quality interpreting. However, from the Latino/Hispanic perspective, what people are more concerned about is not how many certificates you have, or letters you have behind your name, but whether you understand who I am, and where I m from. In other words, they want to know if you are Hispanic/Latino, and from which ethnic group, because how else could a person possibly have the same understanding of their life experience, needs, and social context? Therefore, there is a stronger preference that may be manifested by Hispanic/Latino Deaf individuals for interpreters that are from the in-group, and from the same background. Now, while we have diversity within the Hispanic community, the fact that the interpreter is Hispanic will take precedence over many other factors. It would be even more ideal if the interpreter is Hispanic and happens to come from the same country that the Deaf person comes from. For example, if a Latino were to go interpret within a court setting, the Deaf consumer/client that is from a Hispanic background would feel much more comfortable knowing that the interpreter is Latino. They will make the assumption that this person knows the country that they come from, that they will be able to read the Hispanic names of their towns, of their family members, that this will not be foreign to them. They would feel that there will be a much stronger affinity of understanding. They will also feel that this person will be supportive in their concerns, because that is what they will be used to in their home country. If it happens that the Latino interpreter is from Colombia, and the Hispanic Deaf client is from Cuba, they will be accepting of that individual, and even more so if it turned out that the Latino interpreter was also from Cuba as 11

12 was the Deaf client. There would be an even heightened level of preference for that individual. They certainly would prefer a person with the same cultural background to interpret for them. More than likely anyone, no matter how nice their spoken Spanish is, or how many signs they may have, if they come from an American background, the Hispanic or Latino Deaf person will feel that because it is a life experience issue, there are going to be some limitations on that interpreter s services. Particularly, when you consider that in general, Euro-Americans have not embraced the values of other cultures, except perhaps cuisine. It s almost expected that anybody that comes here to the United States must follow, or be part of the American cultural structure and anybody who does not follow that model is seen as suspect. You must speak English, you must act American and that you really need to bury your ethnicity, or even better yet, leave it behind you altogether. Therefore, when Hispanics or Latinos see a person from the Euro American culture as an interpreter they know that it s usually going to be expected that the Latino adhere to the United States American cultural norms. Since they see far less examples of non-hispanics adhering to Latino culture and values, what happens is they immediately start making assumptions that the interpreter therefore could not possibly understand the Latino way of being. Generalizing the fact that, in general Americans don t understand their Hispanic culture, there immediately will be an assumed barrier between themselves and the non-hispanic interpreter. After working in a Hispanic Deaf community for several years. There is a very personalized relationship between trusted interpreters, both Anglo, and Hispanic, and Hispanic Deaf Community members. Interpreters, who work within a Hispanic community for many years, are seen as extended community members and are frequently invited to weddings, expected to attend funerals, and other important community events. When an interpreter changes jobs, or careers this change of role is not always recognized and members of the community will follow them to the new location, office, or school, and continue to seek interpreted services. The person is far more important than the formal interpreter referral system. Since the communities are generally small, who interpreted for a court case, or divorce proceeding may be known from sources within the community. It may also be difficult for some community members to understand why interpreters would interpret for a bad person, because the relationship is viewed as personal. The view that the interpreter is choosing sides, rather than simply providing the service of interpreting to provide equal access to legal communication. The need for more community education still exists. Obviously another point of discussion that would then need to be considered is the involvement of how do we team, how do we work, how do we prepare when we do need to work with the Hispanic/Latino family when we ourselves are not from the Hispanic background? We, as interpreters, also need to recognize that issues of impartiality might be brought up because it s expected that the interpreter is still in the helper role and should be giving advice. Faithful interpretation could be confusing because the interpreter may not have enough cultural background, or contextualization of the system, or the environment that they re working in to provide a Hispanic translation. So the Deaf person is expecting the interpreter not only to say what s being said, but also, to say what needs to be done in this situation, working more from the helper model. This is all dependent on the amount of time and exposure that the Deaf Hispanic or Latino person would have had to start to recognize the value systems and the structure of what s expected of the interpreters in the dominant culture. So, that is not to say that every Latino Deaf person is expecting this, but there are going to be concerns as were previously mentioned, particularly with people who have recently come to this country. In regards to issues of confidentiality, matters are expected to be discussed with the family members so that they can be of support to their relative. They would look to the interpreter and to say what was said, what had just happened, please re-explain so that we understand what we need to do for this person who is Deaf in our family. The flip side of that is thinking that the interpreter is working for the government and there may be a fear to talk to the interpreter, thinking that the 12

13 interpreter is going to bring information to the attention of government officials. So, the role of confidentiality may be viewed from a very different standpoint. There are also other cultural values as to professional boundaries and participation. Eating is very much a part of the cultural order. An interpreter may be invited to eat something or participate in some way. The sharing of food, or having something to drink is something the interpreter needs to be aware of. When on a job if an interpreter is not involved in any way, shape, or form, then within the cultural values of the Hispanic community it may be viewed as insulting, or the interpreter may seem standoffish. Or that somehow they do not like or appreciate the food and the culture of the Latinos, or may be actually insulting by not taking part, at least in some degree, by not eating something or drinking a little something. This token of participation would show an appreciation of the Hispanic culture. So, when considering the general aspects of the Code of Ethical conduct for sign language interpreters, clearly an understanding of the community s perspective must be taken into consideration before a person can say that they are truly ready to work with the Hispanic Deaf community. Additional Resources: Perspective of Sign Language Interpreters in Puerto Rico Resource: Gilberto Pino s paper English/Spanish Perspective of Sign Language Interpreter in Mexico. Resource: NMIP Videotape: Mexico s Development of Sign Languge Interpretations: A Trilingual Discussion in English/LSM/Spanish by Sergio Pena Mano a Mano Conference Report and Issues Papers to be published on their website. D. American Indian and Alaskan Native Deaf Experiences According to NMIP Team Leaders Jonathan Hopkins, Tupper Dunbar, and consultants Mark Azure, Dr. Howard Busby, Linda Carroll, Melanie McCay Cody, Donnette Reins, and James Woodenlegs, the following themes come from a historical perspective on communication with White people. Communication, and use of interpreters, with White people have influenced the perceptions toward and use of sign language interpreters within the American Indian/Alaskan Native Deaf community members. Interpreting with First Nations: Historical and Contemporary Views From presentations with Linda Carrol, President of IDC, James Woodenlegs, IDC Spiritual Leader, and other sources NMIP Team Leader Tupper Dunbar summarized and shared: Native peoples historically have had regard for those who communicated between worlds whether they be animal or human, between spirit and human, or between different cultures and languages. Among the Hoopah of the Northwest, mediators between cultural groups were paid professionals. The Choctaw of the Southeast, complained to the French military that it was inappropriate for them to use a disreputable trader to interpret for a Chief. They felt an interpreter should be someone of respected rank, possibly an officer. Times changed. After the onset of the European invasion, most interpreters were captured slaves. With colonial expansion, reliance was often on traders with various levels of competence, who were contracted by the military, or by exploratory expeditions. Only in recent times has the Shoshone woman, Sacejawea, been given the appropriate historical regard for her contributions, while her husband, a White trapper, was the paid interpreter of record. His limited skills caused their expedition to heavily rely upon the fluency of Sacejawea in both signed, and spoken languages. At one time, it was not uncommon for one of the First Nations to purposely marry a man into another Nation for the sole purpose of using that one in the future as an interpreter after he had learned all the nuances of the 13