Sunday, 12 April 2020

Deaf Echo...echo...echo...

Mine - Family Tees – Wear Your Opinion - WYO.inLot's of righteous indignation, criticism of hearing areas that focus on the interpreter and not the client etc  ergo.. 

As for audism DOH!!!!!

'My second point is that deaf professionals who interact with the hearing world deal with variations of the Interpreter Basking In The Spotlight Syndrome all the time.'  

But the reality is Deaf people made 'celebs' of these interpreters online, not hearing people, near all the vids that went viral came from the ASL deaf community, THEY created the focus.

'Mostly, I want to call out non-signing hearing people who behave badly and ask that they consider the effects of their actions. This point is often difficult for non-signing hearing people to comprehend, but it needs to be said. The presence of a signed language interpreter does not give you carte blanche to satisfy your curiosity about sign language, signed language interpreters, and the deaf community. The interpreter is there so that deaf people and hearing people can interact — not so that hearing people can interact with the interpreter socially.'

There are so many errors here it is difficult to know where to start correcting them.  The poster seems rather protective and jealous of others interacting with their support.  Probably because after the terp has done its job there is a freedom of interactions seen hearing on hearing deaf can never attain.

Non-signers are not necessarily HEARING people as statistically most deaf are not signing people. As per the usual ASL area always ignores other deaf people and their needs or Hard of Hearing ones, so just another exercise in me, me, me.  

As regards to hearing interacting with OTHER hearing who happen to be sign translators, deaf say they cannot do this? Not even in their own time?  But the deaf themselves always have.  I've yet to see a deaf person addressing directly a hearing person with a terp there, always, the deaf are concentrating on the terp, and the translation, and expecting the TERP to respond, maybe because they have no useful voice or similar or as we know, find it easier to let the terp do it, that is a DEAF failing and/or the reality.  Deaf? know yourself.

The poster goes on to get irate when hearing ask the terp on their breaks about sign language, so deaf don't want awareness raised?   There IS an issue there in that interpreters could use that time to include the deaf person socially as well, and not just translate the main event, not least because the deaf person can then feel sidelined.  Terps should lead by example.  However, this writer suggests the terp should not even be doing that and concentrating on them alone.

The final point well made but out of complete context is 'Talk to us, not the terp'!  We can all agree with that, but please, tell the deaf client to do likewise.  

The nature of signed communication is deaf need to watch the person using it, it isn't rocket science, and most hearing see the deaf referring to that, via not watching them at all when they speak, but the translator, so the natural hearing response is to assume as that hearing person does not sign the translator is THE person to interact with.  

Deaf by the main do not know HOW to effectively utilise the support they get to direct the terp in not only how best they can follow things but the bigger picture of inclusion and interaction with hearing themselves.  This also requires deaf to attempt it.

I am confident it is not a  deliberate or conscious attempt to ignore the deaf person, there is a lot more going on with a terp the deaf seem unaware of.  Of course like the deaf themselves 'like will gravitate to like', hearing are not alone in doing this and hearing can be completely ignored in a deaf signing situation where most are signers, is that not unacceptable either? or, is that the fabled 'deaf space' and 'right' which is the sacred cow of deaf culture?  Do as we ask, not what we do, because we are deaf you aren't?

The problem with many deaf who rely on signed interpretation is they are then in a hearing environment, NOT a deaf one, and adapting and compromising is part of the deal.  There are no hard and fast rules. Deaf cannot tell their support what they can and cannot do in their own time.  When hearing interacts with an interpreter it is a natural curiosity to ask questions, we should be welcoming that interest, take the opportunity ourselves to get involved.  

Unfortunately, the Deaf Echo blog is yet another one on the conveyor belt heading for martyrdom and beyond, convinced everyone is against them and deaf know best when all the evidence seems to suggest not. 

The end product of communication is when sign is an effective stand-alone tool that really frees up the deaf to communicate with everyone, but.... the terp is the 'barrier' the '3rd party' isn't it?  One neglects to suggest 'the elephant in the room' but. 

The initial/first thing a hearing person is seeing is ANOTHER hearing person acting for them. They are not 'talking' just to a deaf person, and they do NOT know how much the deaf are using a terp trying to understand them, to what degree? as all have to rely on the terp.  

I am not aware how Americans use their terps but usually, they get booked here in the UK and turn up often in time for a meeting and often with no prior knowledge of the deaf client or his or her academic skills or needs via sign, the first 15 minutes are terps trying to find out by own assessment (Unless the terp is already well known to the client).  That is when the terp skills really come into play, via that initial assessment on the spot.

Any 'delays' by which terps have to ensure a client is following also add to the negativity, it should be a rule (But isn't), terps must have the time to assess the clients abilities before the start and to ensure as far as is possible the client has most of what they need when they turn up. Fewer confusions mean more positivity of the image and person etc.  A terp turning up late a deaf person hasn't worked with before is a real problem.

There is clear evidence in areas like employment e.g. utilising a 3rd party is a huge negative to an employer, the 'image' itself is negatively seen.  There is no real way around that except.

(A)  The deaf lip-read instead. 

(B) They can hear enough.

(C) All hearing sign to them.

(D) The deaf can display they can manage by themselves independently.

All 4 alternatives are being opposed at differing levels via cultural and rights demand.  As Mr Shakespere once said 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Hamlet).  The deaf community seems to never run out of people forever complaining instead of addressing it.  Which they expect everyone but them to do.


No comments:

Post a comment