THIRD CULTURE: MAKING IT WORK

Bonnie Sherwood (San Diego, California)

Introduction This paper is offered to third culture - the community of Deaf and Hearing peo­ ple who are involved in some way with each other. The goal of the paper is to ex­ amine the interactions of this group from the perspectives of intra-cultural communi­ cation, cross-cultUral commUnIcatIon, and cross-cultural mediation. The paper will focus on that group of Deaf and Hearing people who call themselves interpreters and carry on the art of cross-cultural mediation. First, I was 'Hearing-taught.' My mother felt the greatest gift one could impart to a child was the gift of language. To her, one's abilities with language directly re­ Oected one's abilities with communication. She taught me to love and to place great value on language and to recognize with pride the eloquence of the English lan­ guage. Next, I was 'Deaf-taught.' I entered the community under the protective wings of Deaf people. My love for language was boosted exponentially when I had the privi­ lege of learning American Sign Language. Soon, however, Deaf people became the reason for my continued involvement WIth the deaf community. Deaf people taught me their language. They taught me to love, respect, and cherish ASL and the peo­ ple who use It. The care given to me by my Deaf friends and clients has created in me deep love and respect for them . After eleven years of providing interpreting services to thousands of people in hun­ dreds of situations, and after receiving an Associate of Arts degree in [nterpretation and a Bachelor's degree in Communication, I have seen and heard a myriad of prob­ lems that directly relate to communication. I am convinced that a great majonly of these problems stem from problems of cross-cultural communication and that the Deaf and Hearing people working within our field have the obligation and responsi­ bility to lead the way toward resolution of these problems. Recognizing and at­ tempting to solve communication problems will serve to lead us toward a more solid achievement of our mutually defined goal - equal access for Deaf/deaf people 10 all communication. The content of this paper is borne out of my own interaction within the Deaf Com­ munity, a community which has provided me with personal growth beyond any I ever expected to attain. I offer this paper as a written account of my thoughts, re­ ~h , and suggestions. I hope that it will inform, as well as stimulate thought, dis­ CUSSIon, and feedback. A history of the interpreting community Thro~gh historical examination, we can trace the beginning of the field of sign lan­ guage Interpretation. This permits us to understand how current definitions, roles,

e 1987, RID Publication. Paee 13 Shtrwood and expectations surrounding sign lan­ these individuals have (and continue to) guage Interpretation have come to be mediated linguistic and cultural informa­ what they are. Comparing and under­ tion between their parents, siblings, standing circumstances of training and friends of the family, and the Hearing the "supply-and-demand" flow of inter­ world in general. Along with a sense of preters from early times to the present obligation to provide interpreting serv­ may help us understand, accept, and im­ ices, many CODA interpreters have deep­ prove our situation. Additionally, we seated feelings of pride and a sense of loy­ will be better prepared for the future. alty connected with their role as a family interpreter. Knowledge and feelings gen­ Native Intemreters Prior to the founding erated from this cultural experience seem of RID, most people providing sign lan­ to be the basis from which Deafpeople guage interpreting services between Deaf have learned to define and qualify some­ and Hearing people were the Hearing chil­ one as an "interpreter." dren of Deaf adults (CODA's) who ac­ quired American Sign Language (ASL) This system for procuring interpreting as their native language. Heanng chil­ services appears to have been and con Un­ dren born to Deaf adults were (and contin­ ues to be traditionally used by many Deaf ue to be) reared in an environment where families and is usually kept within a sin­ exposure to the American Deaf culture gle family or a specific grouping of fami­ and the American Hearing culture fre­ lies. [See Figure 1.] In families headed quently results in the development of a by Deaf parents with Hearing offspring, tii-culfura1/bilingual person. These CO­ there seems to be a tendency for t1ie the DA's provided almost all of the interpret­ first-born female child to assume the ing services of the time, were not viewed duties and responsibilities of the "family as a group of professionals, and received interpreter," regardless of her absolute little In t1ie way of support from people birth Elrder position. Primary interpreting outside the scope of Deaf culture. Lou duties focus on the needs of the imme­ Fant recalls that interpreters of forty years diate famil y and take place in a variety of ago received their training from the situations no different from those experi­ "watch-and-do school" and their "certifi­ enced by any working interpreter today. cation" was the approval of an esteemed Secondary interpreting duties focus on peer, teacher, or family friend who had provision of services for other families endured his or her own "baptism-by-fire" similarly structured and within the scope entry into the field at some previous time of the "mner circle" of family friends. (Fant 1986). The most remote interpreting responsibili­ ties focus on provision of interpreting According to the testimony of many nat­ services for sunilarly structured families ive interpreters, there seems to be a set of outside the scope of this inner circle. unwritten rules for a system that governs interpreting procedures in Deaf families A system of interpreter "borrowing" has and from wliich the present profession of evolved among these families, where the sign language interpretation developed. core issue is "cultural trust," rather than on any degree of "professionalism" as The method that Deaf people structured commonly defined by most Hearing peo­ for meeting interpreting needs efficiently ple. When borrowing a family interpreter is an excellent example of a cultural sys­ IS not possible, only highly trusted others tem that has been unconsciously derived will be used for such slluations. and unconsciously manifested. Within this structure, the task of interpreting was It seems that this informally defmed but expected, accepted, and understood as a efficient structure set for Deaf consumers duty performed by CODA's. Based on the definition and perception of the sign culturally transmitted instruction, observ­ language interpreter. Within this system ation, guidance, and intrinsic aptitudes, there are far fewer complications related Page 14 Third Cul1un: Making It Wo,k

Familial grouping of deaf families Familial grouping of deaf families

r---:::::::::j~Ft!anu~'I~y interpreter

1

x X XX X dg

X X = Deaf parents hg = hearing girl hb = hearing boy dg = deaf girl db = deafboy ltl = the designated family interpreter I 1,2, 3 = prioritized areas of responsibility

I Figure 1: Family structure and responsibilities of interpreters who are Hearing children of Deaf adults.

to cross-cultural communication, because Salient Growth During the 1950's and those inteIJ>reters providing the service 1960's, levels of politiCal awareness be­ are both bl-cultural and bilmgual. The gan to rise among the Deaf community, accuracy of interpretation, however, of­ and increasing numbers of Deaf people ten cannot be monitored or evaluated with began to request the services of sign lan­ any degree of certainty. guage interpreters. Increased interaction and communication between the two cul­ This fairly closed and efficient system tural groups resulted in increased positive of Deaf people taking care of their own gains made by Deaf ~ple fQr Deaf peo­ interpreung needs has been in place for ple. Professional atutudes began to im­ decades. It has been administered exclu­ prove and the Department of Vocational sively by Deaf individuals and their "cul­ Rehabilitation began to offer improved 1 tura1ly Deaf' offspring. The system re­ services to Deaf individuals. Deaf people i mained in effect until the demand for inter continued in their political activities and preting services severely outweighed the formed groups that advocated Deaf rights I supply of people who could provide the at state and national levels. Public recog­ service. Today, it is common to find in­ nition of Deaf culture began to emerge, as terpreters who have entered the field with­ did the stark realization that the demand I out the benefit of this type of cultural for qualified interpreters was much larger I background, but who aspire and strive to than the supply. I develop skills equivalent to those held by many CODA interpreters, particularly in After twenty years of increased political I the area of sign-to-voice interpreting. activity, the need for organization and I Page 15 Sherwood support accommodating the need for inter­ skilled in the interpreting process, and preters was recognized; a workshop was seriously lacking in knowledge of "Deaf held at Ball S tate Teachers CoIIege in ways." The interpreters of this genera­ 1964. Out of this meeting came the frame­ tion were not at fault for their lack of cul­ work for what became the Registry of tural know ledge, since the curriculae of Interpreters for the Deaf. early programs rarely had time to address issues of Deaf culture as we understand it In 1965, Public Law 89-333 passed; today. The closest cultural instruction this specifically authorized interpreting as was an explicit directive to 'associate a case service for Deaf clients in the voca­ with Deaf people.' Early teachers had to tional rehabilitation setting. This action hope that the requisite cultural informa­ again sharply increased the demand for tion would be learned through associa­ SIgn language interpreters that could not tion. be met by the exisung supply. Because of this sharp rise in demand and severe Because of this influx of Hearing peo­ lack of supply, Hearing adults who had ple, who began assuming interpreting never had any familial exposure to deaf­ responsibilities formerly assumed by CO­ ness, to ASL, or to the Deaf Community DA's, most of the system of rearing, were placed in situations in which they training, using and referring interpreters had to learn ASL quickly and to become and interpreting services was no ronger proficient in the interpreting process. under the exclusive dominion and control of culturally identified Deaf people. Deaf InteIllreters without previous exposure lQ people found themselves needing to deal the culture of Deaf gnoRle Educational with a 'cultural influx' of well-meaning programs were esta lis ed, in recogni­ Hearing people, a situation altogether tion of the need to supply interpreters at reminiscent of the situation they common­ the rapid rate required. By 1982, almost ly experienced within the context of deaf 40 two-year (Associate of Arts) pro­ education. Given the grim and oppress­ grams, six four-year (Bachelor of Arts) ive history of Deaf people's expenences programs, and two Master of Arts degree with that system, it IS easy to see why programs in Sign LanRuage Interpretation this newly contrived means of obtaining had been established (~iple 1982). This and utilizmg interpreting services was approach to the education of sign lan­ met with some degree of resistance, sus­ guage interpreters was vastly different picion, and distrust. from the approach that had been previ­ ously applIed to CODA's. Curriculae in Trust is something that must be built most of these training programs focussed and earned, not 'installed.' Without ade­ on necessary knowledge and skills, but quate cultural information and prepara­ were largely devoid of culUIra1 informa­ bon Hearing interpreters' behavior was tion. based solely in their native culture, the axioms of which are frequently contrary Cultural Influx - or an Invasion? to many Deaf cultural norms. This con­ For the first time, the majority of stu­ dition resulted in a conflict that did not dents of interpreting were adults who had and does not foster a 'trusting' relation­ never experienced contact with deafness, ship. I believe that some of the 'fallout' ASL, or the culture of Deaf people. Out of this phenomenon are just now, after of necessity, the goals of these programs . two decades of struggle and conflict, be­ focussed sharply on two areas of study: coming apparent. The new system of re­ acquisition of ASL, and skills develop­ cruiting, training, and evaluating interpret­ ment in the interpreting process. ers has created the 'profession' of inter­ preting. A paraiIel field development From this new structure came a group seems to have been the creation of an 'us­ of interpreters who were rarely fluent In against-them' attitude, which represents ASL at the native level, often marginally tlie antithesis of trust. Page 16 Third Cu1J.urt: Making It Work Many interpreters today seek to make code messages, the meanings, and the interpreting their career, something that is conditions and circumstances that define done full-ume and for pay. The pros and which various messages mayor may not cons of having the ava!lability of full time be sent, noticed, or interpreted. Our en­ interpreters notwithstanding, it is easy to tire repertoire of communicative behav­ understand how the attitude of profession­ iors depends largely on the culture in alism may be in direct conflict with the which we have been raised. The learning perception of the interpr~ter established of culture is insidious and unconscious so many years ago. The Interpreter of and tends to be manifested unconsciously yesteryear was often the only persC?n.. during daily life. available. As a CODA, whose acuvltles were parentally controlled until a certain Any attempt to understand the people of age, the interpreterleamed to provide any culture as they understand them­ services for family and friends as a dUly selves, must begin with a clear, cognitive performed out of a sense of loyalty; it and internalized understanding of the con­ was rarely, if ever, a paid service. I be­ cept of culture. The concept of culture lieve that this is a root issue and offers has been debated and taugnt within the partial explanation for some of the cross­ Deaf Community. Commonly, in inter­ cultural communication problems we preter education programs, the only cul­ face today. tural course offered IS a 'Deaf Culture' class that is viewed as core curriculum in If each side of the cross-cultural com­ most programs, regardJess of the scope munication 'gap' perceives the role of the of the program. The concepts of cross­ interpreter and "control" of interpreters cultunil communication and cross-cultural from such diverse, culturally specific mediation are rarely addressed as commu­ mind sets, it is no wonder we are experi­ nication processes. There is little curricu­ encing problems of mis-understanding, lum available for the training of: culture non-understanding and mis-trust! If we as a general concept; culturally specific could come to some agreed-upon defini­ information about neaf and Hearing cul­ tions of roles and responsibilities and the tures; and cross-cultural communication. component elements required of a profes­ Despite our presumably heightened level sionill interpreter, we would more rapidly of cultural consciousness, problems of advance the goals of third culture. Both cross-cultural communication permeate Deaf and Hearing leaders should work to­ our field; they affect the quality of rela­ ward such definitions and, acting as tionships between Deaf and Hearing peo­ change agents, communicate and dissemi­ ple, and in tum affect the qUality of inter­ nate such descriptions. A good place to preting services. begin might be at the hean of the matter. Types of cultural communication Three Culnrre basic forms of communication are exam­ ~e is an intriguing concept. It is ined in this paper: intra-cultural, cross­ the.deposit of knowledge, experiences, cultural. and cross-cultural mediation. belIefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hier­ Intra-cultural communication [Figure 2] arc:hies, religion, timing, roles, spatial re­ occurs between two or more principals ~ons, <;ancepts of the universe, and ma­ from within the same culture, sharing the Lenal objects. Culture is the form or pat­ same language that has been naturalfy ~rn for living. It affects us in a determin­ acquired. Pnncipals personally mediate lSUc manner from conception to death - the messages they send and receive. lI!Id even after death in terms of funeral ntes. Culture and communication are in­ Cross-cultural communication is com­ ~&~ble because culture dictates who munication that occurs between two or with whom, about what, and how' more principals who hail from different the comm.unication proceeds; it also helps cultural backgrounds [Figure 3]. Al­ to determme how people encode and de- though each principal has a nauve Page 17 SherwDod

Middle Class

Communication that occurs between two or' more principals hailing from the same culture. sharing the same language. Each principal The shaded area represents communication personally mediates messages sent and re occurring between two or more principals ceived. Different cells represent different hailing from distinct culrural groups. 1n this sub-cultural groups. model. the native languages of each of the principals differs but each principal personal­ Figure 2: Intra-cultural Communication ly mediates messages sent and received. language, it is common to find people Figure 3: Cross-culrural Communication communicating in a form that is expedient, incru~ ASL, English, and communication and are part of a process various "pidgini forms of1anguage. that is the precursor to another type of Additioniilly, sets of behavioral rules are cross-cul tural communication, cross-cul­ created, so as to permit increased tural mediation. communication between these people. It is this type of comm unication that IS for Cross-cultural mediation is a communi­ me the most fascinating, appears to be the cation process that occurs when a mes­ most complex, and commonly renders the sage between two or more principals who greatest challenge. It is in thiS hall from distinct cultures IS mediated by communication environment that a third party interpreter [Figure 4]. The interpreters spend a great deal of time, an interpreter mtercepts the message issued environment that can be described and de­ by the sender and decodes it, applies lin­ rmed as the 'deaf community': " ... a guistic and cultural information appropri­ group of people who live in a particular ate to the target culture, encodes the trans­ locauon, share the common goals of its miued matenal into a new form and sends members, and in various ways, work the "new" message to the receiving princi­ toward achieving those goals. A deaf pal. During this process, there is litile or community may include persons who are no interacuon between the communica­ not themselves Deaf ( .. .'culturally Deaf tion principals, except for any non-verbal individuals), but actually support the communication that IS available visually. goals of the community and work with Interpreters claim to mediate cross-cul­ Deaf people to achieve them" (padden tural communication, and we accept the 1980). Interactions of this type, for adult notion that culture is the foundation of learners, are considered cross-cultural communication. We would therefore be

Page 18 Third Cu1lun: Makbt& It Wort weU-advised to study carefully each com­ must be conscious of the process of acqui­ ponent that contributes to the definition of sition, knowledgeable about the concepts the whole of culture, and to internalize that are acquired, and even more con­ them. We should remain alen to the fact scious of me many ways that culture that we rarely enjoy the benefits of uncon­ manifests itself in groups of Hearing and scious acquisition and manifestation. We Deaf people. Ethnography Germane to the the task of cross-cultural mediation is understanding the cultural information of communicat­ ing groups from an ethnographic point of view. Ethnography shifts me focus of understanding from the perspective of the interpreter as an outsider, to the discov­ Culture 1 Culture 2 ery of the Deaf insider's point of view: "Ethnography is not merely an objective description of peo,Ple and their behavior from the observer s viewpoint. It is a systematic attempt to discover the know­ ledge a group of people have lea,med and are using to organize their behavior. in­ stead of asking, What do I see these pe0- ple doing?,' we must ask, What do these people see themselves doing?' " (Sprad­ ley and McCurdy 1972).

As cross-cultural mediators, we are welI­ advised to have similar, if not additional, understanding of our native culture prior to attempting to understand those of other groups. It is only after we understand where we stand In relation to our uni­ verse and to each other, that we can un­ derstand the complexities involved when people of distinct cultures come together for the purpose of communication. Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism is a belief in the inherent superiority of one's own group or culture, against which all other A three-way communication process involving cultural groups are measured. This belief two jlrincipal communicators and a third com­ may be accompanied by feelings of con­ mUnicator acting in the capacity of an inta­ tempt or pity and causes one to 'look preter. In this model. thae is no actual inter­ down' on anyone who does not belong action (except for non-vaba! cues sent and and who comes from a different culnifal received visually) occurring between the principal communicators. Communication group. from one princiJ?Bl is intacepted by the inter­ preter. where it 15 mediated by applying salient No matter how carefully we monitor linguistic and cultural information. after ourselves, ethnocentrism fmds its way which the message, in its new form. is sent to into and acts its way out in every culture, the receiving principaly for whom the message including the Deaf and Hearing cultures. was intended. The potentially grating, negative effects arising out of ethnocentric control can be Fi re 4: Cross-cultural Mediation observed when Deaf people discuss their Page 19 ..

SIu,..,.od feelings toward Hearing people or deaf On a whim, I asked the students to in­ education. Ethnocentrism is unfortunate· vert the exercise and describe aspects of ly alive and well, kicking up its ugly this story as they might have been told by heels within third culture; the results are a Hearing person, then relate those obser­ becoming profoundly evident: Deaf peo· vations to their own culture. Although it pie are angry; Hearing people are angry; is difficult for almost any of us to de­ valuable community workers are bum· scribe our own culture, I was amazed ing out.' On a regular basis, a significant when these advanced students, all of number of interpreters leave the field in whom had completed an "Introduction to search of other careers. This places the Deaf Culture" course, could neither de­ bulk of interpreting hours in the hands of scribe nor define any aspect of the story less..qualifiea, sometimes unqualified as it might relate to their own culture. 'next·m·line' people. This repetitive pat· Trying to stimulate thought and dialogue tern becomes a mghtmarish tragedy, es· about this, I re-structured the assignment pecially considering the current thrust back into its original form, asking them toward mainstream education where most to relate cultural elements of the tale to academic information comes through the Deaf culture. Hands went up and stu­ hands of an interpreter. dents initiated dialogue appropriate to the task. It appeared that the students were Ethnocentrism in Action Recently, a functioning out of rote, verbatim defmi­ politically active Deaf individual applied tions of cultural concepts gleaned from for a position as an interpreter coordinat· their Deaf Culture course. It occurred to or in a community agency located in a me that without the experience of cross­ metropolitan area. Initial reactions to this cultural communication, these students news focussed on two reasons why this had learned to define the word 'culture,' person could not fulfill the responsibili· but had not internalized it. How then, ties of the job: since the job required ex· could they begin to understand their own tensive telephone work and the person world view in relation to that of another was Deaf a full-time interpreter would cultural group? have to be hired; second, the person lacked the cross-culturaJ comm unication World View One's world view deals skills necessary to achieve effective com­ with one's culture's orientation toward munication with Hearing agents, who are such philosophical issues as gad/god­ the most common paying requestors of dess, bumanlly, nature, and the universe. interpreting services. I wonder how Our world view helps us locate our place much of thIS reaction was based in fact, and rank in the universe, while our social and how much in an ethnocentric fear organizations (concepts of family, over loss of control. The lauer interpre· school, communication processes, lan­ tation is particularly appealing since the guage, and patterns of thought) help us applicant is considered to be fairly mili­ locate our place and rank relative to each tant and is clearly not a member of the other. When people of similar world American Hearing culture. views communicate, they they have a fairly good chance of achieving under­ Sometimes we attribute the concept of standing. When people who hold widely culture to be something that only belongs disparate world views attempt to commu· to groups of people different from our­ nicate, the chances for achieving under­ selves. For example, one night during a standing are diminished. We all find it sign-to-voice interpreting class, the fol­ difficult not to assume that everyone else lowing scenario unfolded: after watching views things the same way we do. a videotaped story, beautifully signed in ASL by a Deaf man, the interpreting stu· Our experiences in life give rise to dif­ dents prepared to discuss aspects of his ferent world views. One example of tale as they related it to Deaf culture. such a world view formation is offered by Roner (1966), who has proposed a Page 20 --

Third Cullurt: Making It Work concept of 'Internal-External Dimen­ groups as less desirable, those same attri­ sion: twO worlp views based on .past butes may be viewed as highly desirable c;.:perience, denved from the SOCial learn­ within the minority group. "Problems in ing framework. communication anse when one group, claiming superiority of its ways over that People who perceive their world from a of another group, forceably attempts to concept of internal control perceive them­ place its views m place and on top of the selves as having personal control over views held by another group. Hostility, decisions and conditions that influence anger, and resistance, subtle or overt, are their lives. Others perceive the world common resQOnses to forced and unwant­ from a view of external control; they per­ ed change" (Sue 1981). ceive themselves as having little personal control over decisions or conditions that Using this example of "internal" versus influence their lives. It seems easier to "external" control, it becomes easy to see develop a view of the world consistent that interpreters, if they are unaware of with that of external control when one the world view they and the target group has experienced living in 'residential' or hold, may be unaware of much cultural 'institutional' situations. People with that informauon. If we are to function as ef­ experience have had to deal with a 'sys­ fective cross-cultural communicators and tems a)Jproach' to life and are accustomed as mediators of cross-cultural communi­ to the system ' (or donn counselor or so­ cation, it is logical that the first step in cial security administration) making deci­ our educationitl process must invofve lo­ . sions over which an individual has little cating ourselves with respect to our nat­ control. These forces are seen as imper­ ive culture, the culture in which we were sonal, and a great deal is left to chance raised. It is essential that each of us with­ and luck. in third culture, whether we interpret or not·, understand the beliefs, values and Within the dominant majority, often attitudes each group holds, and that these people perceive themselves to have a are all culturally derived. Only then, great degree of internal control. The con­ after locating ourselves as to world view, cept of 'dominant majority' does not can we understand the facility required of necessarily imply dominance by way of us in developing the skills of trans-cul­ numbers alone. 'Dominance' is identi­ tural accommodation - the chameleon fied with that group of peC?ple holqing the effect - in order to be an effective cross­ greatest amount of power m any gIVen cultural mediator. society. In the U.S., that grou..Q .is com­ mon
y identified as WASP's (White, Perception and paradigm: Modification Anglo-Saxon, Protestant); for the pur­ of the interpreter It is imperative for our poses of our discussion, I would add: field, for the individuals assuming leader­ Hearing,.male, and heterosexual. Since ship roles within the field, and for the the traits of those possessing a world consumers of our services, that we as a view of internal control are seen as the discipline begin to acknowledge and most desirable, people who hold the ex­ incorporate cross-cultural knowledge and ternal control world view, e.g. women, issues in our educational programs and in minorities, and the lower class, are seen our lives as working interpreters. In our as having less desirable attributes. (It is discipline the majority are Hearing-encul­ interesting to note that both Deaf people turated interpreters;we must begin to see and women - as minority groups - ourselves and the field in a different light. tend to fit into this category of those ex­ Since culture overlays every aspect of ev­ ternal control, -'\llil that the field of inter­ ery person's life, we must begin to recog­ preting is heavily dominated by women.) nize and respond to the need to see lan­ guage acquisition and skills development While the dominant majority may view to be sub-tasks that each fit into the larger certain attributes held within minori ty concept of culture. Page 21 Shuwood The Interpreter as a Cross-Cultural Discovery of the Cultural Self or "I Mediator The sign language interpreter Didn't Know I Was Lost" After a great as cultural mediator provides a model deal of thought, it seems both possible and that is offered in response to the cultural plausible to me that, though the students uprising of Deaf people and their stated 10 the above-mentioned interpreting skills desire to be heard, understood, and class were quick to offer a rote definition defined by their own standards of Deaf culture, they did not understand (ethnographically). This model considers the concept of cui ture. They could not and includes linguistic, cultural, apply cultural principles. learned in ~e environmental, and humanistic factors Deaf culture class to therr own Hearmg absent in previous mod~ls.. It recogni.zes culture. Such a skill is crucial if they are the interpreter's responSibIlity to mediate to avoid making ethnocentric judgments the cultural and linguistic complexities of consciously and unconsciously. I won­ cross-cultural communication, while der whether this indicates that most of the retaining the greatest degree of integrity. Hearing students in the class did not per­ ceive t1\emselves to be of or possessing a Although this is now the preferred mod­ culture? Perhaps they view culture as el, it has Its problems. Implicit in this something belonging only to Deaf people model is the assumption that three major and other exotic groups. Such a view IS qualification should prevail. In order of similar to the percepuons of culture by imJlOrtance, they are listed below: most people of any group. Are the roots • fluency in ASL of this phenomenon seeded in a general • cross-cultural communication skills lack of awareness or in one's ethnocen­ • skills in the cognitive and linguistic tric perception of culture? process of interpreting. Our field has serious problems in each of Developing Cross-Cultural Communica­ the three qualification areas. These areas tion and Cross-Cultural Mediation Skills of deficiency are experienced by both For effective cross-cultural communica­ native and non-native interpreters and are tion and cross-cultural mediation skills current areas of manifest concem. development, educators must create a safe environment for leaming. We need It is widely accepted that the classroom to begin to leam about, understand, and is not the optimal environment fo~ the. ac­ respect each other's perception of and quisition of language or for ~xpenencmg feelings toward individual and collective any degree of enculturauon mto a target places in the world. culture. In fact, limited involvement with­ in any target culture d~reases the d~gree Group similarity permits the sharing of to which true fluency 10 any non-nauve world views to a large extent. Yet, many language and achievement of cultural un­ Deaf people have S3.ld that one does IlQI derstailding is possible. The current pre­ need to be deaf to understand; rather, vailing hostiliues within the Deaf Commu­ "attitude" is the most important thing. nity toward the interpreting community, Attitudinal similarity seems to be even however, promote a generalized fear of more salient than group similarity for ef­ interaction that effecti vely prevents the fective cross-cultural communication and interaction necessary for required know­ cross-cultural mediation. Additionally, ledge and subsequent skills development. this concept would explain why some Since these hostilities seem to result from Hearing interpre:ters having no familial or problems of cross-cultural communica­ cultural connecUon to Deaf people expen­ tion, perhaps it is time to take a more eth­ ence greater success in achieving trusting nographic approach toward the teaching relationships with Deaf people. and learning of cultural information and skills.

Page 22 .. , .'

Third Cultun: MoJ:Jng It Won: Where Do We Go From Here? cultura1l y, educationally, sociologicall y, We cannot teach common sense; we and economically. can only help it wake up. In order to en­ hance credibility and attractiveness as it 5. Become com fortable with the differ­ relates to cross-cultural communication, I ences between ourselves and members offer the following guidelines: of other cultural grOUP in terms of race and beliefs. Try not to judge differ­ I. Have a sincere desire to communicate. ences. Our humanity is the common This sounds easy but it requires humili­ underlying factor (Sue 1981). ty, a willingness to risk, to learn, to share, and to continue dialogue even in 6. Become sensitive to circumstances. the face of hard times. Particular circumstances may cause dif- . ferent individuals within the same social 2. Define consistent goals. It is essential group to react dynamically according to that we keep high levels of understand­ iheir pers.onal cultural and/or psych010gi­ ing and realize that we are all agreed on cal expenences. the basic issues. For example, a com­ mon goal among Deaf and Hearing ~­ 7. pie involved in ihird culture is a valid mlDd_Hav~J ,f1exlb wi11i"fe:e;sJ~iee~ng~i- . _n __L __~_QQd and reliable interpreter evaluation. of the field" in the forefront at all times. Standardization will increase assurance Recognize the degree of impact on the that persons claiming to be interpreters numbers of ~ple possible vis-a.-vis of American Sign Language do have the our actions mdividUal.J.y and as groups. knowledge and skills to provide serv­ ices safely and efficiently. Implicit in Conclusion the goal is the notion that when expert­ In a nutshell, there seem to be three ise and trustworthiness are secured, major areas that hinder the formation of challenges are minimized and commu­ goOd cross-cultural communication and nication is maximized. cross-cultural mediation relationships. The primary cause for a lack of relational 3. Become aware of your own value sYS= formation is the language barrier: lack of tern and biases. Realize how they may fluency in American Sign Language, ac­ affect members of the other group. Try companied by a lack ofcultural under­ to avoid ethnocentric prejudice, unwar­ standing, can be a serious deterrent to the ranted labeling. We must continually development of trusting relationships. A monitor ourselves through continued second source of conflict is a lack of dialogue, consultation, supervision, and knowledge of class-bound values which education. may exist between interpreter and. Deaf person. A third area of concern is a lack 4 .. Un~ersffing ~~:~iq~li:l ?cs~em of knowledge about salient culture-bound ID th Un! e t W1lre ct 0 ul- values which are ethnocentrically used to luml1y different people. Auempt to judge normalcy.' achieve some understanding of the im- act and pervasiveness of oppression In order to remedy these deficits, try to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.). understand your relationship to yourself, ¥ry .to understand the role that racism ~our culture, and your world view. plays in the development of identity and Interpreters who hold a world view world views. Attempt to identify with different from that of the client and who !hose ~u1turally different people work­ are unaware of the basis for the differ­ ~g wlthm our field, both Deaf and Hear­ ence are most likely to impute negative mg. As stated above, the greatest per­ traits to clients. What is needed is for centage of working interpreters are sign language interpreters to become women who, like Deaf people, been op­ 'culturally aware,' to act on the basis of a Pressed since the beginning of time - critical analysis and understanding of Page 23 Slt.ntlood their own conditioning and the condition­ ing of their clients and the socio-political system of which they are both a pan. Without this awareness, sign language interpreters may be engaging in cultural oppression" (Baker-Shenk, 1985). The structure of society places more power to injure and damage in the hands of the majority culture; yet, injury and damage can come from both Sides. I hope that no one in our third culture would consciously engage in cultural op­ pression. I believe that the degree of cul­ tural conflict currently apparent through­ out our community is born from a Deaf, culturally-structured interpreting system that is no longer the main source of inter­ preting services. It is easy to understand, particularly in light of the short amount of time that has passed since the passage of relevant legislation. As one of those "new" people, I am faced daily with Deaf and Hearing people who are peers, advisors, colleagues, and clients; these people keep me Involved in this field. It is my desire to continue to learn and to grow personally and profes­ sionally. I hope mat all of us will contin­ ue to learn and grow together, for togeth­ er there is nothing we cannot do.

[Editor's note: References and bibliography far the entire discussion on third culture begin on page 61.)

Page 24