Definitions, and the space between cultures
Nathan Fowler
Hello NIDG -
I was having a conversation with a friend who is IDP, and she asked that I share my thoughts more broadly.
In the last few months, conversations in our community have been about RID and transparency (or perceived lack thereof). Precipitating events have been the IDP referendum and recall, and the nomination withdrawals and the subsequent resignations of Lewis Merkin and Naomi Sheneman. Audism and cultural insensitivity has been mentioned in all of these conversations. Official responses from RID, as well as statements made by Lewis and Naomi themselves, have made it clear that there are some things that must be kept confidential for legal reasons. Shane Feldman has stated that confidentiality protects our organization as a whole. At each step, IDP and Deaf Caucus have made statements asking for greater transparency.
It strikes me that culturally-Deaf transparency requires something substantially different from what has been consistently being offered. I have not seen discussions around cultural definitions of transparency. Bradley Dale, a Deaf interpreter, criticized the value of vlogs from all sides as lacking substance. In our multicultural arena, transparency might be masquerading as a bureaucratic issue, where rules are followed and culture is assumed. But which culture is being assumed, and whose bureaucracy is it? To not consider culture overtly is to be driven by defaults. Subsets of our community hail from different backgrounds, and default assumptions and expectations of appropriateness will be different. What are those assumptions? Which culture is dictating those norms? I have been thinking of the differences between Deaf and hearing cultures, but I realize that the influences of race, gender, and sexual orientation - to name but a few other cultural drivers - are on the table as well. It might be that "hearing" transparency does not satisfy the needs of "Deaf" transparency, hence dissatisfaction with messages around RID legal protocols when those messages are viewed through a Deaf lens, even when culturally Deaf people are relaying the messages.
If RID were a wholly Deaf organization and the legal or governing system in which RID existed were wholly Deaf, would our actions and discussions around transparency be different? In which ways? Why? How information flows and decisions are made in the Deafworld are different from outside of it. Bringing this consideration into our discussions will lead to better-informed actions. We would do well to bring our advisors and legal counsel into our discussions as well; culturally inexperienced people might advise culturally unacceptable actions.
RID has to be operationally sound in a hearing world. The Deafworld has civil requirements that must be followed. All cultures in question have a way of handling governance and communication. It can be done. Our members have experience, knowledge, and passion, and we navigate multiple cultures on a daily basis. This is what we do.
Thank you for your eyes.
Respectfully,
Nathan Fowler, NIC-A
RID Nationally Certified Interpreter
Massachusetts
fowler...@gmail.com