Deaf writer Sara Novic has written an article about how disappointed she was to find that the Free Word Centre in London had only offered an audio version of a presentation on sign language literature and poetry, without offering a video version or transcript so that Deaf people could access it online.
Her article says:
[My friend] “wrote that the Free Word Centre in London had featured a presentation on sign language literature and poetry as the closing talk in its International Translation Day programming and she thought I’d be interested; however, she could only find the link to the audio recording. That can’t be right, I thought, still thrilled at the prospect that Deaf poets had been featured alongside other writers in translation. I clicked through the link and began to search.
But the talk, aptly titled “Through the Looking Glass,” was only available as an audio file—no video of the presentation, no transcript. I wrote to the Centre to point out the irony of having made a plenary on sign language completely inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing people, to whom sign language and its literature belong. The Operations Coordinator responded later that day with a single line: he’d “passed on [my] comments to the events team to consider.”
The article then goes on to discuss how Deaf culture is often handled in non-Deaf hands.
The Free Word Centre has since agreed to add a transcript to their website.
Read the article here: http://lithub.com/who-can-speak-for-the-deaf-community/
Enjoying our eggs? Support The Limping Chicken:
The Limping Chicken is the world's most popular Deaf blog, and is edited by Deaf journalist, screenwriter and director Charlie Swinbourne.
Our posts represent the opinions of blog authors, they do not represent the site's views or those of the site's editor. Posting a blog does not imply agreement with a blog's content. Read our disclaimer here and read our privacy policy here.
Find out how to write for us by clicking here, and how to follow us by clicking here.
The site exists thanks to our supporters. Check them out below:
- BSL Zone: TV programmes in BSL for the Deaf community
- Deaf Umbrella: what support is available for deaf students?
- Bellman & Symfon: home alerting solutions, including the mobile phone transceiver!
- SignVideo: Instant BSL video interpreting online
- SignHealth: check out the BSL health library
- 999 BSL: call 999 in an emergency, in BSL
- Appa: Looking for RSLIs, TSLIs and CSWs, apply here!
- Signly: Adding BSL to websites
- Signworld: Learn BSL online!
- DCAL: world-class research into deafness, cognition and language
- Action Deafness: “A Deaf-Led Charity” – interpreting & community support services
- Sign Solutions: Instant access to Interpreters, training and BSL translation nationwide
- InterpretersLive: On demand BSL video interpretation
- Lipspeaker UK: specialist lipspeaking support
- BID: Deaf services, including advice and support, interpreting, employment and letters
- Performance Interpreting: BSL interpreting at concerts
- National Deaf Children's Society: The leading charity for deaf children
Linda Richards
October 31, 2016
Great blog and analysis by Sara Novic.
Who was the person who delivered the presentation at the Free Word Centre?
@kyra_p
October 31, 2016
Hi Linda, I was the person who gave the presentation at the Free Word centre. you will see my response to Sara’s post on her blog page, but I’m happy to reproduce it here:
Hi Sara,
I’d like to exercise my right to reply, since I was the person who gave the presentation at the centre of your article.
Firstly a note about the title of the article, which is (perhaps deliberately) disingenuous.
The presentation was not a representation of the deaf community, nor was it a presentation on sign language literature — any more than a presentation given by a translator working with Russian political literature would be a representation of the Russian people, or a presentation on Russian politics.
My presentation was about issues arising in acts of translation between signed and spoken/written languages. My examples were drawn from a particular sphere of sign language literature with which I am very familiar. So, yes, ‘Deaf poets [WERE] featured alongside other writers in translation’.
You raise an accusation of ‘overt cultural appropriation’. As far back as the 1980s, Bienvenue was discussing the ‘third culture’: the culture of the translator/interpreter. (Just for the record, and because I appreciate this matters to you, M.J. is Deaf). This third culture is my culture. It was also the culture of all members of the audience and, indeed, the culture that was being celebrated at the event to mark International Translation Day.
To represent one’s own culture to an audience that shares this culture in celebration of this culture is not an act of cultural appropriation. It is an act of ownership.
It is interesting to reflect what your deeper message might be, then. Whilst many of the translators gathered at the British Library on the day work with oppressed and minority languages, and gave presentations about their work, none of them has been accused of cultural appropriation for so doing. Do you believe that sign languages are somehow particular in this regard, and deserving of special treatment? Why might that be?
And I am, as you point out, ‘a hearing woman’, and yes, English is my first language. I will find no shame in that. Nor do I regret addressing the audience in the language that was accessible to the greater number, in mutual respect of the same concession that was made by colleagues whose professional language combinations do not include English.
Your anger at the online access to the presentation is understandable, and I am very glad that you raised objections. I confess that when I was told I would be ‘recorded’ and the ‘recording’ would be shared online, it did not occur to me for a moment that the recording would be audio and not video. I am too used to working with sign languages to have been alert to that assumption.
For their part, the Free Word centre must also admit to some naivety. This was the first time that an International Translation Day event had included reference to sign-written language translation. The centre had employed BSL-English interpreters for all sessions and had made efforts to understand how to advertise the event to deaf communities. There were Deaf people in attendance.
It is beyond doubt that a mistake was made. It has been useful for the centre to realize this, and they acted quickly to rectify it. The full transcript and video links are now available online.
You played a crucial role in bringing this to my and their attention (I believe you were aware that an audio only file had been posted online before I was), and I applaud and thank you for that.
So there are two approaches an activist might take from there. The first is to vent anger by punishing all concerned for their error. I understand this. Indeed, there are many who were on the barricades with me throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s who will testify that this was my own modus operandi for many years. I have since come to understand that this is the least fruitful and effective approach.
The alternative is to congratulate new-found allies on what they have achieved and positively encourage them to do more. This latter approach involves some sacrifice of the ego, but is all the more effective for it.
Whilst I am usually happy to discuss issues of translation, I feel you would likely need to do more thorough ‘research’ before usefully engaging in such a discussion here. So I apologise in advance that I will not be taking time to answer any further comments you feel you may wish to make. This is not an act of cowardice. Rather it is from consideration that my time is better spent doing what I have done for the last thirty years, which is to lend my voice to the facilitation of communication between Deaf sign language users and the hearing world; 9 to 5, out of hours in emergency situations, paid and unpaid, recognised and unrecognised.
But one final note. You claim that your article is not intended to be ‘personal’, yet it seems that is exactly what it is. A propos of nothing in particular you appear at pains to point out your position in your ‘own community which [you] know to be full of intelligent people engaged with the power of words’ and even that you ‘have a satisfactory speaking voice to use in the hearing world’. I am happy to congratulate you, if that is what you seek, and I wish you every success with the recognition that you receive from the publication of an article such as this.
___________
I’d like to add that the presentation led to the opening of a number of doors, and the possibility of some great high profile opportunities for BSL poets. Since the negative publicity generated by Sara’s post, a number of those opportunities are no longer available. Many organisations simply do not wish to risk making a mistake.
The people who stand to lose most from Sara’s insistence on publicly humiliating the Free Word- despite the centre’s rapid resolution of their error- are BSL poets.
I’m not sure she is successfully advocating on behalf of the deaf community here. :-/
Kyra
DeafLinguist
October 31, 2016
I can’t say I’m impressed, but it’s also been done the other way around, unfortunately, with the case of Deaf activists some years giving an interview on the radio – the most inaccessible medium of all to other D/deaf people!
I think if I’d been offered that presentation slot I would have asked for access in the form of interpretation and subtitling/transcript as a condition of my participation, seeing this as an opportunity to open doors. There’s always room for negotiation and it’s surprising what can be achieved with a bit of collaboration. This feels a bit like exclusion through hearing privilege I’m afraid.
The venue, which is Arts Council-funded, and the Arts Council itself, have some part to play in this sorry saga too. In this day and age I do not understand why access is not enforced as a mandatory component of Arts Council funding (contributing to its Goals 2: Access for Everyone and Goal 4: Diversity and Skills). I do not see how organisations can, in all conscience, apply for arts funding without addressing this issue more seriously than they do at present.
The venue has no accessibility statement on its website so perhaps something good will come out of this and prompt them to look at the issue of access and publish a statement with an accompanying programme.
sybil
October 31, 2016
I see stuff like this a lot. Granted, not so blatant and head-smackingly absurd. Every time I see an advertisement that shows a bunch of different ‘ordinary’ people endorsing something, then they throw in a person who signs ‘thank you’ or ILY- but the entire ad is sans captioning/ subtitles… 🙄
think we can call that cultural appropriation, especially if the signing actor happens to be hearing. (Wouldn’t be the first time.)
It amazes me when the people in charge don’t get the irony. (My suggestions have also been ‘passed along to the appropriate department…)
Linda Richards
November 1, 2016
Interesting thread and thank you Kyra for copying here your response to Sara.
I saw a translation by Kyra – of the kind she says her talk was about – so do understand the premise for her presentation. (And it was a very good piece of work which I found interesting in relation to the wider business of the ‘intent’ of a translation so would actually have liked to attend the event myself. I will look up the transcript.).
On balance….
I think we’ve all made assumptions about ‘access’ but it would be true that for a Deaf person at a hearing event, it would be the first thing they’d check. So its priority or weighting is foremost for a Deaf person.
I agree with the comments made by Deaflinguist and the conditions which should be attached to any Arts Council funding. Usually funding applications ask about access or inclusion so perhaps the Arts Council should be reviewing this to ensure its mandatory. There are easy ways of doing this.
Three things I’d add:
A Deaf organisation I am involved with used to meet regularly at the Free Word Centre. That’s why their naivety about Deaf people and interpreters is somewhat surprising. We obviously, despite our regular twice weekly booking, didn’t make enough of a impression but equally, they could have contacted us for advice.
Why weren’t the interpreters who were booked asking these questions about access too?
I hope Kyra will persuade those organisations who claimed to be interested not to withdraw the opportunities proferred. If they really wanted to avoid the risk of making a mistake, surely they’d be falling over backwards to ensure the best personnel and access possible?
Linda Richards
November 1, 2016
It was difficult to to find the transcript so I’m attaching a link to Kyra’s presentation here.
https://cdn.freewordcentre.com/uploads/2016/10/Closing.-Through-the-Looking-Glass-Full-transcript-Final-ITD-2016.pdf