Towards a dynamic role conception of liaison interpreters

I am shamelessly using the title of Kristina Mullamaa's thesis dated 2006 as a sign of praise for the work. A deep bow. I wished I could copy some pages, the part starting from p. 34 to p. 39 that extensively covers the definition of liaison interpreting, the profession where I feel myself most attached to, best described in these password protected pages. I have never read something so complete that raises in few lines the essential issues. Even Gentile's book, a must, must, must read by the practitioners to start and gain self-dignity, possibly early on, still lacks in the area of neutrality, the fallacy of it. But I have to re-read the book and confirm this feeling.

Liaison interpreting is a shamed down profession for so many reasons I won't list up here. Shame is also in my view one reason why the subject, even in academic closets, have been so much disregarded in comparison with the almighty conference interpreting that has pervasively defining over history what is pure and impure. Liaison interpreting has had no coming out, except for rare books and writings. The current coming out is taking place in community interpreting which is also in a sense a blow to liaison interpreting. What's in name? Full worlds apart.

But, anyway.

Shame is triggered by a situation where the target of humiliation, that being intentionally or not an humiliating act, feels naked, revealed in her incompleteness, inefficiency. She reacts by shouting, crying, catatonic silence, sly insinuation as a backlash thrown back to the humiliator. Once again, there may be no intention to bruise, to humiliate from the other side. It is sometimes a matter of interpretation on the receiving side who shows to herself first how unsure, easily destabilized she is under circumstances that reveals something, tells a story of lack of self-confidence, of undigested self-repeated story of feeling half-backed, socially unfit.

I am reminded of two such recent situations when some powerful individual I was introduced to, a "user" of interpretation services, would blast with vehemence and self-assurance some definitive facts about the performing act of interpretation. Just try and argue, you, as steak eater, about what it means to cut a slab of meat to your butcher. Beware of the blades though. No professionals likes to be taught "a few tricks" from the receiver's side of the trade.

Another similar case happen in a school where a person in power lashed back an equivalent of "what's the fuck?" when I referred to "shadowing".

Age, experience, diplomas all play major role in building dignity, self-respect and more important, the capacity of affect releasing, of not caring too much about what "the other thinks". My dear interpreters, full-fledged interpreters, unassured interpreters, half-backed interpreters, arrogantly beginners interpreters, I have seen shame in all of your pretty eyes, a top interpreter lashing sly and scorn at "others", a feature so redundant I believe it is a feature of the profession, out of the booth or inside. There is a whole work of psychotherapy needed in that profession, liaison interpreting first, to release the affects, the humiliation-humiliated spin, by gaining self-insurance, dignity through peers meeting and discussion. It did not happen with all my dear colleagues with so forcibly avoid to meet at all price.

So what's the point with the above? Simply that giving away, making public again and again a definition of liaison interpreting is a therapy in itself. It feels good even and especially when pointing at the ambiguities of the trade. Voicing over the facts and concerns in a thesis or a blog - the former basking in academic glow - is a therapy, an explanation of the self to the self.

Now reading more.