Race, gender and nationality

Race, gender and nationality of the interpreter are determining factors
And how could they no be so? The Migrant Information Centre of Eastern Melbourne has a piece of document flying around that plainly states in a chapter reading “What to do if a consumer refuses an Interpreter” the following : ” * reassure the client that they will have a choice of gender and nationality of the interpreter; they can even request a specific interpreter or have the full name of the interpreter”.

Of course, it might easily said that the document refers to a service - immigration interview - where nationality, race and genders do play an important part in the interaction and prejudices on both side of the communication loop. But do matters of race, genders and nationality are less or not important in other situations, and especially in business liaison interpreting? My experience tells me that with Japanese - and I assume and many languages - these factors are as important as in any other settings. The interpreter hidden in the booth is another story I have no experience to tell about. But liaison interpreting has shown me time and again that the dynamics at work are heavily modified by the above factors. I will try in further posts discussing more in details these issues, not in terms of the standard polemical fact that Japanese clients of interpretation service expect as a matter of fact to be catered by a Japanese national, Japanese looking interpreter. I will try instead to develop a strategic analysis of what those pregnant factors bring about in terms of communication objectives of clients, and why the clients should in the best of worlds take into considerations factors that go well beyond the almost mundane issue of language competency.