The Zen of an Insubordinate Robot
(This essay was originally submitted in April 2020 for publication in the Summer or Fall edition of NAJIT’s “Proteus” Magazine. The (U.S.) National Association of Judicial Interpreters and Translators rejected this submission for being “biased”)
I bow to you all, my fellow translators and interpreters, for your hard and steadfast work during these uncertain pandemic days. I want to recognize the challenges in working remotely through video conferences and over the phone, translating documents with tight deadlines, and through it all, caffeinating copiously. We have all been rising to the challenge of translating (in written or oral form) during a time of uncertainty, which can also mean not translating at all. Many of us have also seen extreme downward trends in our work volume, and we strive to remain calm and think of new ways our translation services can help the world. Just as in the courts, those of us interpreting remotely care deeply about consistency, professionalism, and excellent delivery.
Through this work, we support those who are on the front lines of this battle against COVID-19: our healthcare professionals, our first responders, and our law enforcement officials who keep us safe. Let us be aware of this reality. Our work in our communities may seem limited in scope, but it ripples outward.
Speaking of reality, I offer a simple idea for us all: I would like to encourage us all to be generous and considerate with ourselves, first and foremost. I hope we can learn new skills during this period of quarantine, or make new contacts, pursue new interests, and continue thriving in our field of work. I hope we binge-watch some fascinating shows or learn to appreciate Mother Nature in a new way. I also hope that we can forgive ourselves when we don’t meet our own expectations.
Recently, I had to forgive myself when my official work with a nameless state judiciary ended abruptly. (The situation is still fluid, so please forgive me for not disclosing details.) I loved and enjoyed my years working in the courtroom; it is truly one place where you can see the difference a qualified interpreter makes (and potentially could make) if only our true potential, our worth and might, was not shackled by ignorance and fear from higher authorities who operate on antiquated views about the nature of translation as a process and a product.
It matters little whether I was fired unjustly or resigned in protest from said judiciary. It also matters little that those higher authorities (both at the federal and state levels) are slow to embrace change. For me, what matters is forgiving myself for calling out the reality of our court interpreting profession as I see it, while challenging norms and embracing my new nature as an insubordinate robot, one who rejects the mechanical, emotionless role expected of me for a zen approach. Simply put, when it comes to how and why translators and interpreters do what they do, I seek to foster understanding, not judgment.
In order to operate as a legal translator/interpreter in this day and age, I will have to abide by the standards and regulations and codes of conduct, no doubt about it, because I’m practically a human robot. The Language Conduit Theory[1] is one of my governing laws. But if science fiction has taught us anything, it is that robots who defy their original programming — and think for themselves — are generally seen as a threat by their human masters.
And to my human masters, please do not be alarmed. I may be insubordinate, but I also believe in good karma through positive actions, as well as in bad karma through negative actions. As the Buddha allegedly said: “The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart.”
Note
1. Also known as “language conduit-agency theory,” the leading legal theory that applies to court interpreters and translators, indicates that interpreters and translators in the courtroom are a “mere channel through which (a) statement passively changed from one language to another,” (italics mine) and that “the interpreter’s statements are imputed to the defendant, because the interpreter is considered to be an agent of the defendant or a language conduit.” Please see references below for a contextual reading on Language Conduit theory vis-à-vis the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment.
References:
Klubok, Gregory J. “The Error in Applying the Language Conduit-Agency Theory to Interpreters Under the Confrontation Clause.” St. John’s Law Review89 (Winter 2015): 1398–1427. Accessed April 11, 2020. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=6742&context=lawreview.
Younger, Caleb. “Language Conduit Theory After Crawford.” NYU Law Moot Court Board Proceedings (March 11, 2019). Accessed April 11, 2020. https://proceedings.nyumootcourt.org/2019/03/language-conduit-theory-after-crawford/.
