Vulnerability, moral concepts, and ethics in interpreting
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7203/Just.3.27746Palabras clave:
vulnerabilidad, deber moral de cuidado, yo moral, daño moral, interpretación para poblaciones vulnerables, ética de la interpretación
Resumen
Se han dedicado muchos estudios a investigar la tipología de funciones que desempeñan las y los intérpretes al representar y defender a poblaciones vulnerables, pero la vulnerabilidad de quienes interpretan en ese tipo de entornos, así como la génesis de la misma, son cuestiones que se han atendido raramente. En este estudio, se entiende la interpretación para poblaciones vulnerables como un contexto comunicativo específico en el que se entreveran políticas institucionales, de información y de poder, lo que suscita juicios morales sobre el deber de cuidado en los que se entremezclan emociones, sutilezas y subjetividades. Partiendo de teorías procedentes de los estudios sobre vulnerabilidad y de conceptos relativos a la moral, la autora aplica un método fenomenológico interpretativo al estudio de tres intérpretes de servicios públicos, analizando los factores clave que influyen en su vulnerabilidad contextual, los efectos adversos de la angustia moral que esta les provoca y la forma de observar desde otra óptica el código ético de la interpretación para poblaciones vulnerables. Este es el primer trabajo de investigación que teoriza sobre la vulnerabilidad de las y los intérpretes de servicios públicos en función del contexto, así como sobre la forma en que la interdependencia entre los distintos aspectos de la vulnerabilidad y los conceptos morales influyen en las decisiones de quienes interpretan.
Descargas
Biografía del autor/a
Xiaohui Yuan, University of Birmingham
Citas
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. “What is the point of equality?” Ethics 109 (2): 287–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/233897.
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2010. "Justifying the capabilities approach to justice." In Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities, edited by Harry Brighouse & Ingrid Robeyns, 81–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810916.004.
Bahadır, Şebnem. 2017. "The interpreter as observer, participant and agent of change: The irresistible entanglement between interpreting ethics, politics and pedagogy." In The changing role of the interpreter: Contextualizing norms, ethics and quality standards, edited by Marta Biagini, Michael Boyd & Claudia Monacelli, 122–145. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621531-7.
Boéri, Julie. 2023. “Steering ethics towards social justice in interpreting. A model for a meta ethics of interpreting.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 18 (1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20070.boe.
Burke, Peter & Janet Stets. 2009. Identity theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388275.001.0001.
Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.
Butler, Judith. 2009. Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso.
Dean, Robyn K. & Robert Q. Pollard. 2011. “Context-based ethical reasoning in interpreting: A demand control schema.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 5 (1): 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10798816.
Dodds, Susan. 2013. "Dependence, care, and vulnerability." In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, edited by Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers & Susan Dodds, 181–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0008.
Fineman, Martha. 2008. “The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition.” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20 (1): 1–23.
Fineman, Martha. 2010. “The vulnerable subject and the responsive state.” Emory Law Journal 60 (2): 251–275.
Goodin, Robert E. 1985. Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Graham, Gordon. 2011. Theories of ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy with a selection of classic readings. London: Routledge.
Hamric, Ann. 2012. “Empirical research on moral distress: Issues, challenges, and opportunities.” HEC Forum: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Hospitals' Ethical and Legal Issues 24 (1): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-012-9177-x.
Hardy, Sam A. & Gustavo Carlo. 2011. “Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?” Child Development Perspectives 5 (3): 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x.
Jameton, Andrew. 1984. Nursing practice: The ethical issues. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Jameton, Andrew. 1993. “Dilemmas of moral distress: Moral responsibility and nursing practice.” AWHONNS Clinical Issues Perinatal and Women’s Health Nursing 4 (4): 542–551.
Kherbache, Alexandra, Evelyne Mertens & Yvonne Denier. 2022. “Moral distress in medicine: An ethical analysis.” Journal of Health Psychology 27 (8): 1971–1990. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053211014586.
Llewellyn-Jones, Peter & Robert G. Lee. 2014. Redefining the role of the community interpreter: The concept of role-space. Lincoln, UK: SLI Press.
Mackenzie, Catriona. 2013. "The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability." In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, edited by Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers & Susan Dodds, 33–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0002.
Mackenzie, Catriona, Wendy Rogers & Susan Dodds, eds. 2013. Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.001.0001.
Mason, Ian. 2009. "Role, positioning and discourse in face-to-face interpreting." In Interpreting and translating in public service settings. Policy, practice, pedagogy, edited by Raquel de Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle A. Perez & Christine W.L. Wilson, 52–73. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Miller, Sarah C. 2012. The ethics of need: Agency, dignity and obligation. New York: Routledge.
National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI). 2016. Code of professional conduct. https://www.nrpsi.org.uk/for-clients-of-interpreters/code-of-professional-conduct.html#:~:text=The%20Code%20prescribes%20standards%20of,to%20the%20public%20at%20large.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1c7zftw.
Popper, Karl. 1994. The open society and its enemies: New one-volume edition. NED-New ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Reader, Soran, ed. 2005. The philosophy of need. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, Wendy, Catriona Mackenzie & Susan Dodds. 2012. “Why Bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5 (2): 11–38. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.5.2.11.
Rudvin, Mette. 2020. "Situating interpreting ethics in moral philosophy." In Ethics in public service interpreting, edited by Mary Phelan, Mette Rudvin, Hanne Skaaden & Patrick Kermit, 24–84. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315715056-2.
Scully, Jackie L. 2013. "Disability and vulnerability: On bodies, dependence, and power." In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, edited by Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers & Susan Dodds, 204–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0009.
Sellman, Derek. 2005. “Towards an understanding of nursing as a response to human vulnerability.” Nursing Philosophy 6 (1): 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2004.00202.x.
Sen, Amartya & Bernard Williams, eds. 1982. Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611964.
Skaaden, Hanne. 2019. “Invisible or invincible? Professional integrity, ethics, and voice in public service interpreting.” Perspectives 27 (5): 704–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676x.2018.1536725.
Smith, Jonathan, Paul Flowers & Michael Larkin. 2009. Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.
Smith, Jonathan & Isabella Nizza. 2021. Essentials of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000259-000.
Stryker, Sheldon. 2002. Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn Press.
Tiselius, Elizabet, Elizabet Hägglund & Pernilla Pergert. 2020. "Distressful situations, non-supportive work climate, threats to professional and private integrity: Healthcare interpreting in Sweden." In Handbook of research in medical interpreting, edited by Izabel E.T. de V. Souza & Effrossyni Fragkou, 54–79. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9308-9.ch003.
Wiggins, David. 2005. “An idea we cannot do without: What difference will it make (e.g., to moral, political and environmental philosophy) to recognize and put to use a substantial conception of need?” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 57: 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246105057024.
Yuan, Xiaohui. 2022a. “A symbolic interactionist approach to interpreter’s identity management.” Interpreting and Society 2 (2): 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523810221100990.
Yuan, Xiaohui. 2022b. “A symbolic interactionist model of interpreter-facilitated communication—Key communication issues in face-to-face interpreting.” Frontiers in Communication 7: 8–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.1000849.
Yuan, Xiaohui. 2024, forthcoming. Public service interpreter’s identity management and identity crisis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
-
Resumen192
-
PDF 91
Número
Sección
Licencia
Las autoras y autores conceden a la revista el derecho de primera publicación con el trabajo protegido con una licencia Atribución/Reconocimiento-SinDerivados 4.0 Internacional que permite a terceras partes copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio y formato para cualquier finalidad, incluso comercial, siempre que no se transforme el material, y asegurando que se acredite su autoría y publicación inicial en esta revista.
Las autoras y los autores conservan los derechos de autoría, se les permite publicar su trabajo en línea y se les anima a hacerlo (por ejemplo, en repositorios institucionales o en su sitio web) una vez publicado, ya que puede dar lugar a intercambios productivos (véase The Effect of Open Access). Se aconseja adoptar una perspectiva de género en la difusión de los trabajos.
Artículos similares
Idioma
Información
Palabras clave
Enviar un artículo
