Comments on: Hey, Slavoj Zizek: Deaf People Aren’t Metaphors and Interpreters Aren’t For You

By: Patricia Raswant

Patricia Raswant — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:10:10 +0000

An interpreter is for both Deaf and hearing people. Hearing people who do not know sign language needs the interpreter to convey their message to Deaf people, vice versa.

By: Beth Johnson

Beth Johnson — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 18:20:37 +0000

Dominick. You took the words out of my mouth. This was exactly what I took from the Zizek article. I thought that he was expressing something that no one really wants to talk about. The “feel good” reactions that non-disabled people get when something is provided and then don’t understand when we get upset about some aspect of what is provided.

From that perspective the article was on the money.

By: lrb

lrb — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 12:03:22 +0000

I’m not familiar with Zizek or his work. I can see that the comments could be tongue in cheek. That doesn’t make them ok. He, as did many other commentators, stepped into a space on commenting on this issue that should have been occupied by people who use sign language. I didn’t systematically check whether tv channels and webpages etc engaged with sign language users. But John Snow on Channel 4 in the uk did. He had an interpreter telling him that a deaf woman, who he had watching the signs with him, said the signing was gibberish. So the most involvement I saw from sign users was to give evidence that John Snow could use to give comment.
Oh for goodness sake.

By: dani fried

dani fried — Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:34:55 +0000

Hi yes I think he’s just making the point – and I think it’s true – that often, politicians and others have sign language interpreters as props or to make themselves look good ie aren’t we so great for providing access (even if they never let the Deaf community know, so as an interpreter, I frequently find myself interpreting for nobody). I don’t think he’s saying that interpreters aren’t useful for Deaf people, just that often that’s not why we’ve been hired. However, the fact is that interpreters wouldn’t be there in the first place if it wasn’t for strong lobbying from the Deaf community. I just hope that this entire debacle will result in greater community awareness that interpreters need to yes, be there, but also be qualified – and that Deaf people need to be informed that there will be qualified interpreters available; all else is mere tokenism.

By: julesinrose

julesinrose — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:18:44 +0000

I wish I’d read Dominick’s comment before I attempted to write mine. I agree wholeheartedly, though I’m not sure “tongue in cheek” is quite the right word. The last paragraph of the Zizek piece was quite serious, and I’d venture to say that if one does not agree with that, then the entire thing is nonsense. I happen to agree with it.

By: julesinrose

julesinrose — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:58:59 +0000

It’s really interesting to me how differently all of us read/see/interpret the world. I really appreciated Zizek’s article. Yes, to Zizak, the fact that the interpreter was signing gibberish was an important metaphor. That doesn’t minimize anything or anyone else, to my mind. Zizek wasn’t “using” deaf people any more than he was using anyone else to make his points, and I agree with him that many public “displays” of access are done for show. This is all “typical Zizek.” I find him to be an overstating blowhard a good deal of the time, but that’s his style, but I think he’s one of the good guys.

By: Dominick

Dominick — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:16:29 +0000

I have been exposed to Zizek, a lot, being a film major in college, whose professor loves Zizek so profoundly. Thus, I have had the chance to hear him speak numerous times, interpret his texts repeatedly, etc.

I took an entirely different thing from what he was saying. You have to read Zizek for the philosopher he is. I did not take this at all to mean this is his personal opinion.

For me, his entire piece is on ableism. He states the question, are deaf interpreters for the deaf? If asked, Zizek, do you believe deaf people should have interpreters I believe he would give an emphatic yes. I read his point as able-bodied people feel good about hiring interpreters. It gives those in charge a sense of “hey, I helped out these less fortunate people!”

I encourage you to watch the film by Astra Taylor featuring her sister who has a disability, Zizek, and several other philosophers. It’s An Unexamined Life. Given his relationship with Taylor (she’s made multiple films with him), I doubt he truly sees people with disabilities as invalids. Again, I believe he was posting tongue in cheek, the able bodied mindset towards the deaf.

I believe he was saying the able-bodied government let the situation happen because really they just care about saving face. Oh, look, some guy is waving his hands. Awww those poor unfortunate people have accommodations. We succeeded. That is what he meant. Are interpreters hired to accommodate or are they hired to make the able-bodied people feel good because they allowed such an accommodation? It’s certainly something to consider.

Try re-reading the piece with the perspective it is tongue in cheek and see if your opinion changes. Just my 2 cents!

By: Sumiko Saulson

Sumiko Saulson — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:45:29 +0000

Wow. Slavoj Zizek’s level of hubris here is simply unbelievable.