ABSTRACT
Asylum hearings nearly always straddle cultural and linguistic divides in precisely the way envisaged by Clifford. Yet even though anthropologists are, according to one very influential view, first and foremost interpreters of cultures (Geertz 1973), the instructions they receive are usually concerned more with exploring the histories and polities of applicants’ countries of origin than with eliciting insights into their particular cultural backgrounds. By contrast, virtually every asylum hearing requires interpretation in a narrower and more literal sense, via the participating expertise of a court interpreter. Their role, too, should be seen as fitting within the scope of this book; in the US, indeed, Federal Rule of Evidence No. 604 specifies that interpreters are subject to precisely the same qualifying rules as experts. This chapter therefore looks at the lacunae which the need for linguistic and cultural interpretation inserts into the asylum process. It examines both the translation of oral statements from one language to another during interviews and hearings, and the broader kinds of cultural interpretation which asylum claims often require but all too rarely receive.
