It was in 1972 when James Holmes, during The Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics from Copenhagen, drawing an outline of the Translation Studies field, spoke of ‘a sociology of translation’ (1972). He argued that, as a branch of Function-oriented DTS, it would ideally focus on ‘the description of [translations] function in the recipient socio-cultural situation’ (ibid.), and it would therefore consist of a study not of texts, but of their contexts and their influence on a certain social environment. Nonetheless, it has been during the past ten years that sociological approaches started to become a field of interest, due to the work of scholars like Pierre Burdieu, Bruno Latour and Niklas Luhman (Inghilleri 2008). That is not to say however that interests in this matter had not been previously taken, for it is considered that the basis of Translation Sociology branch is Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory and Gideon Toury’s Cultural Planning concept.
In his paper ‘A Bourdesian Theory of Translation, or the Coincidence of Practical Instances’, Jean-Marc Guoanvic makes a succinct description of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological theory of symbolic goods and how can it be adapted to translation practices. The theory revolves around the coincidence of two instances in a given social context: external, which represents the – in our case, literary – field, and internal, which consists of textual productions and products, the producing agents and their habitus. Burdieu emphasizes on the idea that these two instances should not be taken separately, for ‘there exists neither internal nor external dimensions, but a concurrence of both’ (Gouanvic; 2005:148), but should be considered as a two-way relationship where the habitus contributes to the structuring of fields, which in turn structure the habitus.
Speaking of habitus, this is a concept coined by Burdieu to define an individual’s ‘embodied dispositions’ (Inghilleri 2008:280), which are acquired throughout time and which shift according to his or her social and biological trajectory. The fields, on the other hand, are social micro cosmoses, sites where different forms of symbolic and material capital are disseminated. Through Burdieu’s theory the individual and the society are - perhaps for the first time - brought together, and, finally, a (re)conciliation occurs between the subjective and the objective, something that previous scholars in Translation Studies haven’t manage to fully achieve. Fields are therefore objective, dynamic sites that interrelate with each other, but contain in the same time a subjective aspect, that is, a display of confrontations between various forces, which aim to become dominant. This is the crossroad where Toury’s concept of norms failed to become operative, because it offered static frames of various occurrences ‘frozen’ in time, whereas using the notion of force one may trace the origins of that occurrence and how it shifted throughout time. One good example which can be interpreted from both Toury’s and Bordieu’s concepts is an instance of translation practices in Romania during the nineteenth century. From the look taken at the works translated and published in the newspapers of the time – they were published in episodes, the so-called feuilleton – one could infer that, judging from a quantitative perspective, the norm was to translate light, easy-reading literature (Kohn 2008:536). What was the cause and the outcome wouldn’t matter from this point of view, and it would be easy to assume that the Romanian readership as a whole simply enjoyed that one type of literature. Taking into account Bourdieu’s theory however, the context is enlarged, and one can also look at the fact that there were heated debates among the literary scholars of the time, who argued that high literature should be translated and published in the newspapers instead, as a way to literate the masses. It was through the decision of a prominent writer and translator, Ion Heliade-Radulescu - who believed that the common Romanian reader was not ready to understand and assimilate international masterpieces, yet still needed to be motivated to read – that ephemeral literary works started to appear in the periodicals of the time. We can therefore speak of the struggle between two forces – that of promoting high or low literature, respectively – in the field of novel Romanian translation from the 19th century, and of the role played by the agent - Heliade-Radulescu - and his habitus, that is, his academic background, his understanding of the culture’s needs, and his power to disseminate the products (he was the founder of several cultural periodicals).
References:
GOUANVIC, Jean-Marc (2005) ‘A Bourdesian Theory of Translation, or the Coincidence of Practical Instances’, The Translator. Volume 11, No2, 147-166
HOLMES, James (1972) ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’, http://www.prevajalstvo.net/files/upload/File/the%20name%20and%20nature%20of%20translation%20studies.pdf
INGHILLERI, Moira (2008), ‘Sociological Approaches’ in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies By Mona Baker and Gabriela Sadanha, Second Edition
KOHN, Janos (2008), ‘Romanian Tradition’ in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies By Mona Baker and Gabriela Sadanha, Second Edition
Friday 28 May 2010
The Meeting Point of Postcolonial and Feminist Approaches in Translation Studies: An Overlook of Gayatri Spivak’s ‘The Politics of Translation’
Translation is the most intimate act of reading. I surrender to the text when I translate (1993; 180).
Gayatri Spivak is an accomplished Indian scholar who has concentrated her efforts in promoting the literature of third world countries women, and who believes that language is one of the essential tools in making their voices heard worldwide. In her paper 'The Politics of Translatio'n, she advocates for the use of a proper – understood as opposite to accessible - English as a target language, that would overcome the perpetuation of postcolonial stereotypes and misrepresentations.
The translator, seen as an ‘agent’, must have a sense of the rhetoricity of the language, and moreover, must understand the logic of the text and thus be able to construct a similar connection between them in ‘the shadow’ – that is, the translation - of the original (1993;181). Spivak believes that Western feminists fail to accomplish this thing and, by using a plain, ‘with-it translatese’ English(ibid.182), they project an imperialistic approach on the writings of the colonized, and therefore allow third world countries women to speak in English not through a sense of democracy but through what might be better expressed as a feeling of superiority.
Throughout the text, Spivak uses a series of concepts that define her way of understanding and performing translation, like ‘textile to weave in’ (when she speaks about the target text), ‘the translator’s love for the text’ as well as ‘a complete surrender’ (to describe the way to approach the source text), or ‘the exchange of language’ (to show that both the source and the target language must be seen on the same level, with no traces of superiority of one over the other). I would argue that this is yet another example of how one’s cultural background, personal character and affinities influence and shape their own perspective on translation approaches, for it is yet difficult to understand how one could objectively ‘surrender’ to the text ‘with love'.
The idea of ‘a complete surrender’ is, for Spivak, counter related with the notion of accessibility; in this sense, to be accessible is ‘to betray the text and to show rather dubious politics’ (1993; 191), or, to put it in other words, to deliberately ignore the connotations and the cultural implications that make the original text unique and representative for its contextual background. This is the underlying statement that she makes when she speaks about ‘making the literature of a woman in Palestine resemble something by a man in Taiwan’ (ibid.182). One must not forget, however, about the postcolonial and feminist intricacies ‘weaved’ in Spivak’s discourse. She mainly argues, as I’ve mentioned before, that Western feminists have an imperialistic attitude towards former colonized countries, an attitude – considered altruistic, but in fact discriminatory - which is embodied in their translation strategies of third world material, and which does not either represent or favor their writers. When thinking of the historical past of the colonized, it is very easy to invoke the stereotyped inference of the hegemony of England (and therefore English) over countries like India (and Bengali). Moreover, orientalistic approaches have perpetuated the misrepresentations of third world’s culture, and translators have reinforced, through the strategies used, the artificial and misunderstood image of the colonized, constructed by the Western world for its own purpose and understanding of the Orient. The latest postcolonial approaches in translation studies do attempt to change this perception and affirm the genuine value and validity of the literature of these countries, and Spivak is perhaps the most eager militant in this aspect; however, one must also wonder if her method of using an elitist and somewhat seclusive language – as a backlash to the ‘accessibility’ of Western translation strategies – is really the best choice to support her cause. We have to acknowledge the fact that English is the lingua franca of our century, whether we like it or not, and in the strive for reaching an audience as broad as possible, it is perhaps more productive to play the devil’s advocate role and to use this fact in our advantage. It would be interesting to see if Spivak would apply the same considerations when performing a translation from English into Bengali; she would nonetheless have the same strategies and approaches in mind, but would the rhetoricity of English or the linguistic and stylistic norms of Bengali prevale?
References:
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1993) ‘The Politics of Translation’, Outside in the Teaching Machine, New York: Routledge (p.179-200)
Feminist Approaches: A Constructive ‘Dis-Unity’
Luise Von Flotow brings in her paper ‘Dis-Unity and Diversity.Feminist Approaches to Translation' a short but succinct update on the diversification of feminist discourse in Translation Studies. She accounts this increasing phenomenon of the last fifteen years on the focus on the notion of difference that cross-cultural work has created. The main factors which seem to boost the proliferation of feminist approaches are dis-unity, diversity and complexity.
When it comes to diversity, the author believes that one must maintain a survival strategy which should cluster around two poles: ‘response-ability’ and ‘desire-ability’ (1998:3). Given the fact that feminist discourse criticism is rarely neutral – a thing which is utterly undesirable, for a general consensus wouldn’t then encourage development within the field - Von Flotow believes it achieved the required strategic complexity. Nonetheless, she feels the necessity to pinpoint the main factors which bring disunity in feminist approaches and which may not be as constructive as wished to be.
One of the factors Von Flotow chooses to examine more closely is maintaining a ‘mainstream “translatese” of third world material’, which not only perpetuates stereotypes and misrepresentations in the Anglophone world, but also ‘deprives the texts of their original style’(1998;5). To illustrate this issue Gayatri Spivak argues that, by writing in an ‘available English’, Western feminists end up erasing the cultural particularities of the original, making ‘the literature of a woman in Palestine (…) resemble, in the feel of its prose, something by a man in Taiwan’ (ibid.).
The Canadian scholar also brings into question the issue of elitist translation. By deliberately translating from a feminist perspective, the resulting texts, full of complex wordplay, become very difficult to comprehend by the general public, except for a small academic, bilingual elite. One good example would be Barbara Godard’s translation of L’Amer (These Our Mothers). Thus, by supplementing the wordplay from the title, the original L’Amer (a reference to mere –mother, mer –sea, and amer – bitter) becomes These Our Mothers (The Sea Our Mother + Sea (S)mothers + (S)our Mothers) (1991;75).
Another issue that Von Flotow raises in this paper is the hypocrisy of some feminist translators, who criticize the use of ‘male violence’ in translation (1998:7) but who approach the same type of aggressive methods in their own work, like ‘hijacking’, a term defined as a deliberate act of feminizing, appropriating the target text(1991;75). To use as an example the same translator, it seems that Godard’s translations involve as ‘dis-unifying’ strategies both the use of elitist and the theoretically non-coherent – that is, hypocrite – translation approaches(1998;5); in other words, she makes use of sophisticated and inaccessible word games along with the violent appropriation of the source text (a perfect example is the famous translation of "Ce soir j'entre dans l'histoire sans relever ma jupe” with “ Tonight I shall step into history without opening my legs”(1991;69)).
Further on Von Flotow presents three factors which she believes to play a role in feminist dis-unity(1998;10). The first one, 'identity politics', refers to that certain consciously identifiable cultural/political characteristics that will determine one’s opinions and prejudices. She mentions Gayatri Spivak as an example, her multicultural heritage and how this might have influenced her political views and consequently the way she translates.
The second factor, 'positionality', accounts for the way personal values are reinterpreted and constructed in time and space according to different economic, political and cultural backgrounds. A good example for this case would be the feminist approach of Suzanne Levine’s translations.
Lastly, the ‘historical dimension’ of scholarly discourse refers to the way gendered subjectivity changes with the time and with the political and institutional contexts. As such, where Theo Hermans saw in Earl of Roscommon’s Essay on Translated Verse a sense of affinity between the author and the translator, Lori Chamberlain sees with her feminist approach a ‘form of struggle for the right of paternity’ (1998;11).
Taking a broad picture of the field of feminist translation as it has developed so far, I would argue that the proliferation of various ‘dis-unifying’ approaches is constructive, for it increasingly incorporates traditions and perspectives of women from very different social backgrounds, which is helpful for a better understanding of their needs and expectations; moreover, it may have positive repercussions not only in the world of translation studies, but in their social and economic environments as well.
References:
Von Flotow, Luise (1998) “Dis-Unity and Diversity. Feminist Approaches to Translation', Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing
------------------(1997) Translation and Gender. Translating in the Era of Feminism. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing (http://www.litere.usv.ro/pagini/Volume_manifestari_studentesti/CONSENSUS%20lucrari/11.pdf)
------------------(1991). “Feminist translation: Context, Practices and Theories”. TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, vol.4, no.2, (p.69-84) (http://www.erudit.org/revue/ttr/1991/v4/n2/037094ar.pdf)
When it comes to diversity, the author believes that one must maintain a survival strategy which should cluster around two poles: ‘response-ability’ and ‘desire-ability’ (1998:3). Given the fact that feminist discourse criticism is rarely neutral – a thing which is utterly undesirable, for a general consensus wouldn’t then encourage development within the field - Von Flotow believes it achieved the required strategic complexity. Nonetheless, she feels the necessity to pinpoint the main factors which bring disunity in feminist approaches and which may not be as constructive as wished to be.
One of the factors Von Flotow chooses to examine more closely is maintaining a ‘mainstream “translatese” of third world material’, which not only perpetuates stereotypes and misrepresentations in the Anglophone world, but also ‘deprives the texts of their original style’(1998;5). To illustrate this issue Gayatri Spivak argues that, by writing in an ‘available English’, Western feminists end up erasing the cultural particularities of the original, making ‘the literature of a woman in Palestine (…) resemble, in the feel of its prose, something by a man in Taiwan’ (ibid.).
The Canadian scholar also brings into question the issue of elitist translation. By deliberately translating from a feminist perspective, the resulting texts, full of complex wordplay, become very difficult to comprehend by the general public, except for a small academic, bilingual elite. One good example would be Barbara Godard’s translation of L’Amer (These Our Mothers). Thus, by supplementing the wordplay from the title, the original L’Amer (a reference to mere –mother, mer –sea, and amer – bitter) becomes These Our Mothers (The Sea Our Mother + Sea (S)mothers + (S)our Mothers) (1991;75).
Another issue that Von Flotow raises in this paper is the hypocrisy of some feminist translators, who criticize the use of ‘male violence’ in translation (1998:7) but who approach the same type of aggressive methods in their own work, like ‘hijacking’, a term defined as a deliberate act of feminizing, appropriating the target text(1991;75). To use as an example the same translator, it seems that Godard’s translations involve as ‘dis-unifying’ strategies both the use of elitist and the theoretically non-coherent – that is, hypocrite – translation approaches(1998;5); in other words, she makes use of sophisticated and inaccessible word games along with the violent appropriation of the source text (a perfect example is the famous translation of "Ce soir j'entre dans l'histoire sans relever ma jupe” with “ Tonight I shall step into history without opening my legs”(1991;69)).
Further on Von Flotow presents three factors which she believes to play a role in feminist dis-unity(1998;10). The first one, 'identity politics', refers to that certain consciously identifiable cultural/political characteristics that will determine one’s opinions and prejudices. She mentions Gayatri Spivak as an example, her multicultural heritage and how this might have influenced her political views and consequently the way she translates.
The second factor, 'positionality', accounts for the way personal values are reinterpreted and constructed in time and space according to different economic, political and cultural backgrounds. A good example for this case would be the feminist approach of Suzanne Levine’s translations.
Lastly, the ‘historical dimension’ of scholarly discourse refers to the way gendered subjectivity changes with the time and with the political and institutional contexts. As such, where Theo Hermans saw in Earl of Roscommon’s Essay on Translated Verse a sense of affinity between the author and the translator, Lori Chamberlain sees with her feminist approach a ‘form of struggle for the right of paternity’ (1998;11).
Taking a broad picture of the field of feminist translation as it has developed so far, I would argue that the proliferation of various ‘dis-unifying’ approaches is constructive, for it increasingly incorporates traditions and perspectives of women from very different social backgrounds, which is helpful for a better understanding of their needs and expectations; moreover, it may have positive repercussions not only in the world of translation studies, but in their social and economic environments as well.
References:
Von Flotow, Luise (1998) “Dis-Unity and Diversity. Feminist Approaches to Translation', Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing
------------------(1997) Translation and Gender. Translating in the Era of Feminism. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing (http://www.litere.usv.ro/pagini/Volume_manifestari_studentesti/CONSENSUS%20lucrari/11.pdf)
------------------(1991). “Feminist translation: Context, Practices and Theories”. TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, vol.4, no.2, (p.69-84) (http://www.erudit.org/revue/ttr/1991/v4/n2/037094ar.pdf)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
