Main objective of reconceptualising translation theories is to present that there is a dominant ethnocentric perspective in translation studies and propose different methods/ways to overcome this ethnocentricism. As Ceyda mentioned in her paper, thick translation, none-translation, meta-translation, and involving self-reflexivity into the scope of translation studies may be the way to achieve this purpose.
However, differently from Ceyda, I do not think that Tymoczko only summarizes the given criticisms of postcolonial and poststructuralist translation theories. She criticizes all the suppositions on translation which have been taken for granted by the Western scholars since ages from early Bible translations to recent translations in courts.And redefining, or reconceptualising for that matter, cannot be achieved only by criticising poststructuralism or postcolonialism. These poststructuralist/postcolonialist ideas have been constructed on other ideas, and those as well were constructed on different others, thus they could become the centre in the translation studies. As Susam-Sarajeva rightfully states without questioning what is in the centre, we cannot form our criticisms against it from the periphery.
Most students of the translation studies department have some kinds of ideas and prejudices on translation, translators and different kinds of translation before they start studying at the department. With the experience they gain in the field as a translator and their readings of other translators’ and/or scholars’ ideas on translation, these views are shaped into a completely different form most of the time. Tymozcko’s paper is quite good at summarising these prejudices which are also the prejudices of Western culture against translation studies.
Common in three readings is that translation studies needs to refresh its perspective on the certain concepts such as the scope of translation studies, definitions of text-types, or what is central in translation studies if we want to understand what is going on in it the world apart from us or what is going on in the periphery with Susam-Sarajeva’s words. If we want to figure out Chinese, or Indian, or African terms on translation we should not look at them with the theories on Western tradition since these theories do not cover a universal idea on translation. This can only be managed by embracing and celebrating variety, disunity and hybridity in translation approaches. Every culture and every language have a different perspective on translation shaped by this culture itself. Therefore, universalism may not be possible, or it may be too generalizing for that matter. Thus, instead of a revised Western theory claiming to be universal we should first deconceptualise then reconceptualise the translation history and theory.
Like feminist scholars trying to rewrite history in order to challenge patriarchal history writing and to find out the roles and contributions of women to the history, scholars of translation studies should also rewrite translation history with a polyculturalist* perspective in order to be able to include plurilingualism and cultural relativism into translation history and make translation thick on their own.
*“Revolutionizing Culture Part One”. July 15th, 2003. See Justin Podur’s interview with Michael Albert www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/10125
REFERENCES
Hermans, Theo. 2007.The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester : St Jerome Publishing, 2007.
Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem. 2002. A 'Multilingual' and 'International' Translation Studies? [ed.] Theo Hermans. Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II Historical and Ideological Issues. Manchester : St Jerome Publishing, 2002, pp. 193-207.
Tymoczko, Maria. 2006. Reconceptualizing Translation Theory: Integrating Non-Western Thought about Translation. [ed.] Theo Hermans. Translating Others vol.1. s.l. : St. Jerome Publishing, 2006, pp. 13-32.
Power struggle defined by Arrojo should not only be thought as between the author and the regular readers. The reader can also be a professional reader as defined by Lefevere. And when the reader profile changes, profile of the reading activity, thus interpreting activity also changes which will finally affect the profile of the struggle.
This struggle on a text results from the general idea that translation is subordinate to the original. That is, the author is the sole creator of the meaning while translator is the person who interprets the meaning created by somebody else. Thus Mehmet’s question, “is every act of interpretation can be defined as a ‘power struggle’?”, should be assessed with this manner. If the idea of subordinate translations is to be accepted, then interpretive act of the translator can be thought as her struggle with the author in order to overcome this role. Of course, the author herself creates the meaning by interpreting other things around her or other books she read. Thus every action includes some sort of interpreting, and subversion with Mehmet’s words. And in a deconstructionist world it is quite possible to define all conversations, dialogues, or communications as a kind of struggle between interlocutors.
Both Luise von-Flotow and Rosemary Arrojo highlight both the existence and the importance of plurality in translation studies. According to Flotow, this plurality provides the productivity in the field. Translator scholars began referring to more personal examples derived from their lives and their cultures. With this influx of different perspectives into the field, the scope of translation studies would eventually be expanded to cover diverse cultures, identities, and thoughts.
Arrojo focuses on the relativity of the act of reading, thus interpreting. Every reader and translator as one of these readers have the liberty to interpret the meaning in a text. However, referring a source text, or any text for that matter, as the original, like Arrojo does, gives it a divine authority meaning that it is created for the first time and no one else has ever created a text like that before and maybe never will in the future. This perspective legitimates the inferior position of the translated text in comparison to the source text. Thus the author’s struggle, defined by Arrojo, for keeping the original as it were is also legitimatized. If we adapt this kind of an idea on literary text as the original then it would be more meaningful to associate literary product with Nietzsche’s concept of “longing for property”. As this original is the property of the author she has every right to protect it from any interventions from outside. And the translator would be the “mere copyist”(Arrojo, 2002 p. 75) in this situation. I am not sure whether it is convenient to consider artistic productions as properties or rather private properties. Of course they are created by someone, either by an author or a translator, but labelling this product as a property brings a capitalistic defence mechanism to own it, to protect it, and not share it with anyone. Therefore I found Arrojo’s effort to prove and defend “the impact of the translator’s task on the shaping history and culture”(Arrojo, 2002 p. 78) incoherent. And finally a perception of the artistic productions of writers and translators as their property may result in a more static and infertile literary creativity in which no one can even be close to other’s writings/meanings as opposed to what Arrojo supports.
REFERENCES
Arrojo, Rosemary. 2002. Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolanyi. in Edwin Gentzler and Maria Tymoczko. Translation and Power. 2002.
von-Flotow, Luise. Dis-unity and Diversity: Feminist Approaches to Translation Studies. [Online] [Cited: January 23, 2010.] aix1.uottawa.ca/~vonfloto/_articles06/Unity_in_Diversity.pdf.
