Translation is power relations

On the occasion of Prof. Susan Bassnett's visit to the University of Madras, Dr. R. Azhagarasan interviewed the specialist on translation studies.

CAN YOU please tell me about your initial interest in translation studies?

I was interested in translation studies when I was a very young child. My father was working in embassies. So each time we moved from country to country, I learned a new language.

So, you grew up in a polylingual climate.

Yes! That's why I got interested in India, where everybody speaks more than one language.

How did you find translation studies challenging?

The answer to the question would be those Comparative Literature starts with life experiences operating between cultures. But I wondered how relatively unread writers like Jack London has been translated in so many languages.

So, from the beginning you started looking at the politics of translation?

I started looking at the process of how certain writers are exposed and some of them are not. And then I began to think that in fact the politics of translation must also be a conditioned practice.

No doubt translation studies made a breakthrough in the broader discipline of Comparative Literature. But it has different implications in different cultures. For example, when I wanted to form a group to translate your essay into Tamil, I had to collect some rural students, not really articulate enough in English. Because, most of the brilliant students in the English Department here can't even read and write in Tamil.

It seems to be an interesting phenomenon. The fundamental premise on which I work is that translation is power relations. So, it seems very rare to find what I would call bilingualism.

I find your feminist position, equating fidelity to the source text with fidelity to master/husband, very promising in the Indian context. Because, it helps us to empower the underprivileged.

That seems to be entirely a good thing to be doing. Because, translation also very often, let us say, creates national consciousness. Many of the great translators do so to enrich their language. Even in a language like, English in the Renaissance, some of the great translators did not talk about `translating'. They talked about `Englishing', `Germanying' and `Dutching'. The great task of the translators of the Bible was that they had to put it into vernacular languages.

I think translation studies goes beyond constructing national consciousness. It also tries to articulate the differences within the national boundaries.

Absolutely! Because, national consciousness is in danger of getting globalised. What translation studies means to me is a power relation - the way translators use different strategies and establish hierarchies in what they do. It also looks at the way norms and experiences vary constantly. So there is no fixed notion of `perfect translation' and `absolute text' and so on.

It's quite understandable that translation studies challenges the notion of absolute texts as it articulates cultural differences. But, I think, who articulates the difference also demands our attention. The issue is important because if it is raised by the West, it is seen as ``divide and rule'', if raised by the Indian privileged class, it becomes a democratic act, and if raised by the marginal subject, it is regarded as ``anti-national''.

This problem is found in many cultures. Here, I think, you are in a new ground.

How do you relate yourself to the post-colonial debate? I think, unlike translation studies, most of the writings coming under the banner of `post-colonial studies' do have a rigid national identity, which articulate a narrow `anti-colonial' position.

Yes! The issue is much more complex. I have two of my students doing Ph.D. They are seriously contesting those who interpreted Edward Said as a gospel. My view of post-colonial is similar to my view of translation studies. I do not like `Binary Studies'.

I'm happy that you mentioned it categorically. Let me, for example, take Gauri Viswanathan. She regards all attempts by British scholars to historicise/ debraminise Indian puranas as merely Western and attacks all missionary activities. When such attempts are useful to empower the underprivileged, I don't know how to perceive Gauri Viswanathan's stand. How are we to respond to her position when missionaries are attacked today by Hindu fanatics?

I would answer by saying that theory is theory. Humanity is humanity. The killing of innocent children is monstrous. I should say, if you follow this kind of logical conclusion, then you are into an armed revolution.

Similarly Gayathri Spivak's position in, ``Can the subaltern speak?'' wipes out the possibility of the subaltern to raise voice against oppression. This sounds problematic, especially in the context of Dalit uprising in India. How do you see this problem?

Yes! You're right. You can raise such a question only when you come from a privileged, brahminical position.

Here I find translation studies extremely useful to review the post-colonial debate. Thank you!

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Widening the horizons of learning
Next     : Know your English