#3 Oct 12 - Gender ＆ Translation
#3 Sept 28 Hannay, Margaret Patterson. Silent But for the Word: Tudor Women as Patrons, Translators, and Writers of Religious Works. Ohio: Kent State UP, 1985.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Copyright 2009
NTNU GITI BLOG
All rights reserved | Powered by
Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
6 意見:
Just like the case in the Chinese history, the simple binarism of “speech(male-oriented)” and “silence(woman-attributed)” during the early modern England correspondingly reflects the gendered hierarchy under the patriarchal mechanism at the time. This is as well true of Dympna Callaghan’s assertion that “chastity, silence and obedience were the three cardinal and synonymous feminine virtues.“ (Women and Gender,79) Although women writers in the Renaissance period usually chose to be silent or absent in genres that they were not permitted to set foot in, their “authentic” voice somehow found other ways out to be heard, such as through marginal genres as religious writings, translations, closet drama and poetry.
According to Fischer, Elizabeth Cary is one of the good examples among women writers at the time to work on “examining the stereotypes, redefining feminine identity, and locating an authentic voice outside the male tradition.” Indeed, in a society where the authoritative power is inseparable from the right of speech, speech itself would rather bear institutional constraint than personal expression. In that case, will men still speak freer than women who keep silent? Since discourse is a domain most internalized under social controls, might silence in return offer an oppositional and less regulated space for articulation? It seems that today’s women are bestowed more freedom in voicing themselves in whatever genres they favor, however, does this very “freedom” virtually relieve women from the ancient semiotic confinement?
素勳：
讀了這些都鐸王朝貴族女性的文學經驗後（她們的是作家，有的是譯者或贊助者），感覺大概會像伍爾芙一樣驚訝吧！原來在莎士比亞時代有這麼多貴族女士受過教育並寫作（其中包括了伊莉莎白女王、亨利八世的皇后，Sidney之妹，Thomas More之女等……）而且她們的結局不見得都像她所杜撰的莎士比亞妹妹一樣悲慘（即便如Jane Gray之死，也不是因為追求她的文學事業）。這些女性大多懂得用宗教、道德或謙遜的表象來包裝自己的文學事業（又或者聲稱她們無意出版這些作品，這些都是被偷偷出版的）──但最厲害的或許還是評論者，都能夠由她們的作品裡讀出她們獨立自主的精神！（令人不免質疑，是否因為評論者是女性主義者，因而都得出了類似的閱讀結果？）
也因此最後一篇Waller的論文，提出有關方法學的質問，以及如何閱讀文本裡的「沈默」格外有意思。畢竟，如果女性的寫作一開始就進入男性的論述所主宰的語言系統，她要如何表述自己？bell hooks也曾質疑黑人在失去了自己的語言後，要如何用殖民者的語言──英語──來表述自己？後殖民主義理論的建議是藉由撕裂英文，創造出雜揉性的空間；而Waller的結論則是透過語言系統裡的空隙（gap）—或如同Kristerva所說的，運用前象徵時期（presymbolic ）的詩的語言，來反抗Lacan的Symbolic system of language? Waller也引用了傅柯的權力關係、阿圖色的意識型態說，顯示人們似乎無所逃於權力關係或意識型態的操弄。但如果人們一進入語言系統，或一進入論述的網路裡，就無法自拔，結果就會像李明哲所認為的一樣悲觀吧！但顯然不是如此. Where there is power, there is resistance( Foucault). The marginal does speak through silence---or through the gap. Their voices are not simply echoes of men’s words. But can their voices only be heard by the incoherent, disruptive, and disintegrative verse of Anna Trapnell? (See Waller 255) If a woman’s truths does lies in her being the force of rejection, of fierce marginality（as Kristeva argues）, and she finds her speciaficity in “asocilaity, in the violation of communal conventions”—if women’s voice could only be heard as discourse of madness or irrationality, it would seem that the argument of feminism has come a full circle and has only proved that men are indeed rational while women are irrational? But these are not the cases with all these noble Tudor women. They are not only intelligent and smart but also politically smart. See what Elizabeth I has achieved! (I have never known that she has been a “translator.” Were these texts published in her times? I wonder.) Despite all the restrictions imposed upon women, despite all the efforts to silence women──sometimes through education so that women may internalize the socially-constructed moral doctrines as natural, it seems that education was indeed power—a subversive power!
The introduction and two articles in Silent But for the Word presented many interesting points and stories concerning women writers in Renaissance Europe. Listing a few of the challenges to women who didn't conform to mainstream definitions of femininity: imposed silence, limitations on self expression, lost or forgotten works, unrealized potential, social alienation, punishment and even death; paints a grim picture, but one that reminds of the need for subverting mechanisms of oppression and the importance of empowering those who have been deprived voices.
Since I've been charged with bringing a “male” perspective to the class, I want to raise a question about male translators during the Renaissance, and about the notion of masculinity as an instrument of social oppression in general. Quoting the book, “[translation] did not threaten the male establishment as the expression of personal viewpoints might”; translations are “defective” and therefore “all translations are reputed female.” Furthermore, it has been suggested that as an act of reproduction, rather than seminal production, translation seems like the “natural” work of women. Raising the question of male translators with this metaphor fresh in our minds leaves little to the imagination, and makes me wonder if men who chose to translate in Renaissance Europe (or any other time) were derided as being insufficiently masculine.
Today, the subtle, or often not so subtle, mechanisms in society (to be fair, I can only speak about the US) that reward and punish individuals in order to steer them toward gender normative behavior exact a similarly grim toll on those who cannot, or chose not to, fit in. Men who chose to translate, work as hairdressers, arrange flowers, act as care givers, sew, cook or keep house; and women who cut their hair short, choose not to bear children, work as physical laborers or join the military; are often deprived of their human dignity, and thus discouraged from reaching their fullest potential in their chosen field.
The gender studies book we read the first week mentioned masculinist social movements. Looking at some of the notions promoted by these communities, such as social conditioning that encourage men to be violent, the deconstruction of gender normative behavior, occupations, visual presentations, etc. vis-à-vis translation would be an interesting topic for a paper. Furthermore, the gendering of male characters in literature is as interesting as the construction of female characters, the question is, how does one apply this within the field of translation studies?
今天要用中文講話...
沈默是金。在中文的文化語境裏，適用的對象是所有人，不論男女，無論老幼；似乎也無論身分為何，因為「言多必失」。
在我們閱讀的文本裏，「貞節，沈默，服從」被作者特別點出來，作為三個主要的女德（頁79），我有點訝異。當然，這三者德行，中華文化裏也不陌生。例如在封建中國，「貞節」也是一種特定的女德。但到了近代，女性似乎也有權力要求她的情人對她保持貞節，例如張愛玲之對胡蘭成－－當然胡不吃這一套。所以，貞節似乎也可以說適用於有特定關係的男女。「服從」也是一種古老的，似乎也適用於男女老幼的德行。例如啟蒙書《弟子規》所言：「父母呼，應勿緩；父母命，行勿懶；父母教，須敬聽；父母責，須順承；...」在宗法社會裏，在家裡，父母是「上位者」，子女不論老幼，「順承」父母都是一種美德，一種不可破的規範。例如在《紅樓夢》，一怒之下打了寶玉的賈政，一遇到身分猶如「代父」的賈太君，就嚇得跟甚麼似－－不要忘了，那是賈政可是朝廷命官，也是賈府的一家之主，寶玉的父親，許多門生的老師，而且也差不多四、五十來歲的大男人了。
沈默－－沈默在中文語境裏也似乎適用於任何人，為何在文藝復興的英國是一種嚴厲的女德呢？我比較好奇這一點。
與《聖經》是否有關呢？列幾條天主教聖經引言如下：
若望福音說「聖言」就是「天主」，言因而是神聖的，男性的－－基督是一男性？
在起初已有聖言，聖言與天主同在，聖言就是天主。聖言在起初就與天主同在。萬物是藉著他而造成的；凡受造的，沒有一樣不是由他而造成的。(若1: 1~3)
於是，聖言成了血肉，寄居在我們中間；我們見了他的光榮，正如父獨生者的光榮，滿溢恩寵和真理。(若1: 14)
這是我的猜測。
另一點是：如何平心靜氣地讀這些關於女性才能如何如何被浪費的歷史呢？如何可能保持一個detached stance？請教大家。
沈默是金，言多必失。我想我的話就說到此為此。
跟素勳一樣，讀了這幾篇文章，腦中首先浮現的是吳爾芙筆下的莎妹，那個躲在閣樓偷寫文章又偷偷燒掉的少女，她或許跟她著名的哥哥一樣聰明，但是卻沒有機會接受正式教育，只能在家偶爾翻書閱讀；再想到書裡提到的都鐸王朝女性譯者和作家等，雖然她們從小被告誡，要當個淑女就得保持沉默，但是教育讓她們有了另一個發聲的可能，不管是翻譯還是寫作，不管寫作的內容是不是只能跟宗教相關，在文字的天地裡，她們有了一點點的自由，可以放進個人看法或judgment，後世有些女性主義評論家認為她們的出版品是獨立自主的象徵，當時這些女作家或女譯者對自己的出版作品(聲稱被偷偷出版也好)心裡的真正想法為何，我們已不得而知，不過我認為，雖然這些女作家或女譯者不是揮著刀劍的女戰士，但是她們像是默默的耕耘者，雖然大多沒有奮力衝破藩籬(像是Lady Cary被發現她信天主教，她老公就不要她了，不但被抓去坐牢，差點餓死，出來後還幾乎快要眾叛親離，窮困潦倒，而當時的貴族女人若不靠男人幾乎就無法生存，莫怪乎她們寧願選擇安靜一點，選擇比較安全的宗教題材寫作或翻譯)，但是努力留下痕跡，雖然不是大刀闊斧的革命，可是留下一點養份，為後來的女性開啟一點可能。另外，我想到這個時代的中國女作家/詩人/詞人，雖然中國當時的女性也要謹守「沉默」這個美德，但是比起當時的英國女作家和譯者，中國女作家的作品題材似乎較為豐富多元。最後，我要同意素勳所說，教育確實是顛覆的力量，不管時間長短，不管手段溫和或暴烈，教育讓女性有了發聲的能力和力量，進而漸漸改變這個世界對女性的看法和對待女性的方式(就算不用文不文明的方式去看待裹小腳這件事，我絕對慶幸我不需要裹小腳)，或者說，給了女性更多選擇的可能和空間。
I am enraged by the scheme men designed to silence women. They encourage women to read but not to write. Women are taught to be readers, accepting what men have written for them. Men wrote stuff that they deem proper for women to read. In China, early books accessible to women are those that demonstrate respectable women models. Though written by a woman, 《女誡》, one of the classics that women in elite families have to read, strengthen the ideal images of women, of course from men’s view.
Women’s education, in the West as well as in China, is supported only when it is for the service of the patriarchal power. In China, educated women are responsible for enlightening her sons and keeping her daughters compliantly confined to domestic realms. Learned women are promoters of family traditions 家學. When men are unable to accomplish their scholarly mission, learned women are supposed to continue the work. Few people will remember that 班昭 contributed a lot in the compilation of 漢書, and all the credits go to 班固. Even in late Qing, when women education was vehemently promoted, similar arguments were advanced by 梁啟超. Women should receive education to revive the economy and to provide better education to their children, so as to upgrade the intellectual quality of China.
What, then, can be the genre for women? What genre can women use to freely express themselves without the influence of patriarchal discourse? Fischer mentioned that translation is the genres of marginality. But I am a little disappointed to see that she shifted her focus to the analysis of Lady Cary’s tragedy (a marginal genre???) in which Lady Cary is more a playwright than a translator.
張貼留言