#4 Oct 19 - Gender ＆ Translation
#4 Oct 19 Higgins, Jenny. “French poetry and prose in fin-de-siècle England: How women translators broke new ground.” In Translators, Interpreters, Mediators: Women Writers 1700-1900, 237-251. Oxford, England: Peter Lang, 2007
5 意見:
Chamberlain’s article deals with the intricate kinship between translator and author from several perspectives, some of which presented as drastically opposing extremes. For instance, the gender-based paradigm about translation, at different times or in different cultural situations, is delineated by metaphors from “echo/wife/fidelity to marriage” to “conquest/father/protector of chastity.” Either way, pathetically, cannot rid itself from the influence of patriarchal thinking. In other words, the gendered construct (patriarchal hierarchy) continues to master the “Form(形式),” “Inhalt(內容)” and “Gehalt(意涵)” of the relationship between text and translation. Whether they like it or not, translators may find themselves (until very recently) bound to draw the line with a “phallus pen.” Nevertheless, with the rising awareness of the gender discrimination labeling translation as servile femininity, contemporary feminist translators have been trying to “hijack” the male-dominant text in deconstructionist emancipation or subversion of the text itself. Even so, I doubt, that such a reactionary act is just a Don Quixote self-excusing that “looks” like women’s victory. (Don’t judge me again for my pessimism.)
Likewise, back in the 19th century of England, Anne Gilchrist and Alma Strettell were also experimenting on the utmost boundaries that women writers or translators might or might not be able to trespass. Their more liberal attitude toward French works (like Hugo’s and Verhaeren’s poetry) and the triumph they had achieved by translating are both indicative of a larger openness for women to gain more power in interpreting literary works at the time. Their personal explorations somehow echo the efforts made by feminist writers or translators in breaking the phallus-centered conventions, displaying an initial female-autonomous determination. I wonder if the late Qing women translator had ever the same awareness when they translated western literature. Besides, does women translators’ obtaining the power of interpretation simultaneously promote women’s social position?
It seems that woman translators have gone a long way from Tudor dynasty to the end of 19th century. Their works were now widely published in the little magazines. Also, “it is interesting to note that the increasing status of women in the literary market coincide with the rise of ‘little magazines’ to the forefront of English literary production during the 1880s and 1890s”(….and we will see the same thing was happening in China decades later.) What’s more, one of the woman translator has even traveled to U.S.A. to meet Walt Whitman…that’s really border crossing! (which reminds me of 班昭’s traveling; she is claimed to be the first Chinese woman to write down a travelogue ”東征賦”)
In Lori’s Chamberlain’s essay, we found that the author/the text/ the translator are placed in a complex triangle. It could be an Oedipus complex with the translator/son trying to usurp the place of the author/father and producing the bastard child/TT. In this case, the ST would be object of their desires/the mother. It seems that the Source Text is often considered in the feminine term whose virginity has to be protected--- and yet is often repeatedly raped. (Compare Derrida’s metaphor of hymen—the consummation of marriage--double bind. “Dissemination’ is also a gendered metaphor.) Elsewhere the Source Text is said to be emasculated. (…yet only a man can be emasculated.) Sometimes translators were engendered as female; sometimes “they” are males taking women captives—including Horatio/ a male author. At the end of it, all is about positions. Those who are in power take the masculine position; those who are not take the feminine position. All in all, gendered relations are power relations. (That’s why white male/black males were often described in masculine/feminine positions in colonial literary texts.) The gendered position of the author/ translator is always about the power relation. Take the ethnographer/translator for example. Here the translator could be described as a male penetrating the ST of the primitives (in Steiner’s terms) since the translators are the ones in power…. Also, translation is about politics as we can how politics has been in and out of the definitions of translation… and recently inserted back by post-colonial critics. (see Robinson’s “metaphors of translation.”)
Patriarchal deceptions are lurking everywhere. Looking back at the 17th century, we could ask why a few people felt it was necessary to use metaphors of gender, sexuality and chastity to describe translation; or more importantly, we can ask why the attitudes underlying these metaphors were accepted as a priori truths.
Those with political agendas (here, men wishing to uphold patriarchy and male privilege) use subtle strategies to brainwash the unwitting masses. When a 17th century man starts talking about the chastity and beauty of women, and then equates it with some observation he has made of the translation process, it subtly reinforces the notion that women are only good as “eye candy” and the property of men. What I find particularly sinister about this strategy is that it reinforces male hegemony while shifting the focus away from the male/female power dynamic and onto translation—something not necessarily about gender politics. Foucault's genealogy comes to mind as a useful tool for exposing power operations behind historical forms like these 17th century “truths” about women, and striping metaphors like these of their power. While this particular 17th century “truth” now seems patently absurd and hopelessly old fashioned, metaphors in a similar vein continue to circulate today. George Steiner, no doubt a brilliant man who has enjoyed more than his share of privilege, represents a passing generation of men clinging to the assumption that the world was created for their penetration and enjoyment. Knowing Steiner and where he's coming from, it is no surprise that he reproduces—and therefore reinforces—aggressive male imagery of control and capture while passing it off as a theory of translation. It seems Derrida with his notion of hymen is also complicit in this operation, as he builds his theory on the notion of male ownership of female virginity. Furthermore, while we could say aggressive sexual behavior may be some part of the translation process, it is neither exclusively male nor more privileged than passivity, surrender or service. When it is so easy to see the opposite of what the patriarchy insists is there, the only conclusion to be drawn is that what the patriarchy sees is merely an illusion, or a projection of what they wish to see. Spivak chimes in with something that I think is only interesting by virtue of its radicalism: when she speaks of translation as a conscious act of sensual abandon, she speaks as a women taking an active role with regard to her own sexuality; which means she is no longer an instrument of male pleasure, but rather a sentient being asserting her will to desire. But still, translation here is merely serving as a stage for a gender politics showdown.
While the academics argue over who gets to be on top, I would like to add that I find the notion of “gendering” the act of translation a little odd. Translations are intellectual acts that attempt to negotiate information between cultures and languages. The professional translator recognizes the necessity of presenting another individual's content within a framework of what they know—what we might call a translator's (shifting) subjectivity. As a residue of this process, translations occupy richly woven spaces connecting cultures, communities, languages and individuals. To my mind, there is nothing essentially or uniquely sexual or gender specific about this space, even if historically some men sought to hijack it to uphold their prerogatives.
That being said, awareness of the presence of gender/sexuality politics in the field of translation is as critical as it is in any other field. Academics working to uncover the operations behind forms of oppression do us all a great service, and as 素勳 has so rightly pointed out, progress has been made, and so can continue to be made. On the other hand, brandishing metaphors that reinforce inequality, and linking them to translation seems problematic.
I am curious about the connection of translation and marriage made by Gilles Ménage. I mean there are so many different kinds of relationships, like the father-son, friends, master-servant, king-knight and so on. Why did Ménage choose this specific relationship? A grammatical and phonetic coincidence, yes, but maybe there were something more. In Chinese translation history, translation is not quite gendered. Is this because that early translation theory are advanced by monks and for them, marriage is not quite the kind of experience that they can be related to.
It seems that the “les belles infidèles” comes from the intention that language should be “pure” and with the fidelity (as in a marriage), hybrid or bastard text (“translation”) can be avoided. Similar arguments can be found in Schleiermacher and the examples cited by Chamberlain. It is interesting to know that the gendered role of translation comes from such a concern to avoid language impurity. Even today, people are afraid of the contamination of language by other foreign languages. Does that mean such admiration of the original can never be changed.
Things happened.
And I was, and still am occupied. And I don't think I am able to finish the three assignments and then post my humble opinion accordingly here by the end of the day. Actually this writing is already belated.
To compensate, please allow me to invite you to read a piece of prose that I wrote two years ago. It was written right after I finished translating a very difficult paper. May be plus a particular scene that I witnessed and deeply touched me about the same time. (But don't ask me for the details.) Generally speaking, it was something created out of my translation experiences. Sorry for making another metaphor. But it was made by a translator. So the "position" may be different? Anyway, the ST and TT were styled as 2 dancers dancing to/in their music. But as a reader you are free to come up with your own interpretation--Perhaps there's nothing there to be interpreted!
I didn't write it for this class, but after rereading the prose again a few minutes ago, I was gald that I didn't engender the dancers. Here you are:
http://sophee-yee.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!FD74382CFE5006F4!148.entry
張貼留言