Claims That Translation Can Have A Political or Ideological Dimension and Can Be Used Either as A Means of Domination or Resistance

Claims That Translation Can Have A Political or Ideological Dimension and Can Be Used Either as A Means of Domination or Resistance

The aspect of translation has, over the years, taken divergent angles. The most common angles, however, include the ideological or political dimension. Taking the above-mentioned dimensions is a diversion from the initial intention of translation. The initial intentions of translation were meant to enable individuals to unravel and elucidate another language or meaning, which they were are conversant with. As a way of augmenting our understanding of this imperative subject, this study will assess the problem of ideology in translation using the feminist theory. Of particular interest in the study will be on the claims that translation has either take an ideological or political dimension and can also be used either as a means of domination or resistance.

The practice of ideology in translation was largely ignored in the past until recently when it has received increased attention. There are various definitions of ideology that have been developed with an attempt to unravel various dimensions of ideology in relation to language. There are various contracts that have been made between ideology and axiology. Axiology has been defined as a system of ideology that is subjective in nature, comprising of translation or linguistic aspects and individual values. Part researchers such as Castro (2009) postulated that translation follows a particular set of codes and practices and therefore insinuating that translators should be responsible for whatever they translate. The above statement has, however, seemed to be untrue in recent years, as asserted by Wu (2013).

The ideological dimension of translation

Translation has been perceived as a clash or encounter between two languages or cultures. The translation is a social practice that should be maintained and shaped in a way that makes it change the asymmetrical nature of different parties that are caught up in hegemonic and subjected practices. Ideology in the representation of power in recent years has become a critical part of the translation. The increased importance has been augmented in large part by the extensive studies that have been conducted in this area in recent years.

Ideology has been defined as a systematic aspect of a coordinated combination of various concepts relating to culture and human life. Institutional discourse is a professional achievement that reflects on the professionalism of translation and the competence of the linguistic. Therefore, training translators is often a herculean task for any school or institution, which thereby brings challenges to its ideology.

While past researchers cited that translation is a set of codes and practices, recent studies have focused on how translation is an important part of the original work as opposed to the inferior tendencies that were shown in the past. One of the most challenging aspects in the study of translation is the relationship between the translated language and the original. Recent ideologies on translation have, however, revealed that the translated work is equally important just like the original since it is a direct reflection of the original language in a different language.

The most searching and revealing discussions on translation in the past decade has focused more on various ideological connotations. There are various productive and ongoing academic discussions on the various facets of the issue, which have been discussed for ages. The discussions have received interest from different corners of the earth or globe. Those who have invested chiefly in the social engagements have been at the forefront of this discussion. There are questions that have been raised about whether or not the translator is a social initiator in society and whether or not the translator contributes towards the enactment of the ethical aspects within society.

Successful cultural aspects do not depend on the logical philosophical connotations. The theoretical foundation coupled with the cognitive aspects has made it easier for different cultural groups to bring different people in different parts of the society as a way of bringing out the changes that have been brought about by the translators. It is evident that translators can either bring about the ethical changes within the society or exterminate them altogether. The question as to whether or not translators can be used as agents of change, therefore, depends on the translators since it is the translators who have the opportunity to either change or repeal the ethical strides that have been made in the society.

Historical, ideological representation of translation

Translation has historically been pivotal both in the pre-colonial times and in the period after the colonial period. For instance, it is a palpable fact that the red Indians were the indigenous people in the United States before being colonized by the British. British colonialists had, therefore, to rely on translators to find their way in the United States. As a way of ensuring that the colonialists understood the topography and the geography of the host country, they relied heavily on translators. All cadres of colonialists, including the British, the Portuguese in Brazil, the French in western Africa and various Caribbean countries as well as Canada to the Spanish in other countries such as Equatorial Guinea all had to rely on translators to find their way in the countries where they attempted to colonize. Therefore translators were important in the historical period as they were used to provide a topography of the countries where they made hosts.

The political dimension of translation

In the historical representation, it can be said that the use of translation was used as a means of resistance and domination, as will be unraveled herein in the study. For instance, during the Second World War, the United States used translators to suppress the Japanese as a way of establishing dominance. The United States intentionally used wrong translations that were meant to demean the Japanese as a way of showing or revealing their dominance during the Second World War. The United States used translations to provide different meanings through popular mass media avenues. The United States used print media and other popular media such as television, radio, and newspapers to spread propaganda about Japan as a way of ensuring that they staple their dominance during World War 11. Therefore, the fact that it was used to spread the hate of the United States against the Japanese, it enough reason to insinuate how translation can be used in a negative way. The fact that it was used to exert dominance is enough reason that translation can be used in a negative way.

Just like in the United States, there are other countries in the world where translations have been used to settle political scores. The United Kingdom is another country that also used translations in a negative way.  The United Kingdom used translators to settle their scores with Palestine as a way of supporting and exerting dominance over the region. The United Kingdom used all sorts of popular media, including mass media and popular media to spread propaganda against Palestine through the use of translators. The use of the translators was an indication that it can indeed be used for negative objectives.

Most of the nations during the colonial period used translators to reveal their resistance towards the colonial masters. For instance, local groups would look for one of their own, who understood the foreign language and would, therefore, use the individual to display their resistance towards the colonial masters. The use of translators as a way of resistance was, therefore, common during the colonial period. The introduction of cultural programs does not depend necessarily on what the translators reveal but rather on the foundations that have been placed in the society either through the philosophical foundations or the theoretical foundations. Therefore, the ideological representation of translation largely depends on how the entire group within the society behaves and reacts to different groups and representations within the society.

Over the years, translation was largely viewed as a representation of texts or a form of representation. The ideology of the translation is complex and is defined primarily by the source of the text.  The source of the text primarily involves the representation of the subject and the subject itself.  The content may, however, complicated politically and enormously, such as the speech of art and the aspects of the text that are contributing to the source of the art. The value of the ideology is complimented through translation.

The effects of the ideology will differ in every case of translation, for instance, within the text translations.  As a result of the various choices of the translator at all levels, the level of translation is very important. The ideology of the translation exists not only within the text that has been translated but also in the voice of the translator. The fact that there is more extensive research, which is required to assess how the translators will augment their ideology to the world by improving how they work and how the ideologies shape the translation world.

Feminist translation ideologies

In my view, the language may be one of many elements that allow us to make sense of things, of ourselves. I am thinking, of course, of gestures, pauses, but also of chance, of the sub individual force-fields of being which click into place in different situations, swerve from the straight or true line of language-in-thought. Making sense of ourselves is what produces identity. If one feels that the production of identity as self-meaning, not just meaning, is as pluralized as a drop of water under a microscope, one is not always satisfied, outside of the ethic political arena as such, with “generating” thoughts on one’s own. (Assuming identity as origin may be unsatisfactory in the ethic political arena as well, but consideration of that now would take us too far afield.) I have argued in the consequent study that one of the ways of resisting capitalist multiculturalism’s invitation to self-identity and compete is to give the name of “woman” to the unimaginable other. The same sort of impulse is at work here in a rather more tractable form. One of the ways to get around the confines of one’s “identity” as one produces expository prose is to work at someone else’s title, as one works with a language that belongs to many others. This, after all, is one of the seductions of translating. It is simple miming of the responsibility to the trace of the other in the self.

The notion that women have narrative solidarity, for instance, in the assumption that there is something in a woman or an undifferentiated women’s story that speaks to another woman without benefit of language learning, might stand against the translator’s objective. Paradoxically, it is not possible for us as ethical agents to imagine otherness or maximally. We have to turn the other into something like the self in order to be ethical. To surrender in translation is more erotic than ethical. In that situation, the good-willing attitude “she is just like me” is not very helpful. In so far as it is not like, their friendship is more effective as a translation. In order to earn that right of friendship or surrender of identity, of knowing that the rhetoric of the text indicates the limits of language for you as long as you are with the text, you have to be in a different relationship with the language, not even only with the specific text.

Learning about translation on the job, I came to think that it would be a practical help if one’s relationship with the language being translated was such that sometimes one preferred to speak in it about intimate things. This is no more than a practical suggestion, not a theoretical requirement, useful especially because a woman writer who is wittingly or unwittingly a “feminist”—and of course all woman writers are not “feminist” even in this broad sense—will relate to the three-part staging of language in ways defined out as “private,” since they might question the more public linguistic maneuvers.

The translators in the past have, therefore, focused on women as being weaker beings and, therefore, have focused on detailing them as so. The aspect of feminism, as displayed through literary works and other contemporary and convectional works, has revealed that the translations have focused more on the feminism aspects as opposed to the promotion of gender parity. There is substantive evidence, which points to the fact that different aspects of translations have not promoted equity but rather provided a divergent approach that is geared towards the promotion of equality in society.

The ideology of feminism has, therefore, not been properly unraveled in the study. In addition, it has not correctly identified pertinent aspects of gender but rather focused on how feminism has been crafted in society. It is, therefore, pivotal for modern research to elucidate how modern data has been developed and to also uncover balanced gender aspects as opposed to the historical connotations that have been developed over the years. It is, therefore, imperative to develop a framework through which the ideologies of the translation will be developed. The ideologies should, therefore, take a modern and futuristic approach that has not been developed before.

Some of the major contributions that have been made by feminists include the critical review of knowledge, which has been submitted in divergent humanistic and scientific disciplines. The primary aim is to cast doubts on the objective and neutral nature that enables it to reveal the fact that the criterion that is followed is a patriarchal one. Right from the onset of the views that have been made on feminism, the debate has already been developed internally that is aimed at providing different philosophical connotations. The study of translation on the product that is the basis of the translation rather than the translation process is one that has been developed in recent years.

The primary aim of the translation theory is to enable readers and all individuals interested in the process of translation to assess some of the norms that define translation. Past research has primarily focused on some of the theories that focused primarily on some of the techniques that have been listed on the linguistic shifts.  Therefore the approach has focused more on the cultural nature rather than the linguistic nature. The focus on cultural nature rather than the linguistic nature has enabled the translation of feminism to take a cultural angle.  The process involves the incorporation of various cultural dimensions that make the translation of feminist approaches and aspects to take a parallel angle rather than a cultural angle. The referential entity is, therefore, external in nature as opposed to internal in nature (Wu, 2013).

The new approaches also began to assess the neutral and objective role of the translator. Since the first step in the translation with the text, aspects of translation have not been developed properly in the analysis of feminist theories. Therefore, the aspect of ideology and especially in the study of feminism studies has been found to be imperative when it comes to the translation of the feminist studies (Wu, 2013).

When feminism began their approach towards translation, there were some aspects that had developed regarding the same. There are some debates that have been developed regarding equivalence, and objectivity has been questioned. The debates have augmented the debates on the ideological and cultural issues regarding the same.  When we are analyzing aspects of the perspectives of ideology and culture in a feminist study, the relationship with the content of the translation is mutually enriching. Concomitantly, there are new viewpoints that have been developed over the same. It was capable of recognizing how the discipline consolidated the proposals while at the same time enriching the translations within the gender context (Wu, 2013).

There are various proclamations that have been made, which state that the objective is primarily meant to bring out a language that ensures that all circumstances are associated with the feminist translations and more particularly based on the conventional feminist culture that has existed over the years.  The translations reveal that there are differences between various women and the universal definition of women as defined through the translations (Wu, 2013).

There are other concepts of feminist translations that have pointed towards bias. It is, therefore, imperative to understand some of the proposals that have been made regarding the diversity of women and the experiences thereof.  The divergent translation aspects have focused primarily on the strategies that have been developed by the authors, together with the translator centered strategies. Despite the criticism that has centered the translations of feminism, it is still common for the strategies and the connotations to be existent within the mainstream media. From a self-critical perspective, feminist translations reveal that it is counterproductive since it inhibits the growth of studies that are geared towards gender parity. At the same time, it also inhibits the development of divergent fields of research (Wu, 2013).

Feminism has been developed through the relationship with the studies that have been developed in the past rather than the intentions of the translator. It is, therefore, imperative for researchers to come up with effective translations that will be geared towards promoting gender parity rather than the focus on singular feminist aspects. The ideological aspects should, therefore, be changed as a way of averting the confusion and the bias towards women and feminist studies (Wu, 2013).

In conclusion, it is palpable that there are various problems with the ideological representation of feminism. Whereas the historical data has focused more on the singular feminist aspects, it is imperative to alter the research towards the different cultural aspects that are geared towards promoting gender parity. In addition, it is also evident from the research that there are various aspects that have been used to shape the political world through translations. The historical political world primarily relied on translators to shape and drive their political agenda. The translations were either used to staple the dominance of certain political groups or to express resistance towards divergent political formations. It, therefore, achieved both positive and negative objectives depending on the translators and the objectives of the political groupings.

References

Castro, O. (2009). (Re-) examining horizons in feminist translation Studies: towards a third wave? Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16365816.pdf

Wu, E. (2013). Feminist Translation / Feminist Adaptation: Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility. Retrieved from http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/095/003/ecp13095003.pdf