When we read theory
translated from a different language, very often we pay attention primarily to
the formulations of the theorist with perhaps a cursory glance at the name of
the translator. In the intensity with
which we plunge into the text, we seldom remind ourselves that the text is a
translation. We do not ask how and why
theories are translated. In a useful
reminder, Sebnem Susam-Sarajeva’s book draws our attention to
the “role translation plays in the migration of literary and cultural theories
across linguistic and cultural borders, and across power differentials.” Migration
is a complex phenomenon that contends with the problematic of location; when we
recognize that translation is itself a form of migration, the implications for
the author of the source-text, the re-location of the text, and the reader in
the new language cannot be ignored. It
is then, Sebnam argues, important to study the indicative and the
formative role that translation plays.
In her multiple-case study
of migration of literary theory from France to Turkey and France to
Anglo-America, she tells how Roland Barthes and Hélène Cixous travelled
their different ways. And so, the tenor
of the argument is set up to orient the discussion towards theory travelling
through languages in translation. Her
task then is to address the question “how does theory travel, what may be the
relationship of theory to translation in particular cases, and what happens
when theory travels in various directions for different audiences?” In
addressing these questions, the power differentials in relationships across
cultural, linguistic, and political borders are underscored especially within a
postcolonial or neocolonial context. Once this is set up, she draws out the
inadequacy of postcolonial theorizing for the study that concerns itself with a
variety of power differentials that are not addressed in the available
postcolonial discourse: “…what about all those languages and cultures of the
countries which have never been a colony – which might have even been centres
of empires themselves in the past, as in the case of Turkey – but are now
nevertheless under the profound influence of hegemonic powers economically,
politically and culturally?”
The discussion of Barthes
and Cixous in their new cultural abode is within the framework of descriptive
Translation Studies and systems theory which elaborates how theories
travel. This is done by first presenting
the underlying contexts of the reception of structuralism and semiotics in Turkey and French feminism in
Anglo-America. The discussion of the
issue of importation of structuralism and semiotics in Turkey, and French
feminism in Anglo-America is particularly relevant in the specific context of
India and in the larger context of translating theory for it highlights
assumptions and misconceptions on theory, the politics of cultural transfer in
importation, power equations, and agency, as the text dwells on the discussions
and debates in the intellectual circles in the receiving languages. A very perceptive analysis of the different
trajectories of the mode of critical thinking in Turkey and France and of the women’s movement
in France and Anglo-America brings
out specific differences between systems of thinking, be it in the debate on
form versus content, objective versus subjective in Turkey, or essentialism and
biologism, and indebtedness to white fathers in Cixous.
Sebnem also underlines the
differences between the two contexts in hand for she recognizes that “imports
do not contribute to the shaping of local discourses to the same extent in
every destination.” The attitudinal differences in the mode of reception in the
receiving system identify issues of alterity, solidarity, and universality in
the case of Cixous while tropes of alterity, lack and lag are identified in the
case of Barthes. An important insight
here has to do with the nature of the relationship import / export entails: “A
one-way import / export relationship does not necessarily imply a passive
reception of whatever comes through the linguistic borders. Imported discursive
elements are transformed even in what may be called ‘defective’,
‘deficient’ or ‘weak’ systems.” In other words, the receiving system has other
intentions beyond the structure of the source system.
In this context, it is sound
argument that the reception of the works of the two French thinkers was
influenced by the general response to the respective schools of thought.
Appropriately enough, we read that the translation and reception of the works
constructs also long-lasting image of the writers. I find the discussion of the “monolithic
images” of Barthes and Cixous in the imported culture very forceful not just
for the argument but for the methodology that locates translation within an
exhaustive framework of what gets translated when and by whom. “Images do not stay the same forever;” the
book traces a fascinating history of the changes in the image that Barthes and
Cixous have in their new languagescapes.
This study of the endurance of images attests to the “domesticating
power of translation regardless of the power differentials involved between the
source and receiving systems.”
Given the power relation
between source and receiving systems, the whole question of retranslation
becomes important. While the study
recognizes that imports do not shape local discourses across the board, it is
substantiated further by arguing that “the factors of dominance, elasticity,
tolerance and power of the source and receiving systems involved determine
whether travelling theory will be granted multiple-entry visa into the
latter system through retranslations.” Different types of retranslation theory
which are largely linear are discussed. Five arguments are presented on the
topic touching on the issue of canonicity, ageing translations, the struggles
in the receiving system, the needs and attitudes of the receiving system, and
non-existence of retranslations. We get
a fascinating glimpse of the history of Barthes’ multiple entries in Turkey with the important
digression on Turkish Language Reform.
Cixous in Anglo-America is an instance of “rarity of
retranslations” which is very significant.
For, this “confirms the ‘deproblematisation’ of translation in
the Anglo-American feminist critical system.”
Apart from the insights one gets on the power play within feminist
discourse and retranslation, I recommend the sections on jouissance and écriture feminine in chapters 5 and 6 to those who grapple
with French thought.
A discussion of
multiple-entry or being rooted home has to reckon with the politics of the systems
involved. And so, “Both structuralism
and semiotics in Turkey and French feminism in
Anglo-America were taken to task for being apolitical, elitist, and unsuitable
for the purposes of the ongoing local struggles.” The text establishes here that theory and
practice continue to be polarized which was largely the reason for the
reception of the two writers in the respective systems.
The conclusion neatly sums
up a theory for travelling theory.
Theories travel and remain travellers, “aliens in the middle of curious,
disapproving, friendly, suspicious or downright hostile locals….Translated
theories continue to be perceived as foreign imports, unless they occasionally
become ‘transferred’ cultural products.”
The text rightly reminds us that theory travels. Translation is also a form of
migration. For all the rigorous research
and tightly knit argument, the text reminds us about the body that enables such
travel. Migrations to different
systems, different bodies of thought are always through people. This is where theory is redeemed from mere
‘sightseeing’ and gets comprehended.
Sebnam’s book is a
remarkable journey that addresses cultural questions that concern the entry of
theories in translation into a particular system. The book illustrates how important it is not
to ignore the medium as much as the mode of transport of theories. For, that is where we get to the context,
history, and what theory sets out to ‘remember’ in the receiving system.
I have found useful openings
here to do theory in the literature classroom.
There is a method here to study how theory travels though the tropes one
finds could be different in other systems.
This book opens up a large area of inquiry for Translation Studies in India. A study that locates theories that have
migrated to India in English or into regional
languages in the country emerges as a distinct research possibility. In spite of advanced technology, how did
three spelling errors creep into the book?
Theories on the Move is a very
useful book for budding researchers, and translators.
Reviewed by
Dr. B. Hariharan,
Dept of English,
Post Graduate
Centre,
University of
Mysore,
Hemagangotri,
Hassan–573220
Mail