譯隻綠蠵龜

This chapter introduces the expansion and shift of translation studies into other disciplines such as cultural studies, postcolonialism, and gender studies. The all-encompassing and universal approaches in translation theory of previous generation have slowly gave way to individual, localized, regional, and traditionally marginalized focus from a great variety of perspectives. Dialogue is more active than it has ever been in the field, with debates and opinions exchanging and interacting.

Any kind of translational handling, interpretation, or strategy seems to be justified as they are all a part of the “rewriting” process as proposed by Lefevere, and each represent a different ideology, whether political, poetical, or moral. Taboos and other controversial issues are at the center of manipulation and change, and they serve as the focus of study for many scholars, in which cultural ideologies and values are brought to light. As a work is rewritten through translation, selection, adaptation, or criticism, its status is elevated or reinforced if it is already a canonized piece (which is another result of rewriting). The never-ending flourishing of Shakespearean adaptations on stage and on screen is one obvious example.

Simon, working from a feminist perspective (and hence, a form of ideology), locates translation in a system characterized by gender differences, in which the powerful male original often enjoys a greater status than the inferior female translation. Simon therefore aims to make the female visible in the hope to counteract this unbalanced relationship. Similarly, Harvey’s study of gay literature and their translations reflect different receptions and acceptance of gay culture in different cultures. Even the attempt for gender equality or gender neutrality, such as writing he/she, she/he, or (s)he, reflects a certain ideology behind the words.

This unbalanced relationship between gender transforms into unbalanced and complex power relations of postcolonial approaches, in which Spivak and Niranjana advocates translation as political moves against the male, dominant, and ever infiltrating power of the colonizer. The current status of English in the world, western politics, economy, and western-centered theories and practices in academia are embodiments of the male dominant colonizer. Cronin’s study of Irish local voices against the hegemony of English language and culture is another example of this power difference in languages. As Munday concludes that postcolonial power relations are not restricted to cross-continent or cross-cultural contexts, another example brings to mind in which Canada struggles to find identity, voice and place in the US-centered world. This struggle is reflected in the following statement: “The World Needs More of Canada,” which is written in huge letters at the center of a major bookstore.

Besides English, French is also Canada’s official language, so the power relations and interactions between languages and identity construction become more complex. And it is this complexity and intermingling situation that is also the center of Bhabha’s study of translation’s locational disrupture, in which the focus further moves forward from the gender or power-based binary opposition to the hybridity and in-betweenness of a present world in which assimilation, interaction, exchanges, and travels are the increasing norm.

The cultural, ideological and “bottom-up” turns in academia coincide with the shift towards regionalism, local culture, and voices from ordinary people in the globalized world. This reflects the fact that the development of the academia and the society is always interrelated and mutually stimulating.