Translation and Political Engagement Activism, Social Change and the Role of Translation in Geopolitical Shifts

MARIA TYMOCZKO University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA Abstract. The possibility of using translation for geopolitical agenda and political engagement has stimulated substantial interest in the last decade within translation studies and in other disciplines. Defining engagement in translation studies as translation with an activist component, this article reviews the discourse pertaining to translation and engagement. The case study of the translation of Irish literature into English over the last century, from the epoch of Irish cultural nationalism through Irish political independence to the present, is used as an exemplar of a translation movement that has been effective in achieving significant geopolitical results. Desiderata for a theory of translation and engagement are discussed, in the context of which a criticism is offered of Venuti 's contribution to the discourse of translation and engagement. The article concludes with the identification of characteristics shared by translation movements that have effectively contributed to political engagement and geopolitical change.

In Culture and Imperialism Edward Said has argued that narratives create structures of feeling that support, elaborate and consolidate the practice of empire (1993:14); at the same time his work documents the resistance and alternate structures of feeling created within dominated cultures to counter the practices of empire, resistance that erupted in the 20th century in nationalist movements all over the world. Such resistance gradually won independence for the colonized, bringing to an end the practices of direct colonial rule. Just as dominant cultures have created images of the past to bolster their practices of power in the present (cf. Said 1993: 15ff.), so have colonized cultures created visions of the past to further ideological resistance and political programmes (cf. Fanon 1961/1963). Although such images of the past - like those of the colonizers - are manipulations of the past, often simplified or essentialized or even fetishized structures, they are powerful means of drawing together oppressed peoples and giving them a consciousness of their own potential for self-determination.

Translation is a prime way of creating such images, a factor that is notable in translations of narratives which involve the creation and recreation of structures of feeling. Translation plays this role within a colonial or neocolonial setting whenever it participates in the formation of cultural constructions, negotiating views of a people's past or present as it bridges gaps caused by linguistic change or a multilinguistic polity. It is, therefore, not simply the translation of narratives that is at issue here, but the translation of any central cultural documents, including laws, annals or other historical materials. Translations are inevitably partial; meaning in a text is overdetermined, and the information in and meaning of a source text is therefore always more extensive than a translation can convey. Conversely, the receptor language and culture entail obligatory features that limit the possibilities of the translation, as well as extending the meanings of the translation in directions other than those inherent in the source text (cf. Tymoczko 1999:ch. 1 and sources cited). As a result, translators must make choices, selecting aspects or parts of a text to transpose and emphasize. Such choices in turn serve to create representations of their source texts, representations that are also partial. This partiality is not merely a defect, a lack, or an absence in a translation - it is also an aspect that makes the act of translation partisan: engaged and committed, either implicitly or explicitly. Indeed partiality is what differentiates translations of the same or similar works, making them flexible and diverse, enabling them to participate in the dialectic of power, the ongoing process of political discourse, and strategies for social change. Such representations and commitments are apparent from analyses of translators' choices word-byword, page-by-page, and text-by-text, and they are also often demonstrable in the paratextual materials that surround translations, including introductions, footnotes, reviews, literary criticism and so forth. The very words associated with politics and ideology emphasized here suggest the nexus of metonymy and engagement in the activity of translation, indicating that the partial nature of translations is what makes them also political.

1. A brief survey of the theme of engagement in recent writing on translation Considerations such as the foregoing have fed the excitement in recent years about translation as a possible vehicle of political engagement, engagement that is not

restricted to postcolonial contexts, and this interest is to a large extent identified with the work of Lawrence Venuti (1992, 1995, 1998a, 1998b). Venuti's work in turn looks back to that of Philip Lewis (1985), Jacques Derrida (1985) and Walter Benjamin (1923), to name but three important figures standing behind Venuti's arguments. Within translation studies others have also taken up this line of thought - Susan Bassnett (1992, 1993), Sherry Simon (1994, 1996) and the writers in the collection gathered by Anuradha Dingwaney and Carol Maier (1995), for example. Meanwhile, working outside translation studies, similar voicings are heard from Tejaswini Niranjana (1992), Eric Cheyfitz (1991), Vicente Rafael (1993), Gayatri Spivack (1992), Homi Bhabha (1994) and James Clifford (1997), among others. The harnassing of translation for political and ideological purposes is not original to these critics and theoreticians of translation, nor is it original to the present age. We see the impulse earlier among our own contemporaries in the work of actual translators, including Brazilian translators, with their theories of cannibalism in the service of autonomous cultural development and extension (see Vieira 1994). Quebecois translators can also be seen in this light and are often discussed as such, particularly feminist Canadian translators like Barbard Godard (1990) and Suzanne de LotbinireHarwood (1991), as well as the earlier Quebecois playwrights, whose translations and work have been so well analyzed by Annie Brisset (1990). Indeed a long history of translation in the service of ideological agendas, antedating the present, has been demonstrated and analyzed by Venuti, notably in The Translator's Invisibility (1995). Other types of translation besides literary translation must also be seen in this context, and Venuti's accounts should be supplemented in this regard. Bible translations, for example, particularly in the medieval and early Renaissance period, have this character of ideological engagement, for literacy, access to the biblical text and lay movements of piety were direct challenges to the power structures of medieval and early modern society. Thus, Bible translation at the period is paradoxically a prime illustration of the relationship between translation and resistance to oppressive cultural conditions, indicating the relationship between translation and social change, and Biblical translation was for several centuries theorized as such in writings contemporary with the early vernacular translations of the Bible. It was for these reasons, as much as for doctrinal ones, that many of the early movements sponsoring Bible translation were

persecuted in their day and that Bible translators themselves were even on occasion burnt at the stake. In these diverse cases taken from the history of translation in the West during the last millenium, which could be multiplied in any thorough survey of translation worldwide through history, translation intersects in demonstrable ways with efforts to change power structures.

2. Engagement defined Before proceeding, I'd like to clarify what I mean by translation and engagement. I'm not simply discussing the ethos or ideological orientation of a translation and a translator - the salutoriness or correctness of a translator's politics, or a quality in a translation that promotes good attitudes and good politics in its readers. Clearly the theory of translation is not the locus to determine a theory of valuation or to debate ideology. In fact it can be argued that most translators undertake the work they do because they believe the texts they produce will benefit humanity or impact positively upon the receptor culture in ways that are broadly ideological. This is true equally of literary translators who select texts to translate, translators of technical manuals, and Bible translators. I am even interested here in something a little more active than the stance of writers who promoted literature engagee in the post-War period. I'm primarily concerned with translation as a sort of speech act: translation that rouses, inspires, witnesses, mobilizes, incites to rebellion, and so forth. Such translations act in the world and have an activist aspect. The subject, then, is translation that has illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions, that actually participates in social movements, that is effective in the world at achieving demonstrable social and political change. Clearly in pursuing such questions, the context of and audience for such translation are central issues, and I would agree with Douglas Robinson (1997: 112) who argues that an important test of a translation's political effectiveness is its ability to reach mass audiences. In part I take this topic as my subject matter because the effectiveness of literature that simply aims at attitudinal shifts is much more difficult to assess. Attitudinal shifts are notoriously problematic to correlate with social change, and they are also conspicuously volatile and subject to reversals or ironic finales. It is a

particularly questionable business to argue for the transformative value of changing the attitudes of a small avant-garde after a century filled with the repression, suppression and even extermination of cultural elites. From the annihilation of intellectuals in the Nazi death camps to China's Cultural Revolution, from the neutralization of leftists during the McCarthy period in the United States to the massacres of the educated classes in African countries emerging from colonialism, we have learned that such hopes are often sadly misplaced: pogroms and purges of the left occurred on virtually every continent in the last century, wiping away progress associated with attitudinal shifts.1 The approach to engagement presupposed in this paper is in fact consistent with basic definitions of engagement as "the state of being engaged". In turn, engaged is defined as "contracted for, pledged", "betrothed" and, more to the point for our purposes here, "involved in conflict or battle" (American Heritage Dictionary). It might be argued that it is sufficient for literature (and translation, by extension) to be involved in ideological conflict or battle, but such a view of engagement almost inevitably restricts the impact of such engagement to cultural elites, the difficulties of which have already been touched upon. As should already be obvious, I am also concerned in this paper not only with translations that demonstrate engagement on the object level, but also with discourses about translational engagement that operate on a meta-level. In translation studies it is particularly hard to separate these levels: translators theorize their own work, theorizations produce translation strategies and even actual translations. Thus, any discussion of translation and engagement must of necessity look at both.

3. An Irish case study: a touchstone for postcolonial translation theories and questions of engagement in translation Postcolonial approaches to translation are clearly central to the concerns and interests we are tracing. Following from descriptive approaches to translation, developed by Hamar Even-Zohar (1978, 1990), Gideon Toury (1980, 1982, 1991, 1995), Andre Lefevere (1982a, 1982b, 1992) and others, postcolonial translation studies take up questions about the interrelation of translation, power, ideology and politics. The development of these approaches to translation has been aptly summarized by Robinson (1997), where he attempts to delineate the broad field of postcolonial translation studies

and to situate within it the work of Niranjana, Cheyfitz and Rafael, relating this movement to the work of Venuti and others as well. Robinson (1997: 6) identifies what he has called the "narrative or utopian myth of postcolonial translation studies", a trajectory deriving from Frantz Fanon (1961/1963: 17879), among others, in which colonized cultures are seen as moving from a colonized stage in which colonial values are introjected, to a stage in which an independent identity begins to emerge but is constrained by opposition to the colonizers' values, to a third stage of decolonization in which truly autonomous perspectives can develop. Despite the excitement generated among scholars by postcolonial approaches to translation, however, in the context of his critique of Niranjana, Robinson (ibid: esp. 109-110, cf. 88-93, 104-113) notes the slim achievements in either translation theory or practice among those using postcolonial approaches to the field. Moreover, he observes (ibid: 78) that the issues raised by postcolonial translation theory are so gargantuan... , so enormous and complicated and thoroughly steeped in the social and political histories of cultures and civilizations spanning vast tracts of time and space, that it is difficult to move beyond gross generalizations in postcolonial approaches to translation studies. In Translation in a Postcolonial Context (1999) I have suggested that localism the study of particular translation movements located in the context of specific nations with their specific political contexts and specific histories - offers a means of moving beyond generalizations and of achieving sufficient specificity so that both translation studies and postcolonial studies can profit from the study of translation in postcolonial contexts. In the book I then proceed to analyze one of the most interesting case studies of political translation having to do with a colonized nation, namely the case of translating early Irish literature into English in the context of an emergent Irish cultural nationalism, through the formation of the Irish state, and on into the later 20th century as well. I have focused on the translation of medieval Irish heroic narratives, narratives which were harnassed in constructing and redirecting popular structures of feeling, moving Ireland away from a colonized consciousness to resistance and then to decolonization. Translation of early Irish texts, including translation of early Irish laws, annals and other cultural documents, was central to the emergence of Irish cultural nationalism - essential to the ability of the Irish to claim a history and culture for

themselves, for example, and the attempt to construct an identity for themselves that would free them from the English definitions of Irishness, definitions that at this distance are as malign as the most vicious colonial projections (see Tymoczko 1999: ch. 2). Translation of Irish literature per se was a cornerstone of the Irish literary revival, which was the seedbed of a great deal of Irish cultural nationalism in the period 18901916. Irish cultural nationalism in turn facilitated Irish political organization and, ultimately, Irish armed rebellion against Britain, a pivotal factor in the emergence of the Irish state and the end of colonial rule in most of Ireland. Ireland is a small country, but its struggle for independence sent shock waves through the whole British Empire, rocking the foundations of imperium, establishing paradigms of textuality and action that inspired the rest of the colonized world. In 1914 Lenin had predicted that a blow against the British Empire in Ireland would be of "a hundred times more significance than a blow of equal weight in Asia or in Africa" (quoted in Kiberd 1995: 197), and so it came to pass. The Irish drive for independence was watched and emulated by nationalist movements in India, Egypt and elsewhere, with tokens of solidarity being exchanged and advice sought of the Irish by other colonized countries. The British authorities saw the direction history was taking as early as 1919, and cabinet minutes reveal the fears that "if the Irish case were conceded, the flames of revolt would be fanned in India and elsewhere"; England would lose the empire and deserve to lose it. Marx had been accurate in foreseeing that Ireland was imperial England's weakest point, that with Ireland lost the British Empire would be gone.2 The history of the translation of early Irish literature into English, therefore, is the history of a translation practice that fired up Ireland, an entire country, an important country, albeit a small one. The translation movement was central to the Irish cultural revival, and from the Irish revival grew the political and military struggle that won freedom from England. When we perceive resistance to colonialism encoded in translations of early Irish literature as leading to engagement between Ireland and Britain, then the translation movement investigated in my work must be understood as having contributed notably to shaping the world all of us live in today. It was a translation practice that changed the world, a form of engagement as much as a form of writing. The role of translation in Irish political life can be seen in a graphic way in the

transformation of the hero C Chulainn. In the early Irish texts, although he is the son of a mortal woman and the god Lug, C Chulainn is also a louse-ridden youth, whose battle-rages cause him to become distorted and grotesque, a danger to friend and foe alike. He guards the border of his territory (Ulster), but leaves his post for a tryst with a woman - in pursuit of a woman's backside, as he puts it (cf. Kinsella 1969: 133) - thus allowing enemies to invade Ulster during the action narrated in the tale called Tin B Cailnge (literally, 'the driving off of the cows of Cailnge'). C Chulainn is ultimately killed by trickery and magic, after he insists on fighting when a strategic response would have demanded caution and refusal of battle. The patriotic translators at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th eliminate almost all of this. Gone are the lice, the grotesque distortion, the woman's backside, the dereliction of duty, the prodigal death. Though C Chulainn's supernatural birth is retained, the hero himself is decorous and noble, fighting against odds, and he dies in a scenario that nationalists saw as reminiscent of the Christian crucifixion. Because the Ulster Cycle in English translation and adaptation was subsumed within the framework of a heroic biography of C Chulainn, the stories could be integrated into a coherent pattern which worked to counter the depersonalization that colonized peoples suffer under colonialism,3 fostering instead self-confidence and heroic models of resistance to oppression. C Chulainn particularly as he was pictured in translations of Tin B Cailnge came to epitomize the ideal of militant Irish heroism, which thus became a personalized concept, rather than an abstract one. The paradigm permitted nationalist identification with a hero of the most militant and uncompromising sort, and it glorified both individualism and action on behalf of the tribe. The trajectory these translations set to the Easter Rising of 1916 was a literal one, not merely figurative, for C Chulainn was a personal model for Patrick Pearse, one of the leaders of the Rising. At the turn of the century, the story of C Chulainn was refracted in plays (including those of W. B. Yeats) and pageants, poetry and children's literature. Images of him were produced by artists for high culture arenas and popular culture alike. A mural of C Chulainn taking arms stood in the entrance hall of St. Enda's, the boys' school which Patrick Pearse directed for some years, and its motto, "I care not though I were to live but one day and one night provided my fame and my deeds live after me",

provided the ethos for the children. Pearse had as a stated goal the desire to have the boys model themselves on C Chulainn (cf. Tymoczko 1999: 80). This heroic representation of C Chulainn continues to play a role in Irish cultural life, embodied in Oliver Sheppard's statue of C Chulainn memorializing the Easter Rising, a statue that stands in the General Post Office in Dublin. Fifty years after the Irish state had won independence from Britain, these heroic representations were demythologized and deconstructed by Thomas Kinsella in The Tin, a 1969 translation of a number of the early Irish heroic tales. Kinsella transposed and even heightened the comic, earthy and sexual aspects of the texts, as well as C Chulainn's anti-heroic and grotesque qualities, challenging the nationalist tradition of noble Irish heroism. He translated in part to contest and subvert the pieties of Irish nationalism which had hardened into a repressive cultural ambience and a regressive politics. This demythologized and modernized C Chulainn is the image picked up and popularized by the Irish rock group Horselips in their record The Tin (1973). After the beginning of the troubles in Northern Ireland in 1968, the story of C Chulainn was enlisted once again for ideological purposes, figuring in Northern Ireland in murals painted by both Catholic and Protestant partisans engaged in a politics of violence and terror (cf. Rolston 1995: 17, 21, 28). Most recently, a representation of C Chulainn has been included in the videos that play at the visitors' centre at Emain Macha, a major archaeological site in Northern Ireland. These videos inculcate a patriotic consciousness about the Irish Gaelic heritage of Ulster, and themselves take a partisan position in the dialogue about Irish identity in Northern Ireland. In this sequence, which has been treated here in summary fashion, we find both interlinguistic translation and intersemiotic translation intertwining, shaping in various complex ways the evolution of Irish political life. I've focused on the manipulations of the contents of the early manuscripts in their English translations, but in my extended treatment of this topic (Tymoczko 1999), I discuss in detail the translational representations of Irish literary form, Irish genres, Irish names, Irish cultural concepts and world views, and so forth, illustrating the ideological implications of all these facets of the translations in multiple versions spanning more than a century. The translation history of early Irish literature into English parallels the decolonization of Ireland, and it stands as a prototype of translation as an activist enterprise with tangible geopolitical

results. In a variety of ways the Irish case also confirms the utopian narrative of postcolonial studies the movement from colonization, through a dialectical opposition to the colonizer, toward decolonization and cultural autonomy. There is an increasing assertion of native Irish culture in many respects in the translations, from the content of traditional Irish myths to material culture to literary form. This case study provides actual examples of translation correlated with political action, social change and engagement that are quite different from the effects that Venuti and others only theorize about or enjoin. It contrasts notably with the translation activity of such literary figures as Ezra Pound, whose writings are not correlated with tangible political movements or results. Ironically, moreover, however radical Pound's poetics, his political views led him down the path of fascism, which makes him a somewhat problematic model to hold out in any discussion of translation and engagement. The Irish materials offer an actual praxis that Niranjana hypothesizes as possible, but cannot herself realize. The Irish translations both nuance postcolonial translation theory as it is emerging and also show why Niranjana has so little to offer practically because the cultural interface of translating in a postcolonial context is so enormously complicated, so inherently difficult and so context specific, that results cannot be simply delivered whole cloth by a single translator at a single moment or indeed by any single approach to translation. The Irish translation movement can be considered traduction engage, that is, it has ideological orientation, but it is also engaged in the sense of "involved in conflict or battle", often in all too literal and graphic ways, as we see in the numerous cases of armed Irish partisans who have invoked C Chulainn on the way to combat.

4. Desiderata for a theoretical perspective on translation and engagement In order to understand the potential of translation for activism and political engagement, we need at least three things. First we need to have a theoretical approach to power. There has been a discourse about power and translation for some decades now, but until recently that discourse has been fairly muted. Many of the points about power and translation made by recent theorists were anticipated by Even-Zohar in both his 1978 and his 1990 publications formulating a polysystems approach to translation, but Even-Zohar's framework is difficult to use if one is interested in power and political

engagement, because he masks issues related to both with his rather sanitized vocabulary. It is difficult to tease out the geopolitical implications of centre and periphery, cultural prestige and so forth in his presentation of the issues (cf. Lambert 1995, Robinson 1997b: 31, 39). Although Even-Zohar acknowledges that there are power differentials between cultures, the cases he considers are of a different order of magnitude from the power differentials that colonialized countries struggle with or that exist in contemporary geopolitical contexts. Moreover, some of his theoretical language "high" vs. "low", for example is today distasteful, offensive and unacceptable. It is perhaps for reasons such as these that Niranjana is dismissive of Lefevere and the other polysystems translation theorists. Approaches pertaining to power and translation began to be more sharply focused when translation studies took "the cultural turn", approximately a decade ago, and translation scholars began to privilege questions of cultural context and cultural function, as well as ideology and purpose, in descriptive studies of translations. These issues were also foregrounded when translation began to be theorized with poststructuralist approaches, showing how translation is a site of cultural production, a product of cultural discourses, but also a means of shifting discourses, a means available for the purposes of identity formation.4 With postcolonial theories of translation, however, the discourse about translation and power reached a qualitatively new level. In part postcolonial theory has been attractive to literary studies as a whole because it is one of the few viable contemporary theoretical or critical approaches that actually deals overtly and concretely with oppression and cultural coercion, issues that command so much intellectual attention at present. In a climate where literary studies has been dominated by poststructuralist voices, such an approach is welcome to many, providing as it does an exit from the textualized world of French criticism and a return to practical experience, particularly when that practical experience can make compelling appeals for engagement and action, as can the situation of peoples struggling with disadvantaged positions, the residue of colonialism and neocolonial contexts worldwide. Postcolonial approaches unpack Even-Zohar' s ideas about centre and periphery in both concrete and theoretical terms pertaining to power. Moreover, they suggest strategies that have worked in cultural domains other than translation for contesting power structures; such

strategies and techniques offer the promise of being able to be learned and adapted by translators. The need for such an analytic framework has been especially acute in the last decade, since the erosion of Marxism after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Circumstances that could formerly be referred to or explained in terms of economic considerations and Marxist theory are not so easily resolved in scholarly circles at present. For reasons such as these, many diverse writers have fastened on postcolonial theory, at times extending its insights in rather fuzzy ways. They have developed dilute applications of postcolonial theory for various groups that have not actually been colonized; such approaches presuppose that colonization can be seen as a sort of ontological condition, rather than reflecting specific historical, economic and cultural configurations. This happens in part because, as I suggested above, postcolonial theory is currently one of the few viable theoretical approaches that addresses directly the geopolitical shifts and problems of power that dominated the 20th century. It is, in addition, one of the few discourses pertaining to power that has sustained itself since Marxism has fallen out of favour and been widely abandoned in academic circles; indeed postcolonial theory has recuperated many Marxist perspectives. As a result postcolonial theory has appealed to and been taken up by many diverse groups, groups that W. E. B. Du Bois might have referred to collectively as "imprisoned" peoples (1903/1989:34), from feminists to those subject to neocolonial economic manipulations. It should be obvious from my comments that I do not see postcoloniality as an ontological category, but rather as a complex set of circumstances responding to specific historical conditions associated with the European age of discovery, expansion and imperialism. I believe that the field of translation studies and literary studies in general is best served by setting issues of power in their specific spatio-temporal contexts, paying attention to differences as well as similarities. In fact attention to the specifics of history and context has become increasingly the norm in literary studies, and translation studies would do well to follow suit. Thus, it is important to distinguish struggles pertaining to power relevant to those who have been colonized per se from struggles pertinent to others suffering oppression for other reasons, just as within postcolonial studies it is important to differentiate the specific manifestations of colonialism experienced by the several peoples who have been colonized. In order to do

so, however, it will be helpful to have a more articulated theorization of power as it pertains to translation. A second requirement for understanding the relation between translation and political engagement is an adequate range of case studies to serve as data for investigation, comparison and contrast. Here the prospect is brighter, for the work is well underway and has achieved excellent results with respect to many situations, providing the basis for conclusions about translation and engagement. Thus, for example, with respect to postcolonial contexts there are important contributions about Egypt and North Africa in Venuti (1992), specifically the contributions of Richard Jacquemond and Samia Mehrez. Rafael (1993) has written about translation in relation to the colonization of the Philippines, and Cheyfitz (1991) has considered the role of translation in the colonization of the Americas. Studies of translation and colonization related to India include the work of Niranjana (1992) and Spivack (1992), of course, but also studies by Sengupta (1990, 1995) and Mukherjee (1994). An early study by Simms (1983) deals with cases in Pacific cultures. My own studies, as well as those of Lloyd (1982, 1987) and Cronin (1996), illuminate aspects of translation and political engagement in Ireland. Finally, Robinson (1997: ch. 3) has looked at the historical relations of empire and translation. There are collections of such studies, including the recent one edited by Bassnett and Trivedi (1998), and more such appear virtually every year. There are, in addition, cases studies which deal with political and ideological engagement in a broader sense: with power in its diverse manifestations throughout history and the nature of oppression and dominance more generally. Despite the muted terminology, a number of polysystems studies fall in this category (Hermans 1985; Lefevere and Jackson 1982). The same is true of many of Venuti's contributions in The Translator's Invisibility and The Scandals of Translation, as well as Venuti's special issue of The Translator (1998b) entitled Translation and Minority. Many of the studies on translation in Brazil can also be read in this light (cf. Vieira 1994). Similarly, an impressive literature has developed about Quebec, including contributions by de Lotbinire-Harwood (1991), Simon (1994) and Brisset (1990), among others. There is, as well, a growing body of studies on the role of language, literature and translation among the Spanish-speaking population of the United States. Broad issues related to

translation and power are also addressed directly in the volume which I am currently editing with Edwin Gentzler, entitled Translation and Power, as well as in the papers presented at a conference by the same title held at the University of Warwick in 1997. The result of all this work is that there is already available a large number of case studies that can serve as the evidentiary basis for both theoretical studies and empirical conclusions alike regarding translation and political engagement. Third, in order to relate translation to political engagement, we need theoretical concepts and practical methods that can be used to describe what makes specific examples of engaged translation effective, as well as to analyse the translation techniques that lead to political engagement. To date, the major tools of analysis proposed for these purposes are the cluster of related concepts and terms offered by Venuti. In his various works he speaks of abusive fidelity, foreignizing vs. domesticating translation, fluent vs. resistant translation (orfluency and resistancy), and most recently minoritizing translation. It is worth examining these concepts, as well as their usefulness, in some detail.

5. Venuti's contribution to the discourse on translation and engagement Although Venuti has developed an impressive number of terms ostensibly useful for analysing aspects of translation related to engagement, power and politics, he does not carefully define any of them. This is in part because the concepts he develops and the terms he uses are not strictly speaking his own invention. We can trace the pedigree of abusive fidelity, for example, to Philip Lewis's concept of traduction abusive (Lewis 1985). The distinction between foreignizing and domesticating translations is based on earlier conceptualizations of domestication that have been formulated outside translation theory and used broadly in literary criticism. And resistance, which is at the root of Venuti's concept of resistant translation or resistancy, is a word with very wide political and ideological associations, evoking, for example, la Resistance, the French name for the opposition movement to the Nazis during World War II. Finally, Venuti's most recent term, minoritizing translation, goes back to the concept of a minor literature developed by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, while his discussion of the remainder in translation is based upon the work of Jean-Jacques Lecercle (Venuti 1995:216-200, 1998a).

It is telling that Venuti uses a number of terms rather than employing a unified terminology: it allows him to shift ground and alter the basis of his argument as it suits him, without committing himself to the particularities, difficulties and implications of any one term, any one concept, or any one distinction that he is working with. Moreover, his shifting terminology is deployed in part to avoid defining his terms with any particularity or specificity of meaning, and it permits him to sidestep defending or justifying his terms as needed. Venuti is able, consequently, to evade accountability for logical difficulties and logical consequences associated with his terminology. I think it is no accident that in his most recent work, The Scandals of Translation, Venuti has essentially abandoned his former terms, tacitly acknowledging the weaknesses of the earlier terminology and his inability to defend it or even to deploy it in useful theoretical ways. A further problem we can point to in Venuti's work is that his style of argument is very informal, indeed even at times lax (cf. Pym 1996). He tends to assert things rather than argue for them or present evidence for them. Thus, for example, he claims that fluency is the dominant standard for translations in the United States at present, but offers little evidence of that claim, except for his own experience, experience which is based primarily on the translation of nineteenth- and twentieth-century literary works between European languages. By contrast, in translation domains with which I am most familiar namely the translation of languages that are not globalized and the translation of languages from former times fluency is most decidedly not the norm. Indeed it goes very much against the grain to offer literary or even reader friendly translations in such fields, because philological standards have generally remained dominant in most language transfer involving minority languages and the languages of non-Westernized cultures as well. My contention here is not to dispute one of Venuti's major points that dominant English-speaking culture tends to colonize the cultural products of other cultures. In fact, philological translations colonize texts by taking literary texts, for example, and turning them into non-literary texts, all in the name of accuracy, as I have argued in detail elsewhere (Tymoczko 1999: ch. 9). What should be observed, however, is that cultural dominance results in translations with deformed textual and cultural representation that serves the interests of the dominant receptor culture. Such deformation is not necessarily to be associated with a single type of translation method,

such as fluency. Rather, any translation procedure can become a tool of cultural colonization, even foreignizing translation.5 I would suggest that Venuti's shifting terminology in conjunction with his loose style of argument makes it difficult to use his concepts or to extend his arguments. This is in striking contrast to the concepts and arguments of, say, Eugene Nida (1964), EvenZohar (1978, 1990) or Toury (1980, 1995), whose theories of translation are in many ways seriously flawed, yet whose concepts are almost immediately useful to and capable of extension by any new reader. These problems with Venuti's work are apparent, for example, in his concept of resistance (1995), which, as he uses it, does not form a coherent category that allows us to replicate his conclusions or extend his perceptions. Sometimes in Venuti's work a resistant translation is a translation which involves what he calls "discursive strategies" that depend heavily on translating into a form of the target language that departs radically from standard norms, a form of the target language that is deformed to reflect the source language. Such a translation Venuti calls "foreignizing" (1995:chs. 3,5). Elsewhere, however, Venuti indicates that resistant translation may be found in texts even though the discursive strategies are "fluent" - that is conforming to target language norms, not foreignizing - because resistance can lie in the choice of the text itself (1995: ch. 4). In fact he writes (1995: 186, cf. 148), "the choice of a foreign text for translation can be just as foreignizing in its impact on the target language culture as the invention of a discursive strategy". Perhaps one reason Venuti shifts terminology, moving between foreignizing and resistant and most recently minoritizing, is because he shifts his basic ground of argument as well, without explicitly acknowledging the fact and without acknowledging the problems such shifts cause in the logic of his argument. Venuti has a hard time maintaining consistent distinctions between the polar opposites he works with, a difficulty that is actually no surprise. A number of translation theorists, including myself, have argued that such binaries do not work very well in translation studies and that the best of binaries tend to break down; see Bassnett (1992), Tymoczko (1985, 1999: ch. 1), and sources cited. Not surprising, similar objections can be raised with respect to the binaries that Venuti proposes - whether it is the binary of fluent/resistant or foreignizing/domesticating.

In and of itself, it is not problematic that Venuti offers no tight definition of his concepts, namely, necessary and sufficient conditions for a translation to be resistant or foreignizing. Not all concepts or categories can be defined by criteria that identify all members of the set, excluding none. Typically cluster concepts, for example, cannot be so defined - such concepts are very common and include the concept of game, a concept investigated by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953), one of the people who have thought most deeply about such categories. What is problematic with Venuti's work, however, is that it is hard to see how his category of resistant translations is linked even by the types of linkages that hold together cluster categories - linkages that Wittgenstein called "family resemblances" (1953: sections 65-67). What Wittgenstein meant by "family resemblances" is a series of partially overlapping characteristics which bind together a group, no single subset of which is characteristic of all members. For Venuti, however, a resistant translation can be characterized either by choice of text (rather than discursive strategy) or discursive strategy (rather than choice of text) - that is, instead of articulating a cluster of family resemblances, he seems to attempt to define a category characterized by disjuncts of various properties rather than partial overlaps. One could respond that Venuti is defining a functional category, a category formed by its purpose or function rather than by any ostensive surface characteristics. The trouble with this line of argument is that the functions picked out by Venuti's approaches to translation are not coherent either. In fact, the functions of minoritizing or resistant or foreignizing translations are quite variable, assuming for the moment that we can pick out translations corresponding to these terms. We must ask, for example, whether Venuti is attempting to define a category associated with functional resistance to all cultural oppression. If so, how are we to distinguish situations where resistance to internal cultural oppression should be preferred over resistance to external cultural oppression? For example, should translators in the United States exert themselves to resist external monied influences, say Japanese or German investment interests? Should writers in postcolonial countries resist problems internal to their governments or cultures in picking translation strategies or should they focus on resistance to neocolonialism? If language is complicit with power and hegemony and if functional resistance to such linguistic structures is to be desired in all situations, are all forms of ostranie or defamiliarization to be valued in translation? If so, how do we distinguish

resistant translations from translations that are unreadable? Where in language does ideological tyranny end and grammar begin? As Clifford (1997: 10, ch. 6) implicitly asks, is all subversion good? There is nothing in Venuti's definitions of his concepts or articulation of them that helps us to answer such questions. What questions such as these suggest is that ultimately the recognition of Venuti's concept of resistance is less dependent on identifiable criteria or specific functions pertaining to translation than on somewhat arbitrary personal judgments - a matter of taste, let us say - on the part of Venuti and others who use his approaches. Indeed, if Venuti's concept of resistance is neither a formal nor a functional category, one must ask whether it is a category at all - a category that scholars can learn to recognize and apply consistently. Clearly, if these concepts of resistance and resistant translation - or foreignizing, or minoritizing - are to become tools that can be widely used in translation research, they must be identifiable and applicable, and their presence must at the least be able to be detected and agreed upon by diverse researchers. They cannot depend ultimately on personal taste. If I am right in discerning a problem here, we are faced with a real difficulty in using Venuti's concepts, for a sine qua non of the usefulness in research of a critical tool or of critical terms is replicability and transfer, both of which seem problematic in the case of extending Venuti's arguments. We might summarize the previous objection to Venuti's terminology by stating that he does not make it clear what precisely is to be understood by, say, resistant translation or what qualities are to be counted as resistant. Let us assume for the moment, however, that we could identify what constitutes resistance, there is still another problem with the concepts and terms proposed by Venuti. Of the particular qualities or functions he is interested in, Venuti does not make it clear how much would be sufficient to characterize a translation overall as being resistant or foreignizing. That is, how much resistance must there be in a translation for it to count as a resistant translation? How many instances of abusive fidelity or foreignizing or minoritizing language are necessary for a translation as a whole to be counted as foreignizing, and so forth? Again, Venuti gives us no guidance and no criteria to make such a judgment, leaving it to the individual researcher to set the bar. This may sound like nitpicking, but I suggest that the problem here is suspiciously like a variant of the age-old question of whether something is really radical. How radical is radical? Who gets to decide, to make

the judgement, and on what basis? And if the determination of standards is open to anyone, can this be the basis of sound theory and research? Equally problematic in this regard is the related question of how to apply these concepts to translations of previous ages and how to judge such translations of the past. Thus, for example, how does the passage of time affect the quality of resistance? Once resistant, always resistant? Or is resistance related to the specific historic and cultural moment of a translation? And if the latter is true, what criteria of interface with the cultural context determine resistance? Can we fault translations of the past for not being sufficiently resistant? Most people, of course, would agree that in such a case the determination of resistance must be culturally specific. But if so, then we must ask what theoretical advance Venuti has made over the work of the systems theorists such as Even-Zohar, Toury or Lefevere in identifying translations and translation methods that are effective means of engagement? Venuti appears to be offering criteria that can be used to judge and sort translations, to identify types of translations that lead to substantial social change, but those criteria erode into relativist uncertainty as we look at his work more closely and attempt to determine how to extend his thought. He suggests that he is offering a conceptual tool for analyzing translations, a kind of absolute or universal standard of valuation, with a sort of on/off quality rather than a sliding scale, but where and how the lines are to be drawn in applying his concepts are nowhere articulated for the scholarly community. Note that this objection does not obtain with respect to many other criteria used to judge, sort and distinguish translations, even binary distinctions that I would take to be ultimately problematic. Thus, the criteria for determining whether a translation is formal-equivalence or dynamic-equivalence, adequate or acceptable, are well enough articulated and stable enough across cultures so that one could look at both present and past translations and know roughly how to label them, if one were required to use those criteria (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether these labels are as useful as those who have propounded them could wish). With Venuti's terminology, there are more acute problems. One begins to suspect that Venuti does indeed offer an absolute scale, but that it is only absolute in virtue of being unique, personal or even solipsistic with respect to Venuti himself (or whoever else might use the term) as the final sole judge and arbiter of

the situation. There is an implicit suggestion in Venuti's writing that all right-minded thinkers will understand and agree, but this actually constitutes an implicit appeal to exiguous personal and political standards of judgment rather than standards of judgment pertaining to translation processes or products themselves. Venuti openly acknowledges his political agenda in his writing, and I am not criticizing him for his political positions per se, most of which I am sympathetic to and in fact share, nor for having a political agenda. The issue is the following: if we are to build up a theory and practice of translation in relation to political engagement, we must have conceptual and analytic tools for doing so, and my concern here is with evaluating and criticizing the tools Venuti has offered. His concepts are a version of leftist rhetoric, an application of standards of political correctness that turn ultimately to individuals or to a party for arbitration of political appropriateness. They are not finally very specific or germane to the particular subject matter or content of translation as a cultural phenomenon. Ironically, what I am suggesting is that Venuti uses the methods of descriptive studies of translation, but ultimately his approach is a normative one, and a highly rigid and autocratic approach to norms at that, making ultimate appeal to his own view of politics rather than to the methods or contexts of translation. This is actually something that Venuti comes close to acknowledging in his most recent work.6 If it is true, however, then ultimately Venuti's methods and concepts lead us backward rather than forward in the development of translation studies, for the development of descriptive approaches as an alternative to normative approaches has been a major watershed in the expansion of the contemporary academic disciplines related to translation. These difficulties with Venuti's terms underlie additional problems observed by others before me (see, for example, Bennett 1999, Pym 1996, Robinson 1997a:108ff., 1997b:97-112). Venuti's normative stance about foreignizing and resistant translation is highly specific in its cultural application; it pertains to translation in powerful countries in the West in general and to translation in the United States in particular. Venuti has been criticized for not offering a theory that is transitive that can be applied to translation in smaller countries, in countries that are at a disadvantage in hierarchies of economic and cultural prestige and power. In this sense his approach is not applicable to translation in postcolonial countries. Indeed the methods he proposes for achieving resistance would in those circumstances lead to the further erosion of cultural autonomy

and power. It is probably in part to rectify this theoretical and practical problem that Venuti has recently shifted his discussion to "minoritizing" translation, but most of the objections that I have already put forward pertain to this new critical formulation and, indeed, others have opened up.7 Moreover, Venuti's project, whatever the terms he uses, seems to be an elitist one, and Robinson (1997), among others, has rightly questioned how useful such elitism can be in political agendas. Despite all Venuti's jargon and seemingly precise technical terminology, in fact his position is rather amorphous and dilute. His brief is roughly to suggest that the translator with a social conscience should attempt to benefit humanity and further social justice by picking a text and a translation method that challenge dominant cultural standards, particularly those dominant standards associated with imperialism or neoimperialism. But many translators have believed and acted upon those principles long before Venuti ever began to write. As for analysis of how those effects are achieved, the ideological elements of translations and groups of translations can be described and theorized just as precisely with ordinary language as with the terms that Venuti proffers. If Venuti's writing offers us less than we need in the way of theoretical concepts and practical methods to describe and analyze the relationship between translation and engagement, where does that leave us? For terminology, in addition to ordinary language, we can always return to various types of historicist analyses, including polysystems approaches. The problem here, as noted earlier, is that the sanitized terminology does not lend itself easily to discussions of ideology, power and engagement. We can also, of course, pursue the application of postcolonial theory to translation studies. In fact there are a number of concepts and terms developed by postcolonial theory that have the potential to be of great use within translation studies, including hybridity, transculturation, radical bilingualism, double writing, and so forth, but this is an approach that is still in its infancy, needing to be nuanced and more fully articulated. A third possibility for a theory and praxis of translation as a form of engagement is to develop approaches to translation based on deconstruction, which may offer tools as the approach is developed over the next years. What becomes clear from the analysis I have undertaken here, however, is the need in translation studies for both terminology and methods of analysis appropriate to this topic, focused on and relevant to the largest geopolitical issues pertaining to translation, not just pertinent to colonized

peoples or to dominant cultures, but adaptable to all political contexts and historical specificities.

6. Conclusion There is a time-honoured tradition of using texts for revolutionary purposes. The American Revolution is a prime example of a political movement that used textual means for achieving its ends, and it served as a model for many other revolutions, including the Irish rebellion against Britain. Both in turn look back to the pamphlets of Jonathan Swift and other writers of the 18th century, including the writers of the French Enlightenment. Where such textualized means of engagement have been successful, however, they were almost invariably associated with a larger political project, as for example Thomas Paine's pamphlets or the Declaration of Independence were with respect to the American Revolution. As Robinson has argued (1997:108ff.), moreover, to be effective for political engagement, a text and a group that uses the text must have widespread and general appeal. One reason textualized means, including translation, were effective in Ireland as it struggled for freedom is that texts inciting cultural nationalism had popular appeal through the Irish literary movement, the Irish dramatic movement and the Irish movement to edit and translate early Irish texts, all of which were inclusive movements, consciously appealing to all segments of the Irish polity. Indeed the Irish cultural nationalists worked very hard at building such mass appeal, developing hundreds of local chapters of the Gaelic League, staging popular dramatic productions, taking their productions on the road to villages and towns in the countryside, and making available inexpensive editions and translations of texts for the common reader. But such things are difficult and involve a concerted effort of literati and political leaders, sometimes even an identity of the two, as the case of the Irish patriots Eoin MacNeill, Patrick Pearse and Douglas Hyde illustrates. Growing out of my own experience as someone committed to engagement in both radical and electoral politics during the last 40 years, as well as my experience with textual production, I personally would recommend that if a person were interested in being engaged, he or she should undertake direct action rather than sublimated textualized political involvement. Direct action is generally more efficient and more

effective, for textualized means so often have a tendency to become hermetic and displaced, not to mention uncertain in their results. And after recent history, which has demonstrated repeatedly how easily elites can be purged, wiped out, eliminated and swept aside, it is difficult to have confidence in the effectiveness of movements oriented to a literary elite. If one were nonetheless intent on using translation as a means of political engagement, the following can be suggested, based on the effectiveness of the Irish translation movement. For a translation movement to be effectively engaged, it needs a clear set of shared goals and values. Political effectiveness is most likely if there is a group of translators acting in concert and if the translators as a group operate within the context of a larger cultural and political movement, which might include the production of other textual forms (theatre, literature of various types, pamphlets, speeches, manifestoes, and so on), as well as diverse forms of activism and direct community organization. There should be a defined audience large enough to initiate and support cultural shifts, such as the integrated, popular audience in Ireland at the turn of the century. Texts must be chosen for translation with political goals in view, and, if need be, there must be a willingness to manipulate the texts in translation, so as to adapt and subordinate the texts to political aims and agendas. The intent to transmit the texts closely, in and for themselves, must in many cases - perhaps even most - be abandoned. It is important to flag this point for this type of radical manipulation of texts is usually inimical to most people whose primary orientation is to the integrity of texts per se. Translators should be ingenious and varied in their approach to translation. No single translation approach or strategy is likely to suffice - whether it is literal or free, "domesticating" or "foreignizing". Instead, as the Irish translations show, multiple strategies should be deployed and maximum tactical flexibility maintained, so as to respond to the immediate cultural context most effectively. It may even be desirable, as in the Irish case, to have multiple and complementary representations of the same set of texts. Trying to prescribe a single translation strategy is like trying to prescribe a single strategy for effective guerrilla warfare. What is required

instead is a certain opportunistic vitality that seizes upon immediate short term gains as the long-term goal remains in view. In reviewing this list it is interesting to observe that these characteristics pick out other translation movements besides that of Ireland: they characterize the separatist and feminist translation movements in Quebec and the cannibalists of Brazil, for example. One final thought. Even when translation is effective as a means of political engagement, as in the case of Ireland at the turn of the century, it does not necessarily follow that one will fully approve of the consequences. History has a way of playing tricks on its principals. The study of translation in Ireland offers a cautionary lesson to those revisionists in translation studies who have made calls for translation to assume a geopolitical role fostering resistance to oppression of various kinds. The Irish translation movement is in fact, as we have seen, a rare example of exactly what is called for: a highly successful, popular translation movement that contributed in a material way to the end of imperial domination in Ireland. Yet in retrospect it is clear that there are also bitter ironies to its geopolitical success. Responding to the dual pressures of colonialism and nationalism, the image of Irish culture constructed by the translations of early Irish literature portrayed the Irish as tragic, heroic, militant, noble and chaste. After independence the images or representations of the Irish built up during the period of cultural nationalism were institutionalized by the Irish state and ultimately written into the constitution. This development took the form, among other things, of granting the Catholic Church a special place in the state apparatus, of explicitly defining women's role as homebound and associated with traditional female values, and of establishing an active state apparatus of censorship. The translations were instrumental in replacing colonial stereotypes of the Irish with new valorized images, but it is also clear in retrospect that those images helped to construct the stifling social mores of post-independence Ireland. The translation movement also contributed to a continuing ethos of violence, albeit violence held in check for some decades. Thus the image of the Irish constructed in large measure by translations of early Irish literature was the foundation of many of the reactionary features of Irish culture from the 1920s right to the 1970s. The image of Irish culture formulated in translations of early Irish literature also became a sort of cultural prison, restricting cultural change and the emergence of a fully

decolonized perception of Ireland's cultural heritage. Paradoxically the images created by the translation movement came to constrain the process of translation itself, resulting in the suppression of further translations of Irish literature for almost 50 years.8 Another way of putting this point is to say that translations of early Irish literature facilitated cultural nationalism and the independence movement, but they also resulted in a rigid, petrified, and even fetishized image of Irish culture and Irish tradition that persisted for decades after independence. The emphasis on heroism and violence in the early translations, moreover, contributed to the violent conflicts in Northern Ireland, with C Chulainn being appropriated as an ideal image by both sides in the hostilities. Thus, the Irish translation movement led not simply to Irish political independence, but also to a regressive, repressive state, to civil war and to violence in the North, an angry harvest that could not have been foreseen by the Unionist Standish O'Grady, the scholar Eleanor Hull, the Gaelic Leaguer Mary Hutton, or the sometime revolutionary Lady Augusta Gregory as they prepared their translations of the early stories. The moral is, be careful what you wish for. The good news about translation and political engagement is that it is protean, with the potential to change and change again the representations it creates. Because there can be no final translation, translation itself may offer solutions to the problems it creates and repair the damages it causes.9 This is the motivation behind Niranjana's call for retranslation and her observation that retranslation and the rewriting of history are one. We can add that the rewriting of the past through and in association with translation is also a rescripting of the present and the future. Because of the necessity of renewing translations, translation is a cultural function that ultimately resists the fetishizing of cultural objects and cultural constructs - including the fetishizing of a national tradition. Translation acts to counter the petrification of images of the past, of readings of culture and tradition. Thus, translation is also potentially a perpetual locus of political engagement. MARIA TYMOCZKO Department of Comparative Literature, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 309 South College, Amherst, MA 01003, USA. tymoczko@complit.umass.edu

Notes
1. For other criticisms of the "filter-down theory" of cultural practices, see Pym (1996:166-67). 2. On these points see Kiberd (1995:255, 275-76). 3. The depersonalization under colonialism is discussed by Fanon (1961/1963, 1952/[1968); cf. Mills (1997: 1 13ff.). 4. These issues are discussed at greater length in the introduction to Tymoczko and Gentzler, Translation and Power, in preparation. 5. Jacquemond (1992) illustrates the way that exoticization can reinforce cultural oppression; cf. examples in Bennett (1999) as well. 6. See Venuti (1998: ch. 1). Venuti rather disingenuously suggests that descriptive approaches to translation primarily restrict their purview to norms, avoiding questions of ideology. 7. For example, most of the language used in a translation will inevitably be shaped by majority speech - thus, even in a "minoritizing" translation, won't the power of the majority continue to work most powerfully? And more significantly: can one produce a minoritizing translation if one is not part of a minority? To set the problems of Venuti's concept of resistance in relief, we can compare it to Doris Summer's (1992) concept of resistance in literary writing. Sommer gives a definition that allows the reader to understand her concept clearly, to apply her concept and to replicate and extend her findings. Moreover, the criteria she puts forth are textual ones rather than criteria that refer to extra-textual aspects of ideological affiliation, even though her criteria define an ideological position for a text. Finally, her concept is transitive, able to refer to the functioning of texts with respect to both dominant and subaltern cultures, useful no matter what the political context. In these various respects, then, Sommer's concept is much more durable and useful as an intellectual tool than the concepts developed by Venuti. 8. There is a stark record of zero translation of many of the early texts for decades after independence. This is apparent in the fifty-year gap between the 1914 translation of Tin B Cailnge by Joseph Dunn, for example, and the next translations, those of Kinsella and Cecile O'Rahilly in the late 1960s (see Tymoczko 1999: ch. 2). Only in the Irish language itself was another image of the Irish available. 9. In Ireland the translations of Kinsella are a concrete example of this phenomenon.

References Bassnett, Susan (1992) 'Writing in No Man's Land: Questions of Gender and Translation', in Malcolm Coulthard (ed) Studies in Translation, special issue of

Ilha do Desterro 28: 63-73. ------ (1993) Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell. ------- and Harish Trivedi (eds) (1999) Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice, London: Routledge. Benjamin, Walter (1923/1969) 'The Task of the Translator', Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn, New York: Schocken, 69-82. Bennett, Paul (1999) Review of The Scandals of Translation, by Lawrence Venuti, The Translator 5(1): 127-34. Bhabha, Homi K. (1994) The Location of Culture, London: Routledge. Brisset, Annie (1990/1996) A Sociocritique of Translation: Theatre and Alterity in Quebec, 1968-1988, trans. Rosalind Gill and Roger Gannon, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Cheyfitz, Eric (1991/1997) The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from 'The Tempest' to 'Tarzan', Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, expanded edition. Clifford, James (1997) Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cronin, Michael (1996) Translating Ireland: Translation, Languages, Cultures, Cork: Cork University Press. De Lotbinire-Harwood, Susanne (1991) Re-belle et infidle: la Traduction comme pratique de rcriture au fminin; The Body Bilingual: Translation as a Rewriting in the Feminine, Montreal: Editions du remue-menage. Derrida, Jacques (1985) 'Des Tours de Babel', trans. Joseph F. Graham, in Joseph F. Graham (ed) Difference in Translation, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 165-248. Dingwaney, Anuradha, and Carol Maier (eds) (1995) Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross-cultural Texts, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903/1989) The Souls of Black Folk, New York: Bantam Books. Even-Zohar, Itamar (1978) Papers in Historical Poetics, Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics & Semiotics. ------ (1990) Polysystem Studies. Special Issue of Poetics Today 11 (1). Fanon, Frantz (1952/1968) Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Charles Lam Markmann, New York: Grove Press.

------ (1961/1963) The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington, New York: Grove Press. Godard, Barbara (1990) 'Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation' , in Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere (eds) Translation, History and Culture, London: Pinter, 8796. Hermans, Theo (ed) (1985) The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, London: Croom Helm. Jacquemond, Richard (1992) 'Translation and Cultural Hegemony: The Case of French/Arabic Translation', in Lawrence Venuti (ed) Rethinking Translation, London: Routledge, 139-58. Kiberd, Dec1an (1995) Inventing Ireland, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ------ (1998) 'Romantic Ireland's Dead and Gone: The English-speaking Republic as the Crucible of Modernity', TLS, 12 June, 12-14. Kinsella, Thomas (trans) (1969/1970) The Tin, London: Oxford University Press. Lambert, Jose (1995) 'Literatures, Translation, and (De)Colonization', in Theresa Hyun and Jose Lambert (eds) Translation and Modernization, Vol. 4 of The Force ofVision: Proceedings of the XIIth Congress of the ICLA, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 98-117. Lefevere, Andre (1982a) 'Literary Theory and Translated Literature', in Andre Lefevere and Kenneth David Jackson (eds) The Art and Science of Translation. Special Issue of Dispositio 7: 3-22. ------ (1982b) 'Mother Courage's Cucumbers: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature', Modern Language Studies 12: 3-20. ------ (1992) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London: Routledge. ------ and Kenneth David Jackson (eds) (1982) The Art and Science of Translation. Special Issue of Dispositio 7. Lewis, Philip E. (1985) 'The Measure of Translation Effects' , in Joseph F. Graham (ed) Difference in Translation, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 31-62. Lloyd, David (1982) 'Translator as Refractor: Towards a Re-reading of James Clarence Mangan as Translator', in Andre Lefevere and Kenneth David Jackson (eds) The Art and Science of Translation. Special Issue of Dispositio 7: 141-62.

------ (1987) Nationalism and Minor Literature: James Clarence Mangan and the Emergence of Irish Cultural Nationalism, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Mehrez, Samia (1992) 'Translation and the Postcolonial Experience: The Francophone North African Text', in Lawrence Venuti (ed) Rethinking Translation, London: Routledge, 120-38. Mills, Sara (1997) Discourse, London: Routledge. Mukherjee, Sujit (1994) Translation as Discovery and Other Essays on Indian Literature in English Translation, London: Sangam Books, 2nd Edition. Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Niranjana, Tejaswini (1992) Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context, Berkeley: University of California Press. Pym, Anthony (1996) 'Venuti's Visibility', Target 8(1): 165-77. Rafael, Vicente L. (1993) Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule, Durham: Duke University Press, Revised Edition. Robinson, Douglas (1997a) Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. ------ (1997b) What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions, Kent: Kent State University Press. Rolston, Bill (1995) Drawing Support 2: Murals of War and Peace, Belfast: Beyond the Pale Publications. Said, Edward W. (1993) Culture and Imperialism, New York: Vintage. Sengupta, Mahasweta (1990) 'Translation, Colonialism and Poetics: Rabindranath Tagore in Two Worlds', in Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere (eds) Translation, History and Culture, London: Pinter, 56-63. ------ (1995) 'Translation as Manipulation: The Power of Images and Images of Power', in Anuradha Dingwaney and Carol Maier (eds) Between Languages and Cultures, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 159-74. Simms, Norman (1983) 'Three Types of "Touchy" Translation', in Norman Simms (ed) Nimrod's Sin. Issue of Pacific Quarterly Moana 8(2): 48-58. Simon, Sherry (1994) Le Trafic des langues: traduction et culture dans la littrature

qubcoise, Quebec: Boreal. ------ (1996) Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics ofTransmission, London: Routledge. Sommer, Doris (1992) 'Resistant Texts and Incompetent Readers', Latin American Literary Review 20(40): 104-108. Spivack, Gayatri Chakravorty (1992) 'The Politics of Translation', in Michle Barrett and Anne Phillips (eds) Destabilizing Theory, Oxford: Polity Press, 177-200. Toury, Gideon (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics & Semiotics. ------ (1982) 'A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies' , in Andre Lefevere and Kenneth David Jackson (eds) The Art and Science of Translation. Special Issue of Dispositio 7: 22-39. ------ (1991) 'What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions?', in Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens (eds) Translation Studies: The State of the Art, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 179-92. ------ (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tymoczko, Maria (1985) 'How Distinct are Formal and Dynamic Equivalence?', in Theo Hermans (ed) The Manipulation of Literature, London: Croom Helm, 63-86. ------ (1999) Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Venuti, Lawrence (ed) (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, London: Routledge. ------ (1995) The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, London: Routledge. ------ (1998a) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, London: Routledge. ------ (ed) (1998b) Translation and Minority. Special Issue of The Translator 4(2). Vieira, Else (1994) 'A Postmodem Translation Aesthetics in Brazil', in Mary SnellHornby, Franz Pchhacker and Klaus Kaindl (eds) Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 65-72. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophische untersuchungen, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, New York: Macmillan.