Preface and acknowledgements ‘The formulation for this project has had a long gestation period. After the publication of my first book, Contemporary Translation Theories (1993; revised second edition 2001}, I found myself lecturing on theories that originated primarily in Europe—translation studies, functional translation, systems theory, deconstruction—and had litle time to focus on my fist love, American literature. During che 1990s, there was much more research fon translational phenomena being undertaken in Europe than in the Americas, and those were exciting times for the field, as all those scholars ‘who have taken the “culeural turn” can attest. My being lost in the explosion of translation theories—new descriptive, communication, cultural, colonial, postcolonial, poststructural theories—is perhaps excusable, given the boom, but all the while I was also traveling in the American hemisphere, 100, reading works, talking with scholars, and gaining new insights. This book reflects that period of study, and in many ways also better reflects my ‘own ideas about translation. T hope that this book may be seen as a sequel to the earlier work: Contemporary Translation Theories ended with my reflection on deconstruction and postcolonial theories of translation, which is precisely ‘where Translation and Identity in the Americas begins. The nation-states ‘of the Americas are artificial ones at best, carved out of the New World by colonizing powers until the postcolonial movements led the way t0 revolution and independence across the hemisphere. Thus, deconstruction and postcolonial theories, when applied to the Americas, help uncover theo: retical questions regarding definitions of nation, nation-state, and national language, as well as ontological questions with regard to emerging concepts of identity. Such inquiry transitions quite naturally to the translational, ‘ranscultural, and transnational theories chat follow. wish to express my sincece thanks to Susan Bassnett at the University ‘of Warwick, with whom I discussed this book at its earliest stages, and who is a keen student of North American and Latin American literature, women’s studies, as well as translation theory. She provided intellectual support, encouragement, and friendship throughout. I also wish to express my grati- tude to the hosts at the schools where I have been invited to speak, duringSenn naneenmnnennnnenennrnnnnyrrirreer errr xvi. Preface and acknowledgements which time I discussed many of the ideas which follow. In Brazil I thank John Milton at the University of Sio Paulo, Neusa da Silva Matte at the Federal University of Rio Grande, Rosemary Arrojo at Campinas University (later at Binghamton University), Adriana Pagano at the Federal University fof Minas Gerais, and Else Vieira at Minas Gerais (later atthe University of London). In Canada, I thank Sherry Simon and Pier-Pascal Boulanger at ‘Concordia University; Marco Fiolo, Judith Lavoie, Clara Foz, Paul Bandia, {Georges Bastin, and the officers of the Canadian Association of Translation Seudies (CATS), who invited me to speak at their annual meeting at the University of Western Ontario; and Annie Brisset at Ottawa University. In the United States, I thank Christopher Larkosh at the University of Connecticut (later at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth); Jeffrey Green and Rainer Schulte at che University of Texas at Dallas; Marco Miletich at Hunter College; Tomislav Longinovie at the University of ‘Wisconsin-Madison; Marilyn Gaddis Rose at Binghamton University: and Geoff Koby, Brian Baer, Claudia Angeleli, Jonathan Hine, and my fellow officers of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association [ATISA). In Mexico, I thank Danielle Zaslaysky at El Colegio de México and Miguel Vallejo at the Universidad de Veracruzana, In Peru, I thank Ivana Suito and Cecilia Lozano at the Colegio de Traductores del Pers, and in Argentina, I thank Astrid Wenzel at the Colegio de Traductores Pablicos de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (CTPCBA). In Europe, I chank Assompta ‘Camps at the Universidad de Barcelona, Christina Schaffner at Aston University, Mona Baker at Manchester University, Federico Federict at the University of Leeds (aow at Durham University), and Lev Zybatow at Innsbruck University T thank my colleagues at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, including Deans of the College of Humanities and Fine Arts Lee Edwards (tetired) and Joel Marti (current), Chair of the Department of Languages, Literatuzes, and Cultures Julie Hayes, and Professors of Comparative Literature Maria Tymoczko and William Moebius. I thank my friends atthe Five College Crossroads in the Sudy of the Americas (CISA), including Robert Schwartzwald (now atthe University of Montréal) and Jana Braziel {now at the University of Cincinnati), who invited me to teach a section on translation in their “Rethinking the Americas” course. In particular, I want to thank all the graduate students in the MA in Translation Studies and the PhD in Comparative Literature Programs for participation in seminars ‘and engagement with many of the ideas ofthe book. I thank my staff at the Translation Center, including Shawn Lindohlm, Gérkem Cilam, and “Adam LaMontagne, who assamed many of my duties to enable me to study ‘and write. Particular thanks go to my colleagues who read individual Chapters and gave me feedback, including Sherry Simon, Aaron Suko, Maura ‘Talmadge, and Christopher Larkosh. Iam most grateful to Louise Semlyen, Editor, and Ursula Mallows, Editorial Assistant, at Routledge for ther belief in this project and for their editorial expertise. My deepest gratitude goes to Preface and acknowledgements xvii my wile, Jenny Spencer, who also read numerous drafts and exchanged ideas Whe nd vo ny davgtes Megan, fo nr conte love and suppor. ‘A few acknowledgements are in order. The first presentation ofthe ideas that were part of the initial formulation of this book occurred at the University of Manchester ia a talk tiled “What Is Different about ‘anslation in the Americas?” which was later published in CTIS Occasional Papers, vol.2, Manchester: UMIST (2002): 7-19. A small part of Chapter 2 ‘was worked into a presentation titled “Translation Theory: Monolingual, Bilingual, or Malelingual,” later published in The Journal of Translation Studies (Hong Kong) 9 (1) (2006): 105-124. An carly version of part of Chapter 6 tiled “Translation and Border Writing in the Americas” was presented at the “Translating Voices, Translating Regions” conference in Rieti, Italy, and was later published in N. Armstrong and FIM. Federici (e¢s.) Translating Voices, Translating Regions, Rome: Aracne (2006): 356-378.1 Introduction New Definitions In Translation, History and Culture, Susan Bassnest and André Lefevere officially announced the “cultural turn” in translation studies, suggesting that the translation studies scholar investigate what “the exercise of power ‘means in terms of the production of culture, of which the production of translations is a parc” (1990: 5). While this was a provocative thesis at the time, numerous scholars from around the world were approaching similar views; the 1990s resulted in a decade of new investigations that extended beyond the range of linguistic and literary translation and into issues of translation and cultural formation. In particular, translation studies scholars focused on how textual practices were used by governments, pub- lishers, universities, and other institutions of power to manipulate culture, generally in support of, or occasionally in resistance to, the status quo. Translation, often considered a marginal practice, was increasingly shown to be instrumental in the process of developing and maintaining power: which international texts were selected for translation, where those texts ‘were made available—in the marketplace, schools, churches, and govern- iment circles—the affordability of said texts, and how those foreign texts were translated or adapted t0 the receiving culture became fundamental questions for both translation and cultural studies. The mini-boom in trans- lation studies involved increased conference activity, new journals publishing firms, as well as new MA and PhD programs in translation studies. In 1998, Bassnete and Lefevere published another book, this time called Constructing Cultures, in which they argued for cultural studies to take “the translation turn” (1998: 123), moving translation to center stage in cultural studies. Though this argument was provocative and seemingly unrealistic at the time, once cultural studies began studying concepts of linguistic and cultural pluralism, the fragmentation of the literary or cultural arvfact, ‘and the multiple histories behind the emergence of artistic objects, the turn to language and translation trajectories was inevitable. Cultural studies has now moved from the national to the international, or, better said, the transnational, and thus translation scholars are well positioned for future investigations. Indeed, those scholars working in only one language and culture, even when positioned in English, French, or Spanish departments,———————— 2 Introduction: New Definitions ate being left end. With the immigration and imporasion of sulle Fa ing different languages fom a range of socal and economic Cee eee Americas have proven afta eran for staying such asreeuat oices and wansnavonal courses. Indeed, translated txts ao reigy referring to atleast two diferent sign systems and cltral tattoos a comparison of source and target texts reveals how meaning sree Ling tamlation an del staring poi for sucha study, More- ave aarene ate never perfect, something always left out, hidden, aoe eel unceating thee feagmentarynarares thet falare co al feu and hus thir suitability fr cual manipaasion. ite ay T discus several new insights and ideas thc sranslation seule olan inthe Americas ae pussing, remaining especially open Co sae seat and cultural factors. This sady buds on research from a vaity seg in several displines—lingoistis, philosophy, ierary theory, ttonmorn exhnis dies, and cultural ries produced in the 1990s and sea aoe: esearch based onthe assumption tha ranslasion constiates «at the nanry means by which culture is constructed and is therefore etn eo any senly of cuturalevoltion and identity formation. One aero eapetllyinfoems this study the descriptive raslaton tudes TBteh ehbtan on more colloquially, the “manipulation school,” including Protas suc as Andee Lefevere, Satan Basnet, Maria Tymoceko, Kamar Fron Zohar and Guson Tory, Wha thse escarcers are ings ha Toho of translation Is eative erm, Perhaps the most revoluton- the dfn taken alton sasha ben made by Gieon eam 'Gno be In Seach of « Theory of Translation (1980 called for © Saar cepension of more deitons of transation uni more data ep ollced Te suggested that scholars deine translation ax any text Soe ed asa translation from the intinsi point of view ofthe target Fe ids 73), despite prevonceived criteria or nonconformiy with pectin any finding is characterise of research in raslsion studies ee eee oury age iis an overbelning lack ofconformiy in tans- Ina etiaransadons, pstadotransatons, gp, contradiction, acsdents, eae cum ifs both conscious and unconscious, ideological constraint memos constr al sem t be pare of the proces. This study builds Soh pn Tory sol ad rope ake one sp ti Tr addton vo sudying any tex alled transation by given clr, i also re tiae anslaton phenomena that occur but may not be defied a3 sch, eee dha auch element, offen covered sp, suppressed, or marginalized LEST ume culture, evel jost as much about translation phenomena 2 She ganaation. ln he book Translating Montreal: Epiode inthe Tee Dasded City (2006), Canadian eeansiasontheoss Sherry Sion ace te lini oF eal defntions of rasltion and focuses instead sane tondons condcie to tansavon, such asthe maltcleral ie 2 cy of Montel andthe hybrid forms of communication thers, many Aah ake place afer translation. Indiestve of the new diections Introduction: New Definitions 3 translation theory is taking in the Americas, she offers a new definition: “I give translation an expanded definition in this book: writing that is inspired by the encounter with other tongues, including the effects of creative interference” (bid.: 17) In order to better understand such new trends, this study frequently focuses on minority and oppressed groups within cultures and highlights the culural role translation policies play in that discriminatory process. Indeed, in the studies of translation phenomena in the Americas, translation studies scholars with critical theory, cultural studies, and feminist backgrounds including Lawrence Venuti, Carol Maier, Sherry Simon, Barbara Godard, Else Vieira, and Rosemary Artojo—have proven instrumental in the analysis that follows. As Lawrence Venuti wrote in the introduction to his pioneer- ing anthology Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, translated texts need to be “submitted to the same rigorous interrogation that other cultural forms and practices have recently undergone with the emergence of poststructuralism” (1992b: 6). This interrogation process is well under way, often led in the Americas by scholars in Quebec and Brazil. In addition, this book considers the use of translation to resist particular social constructions, introduce new ideas, and question the status ‘quo. Aimé Césaice translated and adapted Shakespeare's The Tempest into French to combat negative images of Caribbean indigenous peoples; Haroldo de Campos translated Goethe's Faust into Portuguese in order to challenge the Christian interpretations of the ending. Such examples suggest that translation is not a neutral site in the Americas; rather, it is a highly contested one where different groups, often with competing literary or political interests, vie for space and approval. Those who win such contests ‘generally find themselves liberated and empowered; those who lose suffer ‘many consequences, including social marginalization, loss of identity, and psychological trauma, In The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature (2006), Emily Apter uses the word “zone” to refer to a theoretical space, one that is not defined by language, politics, or nation, but is broad enough to include the aftershocks of translation. She worries that those who decide language and cultural policy also decide translation policy, which in tue affects textual heritage, preservation, and dissemination. Translation policy is also apart ofthe foreign policies exercised by the powerful economies and larger nation-states for hemispheric goals. Thus, she wants to expand the boun- dries of translation studies and to recognize new sites of language contact as battlegrounds on which the survival of languages, and the ethnic and. cultural memories embedded within, depend. Her concept of “zone” is conceived as threefold. Firs, it isa geographical space, similar to a space that a city planner designates a park for multiple uses. Here Apter looks at translation sites: diasporic language communities, border cultures, pockets of print and media spheres, and department and programs in university institutions. She asks what gets translated and, especialy, what does not,Sp seeneennenetnenrinenntnt nt reeset et 4 Introduction: New Definitions focusing on caesuras, omissions, transmission failures, and that which is deemed untranslatable. Second, she suggests that the translation zone is a political zone, a medium for social and political formation and reforma- tion. She looks at governmental involvement in domestic policies such as ‘whether a culture will be monolingual or multilingual, or use of standard ‘or nonstandard language. She also looks at international policies, such as, translation use in military engagements and foreign policy. Indeed, one of the strengths of the book is the way translation and military policies are intertwined, suggesting the political urgency for more and better transla tion in the precarious post-9/11 world. Apter's third conception of zone is even more striking, as it focuses on the psychological repercussions of ‘such translational policies. Drawing an analogy to Guillaume Apollinaire’s poet “Zone” (1912), which describes a place on the Paris outskirts where ohemians and migrants gathered, Apter discusses this peripheral territory as a psychological space. Here she focuses on the position of the subject ‘within a culture and how one’s own self-knowledge, language, and cul- tural heritage become identified with or foreign to oneself. Adding another new definition to the mix, Apter conceives of translation as a “means of repositioning the subject in the world and in history,” and a “significant ‘medium for subject reformation and political change” (2006: 6). “This study of translation in the Americas emphasizes all three of Apter’s dimensions of translation: its geographic, sociopolitical, and psychological fspects. This book is also indebted to and builds upon investigations pub- lished in anthologies edited by Anuradha Dingwaney and Carol Maier (1993), Roman Alvarez and M. Carmen-Africa Vidal (1996), Susan Bassnett land Harish Trevidi (1999), Sheery Simon and Paul St-Pierre (2000), and ‘Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler (2001). The scholarship that informs these works derives largely from poststructuralist and postcolonial theory, including the work of scholars such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Decrida, Walter Benjamin, Gayatri Spivak, and Homi Bhabha. 1 also speculate on the repressed nature of translation in certain regions of the Americas, turning to scholars such as Jean Laplanche, who uses the term 4 traduire to refer to ‘unconscious, psychological traumas and failures of translation, which T find useful to discuss losses experienced by those subjected to language domination. Indeed, in the chapters that follow I often turn to postcolonial, poststructural, and psychoanalytic thought for perspectives and insight. “This book is not meant to be an overview of the translation histories of the respective regions in the Americas; rather, I focus upon the newest approaches to translation developed in different parts of the Americas over the past thitty years, Also valuable in the development of the ideas that follow has been the work on nation and identity formation, especially by those scholars investigating identity formation in Latin America, such as Fernando Ortiz, Angel Rama, and Fernando Pérez Firmat. If Susan Bassnett is right that cultural studies bas taken the “translation turn,” then it should Introduction: New Definitions S Cuban anthropologist Fernando Ortiz and elaborated by Latin American literary critics such as Angel Rama, inform the chaprers that follow. Finally, my work also intersects with that of scholars of the “New American Studies,” such as Mare Shell, Wai Chee Dimock, Donald Pease, John Carlos Rowe, and Winfried Siemerling, who are investigating American cultures from comparative, interdisciplinary, and “transnational” perspectives. ‘Arguing that the boundaries ofthe nation-states of the Americas have litle +0 do with linguistic and cultural origins and more to do with politcal and military impositions, these scholars look at literary and cultural phenomena that extend beyond national borders. Translation is critical to such investigations In this book, I divide translation activity in the Americas int five areas: (1) multiculturalistn in the United States; (2) theater and feminism in Canada; (3) cannibalism in Brazil; (4) fiction in Latin America; and (5) border writing and the Caribbean. Although the nation-states of the Americas tend to use European’ languages as “official” languages, those respective languages are by no means original national languages. Rather, they are “translated” languages—that is, “carried across” from Europe to the Americas and imposed, more often than not, via force on the peoples living there. Yet “unofficial” cultures, made up of indigenous roots, repressed languages, and alternative histories unique to the New World, continue behind the scenes, Many minorities are excluded from that power sharing, often because of the very lack of available translations and inadequate language polices. This study also suggests that translation in the Americas is less something that happens between separate and distinc cultures and more something that is constitutive of those culture. In many of the studies of translation and culture of the past two decades, translation has served as a trope or a metaphor fora cultural condition. This study suggests that i is much more: translation is not a trope but a permanent condition in the Americas. ‘What does the word “America” mean? To what does it refer? Is roots are certainly not located in the continents that compose the Americas; rather, “America” is a mistranslation, a word imposed from the outside that has little connection with the lands to which it refers, a word that represents its submission rather than its life. Further, internationally and in parts ‘of North America, the term “America” is often used to refer only to the United States of America, another form of mistranslation, and a cultural imperialism of its own kind. Likewise, what does the phrase “Latin America” mean? Latin Ameria is another mistranslation, referring to Latin languages—Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese primarily—translated to and rewritten in America. Latin America thus reflees “original” European cultures and how those displaced languages and cultures have evolved inthe "New World, Most ofthe language changes have been derived from cultural incompatibilites that give new meanings to old terms in theit new context, i ccome as no surprise that concepts such “transculturation,” coined by the nother feat of translation. Indeed, such linguistic incompatibilities give rise—————— 6 Introduction: New Definitions to numerous difficulties in writing any text about the Americas. For example, hhow does one refer to the indigenous peoples of the Americas? They have suffered a neae-‘otal mistransltion by the Spanish explorers, who, searching for China and India, mistook the Americas for another continent. Sul the mnisnaming continues, to the present. The variety of forms ehat I use in this text 10 fefer to the peoples living in the Americas upon the arsival of the Europeans is indicative of the problems I have resorted to 2 number of strategies, using “indigenous,” “aboriginal,” “Indian,” “Amerindian (or ‘Amer-inlian),” and “Native American” as synonyms, yet find them all unsatisfactory. So many mistranslations of American people, landscape, ‘culture, and arifacts have occurred in the process ofthe European explorers Sind colonizers translating and domesticating that which they encountered into their own terms, concepts, and worldviews that any accurate descrip- tion becomes impossible. Such is the condition of life inthe Americas, and wwhy the focus of this stady is more often than not upon the misfiring Ind failures of translation, what such language failure reveals about culture {s.a whole, and what the psychological repercussions of such misnaming imply. ‘Despite the fundamental nature of translation inthe Americas, translation seudis is still an emerging discipline. In both Brazil and Canada, strong translation studies associations exist with regular conference activities and txchanges of ideas. But in the United States, Spanish-speaking Lasin America, Sind the Caribbean, few programs exist of, if they do, they continue to be housed as subsidiaries of largce linguistics, language stadies, or comparative literarae departments No incer-American research group exist, and contact mong scholars tends t0 be erratic. One purpose of this study is to begin sscussion among translation scholars of Ameria to txy to discover lines for investigation and to develop a corresponding program of study to better understand the role of translation in the development of cultures in the Americas. suggest that tanslaion and cultural studies scholars in the United States of America have much to learn from their Canadian, Latin ‘American, Brazilian, and Caribbean colleagues. While European cultures ‘bear the brunt of the language and translational policies that have domi- rated cultural evolution in the Americas, the new superpower on the block isthe United States of America, and its language and translational policies, fas Thope to show in the next chapter, reverberate domestically and ‘wansnationally. “While cis stay is informed primarily by interdisciplinary scholarship of the pase two decades, the approaches investigated in this book have distinct hiseorial roots, many of which evolve from the most important iterary and social movements in theit respective countries. The Brazilian cannibalists, for example, date their work back to an avant-garde movement in Brazil in the 19206 in which Oswald de Andrade and other experimentalist writers posited several manifesos, such as Antropofagia, to challenge European Tterary models and to protest against the ongoing mental colonization in Introduction: New Definitions 7 anihiliopy ofan. oo. the differences become, Yet they also have silts, one of which hei centtal aim ofthis book is to begin the exploration ofthe role translation 0 t00 might cranslation studies scholars begin to recognize the fundamental ‘example, as one to be seen less in terms of separate and unified nations occ producing oven thse alex tha re the mane 3.30. Multiculturalism in the United States sense, and certain doctrinaires of translation, For this double postulation, —We only ever speak ome language « ies bi) Avene speck only one language. jon, Ie would alo be isnot only she very lar of what called translation Ke woud also 1a etfs tani, Al hich ede mad, grant you tat {Dessda 1998; 10; tales in oii er is dependent upon ertida's thinking about monolingualism of the Other is depe De ce of tls ngong bat hidden (impose forbidden”) process of translation. The kind of translation Derrida discusses isnot the conventional, interlingual type of translation, but another, partially “mad,” quasi-scizophrenic psychosocial kindof translation that und fies any given monolingual cultural condition. Khatibi reinforces this wee adekieal form of ineommunicable fst form of communication by saying: Ue here sno such thing as absoluee monolingualism, one sil has ro fine what a mother tongue is in its active division, and what i transplanted berween this language and the one called foreign. What is transplanted and lost there, belonging neither to the one nor the other: scieSemniable “ (Khatibi, 1985; 10; quoted by Derrida 1998: 8-9) sellaware ofthe ipossibiy of “abuse monlingal” roa Sete languages ae embed. He is also aware ofthe wi teh eonogul wih the sukingual both at which ea be ane and tha wich xox te“nconaniae roo erate hs poe of dasescing movaingyl re are ae orf dcesaing Caren psopy, nner ih ga th peoples oll the languge and cles a eet to wel connected colonials, Deva wats oltre is originally colonial. Brey ele inter iol Ae ce ter peo of some “pls” of Inet. re ec ow tough th power of mango OHNE aa psn thsoergn eset Fre sy be oe ea sre, o unin, do Se ae a noma ease flows sprees ccalture like a shadow. Ae , ‘Multiculturalism in the United States 31 Here French colonialism in Africa is equated with French, British, Spanish, and Portuguese colonialism in the Americas. Although Derrida's project is largely abstract and philosophical, one can see the political implications ‘of his ideas. Inthe United States, the English-only movement has largely been within the law and a fairly open process; however, its imposition has been just as unilateral as that of the French in Northern AVrica, and its repercussions in terms of cultural loss, not to mention discrimination, degradation, and incarceration, have been comparable. Indeed, the collective extermination of the Amerindian peoples was largely rationalized and justified by claiming the savage and uncivilized nature of Amerindian language and culture. 7 Indicative ofthe schizophsenic translational nature of he “United” States culture ae the plethora of hyphenated identities such as Cajun-American, African-American, Asian-American, Chinese-American, or even more local hybridizations such as Nuyorican, all of which underscore the difficulty of ever arriving at a unified monolingual “American” identity. Perhaps the discarbing psychosocial nature of the mullingual condition is most visible in is reverse construction; those language and ethnic minorities living ‘within the English-only dominant culture know only too well what it means 1 be identified as carrying out any particular “un-American” activities as insisting upon translation of on bilingual education. There is a kind of ‘madness in this definition of translation, one that implies a continual process ‘of oppression, but one that nevertheless contains an always ongoing process ‘of resistance fo that very oppression ‘Translation studies and identity formation ‘When compared to what is happening in countries in Europe, translation sedis i ints infant stages in he United State, The American Translation ana Interpreting Studies Association (ATISA) bas only ben n existence since 2002, and its membership consists largely of scholars who teach in modern and clasical language departments wih itl interest in American sai, Bot the beginnings of s new movement can be seen connecting translation stadies to American studies, Scholars such as Laerence Veni, Carol Maier, Maria Tymoceko, and Suzanne [il Levine ate increasingly connecting tans lation phenomena to issues of margin, migration, resistance, and identity Uhave mentioned Lawrence Venuti already, whose works such as The Translator’ Inisbilty and “American Tradition” indicate the polticll ideological nature of translation and its importance tothe constriction of culture and national identity. In Scandal of Translation (1998b), he drectiy addresses the issue in a chapter titled “The Formation of Cultural Identities.” ‘He argues that translation’s greatest effect, and hence its greatest potential