Problematizing Post-colonial's 'Hybridization' in terms of Translation

Today, it has largely been acknowledged that translation has been used as a means of establishing, sustaining and subverting hegemonic relations, which is a case the discipline seems to be so proud of. The gradual decline of grand disciplines and the rise of interdisciplines have surely contributed a lot to this type of a wide perspective. Now that, with an attempt to unearth the implicit channels through which translation passes (or at times built by translation), research on translation benefits from other disciplines- with pure legitimacy- to achieve the most accurate positionings.[1] As exemplified by Douglas Robinson, one of the main of such ‘other disciplines’ is post-colonial studies.

Robinson’s Translation and Empire mainly gives an insight upon the relatively new field of postcolonial translation studies, pointing its recent position within the discipline and the link established between the postcolonial studies and translation studies. Right at the beginning of the book, Robinson puts forward the question of ‘who benefits from whom’, an argument to be continued throughout the book. There’s an apparent peripheral position these postcolonial scholars occupy, and as displayed through the examples- the works of Niranjana, Rafael and Cheyfitz- one could easily come to the conclusion that the ‘positionings’ of translation studies (in terms of the end-point of Toury’s methodology) get to become ‘justifications’. In other words, these postcolonial works seem to adopt translation as a means of justifying their ideological perspectives. They too define translation- its role, method and position within that particular context- but the questions regarding the field are mostly unanswered, whereas the ones regarding the postcolonial context find clear answers. The questions posed by ‘hybridization’, which is quite praised and perfectly answered by postcolonial scholars, are the most visible ones that remain unanswered in terms of translation studies.

Within the book, Robinson makes a remarkable introduction to the new approach towards the ‘hybrid’ brought by the recent postcolonial studies. As opposed to the nostalgic nationalist myths brought by the essentialist postcolonial studies- which believe in the possibility of a purification after the end of colonization period, the recent studies adopt ‘decolonization’ in a different aspect, through embracing the product of colonization, that is the ‘hybrid’. Presumably, here one could associate the ‘hybrid native’ with a ‘translated text’ (the translated version of the native after being translated by the colonizer); both represent the clash of two cultural and lingual systems, both carry a ‘dual nature’ in Popovic’s terms. However, when it comes to ‘translating the hybrid’, the scheme gets blurred. The post-structuralist traces carried by these studies replace the ‘evil position’ of translation (proposed by past-oriented postcolonial studies) with a ‘utopic’ one. ‘The evil colonizer/anthropologist/ethnographer has defined/translated the colonized/savage/native in a way that would serve for his own benefits’ type of comprehension of the former has apparently lead to a call for ‘fighting the colonizer back with his own tool’ of the latter, which reposits ‘translation’ and make it stand at the side of the ‘native’ this time.

Here comes the major translational issue brought by this new means of ‘fighting back’- that is embracing hybridity and making the native the translator this time. In the second chapter of Translation and Empire, Robinson indicates the main point the proponents of ‘culture turn’ and ‘power turn’ diverge at: the former ‘is known for its explorations of the control of translation by the target-cultural system’, whereas the latter focuses on ‘the political control and influence exerted by dominant of hegemonic source cultures’ (Robinson 1997: 36). However, there’s a focal point at which they clash: ‘the more a given society imports texts, the more it tends to be unstable’ (ibid: 37). The influx of new discourses and practices through translation is constant; therefore, the position of the receiving culture is never stable since it is exposed to a constant change.

To such post-colonial scholars as Homi Bhabha, these hybrid and unstable cultures are untranslatable (Actually, since all cultures are hybrid in one way or another, no culture is translatable).[2] This assumption could prove accuracy if translation is seen as the practice of fixing cultures, finding fixed differences in the first step, and establishing fixed bridges in between afterwards. However, on the other side, isn’t translation also the practice of ‘mixing’ cultures? How else have those cultures become hybrid? (Here, I suppose, one needs to bear the association of the hybrid native with translated text in mind) Moreover, if we assume the accuracy of both sides, has translation become the agent of its own impossibility through mixing the very first two cultures on earth?

Unfortunately neither Niranjana’s ‘retranslation’ and Raphael’s ‘mistranslation’, nor Mehrez’s ‘in between languages’ provide these questions with sufficient answers. As Robinson indicates in the last chapter of his book, ‘foreignizing’ a text displays a mere interpretation among the thousands of others and claiming it to be the only accurate one challenges the post-structuralist nature of these scholars. Besides, asserting one dominant ‘right way’ doesn’t seem to be an act of ‘decolonization’ but that of ‘recolonization’. Nonetheless, it’s obvious that these scholars have provided the discipline with prolific grounds upon which other ‘right ways’ will be found in the near future.
[1] Here, I relate the positioning with the methodology Toury proposes for translation studies, one of the main aims of which is to understand the ‘position of translation’ within that specific culture (that is, target culture).
[2] And the ones who support translatability and see translation as a tool of decolonization, as in the works of Niranjana and Raphael, are insufficient in carrying their theories in the practical level.

References
Robinson, Douglas
1997 Translation and Empire