Assignment 208 - Comparative Literature & Translation Studies

Assignment 208 - Comparative Literature & Translation Studies

Academic Information

• Name: Insiyafatema Alvani
• Roll No: 11
• Semester: 4 (Batch 2022-24)
• Paper No: 208
• Paper code: 22415
• Paper name: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies
• Topic: Analysis of "History in Translation" Siting Translation: History, Poststructuralism and the Colonial Context, 1992 by Tejaswini Niranjana
• Submitted to: Smt. S.B. Gardi, Department of English, MKBU
• Email Address: insiyafatemaalvani@gmail.com
• Submission Date: 26th April 2024

Analysis of "History in Translation" Siting Translation: History, Poststructuralism and the Colonial Context, 1992 by Tejaswini Niranjana

Introduction:

Tejaswini Niranjana's exploration of the "positive" or "utopian" response to the postcolonial condition, as detailed in "Siting Translation," is a profound attempt to utilize translation as a tool for decolonization. The article traces a trajectory of postcolonial myth from pre-colonial times through the colonial era to the current postcolonial state and envisions a future of decolonization. This journey serves to juxtapose nationalist narratives, which often idealize the purity of precolonial and decolonized states, with postcolonialist perspectives that acknowledge the complexity and mixed nature of all historical phases.

Drawing from Walter Benjamin's seminal work "The Task of the Translator," Niranjana delves into the concept of translation as a form of reinterpreting and rewriting history. Translation, like the act of rereading or rewriting history, involves a process of "citing" or "quoting" words from one context to another. This mechanism, Niranjana argues, has been utilized both by colonizers for the purpose of subjugation and by postcolonial subjects as a means of decolonization. Niranjana's emphasis on a Benjaminian sense of literalism as the optimal mode for decolonizing translation stands in contrast to the diverse approaches examined by Vicente Rafael in "Contracting Colonialism." This suggests a nuanced understanding of translation's potential within the context of decolonization, acknowledging the complexities and possibilities inherent in the process. By engaging with these ideas, Niranjana provides a framework for reimagining the role of translation in the broader project of decolonization, offering insights into how language and interpretation can be wielded as tools for liberation and resistance.

This article is an Introduction chapter of Tejaswanini’s book Siting Translation. It is divided into three parts:

1. Situating Translation
2. Translation as Interpellation
3. The Question of “History”

Situating Translation:

Translation emerges as a crucial arena for interrogating issues of representation, power dynamics, and historical narratives. Within this context, translation serves as a battleground where contesting and contested stories vie to articulate and address the asymmetrical and unequal relations between peoples, races, and languages.

In a post-colonial context, the issue of translation takes on heightened importance as it becomes a focal point for interrogating questions of representation, power dynamics, and historical perspectives. The asymmetrical and unequal relationships between different peoples, races, and languages are starkly revealed through the act of translation. Traditionally, translation has been deeply influenced by Western philosophical paradigms which view reality, representation, and knowledge in particular ways. Reality is often conceived as something objective and external, existing independently of human interpretation. Knowledge, then, is understood as the process of representing this reality, with representation providing a direct and unmediated access to this supposedly transparent reality. Furthermore, post-colonial theorists argue that the notion of a transparent reality, accessible through unmediated representation, is itself a product of Western hegemony. The diverse ways in which different cultures and languages conceptualize reality challenge the idea of a singular, objective truth. In this light, the act of translation becomes a complex negotiation of power, representation, and historical context.

Jacques Derrida suggests- They come out of and circulate through various discourses in several registers, providing a "conceptual network in which philosophy itself has been constituted." In forming a certain kind of subject, in presenting particular versions of the colonized, translation brings into being overarching concepts of reality and representation.

Tejaswini Niranjana's exploration of translation within contemporary Euro-American literary theory aims to challenge certain theoretical emphases of post-structuralism, particularly within the larger context of the crisis in English studies resulting from the impact of structuralism and post-structuralism on literary studies in a rapidly decolonizing world.

Niranjana argues that translation, traditionally perceived as a transparent presentation of something pre-existing, actually plays a paradoxical role. While it brings the "original" into being through the act of translation itself, it also provides a place in history for the colonized, offering a means of questioning classical notions of representation and reality. In this context, rethinking translation becomes imperative, especially considering its historical use to legitimize practices of subjectification, particularly for colonized peoples. Niranjana identifies two main problematic aspects: first, the authorization of translation by classical notions of representation and reality, and second, the post-structuralist critique that positions translation as the "more" or the supplement, according to Derrida's understanding.

Niranjana's study of translation delves into the intricacies of its positioning within systems of power and desire, exploring the economies within which the sign of translation circulates. She aims to uncover the absence or repression of awareness regarding asymmetry and historicity in various discourses on translation. Rather than representing an "original," translation involves the continual re-presentation of that which is already represented. One aspect of post-structuralism that Niranjana interrogates is its critique of historicism, revealing the genetic and teleological nature of traditional historiography. By questioning the lack of reciprocity and the essentializing of "difference," her essay challenges the dominant narratives that often underpin discussions of translation and historical discourse.

Translation as Interpellation:

Translator and scholar William Jones played a pivotal role in introducing a textualized India to Europe, thanks in part to the patronage of Warren Hastings, the governor-general. Jones, supported by members of the Asiatic Society, who were themselves administrators of the East India Company's Indian Government, utilized translation as a means to "gather in" and "rope off" the Orient. Jones's efforts were underpinned by a historicist, teleological model of civilization, which, coupled with the notion of translation presupposing transparency of representation, constructed a powerful version of the "Hindu" identity. This constructed identity was seamlessly incorporated into later texts by writers of various philosophical and political persuasions.

Jones's works revolved around several key themes: the perceived need for translation by Europeans due to the supposed unreliability of native interpreters of their own laws and culture; the desire to act as a lawgiver and provide Indians with their "own" law; and the aspiration to "purify" Indian culture and speak on its behalf. This portrayal of "submissive" Indians, characterized by their supposed inability to be free and their adherence to native laws that precluded the questioning of liberty, contributed to the concept of Asian despotism. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, two main types of translators of Indian literature emerged: administrators like William Jones and Christian missionaries such as the Serampore Baptists William Carey and William Ward. Critiquing historicism allows for the formulation of a nuanced understanding of historicity, encompassing the "effective history" of the text. This concept addresses questions such as who uses or interprets the text, how it is used, and for what purposes. Both the critique of representation and historicism empower post-colonial theorists to analyze the technologies of colonial power, as articulated by Homi Bhabha following Foucault's insights.

The Question of "History ": 

Tejaswini Niranjana's approach is strategically "partial," situated within an emergent post-colonial practice that seeks to integrate insights from post-structuralism while demanding new ways of writing history to comprehend how subjectification operates. She refrains from engaging directly in the battle over history in Euro-American theory but instead poses questions from this perspective. Her understanding of historicity encompasses "effective history," the part of the past still influential in the present, without invoking a capital-H History. This approach focuses on "local" practices of translation that resist overarching theoretical frameworks.

Foucault's concept of "effective history" frames knowledge as perspective, suggesting a radical presentism that can inform post-colonial perspectives. While attention to history is essential in the post-colonial context, it requires both a narrativizing strategy and a deconstructive approach.

Louis Althusser's critique of historicism, rejecting the notion of history as a process with a telos or subject, informs this perspective. It challenges master narratives and their closure, emphasizing the fluidity and complexity of historical processes.

Niranjana explores the interplay between history and translation, suggesting they function similarly under an order of representation, truth, and presence, often contributing to colonial domination. She draws parallels between Derrida's notion of double inscription and Walter Benjamin's strategy of citation, both revealing the connections between past and present without adhering to a simple historical continuum.

The concept of hybridity, crucial for critiquing historiography and traditional translation notions, is seen as ambitious and historically complex. Niranjana argues against restricting hybridity to a post-colonial elite, highlighting its pervasive influence across class boundaries shaped by colonial and neocolonial domination. This holistic understanding challenges traditional narratives and encourages a more nuanced analysis of historical and translational processes within postcolonial contexts.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Tejaswini Niranjana's "partial" perspective on translation within postcolonial contexts offers a powerful lens to critically examine the complex interplay of power dynamics, representational struggles, and historical reconfigurations. By reframing historicity as "effective history" and interrogating notions of representation and truth inherent in both translation and historical discourse, Niranjana challenges conventional narratives and binary oppositions. Her insights compel us to embrace the complexities of hybridity and local practices, moving beyond simplistic dichotomies towards a more nuanced understanding of the entanglements between language, power, and identity in the post-colonial world.

Watch this video for better understanding.

[Words - 1567, Images - 1, Video - 1]

Work Cited:

Niranjana, Tejaswini. Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. University of California Press, 1992. Accessed 26 April 2024.