Jeremy Tiang and How “Translation Re-Inscribes Hierarchies of Cultural Power”

We talk a lot about translation as a bridge between two cultures—about how the translator navigates this bridge, bringing cultures into conversation with one another, connecting them, finding common ground. Esther Allen, for example, wrote a brilliant piece in praise of Michael Henry Heim’s life and work, most specifically his unshakable belief in translation as a force for good, for connection, for intercultural dialogue.

I find that we talk far less about how translation has been used to control, to conquer, to take, and to marginalize. In his Friday lecture, Jeremy Tiang spoke about how “translation re-inscribes hierarchies of cultural power.” That phrase stuck with me; translators often shy away from speaking negatively about Translation. But this reality—translation as controller, as conqueror, as silencer—must first be acknowledged and addressed if translation is to truly become the force for good envisioned and lauded by so many of its biggest names. Tiang referenced the Huntington Theater in Boston where only a small number of translated plays have been produced, most of which classics by Chekov or Moliere. To remedy this, he called for a “redistribution of attention,”—a moving away from repeatedly reproducing classics like The Seagull and from [Western] European languages—and a placing of historically marginalized languages center stage. He asked what that would mean for audiences too—how audiences might look different and how the space of the theater might open up to individuals and communities who have never before felt represented or welcome there. Such a redistribution could mean a lot for translation more generally, beyond the realm of theater: translation would be that much closer to becoming a genuine force for good.

In Yi Lei’s poetry, I was intrigued specifically by the use of italics and capitalization. In several places, italics appear in the translated poems, and I wonder if Chinese characters can be italicized? If not, how did Smith decide which words or clauses to italicize? Additionally, in the excerpt from “A Single Women’s Bedroom” that appears in the Literary Hub article by Tracy Smith, there are many words in which the first letter is capitalized. This article is same as the introduction to the poetry collection, but the same capital letters do not appear in the excerpt there. I’m curious about this discrepancy and also curious about how and when a translator from a language without upper-case and lower-case letters (such as Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, etc.) decides to use them. 

-sharon