On the ethics of translators' interventions 1

Talk at the conference
Profession, Identity and Status
Translators and Interpreters as an Occupational Group
March 15-19, Tel Aviv University & Bar Ilan University
Profession, Identity and Status
Translators and Interpreters as an Occupational Group

Abstract:
Continued military and sociopolitical aggression by the Israeli state provides an immediate and
reprehensible example of the difficulties of communicating across extreme non-ethical
asymmetries. In such a situation, endemic professional deontologies of mediation, based on
illusions of objectivity and neutrality, fidelity and equivalence, must be called into question.
Translators cannot be trained merely to represent whatever is in the text presented to them; they
cannot be considered subservient to the desires of clients; translatorial intervention must be
recognized and oriented, necessarily within some kind of ethical frame. We propose that the
search for such an ethics should involve at least the following considerations: 1) training should
not be for limited professions such as translator or interpreter; it should recognize and
operate within the wider frame of intercultural communication (which others nowadays call
cultural translation, and which crucially includes processes of text selection); 2) since strong
asymmetric cultural relativism is part of the hazards to be negotiated, there can be no ideological
recourse to notions of human rights for the purposes of training, there are no rights, not to
understanding, not to human dignity, not to freedom of speech; there are only selfinterests;
3) since we are dealing with communication, there can be no ideological recourse to
individualistic ethical hygiene of the kind one finds in damp dark islands: do what you think is
best, refuse work if you think you must or do not work for someone you dont respect all
these positions simply refuse communication; 4) similarly inadequate and unethical are narrative
closures that exclude dialogue and experiments as learning processes, that is, as fundamental
modes of knowledge translation cannot be of the finite text or chronology, but must be seen as
a step in an extended exchange; 5) the one hope that is to be maintained is the constant
possibility of mutual benefits, that is, of long-term cooperation. These issues will be dealt with
through examples of Hebrew and Arabic translations of various peace proposals (drawing on the
work of Ahmad Ayyad), and with passing reference to the role of Hebrew within the Masters in
Translation at Al-Quds University.
Anthony Pym is Director of the Intercultural Studies Group at the University Rovira i Virgili in
Tarragona, Spain. He is the author, editor or co-editor of some 15 books on Translation and
Intercultural Studies, including Pour une éthique du traducteur (1997). His research group has had a
cooperation agreement with Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem since 2004.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• pym
• ethics
• translation
• studies
• theory

[AnthonyPym]

There is nothing cheeky about arguing against fascist theories that would have translators purify the tribe's narratives,

And not much is just cheeky when the people ousted by those narrative theories are sitting in front of you (Toury and Shlesinger).

And they have all just read in the abstract that I am speaking from an anti-Israeli position.

No, there were some sound and careful reasons for the detours.

[freelancer0108]

"It's a very easy answer but because I have to be academic and I have to make up some minutes, I'm going to go through 7 bad ways of answering it before I answer it."

That has to be my quote of the year so far. How many other translation theorists could get away with that? ;-)

[AnthonyPym]

I'm not sure I did get away with it. (Gideon Toury and Itamar Even-Zohar were sitting somewhere to my left...)

[freelancer0108]

Just tell them that Ian Mason used to tell his students that he would spend three weeks on common-but-wrong translation theories and show us why they didn't work. His reasoning: so we could talk more intelligently about translation than non-professionals. So admitting that you will give 7 bad answers before getting to the good one has a precedent.

Are you always so cheeky in your presentations and work? I would have thought it would get you in trouble or does being a professor make you exempt?