Gender in Translation

Asist. Cezara ZAHARIA

Universitatea ,,Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi

The paper focuses on feminist translation issues such as gender in the representation of

translation, the visible translator (as co-author of the text) and the “translation-effect”. It also
shows how the notion of fidelity, reviewed in feminist terms triggered a redefinition of translation
as "equivalence in difference" (Simon cited in Arrojo 1993:71). The paper argues that feminist
translation practices (supplementing, prefacing, footnoting, hijacking and graphic modes of
representation) point at the particular nature of feminist rewriting as feminist translators assume
personal responsibility for their texts flaunting their credo and a community such texts are destined
to.


Gender in Translation Studies

Although not used by Simone de Beauvoir at the time she wrote The Second Sex the term

gender came to be used in relation to her work. By her famous "one is not born, but rather becomes
a woman" she clearly stated that gender is not the same with the biological sexual difference, rather
it's a social construct that extends and completes the latter. Beauvoir thus suggests that a baby born
with reproductive female organs does not simply grow up to be a woman. The woman she becomes
later it's rather a response to the milieu she grows up in. She is turned into a woman by the
expectations the society has of women, through education and conditioning. Gender in its early
feminist use expresses this very process of inoculating into girls and women the physical,
psychological and sociocultural attributes that are different from those of men.

Historically, thinking about gender happens in cultures where gender configurations,

the social meaning systems that encode sexual difference, undergo changes or
shifts. The same is true with thinking about race (that race as a construct becomes apparent when
ideas of race are shifting) or economics, or politics, etc.: all of these concepts are reevaluated when
social practice (i.e. what people do) shifts. So gender, or masculine and feminine qualities, or
male/female social roles, comes up as area for analysis whenever gender roles are shifting. You can
trace this back to medieval times (Chaucer's Wife of Bath is certainly an example of questioning
gender configurations). And because gender roles seem to shift in just about every time period, in
relation to all kinds of factors (war, for instance, or economics, or notions of morality), gender is
often a major focus of thought and writing, in popular culture and in theory.
The turn to culture added a new dimension to translation studies. Translations came to be viewed as
products of cultural representation, that is instances of a mediation process organically related to
other modes of communication. Feminism has been one of the most important examples of cultural
identity to gain prominence in the linguistic, social and political fields over the last decades. The
alliance between translation studies and feminism was possible due to the common preoccupations
with language: distrust of existing hierarchies and gendered roles, of rules defining fidelity.
Moreover, as Sherry Simon argues: "Both feminism and translation are concerned by the way

<<secondariness>> comes to defined and canonized; both are tools for a critical understanding of
difference as it is represented in language" (1996:8).
The work of the translator is therefore to understand how these historical, social and sexual
differences are expressed in language and to make them available to the target language audience.
Once they have recognized the expressions of domination they can use language to alter them
conceptually, syntactically or terminologically. However, intervention may function both ways.
Since language is a powerful political instrument, many feminist writings faced the danger of being
"corrected" by politicized translators. On the other hand, due to the experimental character of these
writings, translators had to come up with technical innovations in translation.
Feminists also state that the literary canon traditionally defined aesthetic value in terms of works by
male writers. Hence, a lot of early writings done by women were 'lost' in patriarchy and needed to
be discovered, that is read by literary critics and included in literary histories. Translations have
thus begun to play an important role in the popularization of such works. Since they, their authors
and the age were literally unknown, much of the translator's work included criticism and annotation,
contextualizing the source texts and discussing the problems these translations raise. The project of
recovering women's lost knowledge meant translating collections of poetry, autobiographies and
numerous anthologies of women's writings. Diane Rayor's collection of lyric poetry by women
poets of ancient Greece (1991), Helen Dendrinou Kolias' English of the autobiography of Elisavet
Moutzan Martinengou (1989), the anthologies Women Writing in India (Tarn & Lalita 1991/1993)
and Translating Slavery. Gender and Race in French Women's Writing, 1783-1823 (Kadish and
Massardier-Kenney 1994) are examples of the productive translation effects of gender-awareness.

2. Gender in the Representation of Translation

It is well known that the practice of translation has widely been described using metaphors. These
usually render the struggle for authority over the text. Two popular figures are the "property" and
the "clothing" metaphors. In the first case the author is seen as the landlord while the translator is
only the tenant, the second example presenting the author as wearing new clothes. However, most
metaphors show that the language of translation theory has been deeply marked by gender.
Numerous prefaces and critical texts present the relation between author and translator, original and
translation as sexualised. In Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation (1992:66), Lori
Chamberlain gives a full account of the sexist tropes used persistently through the ages to describe
the binary relations author/translator, original/translation where the first term is said to be the most
powerful. The opposition between productive and reproductive work organizes the way a culture
values function. In the Western culture, creativity and originality are usually described in terms of
paternity, while the female figure is ascribed to secondary roles. This is a way, Chamberlain argues
(1992:66), of maintaining power relations and already-established borders: "What proclaims itself
to be an aesthetic problem is represented in terms of sex, family and the state, and what is
consistently at issue is power…I would argue that the reason translation is so overcoded, so
overregulated is that it threatens to erase the difference between production and reproduction which
is essential to the establishment of power" (Chamberlain 1992:66).
Chamberlain's analysis mainly focuses on the parallel between women's oppression in language and
culture and the devaluation of translation. Conventionally both marriage and translation were
viewed in terms of a contract between the translation as a woman and the original (as husband,
father and author). Male translators see themselves as 'guardians' who must protect the purity of the
young girl/text in order to make sure that the offsprings (the translation or the children) are rightly
theirs (see the earl of Roscommon's 17

th

century treatise on translation). In other metaphors the

translator is figured as a male seducer, while the text is the mistress. As female sexuality was
considered passive, the image was immediately transferred to translation, which supposes an active
original, and a passive translation, active creation followed by passive transmission. The author is

rendered powerless in relation to the translator. Flattered and seduced by the translator's attentions
the author/ text becomes a willing collaborator in the project of making herself beautiful and no
doubt, unfaithful. We get thus to the adage "les belles infidèles" coined by the French rhetorician
Ménage (1613-1692) and used to describe the French practice of translation in the 18

th

century. The

idea it encapsulates is that women may be either beautiful or faithful, beauty and fidelity being thus
viewed as mutually exclusive.
Chamberlain also shows how the language used to describe translation perpetuates violence against
women. She gives the example of an image taken from Deuteronomy 21:12-14 and used by Thomas
Drant to explain his method of translating Horace. Before forcing them into marriage, Israelites had
to shave the heads of the enslaved women and pare their nails. Citing Elizabeth Castelly, Sherry
Simon (1996:10) highlights the remarkable continuity of gendered theorizing of translation by
pointing out that the image was first used by Jerome, the father of biblical translation. Even 20

th

century metaphors are not free of violence. The need to 'rape the text' in order to gain control over it
or the Oedipus complex used to describe translation (Serge Gavronsky) confirm a discourse of
disparagement towards women.
If we go back to "les belles infidèles" we shall see that the image is not surprising as the conflict
between the beauty and fidelity, between letter and spirit goes far back in the history of the Western
thought. The vocabulary used to distinguish production from reproduction betray, as Derrida
asserts, the fundamental concepts stemmed out of a joining between gender conceptions, on the one
hand and mimesis and fidelity on the other. Chamberlain attempts to deconstruct the hierarchies
between texts and to redefine fidelity by citing post-structuralist theories that blur the boundaries
between the original and the translation and go beyond the dispute between patriarchal male and
feminist female viewpoints.

3. Reconsidering Fidelity in Translation

Sherry Simon (1996:12) advocates the need to redefine fidelity possible only through a conceptual
reframing of translation. Conventionally, the latter was conceived in terms of the binary oppositions
mentioned before. Meaning was thus thought to move from one fixed pole to another, while the
translation was figured as an “invisible hand mechanically turning the word of one language into
another.” (Barbara Godard cited in Simon 1996:12)
Under the influence of the cultural turn, contemporary translation studies are struggling against
these old concepts, trying to find a way to define translation as a dynamic activity concerned with
cultural systems. Equivalence in translation cannot be a one-to-one proposition. Translation is not
only an operation of linguistic transfer, but also one that creates new textual forms, new forms of
knowledge and introduces new cultural paradigms. Sherry Simon (cited in Arrojo 1993:71) argues
that “the fascination of translation is that it poses the central question of ‟equivalence in difference‟.
More and more in an era reacting against the great hegemonies of identity, we realize that it is
difference which interests us today.”
Since translators are no longer viewed as transferring the “truth” from one language/culture to
another, but rather re-creating it, rethinking translation also implies reconsidering the identity of the
translating subject as co-author of the translated texts.
Barbara Godard (cited in Simon 1996:13) argues to women “writing their way into subjective
agency through a poetics of identity called << transformance>>. Subjectivity inevitably means to
display one‟s identity ostentatiously pointing thus to the visibility of the writing subject/translator:
as “feminine discourse presents transformation as performance as a model for translation. […]
womanhandling the text in translation would involve the replacement of the modest self-effacing
translator.” (idem, ibid.)

The translator becomes thus increasingly aware of her role in analyzing and interpreting the source
text in order to determine meaning and render it. Susanne de Lotbinière-Harwood (1994) and
Suzanne Jill Levine (1991) explain in different ways how their interaction with work will create
new meanings. De Lotbinière-Harwood focuses on re-gendering the English language in order to
face the more conscious French language, while Levine pays more attention to the marks a
conflictual collaboration with text, author and cultural context leaves in translation.

4. The Death of the Invisible Translator

The translator‟s invisibility, a term coined by Venuti (1986) refers to the translator‟s situation and
activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture. It has in view two mutually determined
phenomena. One is an illusionistic effect of discourse of the translator‟s own manipulation of
English. The other relates to the practice of reading and evaluating translations.
As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is the illusion of transparency that is held in view: an effect
of fluent discourse of the translator‟s effort to ensure easy readability by adhering to current usage,
maintaining continuous syntax and fixing a precise meaning. The more fluent the translation, the
more invisible the translator, the more visible the writer and/or the meaning of the foreign text. As
for the second aspect, such practices of translation provide readers with narcissistic experience of
recognizing their culture in a cultural other.
Venuti argues that in order to create transparent discourses and thus to ensure his/her invisibility,
the translator will use domesticating strategies in order to bring the foreign text down to the
ideological and literary norms and conventions functioning in the target culture. Besides, the
translator‟s invisibility is determined by the individualistic conception authorship (the author as the
only original creator).
As it was previously shown, such a conception was deconstructed by feminist translators who
considered themselves co-authors of the new (translated) work (Delisle 1993:223). Hence the death
of the invisible translator… and the birth of the “translator-effect”, the mark each translator, as a
gendered individual, leaves on the work.
Women translators want recognition of their work and individuality. They assert that personal
aspects always affect the production of texts, translations included. That is why translations done by
feminists are remarkable for metatexts. These include academic essays contextualizing the source
texts, annotations, translator/author bio-bibliographies, which make no difference between the
importance of the author‟s and translator‟s respective contributions, proliferating prefaces, political
affiliations, sexual orientations and ethnic background as aspects of the translator-effect.
Usually, feminist translations constitute responses of the translator to the source texts, as part of the
repeated reference to herself, her gender and her cultural contexts as influences on her work: Diane
Rayor clearly states in the introduction to her translations of archaic Greek women poets: “… the
translations here reflect my individual response to ancient poetry. My response is informed by my
knowledge of Greek and of the historical context of the poetry. My gender, my background in
contemporary American culture, and my personal enjoyment of contemporary American poetry also
influence that response.” (cited in von Flotow 1997:38)
Sometimes such responses account for the difficulties the feminist translator has to cope with when
dealing with a source text that contradicts her feminist background. This is the case of Carol Maier
who had to translate Octavio Armand‟s text that mocks women. The translation is accompanied by
an essay written in the first person singular, where the translator tries to reconcile her feminist
views with the ethics of mediating an overtly patriarchal material. Conflicts may also arise in the
case of a black woman translating condescending and cliched representations of blacks. Sharon
Bell, one of the translators of the Translating Slavery anthology says that: “I read [the text]
according to my own suppositions, shaped in part by the racial discourse in America, and by the
fact that I‟ve personally been a victim of that discourse.” In one example she had to change the

label “savages” applied to blacks, because it “offended me so much, I could not put down what the
sentence actually said.” (cited in von Flotow 1997:37)
In other cases, authors‟ literary styles, especially those including punning, open the way to a
multiplicity of interpretations and thus to subversive feminist viewpoints. Levine (1991) argues that
her subjective reading and re-reading of such works constitute the basis for equally subjective
translations. Following the line of the feminist translators, she includes personal information in the
“translation-effect” and turns to prominent figures such as Kristeva or Cixous to validate her work.

5. Translating Machismo

Feminist translators, such as Carol Maier and Suzanne Jill Levine, underlined that their work of
translating South-American male writers has raised issues of sexism. Maier points out the sexist
content of poems by Octavio Armand. There is a particular image the Cuban poet‟s work relies on,
namely that of being born “ from my father‟s womb” (cited in von Flotow 1997:25). Going through
the poems, Maier has discovered the figure of a strong father, and a mother little more than a
shadow. (idem, ibid.) Maier‟s reading the poems through her ideological frame triggers a response,
which takes the form of criticism. She points out that, while the father is essential to the poet‟s
formation, the mother is an absence. The translator also detects sexist tropes used when describing
the link between language, the mother-tongue, and the poet‟s incapacity of fully expressing his
ideas: language is figured as “mistress of both lips who is guilty of giving birth to din and confusion
and to expression that petrifies…” (idem: 26). Maier‟s intention to translate the text conflicts with
her identity as a feminist translator. She has no desire to be automatic and submissive to the author
and the text, because of the strong feelings of anger.
Suzanne Jill Levine describes Guillermo Cabrera Infante‟s work as “oppressively male”, narcissistic
and misogynistic. His writing is full of stereotypical images of the woman as Other, either idealized
or degraded (the lover-whore, the devoted and unsexed mother, the virgin). However, he uses
negative images of women to express again the distrust in language as an imperfect instrument for
communication, the suggested idea being that of fear and distrust of women.
Levine‟s solution to this problem points to the fact that the woman translator is not a betrayer, and
chooses not to perpetuate stereotypes about women, even if only through interlinguistic transfer.
Rather, she prefers to make changes in the text and to undermine the misogynist and narcissistic
drives of the author, in order to recuperate some of the women‟s strength. Levine gives the example
of a source text implying that women are willing rape victims. She chooses to translate “no one man
can rape a woman” as “no wee man can rape a woman” (1993:83), where “wee” can be translated
by either “little” or “to urinate”. (my emphasis)
It is worth mentioning that not translating such ideologically unfriendly texts is not a choice.
Feminist translators choose, however, to make subversive changes in the text in order to undermine
male discourse.

6. Translating Experiments with Language

The questioning of the conventional patriarchal language seen as an unsuitable instrument to render
women's experiences led to experiments with language. Radical feminist writing sought to
undermine, subvert, and even destroy the everyday language maintained by institutions such as
schools, universities, the media and dictionaries. This oppressive and subjugating language needed
to be reformed and even replaced by a new women's language. Writers have coined new words,
new spellings and grammatical constructions, new images and metaphors in the attempt to get
beyond conventional archetypes. These experiments raised a new set of problems for the translators
and challenged them to come up with innovational techniques. Von Flotow names and describes

three practices of feminist translation: supplementing, prefacing and footnoting, and "hijacking"
(cited in Simon 1996: 15).
Supplementing, called by other translation theorists compensation has always been recognized as a
legitimate process of translation. It compensates for the differences between languages. The
example von Flotow uses to illustrate such a strategy is Barbara Godard's translation of L'Amer, a
novel written by Nicole Brossard. The title is a French neologism and a wordplay on at least three
terms: mère(mother), mer(sea) and amer (bitter). The combination reflects the author's
preoccupation with the patriarchal mother, a woman reduced to reproduction. Godard's version
combines the translation in English of the three terms: “The Sea Our Mother” and “Sea (S)mothers
and (S)our Mothers” in a graphic play around a large “S”: “The” on the left and “e”, “our” and
“mothers” vertically lined up on the right, forming “These Sour Smothers.”
Howard Scott‟s translation of Louky Bersianik‟s L’Euguélionne provides another example of
supplementing. The passage under discussion refers to the politics of abortion: “ Le ou la coupable
doit etre punie” (cited in von Flotow 1997:22) The “e” on the past participle shows that the woman
is the one legally liable for abortion. As English lacks gender agreement, Scott‟s solution runs as
follows: “The guilty one must be punished… whether she is a man or a woman” (ibid: 23) clearly
pointing to the legal reference in the source text.
Prefacing and footnoting are part of the “translator-effect” through which feminist translators assert
their identity. Prefaces usually have a didactic role, contextualising the work of the author and that
of the translator. They also draw the attention to the intentions of the original text, wordplay and its
particular meanings, as well as to the strategies employed to render the meaning. Feminist
translation focuses on the translation process itself.
“Hijacking”, the third technique von Flotow mentions refers to a highly controversial practice in
feminist translation. Hijacking means " the appropriation of a text whose intentions are not
necessarily feminist by the feminist translator.” (Simon 1996:15) The example used is the
feminizing translation of Lise Gauvin‟s Lettres d’une autre by Susanne de Lotbinière-Harwood.
The translator corrects language avoiding male generic terms (using Québecois-e-s instead of
Quebecois). In her preface, Harwood explains that the author had well known feminist sympathies
and worked with the translator.
By overtly signing the translation, Harwood undertakes a political activity aimed at making
language speak and work for women. However, this strategy is particularly risky. It functioned in
the case presented here, as the author seems to have been willing to abdicate her textual authority in
favor of the translator‟s more radical position towards language. Rightfully, one could wonder what
the consequences of such a gesture might be in the case of a translation that consciously redefines
the intention of the original text.
There are also cases in which translators choose to compensate for losses in translation.
Interventionism is by no means gratuitous, but solicited and oriented by the text itself. The
translator may use graphic modes of representation - in Godard‟s These Our Mothers - or may
translate a simple French word by two variants défaite by „defeat‟ and „de facto‟. “Chaque fois que
l’espace me manque a l’horizon, la bouche s’entreouvre, la langue trouve l’ouverture” becomes
“Each time I lack space on the her/i/zon, my mouth opens, the tongue finds an opening (her eye
zone)”. L’Anglais is rendered homophonically by „languelait‟.
Feminist translations place transformations at the very centre of the mechanism of representation.
They set into play a multiplicity of dynamic meanings, which make linear and transparent meaning
impossible. The feminist practices of translation deconstruct thus the long dominant theory of
translation as equivalence of fixed meanings.

References:

Arrojo, Rosemary (1993) Traduação, Descontrução e Psicanálise, Rio de Janeiro:Attica.
Chamberlain, Lori (1992) ”Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation”, in Venuti, Lawrence (ed.)
Rethinking Translation-Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology, London/ New York: Routledge.
Delisle, Jean (1993) "traducteurs medievaux, traductrices feministes: une même éthique de la
traduction?" TTR 6(1): 203-230.
De Lotbinière-Harwood, Susanne (1994) “Acting the (Re)Writer: a Feminist Translator‟s Practice
of Space”. Fireweed 44/45: 101-102.
Simon, Sherry (1996) Gender in Translation. Culture and Identity and the Politics of Transmission.
London &New York:Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (1986) “A Translator‟s Invisibility” Criticism: A Quarterly for Literature and
Arts 28.2: 179-212.
Von Flotow, Louise (1997) Translation and gender. Translating in the “Era of Feminism”
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.