The Way We Talk about (and Translate) Gender

The field of gender studies has become more and more established in the past decades. Nonetheless, it is still extremely relevant and it represents a lens through which we can study translation. I have always been extremely interested in this field, and linking it to translation (and comparative literature) came naturally to me. This is why during my MA at Leeds I took advantage of the library’s resources and looked up as many books as I could on this topic! It seems that translation is not always given enough credit within the realm of genders studies, as it is frequently seen as a branch of comparative literature, or cultural studies, and quite rarely as a field in its own right. However, gender studies can benefit greatly from the wide range of case studies available in translation, whereas translation studies can use a gender perspective. Therefore, these two fields can complement each other.

The core ideology of feminist translators deals with the idea of rewriting the text in order to adhere to values that belong to the feminist paradigm. In this sense, manipulating a source text (ST) and recreating it through the mediation of the feminist translator’s ideology is perceived as a necessary, positive act. Nonetheless, this leads to a series of issues concerning the conflict between feminist ideology, on the one hand, and faithfulness to the original text, on the other. From the perspective of feminist translators, faithfulness and accuracy can be sacrificed in order to fulfill the intended purpose defined by the translator. Feminism not only comes into play through the translation proper, but also through feminist critique of existing translations, which highlights problems regarding gender within translation. This raises issues concerning the potentially biased nature of the critic, and their own personal agenda and ideology.

A good example of how feminism comes into play in translation is Simone de Beauvoir’s “Le deuxième sexe” and its two existing English translations.

“Le deuxième sexe”, first published in 1949, is considered a “philosophical essay” (Bogic, 2011: 151) and it presents a study on women from different perspectives. Due to its controversial content, it attracted harsh, widespread criticism from the Catholic Church as well as the French Communist Party, and several literary critics of that period. The text was first translated into English in 1953 by Howard Madison Parshley. As Bogic points out (2011: 153), the translator was a professor of zoology, and this could lead to speculations regarding the perspective the editors had of the text, that might have been perceived as a scientific text rather than a philosophical one. Drawing upon a comprehensive study conducted by Margaret A. Simons, Bogic (2011: 154) points out that in Parshley’s translation, around 10-15% of the source text was eliminated, including the names of around 80 women, and chapters on prominent female figures throughout history, suggesting that these cuts could have been based on a “sexist selection” (Bogic, 2011: 154). These deletions have a far-reaching effect considering the fact that the 1953 Parshley translation was used as a ST for the Japanese version and partially for the Persian one, as reported by Bogic (2011, 153). Therefore, we could argue that this version belongs to the category of patriarchal translations, because of its treatment of gender.

Due to this criticism, there was a real need for a new version of the text, and a retranslation was commissioned to Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier. The retranslation was published in 2009. Moi and other feminist critics contested the credentials of these two translators (Moi, 2010: 4), criticising a series of “mishandled key terms” regarding sexuality and gender as well as an inconsistent use of syntax and tenses (Moi, 2010: 6).

Relevant examples concerning shifts in ideology can be found throughout the two translations. I chose a couple of examples from the chapter titled “The Married Woman” (La femme mariée). The original text uses the expression “la seule justification sociale de son existence” (de Beauvoir, 1976: 221) when referring to women’s role in society. The 1953 translation opted for “the sole justification of her existence” (de Beauvoir, 1972: 446), whereas the 2009 version uses the expression “the only justification of her existence” (de Beauvoir, 2011: 452). Both translations eliminate the social sphere, and refer to a broader context, implying that the woman’s existence needs to be justified in toto. Where the ST talks about “la charge que lui impose la société” (de Beauvoir, 1976: 221), the 1953 Parshley translation talks of “these duties placed upon women by society”, whereas the 2009 translation refers to “the charge society imposes on her” (de Beauvoir, 2009: 452). The difference in semantic meaning between “impose” and “place upon” is striking, and the intensity of the act is eliminated from the 1953 translation, and rendered neutral. In the same chapter, referring to the status quo of patriarchal societies, the ST uses the expression “il est naturel qu’elle soit tentée par cette facilité” (de Beauvoir, 1976: 226), while the 1953 translation reads “she is naturally tempted by this relatively easy way” (de Beauvoir, 1972: 450). The 2009 translation provides us with “it is understandable that she is tempted by this easy solution” (de Beauvoir, 2011: 456). While the original seems to use the expression “il est naturel” to mean “naturally”, the shift in focus in the 1953 translation suggests an inherent nature of women to be tempted by the status quo, due to the grammatical form used. The 2009 text, on the other hand, used an expression of value, “it is understandable”, which is an addition.

The examples provided highlight a misconstruction of certain key points of the ST referring to the nature of women in the 1953 translation. However, the issue is whether or not the apparent mistranslations are due to an ideological agenda, or if they are simply linked to the lack of subject-matter and philosophical knowledge of the translators.

The thorough critique of the 2009 translation provided by Moi focuses on a range of issues with the translation, but it leads to questions regarding the biased nature of the critic herself, whose review has been described as “vengeful” (Noble, 2010), allegedly because of Moi’s desire to have been included in the retranslation project (Noble, 2010). This incident makes us question the ideology of the translation critic and stresses how language can be perceived as a manipulative tool from several perspectives, both from feminist and non-feminist translators and critics.

These examples show how gender is shaped and construed through language, therefore translation plays a crucial role in portraying stereotypes, ideas, and symbolism associated to gender roles and categories. As translators, we should understand the vital part we play in either subverting or conforming to stereotypes that shape our culture. And being more gender conscious, and questioning the way we talk about (and translate) gender could be a good start.

If you are interested in the topic of feminism/gender studies, and its link to translation, here’s a list of books or articles that I found rather interesting:

Godard, B. 1990. “Theorizing Feminist Discourse/Translation” in Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (eds) Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter Publisher

Kolodny, A. 1997. “Alcune considerazioni sulla definizione di una critica letteraria femminista” in Baccolini R., Fabi, M. G., Fortunati, V. & Monticelli, R. (eds.) Critiche femministe e teorie letterarie. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna. p.p. 37-64

Simon, S. 1996. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge

von Flotow, L. 1997. Translation and Gender: Translating in the ‘Era of Feminism’. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing

Reference List:

de Beauvoir, S. 1976. Le deuxième sexe II. Paris: Éditions Gallimard

de Beauvoir, S. 1972. The Second Sex. Middlesex: Penguin Books

de Beauvoir, S. 2011. The Second Sex. London: Vintage Books

Bogic, A. 2011. “Why Philosophy Went Missing: Understanding the English Version of Simone de Beauvoir’s Le deuxième sexe” in von Flotow, L. (ed.) Translating Women. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. p.p. 151-166

Moi, T. 2010. The Adulteress Wife. Available from: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n03/toril-moi/the-adulteress-wife

Noble, A. S. 2010. Beauvoir Misrepresented?. Available from: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n07/letters#letter1