A personal (and perhaps not so controversial?) take on the who question

I found the pairing of Godayol’s article with the rest of the readings to be a little curious as the former is not really dealing with who should translate but more with the age-old question of what is translation, whether it be a bridging of the original, or another form of writing (as there is no original) or a whole new hybrid/third text. Yes the article defines it in terms of gender and gender metaphors but it doesn’t tie it to the who, even though the premise is quite ripe with gender implications of the translator profession – i.e. dominated by women, traditionally invisible, low-pay, etc. (or did I miss some subtle/obvious connection to the who?). But I suppose defining the what can inform the who, and perhaps that’s the reason for the pairing...

As for who gets to translate what, I tend to think the translator's positionality and proximity to the text do matter for all three definitions/metaphors of translation. I wholly agree with Bruna Dantas Lobato’s statement that translation is an embodied experience, so I think whatever you are comprised of (and lack) will show up in your translation in all sorts of interesting ways - But the point being that they’ll show up. 

I do think your positionality is determined by both your vertical and horizontal identities. So things like nationality, gender, race, and class can be proxies to indicate a particular shared experience or world view that allows for a deeper connection to certain texts that are close to that experience. But at the same time, I also believe lived experiences and even a profound self-awareness of your distance from the subject matter of the text can paradoxically also enable that connection to and appreciation of the text (albeit I tend to think more rarely), which I believe is required to translate well. Because language is porous, it might seem futile to think in these terms of the positionality of the translator/writer to the text/subject matter but at the same time, it can’t be denied that language is also used to transmit very specific perspectives and experiences that I believe draws on certain, allied sensibilities.

On a related but separate note, one of the things that Amanda Gorman’s translator controversy gets at is the structural problem of “the scarcity of Black translators” (NYT), which, in my view, does require a deliberate response. Without it, the lack of diversity will only continue, sadly, to all of our detriment.

- Lois