After Fidelity: Exploring Translation Ethics

Throughout its history, discourse on translation has included strong moral overtones; many, if notall, contributions dwell either explicitly or implicitly on the issue of how translations ought to beproduced. Traditionally, discussions of ethics of translation have tended to resolve around the centralnotion of “fidelity”. Ever since1980s, the concept of translation has been undergoing unprecedentedenlargement along with the considerable expansion of the vision of translation studies, epitomizing thedifference between the ethics of sameness and the ethics of difference. Once we abandon the quest forthe visionary sameness, the multitude of differences opens the question of ethics into new domains,which have been the focus of attention among an ever-increasing number of translation researchers andpractitioners. The whole issue of ethics is now very much a live topic profusely dwelt on by translationtheorists.This study on the ethics of translation focuses on the contemporary developments within both theWestern and the Chinese field of translation studies. Based on a meta-theoretical analysis andassessment of the state of the art in the ethics of translation in contemporary translation theory, and theclarification of some existing problems and disputes, this study attempts to shed light on theconceptualization of an “ethics of translation” or an “ethical approach” to translation studies.This study is composed of seven parts. The introduction serves as a lead-in to the issue underconsideration. A brief account of the aim of research and the methods used is also included.Chapter2gives a brief historical review of the past research on the ethics of translation dated from1980s, offering relevant background information for later discussions.Chapter3traces the decisive shift from the ethics of sameness to the ethics of difference and offersreflections on the latter. In a postmodernity-governed era which favors difference over universality, theethical tradition of translational fidelity has been rendered obsolete amid the varied reformulations ofthe role and ethics of translation under way since Antoine Berman, and along the lines by LawrenceVenuti, post-colonialists and feminists. However, these distinctly postmodern deconstructive approachesmerely entertain “deep suspicion of rules defining fidelity”, and the explanatory power of the concept offidelity itself is still very much sought-after as long as the rules for definition are agreed on, hence allthe revised versions of fidelity with the discussion repeatedly turning back to the question of where thetranslation’s fidelity should be directed to. Apparently, such stances are subject to the danger of double standards. Moreover, the ambivalent notions of translators’ visibility, literalism, and foreignization resultso often in impossible dilemmas of explanation in translation practice that they tell more of the choiceof stance than of practical strategy. The much-propagated postmodern “differences” unveil the vexedissue of ethics of translation, to which no revised version of “ought to” can work as a simple solution.Chapter4analyses and assesses the significant results in the exploration of professional ethics oftranslation in contemporary translation theory. The skopos theory is essentially prescriptive despite itsdescriptive value-free assumptions, and together with the introduction of the notion of “loyalty” byChristiane Nord, includes an unmistakable ethical dimension that bears on the translation profession.Anthony Pym’s model of professional ethics is subordinate to the aim of assisting in the creation of acollective identity of invisible and professional translators, to which end “translators’ prime loyalty mustbe to their profession as an intercultural space”. Andrew Chesterman probes into the fundamentaltheoretical issues of translation ethics under the general framework of deontology, and drawing onMacIntyre’s classic virtue ethics proposes the professional code of commitment. All the threeapproaches fall generally into the category of deontological normative ethics, contributing largely to thedevelopment of translation into a professional practice. Nevertheless, just as no code of practice canguarantee the moral “good”, so the ethics of translation should involve far more than is required by theprofession.Chapter5dwells on the debate between the so-called prescriptivism and descriptivism intranslation studies and its bearing on the ethics of translation as well. Based on an overview and analysisof the shift from the prescriptive tradition to the contemporary descriptive approach, and the recenttendency towards a new approach to prescriptivism, this chapter contends that the “ought to/not to”dilemma can not be meaningfully or fruitfully discussed through a mutually exclusive employment ofeither prescriptive or descriptive research method. The true moral choice arises only when discussionsof translation cease to resolve around such problematic dichotomies as fidelity/betrayal,invisibility/visibility, form/content, or prescriptivism/descriptivism.Chapter6gives a thorough exploration of the concept of “translation ethics” based on criticalreflections on its current usage in the domestic academic circles, where an apparent “norm”-orientedtendency can be observed in the discussions of ethics of translation. Drawing on the conceptualdifferentiation of “ethics” vs.“morality” and “norm” vs.“(moral) value” in moral philosophy, it isargued that “ethics of translation” is not to be equated with “ethical norms/code”. The future of “ethicalapproach” translation studies lie prospectively in the exploration of the true moral value in translation to bear on the formulation of a code of practice, with the support of relevant theoretical resources in moralphilosophy and virtue ethics.The conclusion offers a short summary of the whole work, and elaborates on the advancements,limitations of the present study and prospects for further research.