Voicing the perpetrator's perspective: translation, authorship, responsibility

My paper draws on narrative theory and discourse analysis to explore the role and ethical positioning of translators (and ‘mediators’ in general) in relation to the texts they relay. Translators are not only mediators in the sense that they circulate a text in a wider community and address a new reading public. They are also literally ‘in the middle’, intermediaries negotiating between the text and the reader. In this capacity, they are sometimes – or maybe more often than we realize – confronted with texts expressing ideas and values they strongly disagree with but nevertheless transmit. My corpus consists of testimonies delivered by perpetrators of mass political violence and genocide (in Rwanda, and during the Second World War). The translation and circulation of these texts inevitably raise questions of ethical and social responsibility, and of accountability: indeed, why give the perpetrator a voice and an audience? Mediators are therefore often compelled to disclose their own moral position in relation to the text they transmit and counterbalance the perpetrator’s discourse. A discursive analysis will lay bare the polyphonic or “multivocal” (Hermans 2007) nature of the mediated testimony. It will moreover reveal that mediators resort to specific ‘framing’ strategies (Baker 2006), mobilizing rhetorical strategies to manipulate the text’s interpretation and possibly even undermine its key positions. This paper also aims to take part in the debate around translation and authorship. There has been much discussion around the position of translators and their responsibility for the translated text. Some scholars object that translators can speak with a voice of their own and deny them authorship in the ethical sense (cf. Pym 2011). I will refer to Goffman’s formal pragmatics, in particular to his ‘footing’ analysis, to point out that translators speak in fact with more than one voice (cf. Hermans 2007). Adopting the theatrical metaphor introduced by Goffman, I argue that translators stage themselves as mere ‘animators’ (expressing no personal opinion, cf. Venuti 1994) in the translated text. We can distinguish, then, the performed ‘figure’ from the ‘addressing self’, simulation from critical judgment. It is precisely the translator’s ‘split personality’, this marginal space between the translator and its figure, that creates the possibility for an ethics of translation. I believe this is a crucial and integral part of translation practice that allows us to understand its social, political and cultural meaning.My paper draws on narrative theory and discourse analysis to explore the role and ethical positioning of translators (and ‘mediators’ in general) in relation to the texts they relay. Translators are not only mediators in the sense that they circulate a text in a wider community and address a new reading public. They are also literally ‘in the middle’, intermediaries negotiating between the text and the reader. In this capacity, they are sometimes – or maybe more often than we realize – confronted with texts expressing ideas and values they strongly disagree with but nevertheless transmit. My corpus consists of testimonies delivered by perpetrators of mass political violence and genocide (in Rwanda, and during the Second World War). The translation and circulation of these texts inevitably raise questions of ethical and social responsibility, and of accountability: indeed, why give the perpetrator a voice and an audience? Mediators are therefore often compelled to disclose their own moral position in relation to the text they transmit and counterbalance the perpetrator’s discourse. A discursive analysis will lay bare the polyphonic or “multivocal” (Hermans 2007) nature of the mediated testimony. It will moreover reveal that mediators resort to specific ‘framing’ strategies (Baker 2006), mobilizing rhetorical strategies to manipulate the text’s interpretation and possibly even undermine its key positions. This paper also aims to take part in the debate around translation and authorship. There has been much discussion around the position of translators and their responsibility for the translated text. Some scholars object that translators can speak with a voice of their own and deny them authorship in the ethical sense (cf. Pym 2011). I will refer to Goffman’s formal pragmatics, in particular to his ‘footing’ analysis, to point out that translators speak in fact with more than one voice (cf. Hermans 2007). Adopting the theatrical metaphor introduced by Goffman, I argue that translators stage themselves as mere ‘animators’ (expressing no personal opinion, cf. Venuti 1994) in the translated text. We can distinguish, then, the performed ‘figure’ from the ‘addressing self’, simulation from critical judgment. It is precisely the translator’s ‘split personality’, this marginal space between the translator and its figure, that creates the possibility for an ethics of translation. I believe this is a crucial and integral part of translation practice that allows us to understand its social, political and cultural meaning.C