CFP: Special Issue of Target — Rethinking Hegemony and Domination in Translation

CALL FOR PAPERS

Rethinking Hegemony and Domination in Translation

Special Issue of Target – International Journal of Translation Studies

Guest edited by Stefan Baumgarten and Yan Ying (Bangor University, Wales, UK),
and Jordi Cornellà-Detrell (Glasgow University)

Rationale

While there is no doubt that the ‘ideological’ and ‘power turn’ have reshaped the discipline of Translation Studies, much work still needs to be done in order to fully understand the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of the impact of ideology and power on the theory and practice of translation. The rapidly changing technological and corporate landscape in which translation theorists and practitioners find themselves immersed makes it necessary to keep exploring issues of power through sustained interdisciplinary engagement with other fields, such as the social sciences, critical philosophy or political science. Despite an increasing awareness of the impossibility of value-free research or practice, there appears to be a certain lack of self-reflection on our own entanglement within contemporary power structures. Structures which, in the apparent absence of an alternative to the current global capitalist orthodoxy, are largely driven by financial, economic and technological forces. With a view to opening a new debate on questions of hegemony and domination in relation to translation, this special issue aims to gather cutting-edge and cross-disciplinary research. By encouraging contributors to rethink the impact of power and ideology on the theory and practice of translation as well as on their own critical reflections, we welcome proposals dealing with contemporary political, sociocultural, (eco)linguistic, financial-economic and technological aspects of translation. The main aim of this special issue is to explore translation as a phenomenon caught in the conflicting forces of individual subjectivities, cross-cultural asymmetries, hegemonic values and the tensions between market-driven and customer-centric approaches.

Papers could focus on any of the following themes and aspects

Towards a (critical) theory of ideology and power relations in translation
• The legacy of the ‘cultural’ and ‘power’ turns
• New critical insights into the concepts of power and ideology and their relevance to translation theory
• Technoscience and posthumanism: a new turn in Translation Studies?

Power and ideology in the translation industry
• Ideological effects of technological change on translation theory and practice
• The social and ideological impact of translation technology
• Neoliberalism and technological rationalization

Politics, policy making and translation
• (Neo)imperialism after postcolonialism
• Symbolic violence, heteroglossia and (linguistic) imperialism
• Translation (technology) as a tool for activism and resistance

Deadlines
• submission of 1-2 page proposal by 30 April 2015
• notification of acceptance of proposals by 31 May 2015
• submission of completed papers by 31 December 2015
• submission of revised papers by 31 August 2016
• publication date: March 2017

Submission
Articles will be 6000-8000 words in length in English. Paper proposals of 400-500 words as well as the first completed and final versions of papers should be sent directly by email to all the guest editors. Detailed guidelines for papers are available at:https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/target/guidelines

Contacts
All inquiries should be sent to all the guest editors: Stefan Baumgarten (s.baumgarten@bangor.ac.uk); Jordi Cornellà-Detrell (jordi.cornella@glasgow.ac.uk); Yan Ying (y.ying@bangor.ac.uk)

2nd CFP: Atlantic Communities: Translation, Mobility, Hospitality

Second Call for Papers

Atlantic Communities: Translation, Mobility, Hospitality

University of Vigo (Spain)  ·  17th – 18th September 2015

 Co-organized by:

University of Vigo / University of Porto / Queen’s University Belfast

 Confirmed Keynote Speakers:

Michael Cronin (Dublin City University)

Charles Forsdick (University of Liverpool)

The Atlantic Ocean has historically played a major role in the relationship between the “Old World” and the “New World” both perceived as a geographical and cultural divide between continents but also functioning as a space of transit, mobility and hospitality. Accordingly, the history and culture of the diverse countries and continents that border the Atlantic tends to be studied either in terms of regional influence within the framework of a geopolitics, or as a series of exchanges and encounters between the different people and territories on or near the Atlantic shores.

This conference seeks to bring together scholars from across the social sciences and the humanities in order both to extend the focus of these approaches and to suggest new ways of thinking about what binds and what separates the communities and individuals that inhabit the complex social and cultural spaces on both sides of the Atlantic.

We invite proposals for twenty-minute papers that address these broad concerns. A suggested – though not prescriptive – list of questions that potential contributors may wish to interrogate and/or illustrate includes:

  • The Atlantic as an itinerary rather than a bounded site.
  • The movement of peoples and ideas.
  • Enforced migration and its consequences.
  • Trans/Atlantic journeys and translational processes.
  • Cultural exchange and encounter: contact, transfer and transformation.
  • Representations in transit: the Atlantic in writing, images and sounds.
  • “The rumble of tongues”: linguistic exchanges around/across the Atlantic.
  • The tracing of an Atlantic identity: Atlantic communities and national/political organization.

 

300-word abstracts to be sent to the organizers at: atlantico@uvigo.es by 28 February 2015.

Further details may be obtained from the organizers, Teresa Caneda, Rui Carvalho Homem and David Johnston, by emailing atlantico@uvigo.es

ASMCF North West Postgraduate Workshop Call for Papers: “Divisions”

ASMCF North West Postgraduate Workshop Call for Papers: “Divisions”

University of Liverpool

Wednesday 10th June 2015

The third ASMCF North West annual Postgraduate Workshop will be held again this year at the University of Liverpool. All MA and PhD students researching in areas relating to modern and contemporary France and the French-speaking world are invited to contribute. The event offers an opportunity for PG students to present their work in a supportive, semi-formal environment, and to take part in critical and constructive discussions with their peers and research staff.

Proposals relating to any aspect of modern and contemporary France are warmly invited. We encourage, where appropriate, an engagement with the workshop theme. Divisions has been chosen to reflect on the recent Paris killings, in particular the rift they have risked creating between the ideal of free speech and the notions of censorship and restriction. This has also prompted extensive debates about social and economic divisions, immigration and the integration of ethno-linguistic minority groups, the justification of violent retaliation, and the tolerance, or otherwise, of the postcolonial Republic.

We invite papers that explore divisions, as well as more general topics, from a wide range of perspectives, including (but not limited to) literary and media studies, history and politics, and social and cultural studies. We are also happy to accept proposals for presentations with a transnational or comparative dimension, as well as those addressing other aspects of Francophonie and France’s relations with the wider world.

Students of French studies are, of course, encouraged to submit proposals; though abstracts from researchers working on modern and contemporary France in history, politics, the social sciences, and other subject areas are also warmly invited.

Please send proposals for twenty-minute presentations together with a CV to Will Amos (h.w.g.amos@liv.ac.uk) and Hugh Hiscock (lc0u9067@liv.ac.uk) by 31stMarch 2015.

ENTANGLED PASTS

ENTANGLED PASTS: 7 things you should know about the recent pasts of France and Britain, in the wake of the attack on CHARLIE HEBDO.

Prof Charles Forsdick (Leadership Fellow, AHRC Translating Cultures) and Prof Andrew Thompson (Leadership Fellow, AHRC Care for the Future)

CharlesForsdickWEBandrethompson

1. Charlie Hebdo is part of a long tradition of dissent in France. Its genealogy can be traced back to the satirical press at the time of the French Revolution. In February 2006, Charlie Hebdo shot to global prominence with its depictions of the prophet Mohammed. But since its launch, the anti-establishment magazine has had plenty of other targets in its sights. Hara Kiri, the publication banned in 1970 for its irreverent take on the death of Charles de Gaulle (and which Charlie Hebdo succeeded) was firmly opposed to French colonialism, particularly during the final stages of the Algerian War of Independence. And much of that French empire was of course in the Muslim world. Jean Cabut (known as ‘Cabu’), cartoonist and shareholder at Charlie Hebdo, a founder of Hara Kiri, and a victim of the 7 January 2015 shootings, linked his own politicization and pacifism to a period of conscription in Algeria in the 1950s. It was also while a conscript in Algeria that Wolinski, another victim of the killings, first came across an advert for Hara Kiri that attracted him to the publication. For more on the history of Charlie Hebdo and its predecessors, see the Exeter Centre for Imperial and Global History.

2. British and French laws on racial and religious discrimination differ in key respects. In Britain, legislation relating to incitement to hatred is applicable to all faiths and creeds and rooted in a multiculturalist tradition. In France, the situation is more complex. Although the offense of blasphemy was abolished during the Revolution, the penal code and press laws relating to freedom of expression still prohibit defamatory communication, or that which incites ethnic or religious discrimination. Legislation passed in France in the 1990s also outlaws declarations that seek to justify or deny crimes against humanity, most notably the Holocaust. In 2007, a French court cleared Charlie Hebdo and its director Philippe Val of defamation charges – filed by the Paris Mosque and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France – relating to the magazine’s re-publication of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that had originally appeared in a Danish newspaper. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, a number of people have been charged with and convicted for ‘defending terrorism’, under legislation that removes the focus from laws relating to freedom of the press to the criminal code. The tension between such convictions and the commitment to freedom of expression has not passed without comment.

3. Britain and France are still struggling to escape their colonial pasts. This is not only true of how parts of British and French society view immigrants but equally how many immigrants view them. The shanty towns which housed many Algerian immigrants in France after the Second World War were terrible places to live. They were regarded by the French authorities as a danger zones and colonial officials were brought back from North Africa to monitor the conditions affecting Algerian immigrants and the political threat they represented. The association of such precarious housing with marginalization continued until at least the 1970s, and some argue that the housing situation of several migrant communities in France still today reveals continuity between the post-war bidonvilles and the contemporary banlieues. Britain never developed the equivalent of shanty towns, although first generation immigrants from its former colonies struggled to gain access to social housing and often had to rent rooms in dilapidated properties in run-down inner city areas.

4. Despite the recent ramping up of political rhetoric on immigration it is worth reminding ourselves that politicians have not always pandered to public prejudices. Take the classic case in Britain. During the heightened racial tensions of the 1960s, Enoch Powell delivered his famous and inflammatory “Rivers of Blood” speech, a widely publicized attack on the levels of immigration which deliberately cast doubt on the capacity of immigrants to integrate. But at precisely the same time Britain’s first Minister of Immigration, Maurice Foley, was touring the country, warning of the dangers of the growth of extremism. Foley drew attention to the fact that in many parts of Britain immigrants had largely been ignored and abandoned. He called for a common humanity, especially greater respect for immigrant’s own traditions and culture. Similarly in France, two decades later in the 1980s amidst renewed controversy over immigration, the rise of the Front National was challenged by SOS-Racisme, an anti-racist group founded in 1984. Many SOS-Racisme activists have since become prominent if not uncontroversial PS politicians: Harlem Désir, for a time First Secretary, is currently the French Secretary of State for European Affairs; Malek Boutih, former president, is an MP. SOS-Racisme, although not escaping criticism for its Republican and assimilationist stance, has played a key role fighting racial discrimination. It regularly acts as plaintiff in discrimination trials and actively challenging prejudice in both social and legal spheres.

5. The dynamics of the debate about immigration in Britain and France share more in common than we care to admit. Debates regarding French republican identity and British multiculturalism relate to the political will to move beyond a rhetoric of integration to affect a genuine accommodation of migrant communities. In France, the rigidity of a centralized republican model that requires assimilation is countered by an alternative notion of a ‘république métissée’ [hybridized Republic] that maintains core values whilst accepting the necessity of adaptation to twenty-first century cultural shifts and population flows. In Britain, the multi-cultural model is increasingly discredited in the eyes of many because it is said to encourage cultural separation. Repeated calls for “core British values” are offered as an antidote. But when asked to define those values, there is perhaps some irony in the fact that “tolerance” is often top of the list. In Britain and France, some critics of current government policy discern a persistent structural racism with colonial roots.

6. The flashpoints between migrant communities and the rest of British or French society have changed considerably over the last half century. Inter-racial relationships and mixed-marriages were once of far greater concern. Today the markers of integration (or its perceived absence) are more likely to be Islamic customs and practices (codes of dress, treatment of women, religious imagery), attitudes to which may differ among Muslims as well as between the Muslim and non-Muslim parts of the population. In France, intermarriage was met with hostility in the earlier part of the twentieth century, especially after the First World War. Attitudes have since changed. The 1999 census suggests that 38% and 34% of male and female married immigrants, respectively, are intermarried (including around 30% of those of North African heritage). A recent study has indicated that despite perceptions of its active multiculturalism, Britain may in fact have less immigrant assimilation through marriage than is sometimes suggested. Britain has a lower number of mixed marriages than France: it was reported that 8.8% of British marriages include one foreign-born partner compared with 11.8% in France.

7. There are a lot of myths about immigrants not speaking the language of their host country that recent data dispels. The 2011 census in England and Wales has allowed detailed mapping of linguistic diversity – in particular the super-diversity associated with many urban wards. The census revealed that, of the 8% (4.2 million) of residents aged three years and above with a main language other than English, 79% (3.3 million) could speak English very well or well; only 0.3% of the population (138,000) cannot speak English, with the majority of these likely to be recent arrivals. Comparable data for France is not available as national statistics are not permitted to reflect markers of ethnic diversity. The 1999 census nevertheless posed questions to a sample of 380,000 adult respondents about their family situation, including one relating to the languages in which their parents spoke to them before the age of five. The results suggested that 940,000 people consider Arabic to be their mother tongue, but these figures do not capture actual language practice and only reflect the activity of those born before 1981. In both national contexts, it is clear that acquisition of English or French remains a key element of social cohesion, although, for differing reasons, multilingualism is still seen as more of an impediment than an asset.

AHRC Care for the Future and Translating Cultures, jointly with the Institute for Government, have just published a major report on the role of history in policy making.