If you’re reading this it’s probably evident enough to you what I do for a living, but even today I sometimes end up with nagging thoughts about exactly what to put as my translation of a given sentence or expression, like I’m just not as confident or proud of it as I should be. But this has taught me a valuable lesson: not knowing whether or not you believe in something – not “believing something” (as in is it true or false?), “believing in something”; there is a difference – which has originated at least in part from you is pretty convincing as a sign of madness.
“The most human trait is to want to know why.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rokGy0huYEA Sounds compelling. Still… I guess I’m going out on a limb saying this, but it’s also very human to want to know how… complete with a coherent definition of it, all in a way convincingly not marked by ambiguity or bias – this of course requires sufficiently apt language skills. Please acknowledge that I’m making a point of being as sincere as possible here as I endeavour to discuss reality… and not simply “reality as I know it”, in light of all that has been or just may be proven, or disproven, in relation to what I myself have perceived as I go through my own life.
Personally, even though I’m not a father, I wouldn’t want my children taught by self-appointed “teachers” preoccupied with teaching students to be “good enough that they will never have to follow the rules”. It is my understanding that a true education will enable one to appreciate and act on what cannot be identified by following “the rules” (however resolutely) alone; but that’s no reason to scorn “the rules” out of simple brazen ignorance. We all have our own story to tell, but having someone else act humbly on your behalf just doesn’t pay off. Gandhi surely realised this, hence his quote, “You have to be the change that you want to see in the world.” Well, excuse me, but I’m sure Genghis Khan and Hitler would have agreed – say what you want about the terrible deeds of both but I know enough about them that they suffered some considerable hardships by most people’s standards at an early age. So maybe it’s time to work out just what you really think in one respect or another? For how likely is it that you can expect to be the change that you want to see in the world with no concern for endeavouring to be the change you want to see in your own world? Believe me, I don’t mean this statement in the normal judgemental way: who do you think you are? As strange as it may seem to some, there is such a thing of being afraid of oneself – maybe at some point in your life you have known someone remark, “I must be mad!” It could be only be brought on by fear; if not manifested by confusion or denial (not necessarily out of cowardice), then by some form of underlying shame.
I say that because, in all candour, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone could definitively prove to me that any of my translation output was shaped by my own beliefs and perception of the world, even if said other person wouldn’t know what they are exactly (especially in cases where the right to privacy argument could legitimately be attached to individual aspects thereof). In any case, with my appreciation of the challenges of translation, it’s easy for me to put forward the question “Time to work out what you really think?” as one that I label important in connection with the matter of ensuring correct, and high quality, translation work. At the very least, I stand by my claim that a good translator always knows how to take a step back away from the bandwagon whenever they may unexpectedly find themselves inclined to jump on it as they undertake a translation assignment – certainly if it is for someone else’s benefit rather than their own.
It is well known, and rightly so, that consideration of aspects of culture matters when it comes to translation – and for all our advancements in culture, as well as science and technology and engineering, we, the human race, have always had our share of “hot topics” to obsess over even today – topics which plenty of us are only too impatient to make our voices heard about regardless of the level of veracity behind what we want to articulate – or just echo, as the case may be – even though, all too often, this action qualifies as good for merely promoting one’s own self-importance more than anything else. It is by no means uncommon for people who lack in courage and / or integrity to claim to be taking the “right” side of some widespread argument while having no interest in examining the facts first-hand – they just won’t admit it, of course. These people, who tend to be willing to project their failures onto their opponents, are hopelessly in the grip of their own bias, and they bring ridicule and contempt on themselves because of this.
Now, if you want a sample of “hot topics”, 2020 has definitely been a mad, tumultuous year, what with the Covid-19 pandemic and masses of worried and insecure people desperate to sound knowledgeable about this topic while in all likelihood failing to understand, or forgetting, how much it helps to sustain hysteria and the fake news machine (no offence). Then we have the murder of George Floyd – I’m not saying Derek Chauvin had nothing serious to answer for, but too many showed only a capability to buy into the incident as something giving credence to the crazed horrific yet unrealistic idea that American police are, in general, racist to the point of mass blatantly unjustifiable homicide against another racial group, like the Nazis or the KKK (even though there are black American police officers as well as white ones and everyone knows it). However, people have seemed surprisingly disinclined to discuss what led to the multiple atrocities in France during the October of this year, or what the latest developments regarding Brexit actually mean (unless they are supposed to be an established “expert”, of course). And, regarding the American elections, Donald Trump is all the more hotly debated at a time like this – from what I’ve seen, it takes virtually nothing to have most Americans either fawning over him or lambasting him. But whether you love him or hate him, it’s as if he wants the whole world to accept that he thrives on controversy – what is one really to realise with that one? Here comes the reality check bit: to provide one example, is it really fair to willingly put on a display of blaming Donald Trump alone for the 300,000+ Covid-19 deaths in America?
We can look at Trump’s history beyond all the eager labelling, and beyond holding him as an archetype of something far from what can be readily defined as typical good President / statesman material. But the point I want to make here is that, to provide a convincing case that you are willing to study him without the output of it being wholly shaped by disruptive emotional influence drawn from loose claims, some commitment to logic and neutral reason is imperative. In other words, judge not lest ye be judged. That’s why I say that the first thing I will mention about Trump is that he surely thrives on controversy and he knows it. That’s neither taking his side nor opposing him. And my own mother has argued that he’s more intelligent than he makes himself out to be. I think she has a point. Well, he is a big-time businessman, for God’s sake!
The truth is, it’s not enough to say that it’s human nature to want to know why, or how. It’s human nature to want to form judgements about things which you never could expect to see legitimately challenged and for which you would never believe you would be judged negatively – for better or worse… remember what I said about humility earlier. Maybe digital communication, and the extent to which the modern-day culture of it has developed, has produced swathes of people who genuinely don’t believe that people will take any sort of interest in them, and let them know what they think about them, unless they resolve to kick up some dust or do something which will shatter expectations, while for the most part rejecting any consideration of a discreet approach. It is, after all, natural for people to want to form a truly coherent judgement / opinion of someone else (good, bad or neither), even if it is much easier to do that by equating them to others which they already have coherent opinions of (whether fair or unfair), whether it’s based on some common aspect or quality or some diametrical opposite, and as a result of this the true identity of the one being judged may simply be overlooked and dismissed, quite possibly while they themselves lose touch with it through their determination to behave the way they do. And so it is for every kind of interest, or value system, which has a label; and what more could the history of society in the making (those aspects of it which will not be immediately obvious or mentioned so readily) hinge upon?
You know, since I’m happy enough to talk about both reality proper and Donald Trump in this article: how many of the Capitol Building protesters claiming to be fighting for Trump have always accepted and respected “freedom” for the fact that it’s not just the authority to think and do more than what you’re “supposed to”, but the very ability to think and do more than what you’re “supposed to”? Just that it was only a matter of hours before the world would condemn this act – condemn them for abusing their freedom, essentially.
To conclude, people are more proud to hold, and to share, authentic and credible opinions on people and things which are authentic compared to people and things which are pretentious. Remember that when doing translation work.