Gender bias in theory

Translation theorists like Lori Chamberlain have observed how the basic concepts of translation theory seem to have a gender bias. The concept of fidelity versus beauty / smoothness of translation is itself borrowed from the sexist notion of how a woman can only be either beautiful or faithful and cannot be both (“Gender and the Metaphorics of Translation, 315). If the translator is thought of as female while the text is male, then the comparison between fidelity in marriage and that in translation implies another aspect – the translation is wife or the dependant, while the original as husband is the primary source that demands and deserves loyalty. It also carries the hint of double standards when only the wife (translation) is blamed for whatever flaws there may be, and not the original. Chamberlain terms the relationship between the translation and the original as an “implicit contract” like that of a woman and husband / father, “which makes it impossible for the original to be guilty of infidelity” (315). This assumption “mimics the patrilineal kinship system where paternity – not maternity – legitimizes an offspring” (315).

Gender roles were first ascribed to the activity of translation by 17^th century British translation theorists.  Although the activity of translation was thought of as secondary and ‘feminine’, the gender roles ascribed to the activity varied. Usually the translator was male and the text was a female whose chastity had to be protected. The male / female duality also assumed the roles of father (author) and child (text), the assumption being that only the author can claim true paternal rights over the text. The translator became the pseudo-father figure who took over the position of the real father and his rights over the text. Since the text was a carefully protected virgin daughter, the translator-father took special care to ensure that her modesty was not offended outrageously. In terms of translation theory, this meant that the translator would not take far too many liberties with the text. The male translator could also have another sort of relationship – the author was the mistress whom the translator was trying to seduce. The author was identified with his text, and the female gender attributed to him was actually intended for the text. The translator as the lover had to flatter and seduce the author/text to make him/her overcome her feminine modesty and yield to the lover/translator.

These gender roles that were attributed to translation were not specific to a period that did not believe in gender equality, but is still prevalent in translation critical discourse. Sherry Simon observes: “Whether affirmed or denounced, the femininity of translation is a historical trope which runs through centuries of Western culture” (“Gender in Translation”). The original has the authority and hence “the original is considered the strong generative male, the translation the weaker and derivative female”.