29th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Translation Studies
Second Call for Papers (new deadline: January 29, 2016)
“Translation and Ethnography: Reflexivity and Representation”
University of Calgary (Alberta)
May 30 to June 1, 2016
The 29th annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Translation Studies is
pleased to invite papers dedicated to the intersection of translation and
ethnography, two closely allied forms of writing that share not only in their
similarity of purpose (representing the cultural and/or linguistic Other) and mutual
inclusivity (one is frequently a component of the other.), but also in their common
struggle with the troublesome binary of “scientific” vs. “mimetic” representation.
The binary creates a dilemma that has been attracting researchers internationally
across a broad range of disciplines—not only in Anthropology, Ethnology, and
Translation Studies, but also in History, Aboriginal Studies, Museum Studies, etc.
The vital question upon which perspectives from all these different arenas converge
is one of research methodology—specifically, that of “reflexivity.”
“Reflexivity,” for the social sciences and ethnography, manifests when an object of
research is brought into focus by virtue of an explicit meta-discourse
acknowledging, examining, and accounting for the influence of the researcher as
he/she struggles with the dilemma of being a voice that cannot help but partly
fictionalize the Other, veer toward the mode of imitative fabrication that Aristotle
reserved for the poetic arts, and called “mimetic.” The term has taken on a broader
signification in the postmodern ethics of representation, referring to any written
account of the Other that willingly or unwillingly distorts its object, turning the
latter into a simulacrum pressed into the service of authorial bias.
Among both translation scholars and ethnographers, an ongoing debate determines
the prevailing ethic: Does the researcher lean toward the ideal of “scientific
representation,” toward empirical methods deriving from the scientific model? Or
does he/she privilege the hermeneutic approach exemplified by the tradition of
humanism? It is easy enough, at first reflection, to understand “mimesis” as the
bane of the former position, and the boon of the latter. However, as some
researchers become disillusioned with the very terms of this debate, they abandon
adherence to either one. Their credibility, then, is no longer the effect of a single
position (“scientific” or “hermeneutic”) assumed with respect to their object, but
rather by the subtlety of an ongoing reflexive exposition (often resembling self
doubt) that dialectizes these conflicting principles as they manifest.
The social sciences may well privilege the term “reflexivity” to refer to this authorial
self-consciousness, but the concept is trans-disciplinary, universal to research
methodology. It is an ethic acknowledging and accounting for power—both the
power assumed by the researcher’s voice over his or her object, and the power
relations prevailing between the Others constructed by his or her discourse (as we
see underscored, for example, by Cultural and Post-Colonial Studies). For the same
1
reason that the term permits a dialogue between ethnography and translation, it
invites further dialogue with any number of germane disciplines: How, for example,
have older disciplines such as History, anthropology, and literary studies conceived
this ethic, and what might their ongoing discourse on the reflexive process
contribute to ethnographers and translation scholars? How might this ethic carry
forward into disciplines either born of or developing concurrently with ethnography
and Translation Studies, such as auto-ethnography and interpretation? Further, at
the intra-disciplinary level, might a focus on reflexive practices help to overcome the
traditional biases that have prevented certain communal objects—translation and
interpretation specifically—from illuminating each other? Finally, there are
empirical methods within Translation Studies (research involving technical
interface with corpora, for example) and its related disciplines, such as terminology,
that privilege the principle of scientific representation, that take special measures to
protect their process against the skewing forces of researcher subjectivity. How do
these disciplines address the question (perhaps now “the problem”) of mimesis?
Other questions:





Might ethnography’s emerging discourse on reflexivity help translators and
translation scholars view their own modes of self-interrogation—mired in
ancient theological and political metaphors (“faithfulness”, “traduttore
traditore”)—in a more contemporary light?
How does reflexivity manifest in translated and ethnographic texts, and how
does it influence writing strategies in both? Are these strategies comparable?
To what extent do protective measures imposed upon methodology
immunize research against subjective influence? How does reflexivity
manifest within these methods?
What type of reflexive process is at work in translations and ethnographies
that use mimesis for the purpose of experimentation, that transgress (from
the point of view of scientific standards) for the purpose of representing or
translating cultural, textual, or linguistic effects that are not easily conveyed
from one language or culture to another?
What type of reflexive process is at work, for example, in ethnographic or
translated works that fall under the category of pastiche, parody, and satire?
How do the shadows that they cast help define the norms governing
“serious” texts?
...
Papers should not exceed 20 minutes. Your proposal (in English, French or Spanish)
should include the two following documents:
1) a 300-word abstract in Word format, which will be included in the conference
program
2
2) The form printed below, which is to be filled out. The information you provide in the
form will not be used to evaluate the quality of your proposal; rather, this information
will be printed in the grant application, which CATS will submit to the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
Please send your proposal via email to the organizers—Ryan Fraser
(ryan.fraser@uottawa.ca) and Philippe Caignon (pcaignon@alcor.concordia.ca)—by
January 29, 2016.
Surname (Family name)
Given name (First name)
Affiliation country
Affiliation
Diplomas (please start with the most recent)
4 LINES MAXIMUM
Positions recently held, as well as positions related to this event (please start with the most recent)
5 LINES MAXIMUM
Recent publications as well as those related to this event (please start with the most recent)
10 LINES MAXIMUM
Title and abstract (100 -150 words)
Relevance of your paper to the conference (100 - 150 words)
3