Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page102

politicsintheethicalencounterisidentifiedbyLevinasthroughthepresenceof

the‘third’party(letiers),thatis,apoliticalcontextwithinwhichethical

obligationsopenontowiderquestionsofjustice.Acertaincontradiction,

however,canbesaidtoemergefromLevinas’swishtosituatetheethical

encounterasprimary,basedinthebeliefthatsuchanencounterdependsforits

immediacyonitsdetachmentfromsocialorhistoricalforces.ForLevinas,such

adetachmentiscrucialineliminatingtheriskthattheOtherwillbeidentifiedas

otherthanprimordiallyGood.ButoncetheOtherisrememberedasofthe

world,oneofmanyothers,questionsthatareimplicatedineveryrelationship,to

dowithidentity,loyalty,power,differenceandindifference,inevitablyemerge

(Inghilleri,2008;andseeGouanvic2001).

Howeverdifferentlyinterpretedinthefield,theideaoftheethicalinLevinas’s

writingscorrespondstoviewsconcerningtheethicalandpoliticalresponsibility

ofthetranslatorrepresentedinanumberofrecentpublications(Simon2005;

SalamaCarr2006;Baker2006a;Sturge2007;Timoczko2007).These

individualandeditedworkssharetheinsightthattranslatorsandinterpretersare

unavoidablyandactivelyinvolvedandimplicatedinquestionsofresponsibilityto

others,whetherinactualsituationsofjudicial,political,militaryorideological

conflictorintherepresentationofsuchsituationsinfictionalizedaccountsthat

theyundertaketotranslate.Fromthisposition,theyexperiencefirsthandthe

tensionbetweenselfpreservationandrealorsymbolicviolencetowardsothers

ofthekindindicatedinLevinas.Oncethespacebetweentranslatorandtextor

interpreterandanotherspeakingsubjectisacknowledgedasirrefutablyethical,

thetaskofthetranslatorcannotbeviewedassimplyoneoflinguistictransfer,

wherethisisunderstoodassegregatedfromanethicalinjunction.

Thiscreatesafurthersetofquestions,particularlywithregardtocodesofethics

andcodesofpracticetowhichtranslatorsandinterpretersareprofessionally

andinstitutionallytied.Therelationshipbetweenethicsandprofessionalservices

orsocieties,whatissometimesreferredtoasthe‘deontologyofethics’–i.e.

ethicsperceivedasasetofobjectiverulesordutiesthatdecideethical

behaviourirrespectiveoftheirconsequences–hasbeenexploredonlytoa

limiteddegree.Itposesamajorchallengeforthefieldoftranslationwhenit

suggeststhepossibilityofestablishingasetofcodesthatcoulddistinguishan

ethically‘correct’courseofactioninagivensituationfromanethically‘good’

or‘bad’one.Acallhasbeenmadeforamovementbacktothedeontological,

totheestablishmentofactualguidelinesorcodesfromprofessionalassociations

thatwouldsupport‘altruisticalterity’inthefaceofsocial,culturaland

institutionaldemandsandconstraints(Pym2001a:134).Timoczko,however,

hasstressedtheneedtosituateanycodifiedtranslationethicswithinacontextof

selfreflexivityandarecognitionofthecirclesofaffiliationandresponsibilityto

whichtranslatorsandinterpretersarelinked,aswellascontemporaryviewsof

ethicalaction(2007:316–17).

Thereislittleevidence,however,thattheseideashavebeentakenupinany

comprehensiveandsustainedway,andthereisnocurrentconsensusonthe

natureandstatusofprofessionalcodesofethics.Theviewthatcodesofethics

areneededinordertoestablishguidelinesandenhanceprofessionalism

continuestobewidelyadopted,withorwithouttheadditionalcaveatthatthey

mustnotandcannotalwaysbeadheredto.Generallyspeaking,codesofethics

withintheprofessionrevealacontinuedstrongemphasisonnotionsof

impartiality,neutrality,accuracyandfidelityacrossarangeofprofessional

contexts,includingmedical,judicialandliterarytranslatorandsignlanguageand

conferenceinterpretingassociations.Thereis,however,agrowingawareness

amongstsometranslationscholarsandpractitioners,includinginternationally

based,sociallyactivistorganizationssuchasECOSandBabels,thattranslation

andinterpretingaresociallyandpoliticallydirectedprofessions,notsimply

specialized,languagerelatedactivities(Baker2006a,2006b;Simon2005).

Thequestionofwhetherdevelopmentstowardsanethicalimperativeindicatea

turnawayfromdescriptivismtowardsanewapproachtoprescriptivismand

deontologyremainsunclear.Itisperhapsmoreaccuratetosuggestthat

approachestoethicscanbeeither,orboth,dependingonhowoneviewsthe

veryquestionofwhatan‘ethics’oftranslationentails,andone’s

theoretical/disciplinary