FEMI! make . This ously ical, ind on in this apply trans- affect stance \nd if rmuine lently deter- must stems tIONSs 1 sort socal at his it. He ns. a qual- anlin nity. iteria s that ining quate tures ighly iside hose there , but ISLC s the win ree, | po-ee 39 Marj Gra Pymoczke standards of judgment pertaining to | S. Venutl openly acknowledges ot criticizing him for his politi- ic tO and in fact share, Or ‘ne if we are tO build up litical engagement, we litiest branes of judgement rather than 7 nolitical amends f oF products ee ol cal Positions her o 1 " whic Tn ssmpathet for having a poli : . MOS a an > follow 4 theory ope ical agenda. The issuc IS we 0 must have practice of translation in relation ‘ i , with aval conceptual and analytic tools for done ee 4 Versio ae and criticizing the tools Venu nas of political correct er n of leftist rhetoric, an applicalion of standards ) po! tata ness that turn ultimately to individuals or toa party for arbitration ol pohuca appropriateness. They are not finally very specific OF germane to the particu- lar subject matter or content of translation as ¢ cultural phenomenon. . Ironically, what I am suggesting is that Venuti uses ihe methods of descriptive studies of translation. but ultimately his approach Isa normatlve One, and a highly rigid and wutocratic approach to norms al that, making ultimate appeal to his own vicw of politics rather than t the methods or contexts of translation. This is actually something that Venuti comes close lo acknowledging in his most recent work.” If it is Urue, however, then ultimately Venuti’s methods and concepts lead us backward rather than forward in the development of translation studies. for the development ol descripuy’ approaches as an alternative to normative approaches has been a major Watershed in the expansion of the contemporary academic disciplines related lO translation. These difficulties with Venuti's terns underlie served by others before me (see, tor example, Ben Robinson 1997a:108ff.. 1997b:97- 112). Venuti's normative lorcignizing and resistant translation is highly specific in ts cultural applica- tion; it pertains to translavion in powerful countries in the West in genera and to translation in the United States in particular, Venuti has been criu- Ch 7 . = . : aoa + zed for not offering a theory that is transitive, that can be applied to in nd my concen here 1s red. His concepts are additional problems ob- nett 1999, Pym 1996, stance about translation in smaller countries, in countries that are at a disadvantage hicrarchies of economic and cultural prestige and power In this sense his approach is not applicable to translation in postcolonial countries. Indeed the methods he proposes for achieving resistance would in those circumstance> lead to the further erosion of cultural autonomy and power. It IS probably mn part to rectily this theoretical and practical problem that Venuti has recently shifted his discussion to “minoritizing” translation, but mos! of the objections that I have already put forward pertain to this new critical formulation and. indeed. others have opened up.’ Moreover, Venuti's project, whatever the hea he uses, seems to be an elitist one, and Robinson (1997), among others. LAS ie y questioned how useful such chituism can be in political agendas. ‘n fact his position is S Jargon ane sceminsly precise technical terminology. s rather amorphous and dilute. Fis brief is roughly togement yenefit nethod stand- slators began ogical { theo- ¥enutl retical ip be- ology, pes of | here, sily to >, Pur- there y that uding forth, d and unsla- based Pover here, thods irgest nized s and MOSTS, t that nany | turn 1&th such were mple with