Perspectives

Studies in Translation Theory and Practice

ISSN: 0907-676X (Print) 1747-6623 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Voices from the periphery: further reflections on

relativism in translation studies

Nam Fung Chang

To cite this article: Nam Fung Chang (2018) Voices from the periphery: further
reflections on relativism in translation studies, Perspectives, 26:4, 463-477, DOI:
10.1080/0907676X.2018.1443731

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1443731

Published online: 05 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 76

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20
PERSPECTIVES
2018, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 463–477
https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1443731

Voices from the periphery: further reflections on relativism in

translation studies
Nam Fung Chang
Department of Translation, Lingnan University, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper critiques the relativist and post-colonialist view that Received 15 October 2017
blames the under-representation from peripheral cultures in Accepted 15 February 2018
international translation studies on Eurocentric biases. Western
KEYWORDS
scholars who propound such a view underestimate the difficulties cultural relativism;
faced by scholars working in peripheral cultures, where freedom Eurocentrism; post-
of information and of speech is often limited, non-conformity is colonialism; discipline-
discouraged, and the Western academic repertoire is not entirely centrism; polysystem theory
available or acceptable. Their accusation that non-Western
scholars who accept Western repertoires have drifted away from
their cultural predecessors shows a lack of understanding of
peripheral cultures. While Western relativists think that they are
speaking on behalf of peripheral cultures, many scholars in
peripheral cultures reject cultural relativism as a selfish,
reactionary theory that justifies the refusal to help the weak, and
see it as their duty to become cultural and academic dissidents
striving to create new traditions. Radical relativists and post-
colonialists in Western translation studies are Eurocentric in their
criticisms of non-Western scholars. They are also guilty of
‘discipline-centrism’, by borrowing theories simplistically from
central disciplines to edge out theories indigenous to translation
studies itself, thus leading the discipline back to normativism and
perpetuating its peripheral position in the humanities.

1. Introduction
Translation Studies opened a forum on ‘universalism in translation studies’ in 2014 (Vol.
7, Nos 1 and 3), in which eight scholars responded to Andrew Chesterman’s position piece
(2014). While Chesterman leans towards universalism, all the respondents take positions
near the relativist pole, denying the possibility that there may be universal theories. Most
of the participants in the forum are working in central cultures (that is, cultures that typi-
cally export cultural repertoires), and many of them seemed to show a lack of understand-
ing of peripheral cultures (that is, cultures that typically import cultural repertoires),
especially the peripheries of such cultures. As some of them called for ‘greater represen-
tation from “minor” cultures’ (Wakabayashi, 2014, p. 102), and expressed a wish to
hear voices from the periphery (Batchelor, 2014, p. 339), I think I have a contribution
to make, by sharing the experience and perspective of a scholar who grew up in a

CONTACT Nam Fung Chang changnf@ln.edu.hk

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
464 N. F. CHANG

peripheral culture and is presently situated at its border.1 I will also quote from some
mainland Chinese scholars who publish mostly in Chinese, to make up for their ‘semi-
silence’ – as Wakabayashi (2014, p. 102) calls it – in the English language. This article
may have come rather late, but this is the first opportunity I have had to respond to
what has been said in the forum.2

2. Difficulties faced by scholars in some peripheral cultures

I agree with the view that voices and data from peripheral cultures are badly needed, and
that ‘[t]he problem has been one of both production […] and reception’ (Tymoczko, 2014,
p. 106). I will discuss the difficulties at the production end in this section, and will turn to
problems at the reception end after further analysis of how the issue of universalism versus
relativism has been viewed from a peripheral culture. The case I am referring to is China,
but I believe some of the phenomena discussed are not untypical of peripheral cultures in
general.
While it is true that
scholars from outside Europe have been less active in international circles of translation
studies, in part because of funding issues and in part because in some cases specific scholars
have become the “token” voices recognized for representing the views of whole nations
(Tymoczko, 2014, p. 106),

I think the problem is much more serious and complicated. Besides the obvious language
barrier, a great difficulty that scholars in the People’s Republic of China may have in
writing research papers for the international audience is the lack of academic freedom.
This problem is three-fold. First, they may not have access to accurate and full information
about the history and the current affairs of their own country and of the outside world
because nearly all the mass media are controlled by the state, a lot of data are classified,
and many internationally popular websites (such as Facebook, Google and YouTube)
are banned.
Second, they may not be free to study any academically worthwhile topics they like,
since the absolute majority of the universities and research institutes in China are con-
trolled by the ruling party. As Guo Yangsheng, a scholar working in China, observed:
Research on politically sensitive issues—or just political issues—is avoided; official sponsor-
ship of research projects is limited to ‘mainstream’ topics prescribed by the government or its
representatives in the academic world. Research results of studies not officially endorsed do
not stand much chance of getting published, let alone winning academic awards. (Guo, 2009,
p. 245)

A recent example is that researchers in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS),
the top research centre of China in the fields of philosophy and social sciences, are report-
edly asked to criticize Western ideas such as democracy, liberty, freedom of the press and
civil society. (Zhong, 2016)
Third, they may have limited freedom of expression inside and outside their country. In
2013, the Chinese Communist Party issued a gag order to university teachers, forbidding
them to discuss seven politically sensitive topics in the classroom, including universal
values, press freedom, civil rights, judicial independence and the past mistakes of the
 PERSPECTIVES 465

Chinese Communist Party (Li, 2013). In their academic writing, Chinese scholars are
required to toe the party line, as Guo (2009, p. 250) pointed out:
[A]ny theorization in sociology and the humanities is subject to the control of the hidden
theory (of Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and Deng Xiaoping theory), under-
stood as an all-inclusive system that is constantly expanding and developing. Consequently,
all theorization has to begin from and end in that master framework of the hidden theory.

Pre-publication political censorship is exercised by academic journals and presses in the

country,3 and scholars may not be entirely free to air their views outside the country
either. In the CASS, for example, researchers must obtain prior approval from their
unit heads for ‘publishing any books overseas, or publishing any articles or opinions in
any foreign media or publications’, according to a statement by Zhang Boshu (張博樹)
(2009), an assistant research fellow dismissed by CASS.4 There are scholars who step
into forbidden areas, but they run many risks. (cf. Guo, 2009, p. 245) Some have lost
their job,5 and some have received long prison terms.6
It can be seen that, in the case of China, what discourages people from speaking up is
the official culture, not colonialism as Maria Tymoczko suggested:
[T]he situation is also in part a consequence of the intellectual and cultural habits resulting
from centuries of European colonialism in which those who were physically and culturally
dominated […] were not encouraged to speak up or write back. (Tymoczko, 2014, p. 105)

It should be noted that this official culture is not entirely a product of communist rule. As a
Hong Kong educationalist remarked, in East Asian societies ‘individuals are under enor-
mous social pressure to adapt themselves to the system’, because in the educational
systems of these societies ‘there is still the traditional cultural press toward uniformity
and conformity’ (Cheng, 1998, p. 18). To see speaking up or talking back as a virtue to
be encouraged is in fact a view guided by values of Western origin.
Another closely related major difficulty faced by scholars in non-Western cultures
such as that of China who wish to produce products acceptable to the international aca-
demic market is that, in polysystemic terms, large parts of the academic repertoire may
not be accessible to them ‘due to lack of knowledge or competence’ (Even-Zohar, 2010,
p. 18). The reason is that, the academic polysystem originating in the West, parts of its
repertoire are alien to non-Western cultures or even in conflict with the values of the
latter. Dictionary definitions of the English word ‘academic’ usually include ‘theoretical’
and ‘not practical or directly useful’ (such as The Random House Dictionary of the
English Language), which indicates that ‘pure academic research’ is part of the
Western tradition, but Eastern scholarship traditionally prioritizes application. That is
why, in the field of translation studies, ‘pure translation theories’ such as polysystem
theory and descriptive translation studies have been misunderstood and resisted by
some Chinese scholars (see Chang, 2009, pp. 313–316), and the first (and only) pure
translation theory of Chinese origin appeared only in the 1990s, in the form of
‘medio-translatology’ (Xie, 1999), which focuses on the study of translation in the
context of literary exchange.
Many academic norms governing research attitudes and methods, such as neutrality,
detachment, objectivity, rationality and substantiation, are also specific to Western scho-
larship to a certain extent, whereas in Chinese academic writings value judgements vis-à-
466 N. F. CHANG

vis the object of study, patriotism, etc. are allowed or preferred, or even required –
especially, or at least, where matters such as politics and national interests are involved
(see examples provided in Chang, 2010, in press).
Even approaches to knowledge (see Anderson, 1998, pp. 3–4) can be culture-specific.
Take, for example, a legendary debate between two Chinese philosophers:
Kao Tzu said, ‘[…] Human nature does not show any preference for either good or bad just as
water does not show any preference for either east or west.’

[Mencius said,] ‘[…] Human nature is good just as water seeks low ground. There is no man
who is not good; there is no water that does not flow downwards.’ (Mencius, 1970, p. 160)

Mencius (孟子, 372–289 BC), generally acknowledged to be the second greatest philo-
sopher of ancient China after Confucius (孔子, 551–479 BC), is regarded to have won the
debate. Mencius, a collection of Mencius’ conversations including this debate, continues to
be one of the key Confucianist texts influencing generation after generation of Chinese
intellectuals, and Mencius’ theory and his canonized status have largely been unchallenged
in the official culture of today’s Chinese-speaking communities, including mainland
China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, where Confucianism remains a core value.
Perhaps not surprisingly, a British Orientalist, Arthur Waley, was the first on record to
point out the flaw in Mencius’ argument:
As a controversialist he is nugatory. The whole discussion […] about whether Goodness and
Duty are internal or external is a mass of irrelevant analogies, most of which could equally
well be used to disprove what they are intended to prove. (Waley, 1939, p. 194)

In response to Waley’s criticism, D. C. Lau (劉殿爵, 1921–2010), a renowned scholar on

Chinese classics, attempted to illustrate that Mencius was an ‘honest and skilful’ exponent
of the method of analogy in argument ‘by the standards of the time’ (Lau, 1970, pp. 235–
236). However, it can hardly be denied that his argument does not make much sense by
Western standards.7
Given such social and cultural differences, and the late start of the academic study of
translation in the non-West, it is very likely that many works by scholars in peripheral cul-
tures would have been deemed below standard by ‘international’ venues, even if they had
been translated into perfect English;8 hence the relative scarcity of their publications in
English.9 Many scholars in peripheral cultures would have no problem admitting that
they are lagging behind (see Chang, 2017, p. 149).

3. Voices from the periphery

These scholars from peripheral cultures have been accused, by scholars situated in the
West, of forgetting their cultural roots:
By the time researchers of periphery-origin have matured in their training, they start regard-
ing traditional (‘old’) concepts of and thinking about translation and translating found in
their own cultures as ‘inferior’, ‘useless’, ‘simplistic’ or ‘irrelevant’, and put them aside in
favour of translation theory in its ‘modern’ and ‘Western’ sense. These researchers are ‘edu-
cated away’ from their own culture and society. (Susam-Sarajeva, 2002, p. 199)
 PERSPECTIVES 467

Or, in a milder tone:

[T]he apparent ‘semi-silence’ on the part of some non-Western scholars (at least in the lit-
erature available in European languages) in relation to the field’s neglect of non-mainstream
traditions might reflect not only a drifting away from their cultural and intellectual predeces-
sors, but also an internalization of Western norms and perceptions (including that of
Western superiority) and a concomitant aspiration to emulate the mainstream. (Wakabaya-
shi, 2014, p. 102)

These Western scholars deny any possibility of Western superiority and demand loyalty
on the part of scholars in peripheral cultures to ‘their own culture and society’ as a
matter of principle. I have responded to this view by arguing for such a possibility in
theory (Chang, 2017) and by illustrating it with an example (Chang, 2015, pp. 234–
237). In this section I will try to show that this view results from a simplistic understanding
of peripheral cultures.
People anywhere may from time to time feel dissatisfied with ‘their own culture and
society’, or with certain repertoires in it. They either attempt to modify these repertoires,
or invent new ones to replace them, or look for existing alternatives. It may so happen at
some point in their search that they find certain foreign repertoires superior to the existing
ones. They may reach such a point before they ‘have matured in their training’, or even
without any formal training. In developing and/or oppressive countries such a point
can be reached under a lot more circumstances than people in developed countries can
experience or imagine. There, the survival of certain individuals or groups, or even the
whole nation, may sometimes depend on successful replacement of current repertoires
or on turning away from one’s ‘own culture and society’.
My criticism that post-colonialists sometimes regard peripheral cultures as uni-systems
(Chang, 2017) also applies to Western translation scholars who embrace post-colonialism.
The ‘cultural and intellectual predecessors’ in China do not form a straight line. On the
one hand there is Confucius, whose canonized status has recently been restored in main-
land China to back up the rule of the Communist Party (cf. Wan, 1995, p. 144); on the
other hand there are, for example, the participants of the May 4 New Culture Movement
of 1919, who called for the rejection of traditional values, including Confucianism, and
whose legacy has been passed on to many intellectuals in present-day China, such as
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo (see Liu, 1989). As Chen Pingyuan, a Beijing-
based literary scholar, observed:
Many of the Western concepts that we have accepted in the past century, from equality and
evolution—which were brought in by the early missionaries, to Science and Democracy—
which were advocated in the May 4 Movement, and to Marxism—which has spread to the
whole country and has been put into practice, have deposited in our daily life, forming a
new cultural tradition. (Wu, 1995, p. 78; my translation)

Given the existence of such rival traditions, which form a polysystem with fierce struggles
between the central and peripheral strata, to ask scholars to stick to the most canonized,
the officially sanctioned, or the central stratum, is to ask them to submit to power and to
go backward.
In translation studies, it is by giving up the prescriptive, source-oriented, text-centred
traditional theories and introducing contemporary Western theories that ‘a new system of
knowledge’ has been set up in China (Cheung, 2009, p. 27; see Chang, 2015, pp. 229–231).
468 N. F. CHANG

Medio-translatology, the only descriptive translation theory of Chinese origin, for

instance, is a product of this new tradition. If all Chinese researchers had stuck to their
old traditions, they would have still been arguing about how to be faithful to the original
text, and consequently there would have been even less useful Chinese data made available
internationally. It is ironic that while Chinese scholars are celebrating the progress
they have made and starting to make increasing contributions to international
translation studies, they should be criticized by scholars who are calling for more data
from peripheral cultures.
The assertion that some non-Western scholars have drifted away from their cultural
and intellectual predecessors reflects an under-estimation of their intelligence and
strength, because the word ‘drift’ implies that these scholars have lost control of their
own direction, being driven by some external force that they are unaware of or have
failed to resist, whereas for many of them the turning away is a deliberate, informed
choice and for some of them even a risky one.
In China, translation scholars are indeed rather silent on the issue of cultural relativism –
they just let their research work be guided by some Western theories (see Chang, 2009).
Mona Baker’s remark that ‘scholars of translation by and large tend to shy away from
dealing with issues relating to ongoing contemporary conflict’ (Baker & Chesterman,
2008, p. 10) somehow applies there. However, some Chinese scholars in other fields,
such as literary studies, social sciences, cultural studies, philosophy and law, have been
very vocal since the late 1980s.
While the Chinese authorities have from time to time defended their human rights
records and the one-party dictatorship by emphasizing cultural differences, many
Chinese scholars in the fields mentioned above have taken a negative stance towards cul-
tural relativism, although they have acknowledged its contributions to cultural diversity
and inter-cultural tolerance. They are of the view that the recognition of cultural relativity
has enabled us to see that the backward state of certain ethnic groups has been caused by
the constraints of various historic factors, such as low productivity, class exploitation and
the natural environment, but cultural relativism as a theory is fundamentally wrong in that
it has pushed cultural relativity to the extreme, denying the comparability of cultures and
the possibility of progress. (Fei, 1992; Li, 1987) As Ma Qingyu (1997, p. 15) observed,
‘When a totalitarian culture and a democratic culture are put before your eyes, cultural
relativism, by maintaining a non-judgemental stance, does not only look bookish but
even makes people wonder about its motive.’ An entry on cultural relativism in a
Chinese dictionary of anthropology sums up this view:
The drawbacks [of cultural relativism] include the exaggeration of cultural relativity, the
denial of the regularity and universality of cultural development, and, based on these pre-
mises, the denial of differences in the levels of social development, and the refusal to advocate
helping lagging-behind nations to upgrade their culture. (Chen & Shi, 1990, p. 86; my
translation)

A radical version of this criticism runs as follows:

Cultural relativism is in effect an extremely reactionary theory. It is a theory that helps those
who have lagged behind to stay behind; a theory that provides spiritual weapons to those who
kill people; a theory that helps those who have material means and modern viewpoints but
remain cowardly and selfish; and a theory that gives justifications to those so-called civilized
 PERSPECTIVES 469

people who refuse to help the weak by turning a blind eye to barbaric, inhuman incidences.
Cultural relativism is therefore an irresponsible theory. (Ge, 2002, p. 18; my translation)

Some Chinese scholars have also been critical of the relativist assumption of the nation as a
community of interest. They have argued that, rather than sharing the same interests and
values, members of a nation are divided into the rulers and the ruled (Fei, 1992, p. 24; Ge,
2002, p. 19). One of them (Tong, 2011, p. 36) even warned that the so-called common
interest of the whole nation can easily be used by certain interest groups as a pretext to
benefit themselves.
Cultural relativism has caused concern to Chinese scholars because its moral attitude is
perceived to have become the opposite in the non-West:
Cultural relativism was originally mixed with some Western scholars’ aversion to racism and
cultural colonialism and their understanding of and respect for the cultures of backward
nations, but this idea has mutated in developing countries, resulting in a decrease in under-
standing and respect on an equal footing and an increase in exclusion and hostility, and even
becoming a theoretical basis for anachronism, conformism, conservatism and complacency
among some scholars. (Ma, 1997, p. 16; my translation)

It is therefore seen to have become a major obstacle to the development of Chinese culture
and the modern transformation of Chinese scholarship. (Zhang, 2004, p. 8)
Contrary to the relativists’ demand for people in peripheral cultures to stick to their own
culture and society or to follow their intellectual predecessors, these Chinese scholars see
themselves not as ‘mere inheritors of culture’, but as ‘critics of cultural traditions and crea-
tors of new cultural value systems’ (Zhang, 2004, p. 7), or even as ‘“dissidents” who, freeing
themselves from the fetters of their own culture, interpret the situation of a society from the
standpoint of those who are both outsiders and insiders’ (Liu & Wang, 2005, p. 95). To fill
such a role, they need to educate themselves away from their own culture and society.
The reception of cultural relativism in China is an example of a theory developed by
Western anthropologists being rejected by their objects of study. These objects realize
that, rather than claim to be a different culture, they should admit the backward state
of their culture because only by doing so can they learn from the advanced and make
up for lost time (Li, 1987, p. 81). This phenomenon may also serve as a counter-
example of what has been described as a tendency in ‘contemporary discourses in the
non-Western world […] to borrow theoretical principles from the West without fully eval-
uating their validity’ (Kothari & Wakabayashi, 2009, p. 3) in the local context, because
many scholars in China do borrow Western ideas discriminatingly. They do not all
aspire ‘to emulate the mainstream’, because radical cultural relativism and post-colonial-
ism presently constitute the mainstream in Western academia.
A further lesson to be learned is that it is not sufficient to say that data is needed from
the periphery, because a distinction must be made between voices and data from the per-
iphery (such as cultural, political and/or academic dissidents) of the periphery and those
from the centre (such as those who champion official culture) of the periphery. A relativist
scholar, by endorsing ‘the challenge of some Asian nation-states to the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights as a form of cultural imperialism’ (Gunaratne, 2007, p. 67), seems to
regard Asian governments as sole legitimate representatives of their nations. However, it
should be an academically relevant question whether such a challenge is made by the
whole nation or just by their ruling class.
470 N. F. CHANG

4. A peripheral perspective on what goes unheard in the West, and why

With regard to problems at the reception end that have caused the under-representation of
peripheral cultures in ‘international’ translation studies, relativist scholars have noticed a
‘tendency for voices coming from less globally powerful institutions/nations/languages to
go unheard’ (Batchelor, 2014, p. 339), and blamed it on editors and conference organizers
who ‘privilege European data’ and who are ‘not receptive to examples and arguments that
challenge dominant Eurocentric views’ (Tymoczko, 2014, p. 105). The examples they have
cited for the ‘blatant’ ‘resistance to the international turn’ are ‘the refusal to publish a
keynote address challenging Eurocentric hegemony’, ‘the rejection of a case study for
lack of knowledge on the part of reviewers of the language and culture discussed’
(Tymoczko, 2014, p. 105), and the fact that ‘none of the ten keynote speakers at three con-
ferences in 2013 related to rethinking Translation Studies (TS) or power in the field […]
are from non-Western translation cultures or specialize in their study’ (Wakabayashi,
2014, p. 102).
However, my personal experience and my observation seem to suggest a different
picture. Before 2010 I had little trouble getting my articles – nearly all of them using
some Chinese data – accepted by international translation studies journals and confer-
ences. Only once was it necessary for me to submit to a second journal. Many editors,
including the one who rejected my submission once, gave me very constructive feedback
and helped improve my English. In those years I was also accepted by every conference to
which I submitted an abstract. Sometimes I even wondered whether there might have been
discrimination in favour of non-Western data on the part of editors and referees, seeing
that some articles expressing very out-dated views on translation and giving a rather
untruthful picture of translation studies in China have been published (such as Fan,
1994; see Chang, 2015, p. 230).
It was in 2010 that my publication projects began to get into trouble in the West, as I
became critical of prescriptive cultural relativism, post-colonialism, and the concern for
Eurocentrism. For example, a paper of mine (Chang, 2017) was rejected by three inter-
national journals10 before it was accepted in 2016 by a journal based outside the
centre,11 and two abstracts on these issues were rejected by major conferences.12
Further, it is one thing to get one’s articles published and quite another to get them
taken seriously by Western readers. When I tried in my articles to disagree with some
Western scholars on certain issues, on more than one occasion I was asked by the referees
to read more about the argument of the other side, but I found it necessary to repeat myself
because the scholars on the other side were apparently unaware of the data and argument I
had presented in English. My dialogues with them have not been conducted on an equal
footing as I was required to know more about their work than they do about mine.
As far as I can see, many international conferences on translation studies have been
heavily influenced by relativist, post-colonialist and/or anti-Eurocentric thinking. For
example, the mission of the first four Asian Translation Traditions Conferences, held in
2004, 2005, 2008 and 2010, respectively, was ‘to challenge the Eurocentric bias of Trans-
lation Studies’ (The Fourth Asian Translation Traditions Conference, 2009); and I kept
bumping into Western post-colonialists and/or relativists as keynote speakers in confer-
ences held in West Europe that I attended or applied to attend in 2013–2015.13
 PERSPECTIVES 471

By claiming to take side with the weak, cultural relativism and post-colonialism have
assumed a position of power; by calling for the decentring of translation studies, these the-
ories have moved to the centre of the discipline, becoming a contributing factor to the ten-
dency for certain voices from the periphery to go unheard or unheeded.

5. Discipline-centrism
Relativist scholars accuse translation scholars of peripheral nations of being educated away
from their own culture and society for regarding theories from central nations as superior
and importing these theories without fully evaluating their validity. This accusation can in
fact be more aptly applied to relativist scholars themselves if the word ‘nations’ is replaced
by ‘(academic) disciplines’, because they have imported cultural relativism, post-colonial-
ism and anti-Eurocentrism from central disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and
cultural studies without fully evaluating the validity of these theories in the context of
translation studies, which remains a peripheral discipline. To draw such a parallel is
not as far-fetched as it may seem at first glance, because we can see commonalities in
the two types of phenomena if we observe them from a polysystemic perspective and
regard both national cultures and academic disciplines as systems: both types of phenom-
ena involve the transfer of theories from central systems to a peripheral one, initiated by
agents in the target system who look on the source systems as suppliers of superior
repertoires.
In the case of importing theories from central disciplines into translation studies, the
selection of items to be imported was not always based purely on academic considerations.
Post-colonialism, for example, is preferred to Marxism because the latter ‘has fallen out of
favour’ (Tymoczko, 2000, p. 32). This seems to indicate that the former is chosen for its
fashionableness more than for its truth value.
One of the justifications to discuss the issue of Eurocentrism in translation studies is that
many other disciplines have done so, and that ‘our discipline was probably one of the last to go
through this “rite of passage”’ (Susam-Sarajeva, 2014, p. 335). This remark smacks of both dis-
cipline-centrism and ethnocentrism, which are two specific forms of system-centrism. It is dis-
cipline-centric because the fact that other disciplines have done something does not mean that
‘our discipline’ must do the same, since every discipline may have problems specific to it. It is
ethnocentric – or Eurocentric to be more exact – because ‘our discipline’ turns out to mean
only or mainly that branch of the discipline in Europe and North America.14 Translation
studies in China, for example, has not done so yet, in spite of the fact that some other disci-
plines in China, such as comparative literature, have. According to the China Academic Jour-
nals Full-text Database, in Chinese Translators Journal, China’s top journal on translation
studies, the Chinese term for ‘cultural relativism’ – that is, ‘wenhua xiangdui zhuyi’ (文化
相對主義) or ‘wenhua xiangdui lun’ (文化相對論) – has never been used; and the
Chinese term for ‘Eurocentrism’ – that is, ‘Ouzhou zhongxin zhuyi’ (歐洲中心主義) – has
been used in 22 articles, but none of them refers to the situation regarding translation
studies in China. I wonder whether relativists in the West are prepared to say that translation
studies in China is still a child in comparison to translation studies in Europe and North
America because it has not gone through this ‘rite of passage’, or if they will insist that it is
unnecessary for peripheral cultures to accept European norms, including anti-Eurocentrism.
472 N. F. CHANG

In China, many scholars have reflected on the limitations or applicability of some of the
Western theories that have been imported. It can be said that translation studies in China
has attempted, whether successfully or not, to take part in what may be called the ‘benign
circle’ in which
the findings of a well-executed study will always bear on the theory in whose framework it has
been performed, thus contributing to the verification/refutation/modification of this theory,
whether theory-relevant implications are drawn by the researchers themselves or by empiri-
cally minded theoreticians. A theory thus refined will, in turn, make possible the execution of
yet more elaborate studies, which will then reflect on the theory and render it even more
intricate; and so on and so forth […]. (Toury, 1995, p. 266)

In contrast, the prescriptive relativist tenet that ‘no culture is superior to another’ has been
used to rule out a priori the possibility that some Western translation theories may be
superior to some non-Western ones, without examining the evidence, as I have argued
elsewhere (Chang, 2015, p. 2017). It can be said that cultural relativism and post-coloni-
alism have been imported to translation studies in the West uncritically, without reflecting
on their limitations in their original context and in translation studies. Furthermore, these
theories were transferred in an ‘epigonic’ manner. Discussions about the issue of Euro-
centrism have been more sophisticated in sociology (see, for example, Wallerstein, 1997
and McLennan, 2000), but the concept went through a process of secondarization, or sim-
plification, when it was transferred to translation studies, resulting in, for instance, the
simplistic equation between ‘Western’ and ‘Eurocentric’ (see Chang, 2017). Consequently,
the benign circle is broken. In this regard, translation studies in Western Europe and
North America is more discipline-centric than the discipline in China is Euro-centric.
As a result of massive repertoire transfer from central disciplines, some models and the-
ories more indigenous to translation studies were, in the words of Susam-Sarajeva (2002,
p. 198), ‘suppressed and gradually came to be forgotten’. For instance, Tymoczko (2006,
p. 27) suggested that ‘in […] breaking the hold of Eurocentric stereotypes of translation, it
may be helpful to consider forms and modes of cultural interface that are related to trans-
lation but distinct from it’, such as ‘transference’:
In transference or transmission, material is moved from one cultural context to another, but
the mode of transfer is not specified. […] Thus, transference can result in cultural products
that are either very close (even identical) to the source substance or very different from the
source material. In cultural transfer, then, there is no presupposition about either the process
or product of the cultural transposition. […] Thinking about transference or transmission
can remind translation studies scholars of how varied cultural mediation can be in process
and product, helping to move their thinking beyond their own particular cultural presuppo-
sitions and prototypes. (Tymoczko, 2006, p. 27)

This is a very sensible suggestion; however, it is not entirely new. A quarter of a century
before Tymoczko came up with the idea in 2006, the importance of a similar notion – that
is, the notion of ‘transfer’ – for translation studies was discussed by Itamar Even-Zohar in
more detail, in an article entitled ‘Translation Theory Today: A Call for Transfer Theory’:
Our accumulated knowledge about translation indicates more and more that translational
procedures between two systems (languages/literatures) are in principle analogous, even
homologous, with transfers of various kinds within the borders of the system. As systems
are no longer conceived of as homogeneous, static structures, transfer mechanisms, that is,
the procedures by which textual models in one system are transferred to another […]
 PERSPECTIVES 473

constitute a major feature of systems. […] [W]ould it be wiser to acknowledge the implicit
practice whereby translation is discussed in terms of transfer and vice versa? In other
words, would it be profitable to establish a transfer theory, and if so, where will inter-systemic
translation be located, and with what consequences? (Even-Zohar, 1981, p. 2)
The two notions are not identical: while Tymoczko’s ‘transference’ refers to the movement
of material, Even-Zohar’s ‘transfer’ refers to the movement of the models for cultural pro-
ducts. However, they are closely related. A lot of labour spent on theorizing could have
been saved if Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory in all its complexity had been given due
attention.
The importation of models and theories from central disciplines and the concomitant
suppression of indigenous ones have led to a change of course in translation studies by 180
degrees. Polysystem theory and descriptive translation studies, specifically designed for the
study of translation phenomena, marked the advent of descriptivism. Probably still influ-
enced by these approaches, in 2000 Tymoczko (2000, p. 39) criticized Lawrence Venuti’s
politically committed stance for turning the clock back:
Venuti uses the methods of descriptive studies of translation, but ultimately his approach is a
normative one, and a highly rigid and autocratic approach to norms at that […]. Venuti’s
methods and concepts lead us backward rather than forward in the development of trans-
lation studies, for the development of descriptive approaches as an alternative to normative
approaches has been a major watershed in the expansion of the contemporary academic dis-
ciplines related to translation.
However, a few years later she began to take an equally committed approach, calling for
the empowerment of translators (Tymoczko, 2007), so as to give them ‘a great deal more
freedom to create texts, to make meaning, to be active cultural agents’, on the ground that
‘it is in the interest of those in power to deny translators an active role in making meaning’
(Tymoczko, 2009, pp. 412–413). One cannot help wondering whether such a move will
necessarily be good for all human kind in all contexts, whether those in power are
always bad guys wherever they are – including those in Western academic circles, or
whether the principle applies to translators who are translating for the powerless. It
seems that what Tymoczko said about Venuti in 2000 (p. 39), that ‘[h]is concepts are a
version of leftist rhetoric, an application of standards of political correctness that turn ulti-
mately to individuals or to a party for arbitration of political appropriateness’, can equally
be said about her changed views.
The mindset of translation scholars who tend to look to other disciplines for theories
has contributed to the perpetuation of the peripheral position of translation studies in
the academic polysystem, because an importer of repertoires will always remain on the
periphery. There are ways to elevate the status of a discipline. One is to produce theories
that other disciplines may find useful, and another is to improve imported theories to
make them worthy of re-export. It is not that translation studies does not have the poten-
tial to do so. Polysystem theory, originally designed for translation studies, has evolved
into a literary theory and even a general theory of culture, making an impact in disciplines
such as comparative literature and cultural studies. If anthropology is to draw inspiration
from Toury’s relativist and descriptive definition of translation, it will find that, in order to
refrain from judging its object of study, it may say that the evaluation of cultures is not its
concern, instead of saying that cultures are equally valid, which is a value judgement that is
not based on facts (see Chang, 2017). The failure to see the full value of these theories and
474 N. F. CHANG

ideas may be said to reflect a drifting away from the ‘theoretical predecessors’ of contem-
porary translation studies.

6. Concluding remarks: the need for a new phase of self-reflection

Post-colonialist theories have ‘contributed to a greater understanding of translation in
contexts of unequal power’ (Wakabayashi, 2014, p. 101), and led translation studies
into ‘a period of self-reflection and self-scrutiny’ (Susam-Sarajeva, 2014, p. 335).
However, these ‘foreign’ theories have led translation studies backward into prescripti-
vism, edged out indigenous theories, perpetuated the peripheral position of the discipline,
and given birth to discipline-centrism and a new form of Eurocentrism and hegemony.
It is high time for translation studies in the West to enter a new phase of self-reflection.
I would like to raise three points in particular.
First, one must be aware of the differences in working conditions: while making chal-
lenges to power centres is generally safe and even professionally rewarding for scholars in
the West, doing so in peripheral cultures may get one into great trouble.
Secondly, cultural relativists in the West, being in a position of power and having
turned away from their cultural and intellectual predecessors in a certain sense, should
be more careful in criticizing scholars in peripheral cultures for turning away from
their cultural and intellectual predecessors.
Finally, efforts to decentre translation studies (Kothari & Wakabayashi, 2009) need to
be coupled with efforts to decentre academic disciplines, not for the interest of one disci-
pline, but for the benefit of all disciplines in the humanities.

Notes
1. I lived in mainland China for nine years before returning at the age of 21 to Hong Kong,
which, having been a British colony for over a century, is presently a Special Administrative
Region of China, supposedly with a high degree of autonomy.
2. I was invited by the editorial staff of Translation Studies in 2012 to respond to Chesterman’s
position piece, but I was in a dilemma at that time. My article on the issue of Eurocentrism, ‘A
Polysystemist’s Response to Prescriptive Cultural Relativism and Postcolonialism’ (Chang,
2017) had just been rejected by Translation Studies, and I was writing another article:
‘Does “Translation” Reflect a Narrower Concept Than “fanyi”? On the Impact of Western
Theories on China and the Concern about Eurocentrism’ (Chang, 2015). I could not
repeat what I had said in the two articles because I still hoped that they would be accepted
by other journals, but on the other hand I could not say anything new without referring
to these unpublished articles. Now that the two articles have been published, I am free to
provide a response on top of what I said previously.
3. Outside scholars who publish in mainland China may enjoy a certain degree of immunity in
this respect. However, a whole chapter of my book (Chang, 2004) on Chinese translation tra-
dition has been taken out by the editor of the prestigious Tsinghua University Press because it
contains contemporary examples of ideological manipulation in translation. I put the chapter
in another book (Chang, 2012), and the whole book was rejected by another prestigious press
(Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press) on the ground that it contains politically sen-
sitive contents, before it was accepted by another press for a book series launched by the
Centre of Translation, Hong Kong Baptist University.
4. I sent a letter in 2012 to ask CASS to confirm or deny the existence of this regulation, but have
received no reply so far.
 PERSPECTIVES 475

5. A recent example is Shi Jiepeng (史傑鵬), an associate professor of Beijing Normal Univer-
sity, who was fired for ‘regularly making erroneous comments on the Internet […] that are
out of accord with mainstream values’ (‘Zhongguo yi yan zhizui,’ 2017).
6. Such as Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波, 1955–2017), a former lecturer of Beijing Normal University, the
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 2010, who was found guilty of ‘inciting subversion of state
power’ and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment in 2009 (Human Rights Watch, 2018).
7. These cultural differences in academic norms have been discussed in more detail in a Chinese
article (Chang, 2010).
8. Such as those making claims that certain traditional Chinese translation theories are as good
as Nida’s theory or polysystem theory, or are even ‘the most advanced in the world of the
20th century’ (see Chang, 2009, p. 314).
9. According to Li Hongman (2014, p. 23), all the six ‘Chinese scholars’ (by which she actually
means ‘scholars of Chinese descent’) who published more than one article in top inter-
national journals on translation and interpreting studies between 2008 and 2012 are based
in Hong Kong.
10. One of the referee’s’ reports contains racism- and America-centrism-sounding remarks,
accusing me, a non-white and non-American, of ‘suffering from “white anxiety”’, and
suggesting that I should ‘begin the “Tea Party” of Translation Studies’.
11. The referee’s reports say that the article ‘represents a healthy dose of antidote to some of the
ideology-driven translation theories that have been gaining currency in Translation Studies’,
and that it ‘should be […] read by all translation scholars’.
12. The two conferences were organized, respectively, by the International Association for
Translation and Intercultural Studies and the European Society for Translation Studies. In
the meantime, I was invited to present the paper on a lecture tour and in a plenary
session of a conference in the non-West.
13. Such as the ‘Transferring Translation Studies’ conference held in November 2013 in Antwerp
and Utrecht, the ‘Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies: East and West in Dialogue’
conference held in London in May 2014, the ‘East Asian Translation Studies Conference’ held
in Norwich in July 2014, and the ‘Fourth Asia-Pacific Forum On Translation And Intercul-
tural Studies’ held in Durham in October 2015.
14. Susam-Sarajeva (2014, pp. 336–337) criticized Andrew Chesterman, and Chesterman (2014,
350) has apologized, for talking about ‘we in the West’ in a journal with a global distribution
and readership, but it sounds equally odd for one to say ‘our discipline’ in the same journal
when one actually means ‘our discipline in the West’.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Nam Fung Chang is a professor in the Department of Translation, Lingnan University, Hong Kong.
He has translated into Chinese Oscar Wilde’s four comedies, and Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay’s
Yes Prime Minister. His academic works include three monographs, and a number of articles pub-
lished in journals such as Target, The Translator, Perspectives, Babel, Translation and Interpreting
Studies and Across Languages and Cultures.

References
Anderson, G. (1998). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed.). London: Falmer.
Baker, M., & Chesterman, A. (2008). Ethics of renarration: Mona Baker is interviewed by Andrew
Chesterman. Cultus, 1(1), 10–33.
476 N. F. CHANG

Batchelor, K. (2014). Response. Translation Studies, 7(3), 338–343. doi:10.1080/14781700.2014.

900456
Chang, N. F. (2004). Zhongxi yixue piping [Criticism of Chinese and Western translation theories].
Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Chang, N. F. (2009). Repertoire transfer and resistance: The Westernization of translation studies in
China. The Translator, 15(2), 305–325. doi:10.1080/13556509.2009.10799283
Chang, N. F. (2010). Translation studies, academic norms and cultural traditions [in Chinese].
Chinese Translators Journal, 31(2), 73–80.
Chang, N. F. (2012). Polysystem studies of translation: Theory, practice and response [in Chinese].
Changsha: Hunan People’s Press.
Chang, N. F. (2015). Does ‘translation’ reflect a narrower concept than ‘fanyi’? On the impact of
Western theories on China and the concern about Eurocentrism. Translation and Interpreting
Studies, 10(2), 223–242. doi:10.1075/tis.10.2.04cha
Chang, N. F. (2017). A polysystemist’s response to prescriptive cultural relativism and postcoloni-
alism. Across Languages and Cultures, 18(1), 133–154. doi:10.1556/084.2017.18.1.6
Chang, N. F. (in press). Self-image and self-reflection: From China’s outbound translation strategies
to her cultural export policy. Babel, 63(5).
Chen, G., & Shi, Y. (Eds.). (1990). Jianmin renleixue cidian [A concise dictionary of anthropology].
Hangzhou: Zhejian People’s Press.
Cheng, K.-M. (1998). Can education values be borrowed? Looking into cultural differences.
Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 11–30. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje7302_1
Chesterman, A. (2014). Translation studies forum: Universalism in translation studies. Translation
Studies, 7(1), 82–90. doi:10.1080/14781700.2013.828904
Cheung, M. (2009). Qian Zhongshu dui fanyi gainian de chanshi jiqi dui fanyi yanjiu de qishi [Qian
Zhongshu’s interpretation of the concept of translation and its implications to translation
studies]. Chinese Translators Journal, 30(5), 27–32.
Even-Zohar, I. (1981). Translation theory today: A call for transfer theory. Poetics Today, 2(4), 1–7.
doi:10.2307/1772481
Even-Zohar, I. (2010). Papers in culture research. Retrieved from http://www.tau.ac.il/~itamarez/
works/books/EZ-CR-2005_2010.pdf
Fan, S. (1994). Translation studies in modern China: Retrospect and prospect. Target, 6(2), 151–
176. doi:10.1075/target.6.2.03sho
Fei, C. (1992). Wenhua xiangduilun pingxi [On cultural relativism]. Nankai Journal, 3, 21–26.
Fourth Asian Translation Traditions Conference, The. (2009). Call for papers. Retrieved from
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/rct/asiantranslation4/
Ge, H. (2002). Zouchu minzu zhuyi yu wenhua xiangdui zhuyi [Go out from nationalism and cul-
tural relativism]. Tribune of Social Sciences, 2, 16–21.
Gunaratne, S. A. (2007). Let many journalisms bloom: Cosmology, orientalism, and freedom. China
Media Research, 3(4), 60–70.
Guo, Y. (2009). Theorizing the politics of translation in a global era. The Translator, 15(2), 239–259.
doi:10.1080/13556509.2009.10799280
Human Rights Watch. (2018). Liu Xiaobo. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/tag/liu-xiaobo
Kothari, R., & Wakabayashi, J. (2009). Introduction. In J. Wakabayashi & R. Kothari (Eds.),
Decentering translation studies: India and beyond (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lau, D. C. (1970). Appendix 5: On Mencius’ use of the method of analogy in argument. In V.
Mencius (Ed.), Mencius (pp. 235–263). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Li, A. (1987). Shilun wenhua xiangdui lun [On cultural relativism]. Journal of Sun Yat-Sen
University (Social Science Edition), 3, 76–83.
Li, H. (2014). The cutting-edge research interests and topics of international translation studies: A
visualized analysis of relevant SSCI data (2008–2012) [in Chinese]. Chinese Translators Journal,
35(2), 21–26.
Li, R. (2013, May 11). Seven subjects off limits for teaching, Chinese universities told. South China
Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1234453/seven-
subjects-limits-teaching-chinese-universities-told
 PERSPECTIVES 477

Liu, G., & Wang, H. (2005). Guoji renquan baohu yu wenhua xiangdui zhuyi [International protec-
tion of human rights and cultural relativism]. Journal of Chongqing Three Gorges University, 21
(2), 92–95.
Liu, X. (1989). Xuanze de pipan—Yu sixiang lingxiu Li Zehou de duihua [Criticism of the choice:
Dialogues with leading thinker Li Zehou]. Taibei: Fengyun shidai chuban gongsi.
Ma, Q. (1997). Dui wenhua xiangduizhuyi de fansi [Reflections on cultural relativism]. Zhexue
yanjiu [Studies on philosophy], 4, 11–16.
McLennan, G. (2000). Sociology’s Eurocentrism and the ‘rise of the west’ revisited. European
Journal of Social Theory, 3(3), 275–291. doi:10.1177/136843100003003001
Mencius. (1970). Mencius. (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Susam-Sarajeva, Ş. (2002). A ‘multilingual’ and ‘international’ translation studies? In T. Hermans
(Ed.), Crosscultural transgressions. Research models in translation studies II. Historical and ideo-
logical issues (pp. 193–207). Manchester: St. Jerome.
Susam-Sarajeva, Ş. (2014). Response. Translation Studies, 7(3), 335–338. doi:10.1080/14781700.
2013.869405
Tong, P. (2011). Quanqiuhua shida de wenhua xiangdui zhuyi shenshi [An examination of cultural
relativism in the age of globalization]. Studies on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 2, 34–38.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies—and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M. (2000). Translation and political engagement: Activism, social change and the role of
translation in geopolitical shifts. The Translator, 6(1), 23–47. doi:10.1080/13556509.2000.
10799054
Tymoczko, M. (2006). Reconceptualizing Western translation theory: Integrating non-Western
thought about translation. In T. Hermans (Ed.), Translating others: Vol. 1 (pp. 13–32).
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging translation, empowering translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Tymoczko, M. (2009). Why translators should want to internationalize translation studies. The
Translator, 15(2), 401–421. doi:10.1080/13556509.2009.10799287
Tymoczko, M. (2014). Response. Translation Studies, 7(1), 104–107. doi:10.1080/14781700.2013.
836791
Wakabayashi, J. (2014). Response. Translation Studies, 7(1), 100–103. doi:10.1080/14781700.2013.
828906
Waley, A. (1939). Three ways of thought in ancient China. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Wallerstein, I. (1997). Eurocentrism and its avatars: The dilemmas of social science. New Left
Review, 226, 93–108.
Wan, Z. (1995). ‘Houxue’ pipan de pipan [A critique of ‘post-studies’ criticisms]. Ershiyi Shiji
[Twenty-First Century], 31, 144–146.
Wu, X. (1995). ‘Minzuzhuyi’ ji qita: Chen Pingyuan jiaoshou fangtan lu [‘Nationalism’ and others:
Interview with Professor Chen Pingyuan]. Strategy and Management, 6, 78–83.
Xie, T. (1999). Medio-translatology [in Chinese]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education
Press.
Zhang, B. (2009). Statement by Zhang Boshu regarding the decision to transfer within a set time
limit issued by the Institute of Philosophy of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Retrieved from http://www.hrichina.org/en/content/356
Zhang, Z. (2004). Wenhua xiangdui zhuyi zai dangqian de zhuzhong mianxiang jiqi pipan. [The
present-day manifestations of cultural relativism and their criticisms.]. Academic Monthly, 4,
5–8.
Zhong, S. (2016, August 5). Jingcheng miyu: Shekeyuan yaoqiu ‘xing Dang xing Ma’ pi xifang
xueshu [Whispers from Beijing: CASS required to be surnamed ‘Party’ and ‘Marx’ and to criticize
Western scholarship]. Ming Pao. Retrieved from http://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_
tc/article/20160805/s00013/1470333429858
Zhongguo yi yan zhizui jiepin jiaoshou wangmin pengji kangyi [China’s dismissal of professor for
speech draws protests from netizens]. (2017, August 4). Voice of America. Retrieved from https://
www.voachinese.com/a/voanews-20170804-shi-jiepeng/3972326.html