In the first chapter of “Translation and World Literature,” Susan Bassnett explores a plethora of

arguments regarding the irrefutable role of translation in world literature and the influence of
translations in the way in which readers interact with other pieces of literature around the globe. She
asserts that there is a wide assumption that literary studies is of a higher position than translations
studies and that the latter ought to be blamed of its lack of communication with other disciplines. She
reasons this argument by citing a number of views regarding the validity of translating literary works. For
instance, Lefevere claims that translation is rather a form of rewriting that is manipulative and often
attempts to adapt original texts to fit a certain ideology. She, further, mentions the debate over the
faithfulness of translation. On the one hand, James Holems rejects the notion that translation can
produce versions that are identical to each other, stating that even a beginner in any language could
effortlessly recognize that the languages are structured drastically different. On the other hand, Karen
Emmerich points out that a translation is merely a manifestation of the person reading it. The chapter
also depicts the anxiety associated with the danger of world literature becoming monolingual, urging
that there should be sensitivity with regards to not only cultural differences but to linguistic differences,
too. Some critics mentioned in her book additionally emphasize the significance of translation in
bringing life to literature. Weinberger argues “literature dies when it stays the same, when it has no
place to go.” However, he is aware of the fact that non-English literature is still overlooked. Bassnett
finally reiterates that there is a need for a deeper understanding of how translations are produced and
circulated and how they should be read.
David Damrosch maintains that translation enables literary works to enter the realm world literature, to
circulate in a new form shaped by gains and losses that result from the translation process. In other
words, a work can become lively wherever and whenever it is active beyond its original home. He,
therefore, suggests that writers of less commonly spoken language translate their works into English to
ensure their circulation. Notwithstanding his belief that word literature can provide a “more genuine
understanding of the world,” he states that if it is approached badly through translation, it can easily be
“culturally deracinated, philologically bankrupt and ideologically complicit.” Having said that, Damrosch
remains positive about the future of the field by putting forward some constructive proposals in his
open debate with Spivak. Some of these proposals include promoting language study and pluralism in
literature anthologies at the university level.
Gayatri Spivak cautions against an overinvestment in access to world literature in translation, for it
eliminates the unique linguistic and cultural differences of other literatures and might lead to the
creation of prejudicial and hegemonic images of the ex-colonized as inferior. In her debate with
Damrosch, she illustrates that students from overseas are solely get exposed to the literature of the
world through English translations organized by the dominant countries, including the US. When
translation becomes necessary, Spivak proposes a translation strategy based on a strategic essentialism
that requires the translator to have an intimate knowledge of the colonized language, history and
culture.