Looking for Meaning, Searching for Truth.

Everything we read is true and we can understand everything we read. Or can we?
Spivak uses ‘Area Studies’ in order to fully understand a literary piece. To understand a text you need to know not only a language, but the history and culture of its origins as well. But how far do we have to go to understand a text? If we have to look at historical and cultural background, why do we not look at personal background as well? Without the exact thoughts and surroundings of an author, it seems that one can never fully understand the implied meaning of a text. Of course, it goes too far in saying that one should try to understand the whole psychological and individual history of a person, as this is impossible. But even if we know about historical or cultural context, or, as Spivak puts it, if we get “ a sense of (something) that might emerge from such collaboration”, it does not directly mean that we understand the whole of the text, and the underlying meaning. As Foucault states: “The commentary’s only role, whatever techniques used, is to say at last what was silently articulated ‘beyond’, in the text”. (58) There is more to the text than just plain language, we have to read between the lines.

What links up with this is the problem of translating. No translator is capable of translating the exact meaning and feeling of a text, as every author has his own style and thoughts as well as background. When reading a text, in order to understand it, one can only imagine, not know. So, if something is translated, we can never know if it still has its original meaning and intention, as those are only known by the original author. Spivak proposes that a translator should not just translate a text, but that he should translate it by means of responding to the text. She calls this ‘to draw a response’. Interacting with a text deals with gaining knowledge of context; historically, geographically and culturally. In this way, a dialogue between two languages is created. However, in this way, the original meaning and thoughts behind the text might yet again be gone. If we use this type of translating, how can we ever know what was the original meaning and truth, or at least the truth for the original writer? We cannot rely on the perception of one translator only.
Spivak wants to use this type of translating, in order to see if the text in question can be part of ‘Comparative Literature’. Again, we can return to the idea of the individual, as ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’ a text is a personal matter. Of Course, there will never be a solution to this problem as it is as old as the idea of canon formation itself.
However, fact is that the writing of a text is personal, the interpreting and thus translating of a text is personal, and the appreciation of a text is personal as well. How is it then possible for a text to become part of a Comparative Literature? The discipline of Comparative Literature, structured by means of talking, according to Foucault, can maybe communicate the collective view, but is not capable of comprehending all views, ideas, tastes and meanings. What is more, we never know if a text gives us truth only, therefore it is even more difficult to understand the importance of a text.

So, How would I propose to resolve these matters? By not translating at all? In that case we should all learn every possible language there is, which is just a bit too ambitious. Also, should we have to question every text and doubt its truth? Again, this goal can never be achieved. It seems that there is no good answer to these questions, but when you read a translation, it is always wise to consider if what we read is true –by which I mean true for the author- or if it is in harmony with its original. Spivak’s idea of translating a text goes one step to far for me, as it seems to lead away too much from the original idea of the author.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. ‘Crossing Borders’. Death of a Discipline, America: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Foucault, Michel. ‘The Order of Discourse’. France, 1970