文化間翻譯一小考：同周蕾的對話

On the Translation between Cultures: Dialogue with Rey Chow

本文是對周蕾的文化間翻譯論進行的批判性檢討。周蕾的《原始的激情》在結論部分中所展開的文化間翻譯論在一個研究中國文學的韓國學者看來有下列幾點難以苟同：（1）書中主張文學是西方統治的基礎，它自身是具有暴力結構、不平等結構的，是禁錮於原本和翻譯的二分法之中的，而電影則並非如此。（2）書中對替補概念的不慎使用和對本雅明(Walter Benjamin)的錯誤理解。（3）對翻譯概念所作的過分延伸。（4）對東方語言內部間互相翻譯情況的忽視。（5）對original一詞多種語義的混用。（6）對現代中國電影所做的「為展示給西方觀眾的而製」的片面定義。（7）對民族志概念的過分強調。（8）對本地主義概念的濫用。（9）流寓知識份子的雙重身份以及其策略性。本文中闡明了上述幾點誤處，並論證了上述誤點的根源在於書中巧妙地隱含了一種變形的西方中心主義。

I critically examine Rey Chow's discussions of the translation between cultures. Rey Chow discusses the translation between cultures in the conclusion of her work, ＂Primitive Passions＂. I find that Korean scholars, who study Chinese Literature, would not be convinced of some of her discussions concerning the translation between cultures: (1) her assumptions for her discussions such that literature, contrary to movies, is a foundation of Western rule, takes on violence and discrimination and is explicated only in terms of the dichotomy between original works and translations; (2) her careless use of the concept ＂supplement＂ and her misunderstanding of Walter Benjamin; (3) her indiscreet extension of the concept ＂translation＂; (4) her indifference to the translation between Oriental languages; (5) her haphazard use of the word ＂original＂; (6) her dogmatic definition of the contemporary Chinese movies such that they are made to favor Western people; (7) her undue concerns about the concept ＂ethnography＂; (8) her indiscreet use of the concept ＂nativism＂; (9) her justifying of dual identities of Diaspora intellectuals. I explicate the problems with those discussions, and argue that the problems are based on another transformation of Eurocentrism.