Most people believe that the secret to promoting Chinese culture is to have as many foreigners as possible studying the Chinese language, but there is a better way.
The difference between promoting and inhibiting one’s culture often lies in “translation.”
All writers should be aware of the unwritten law of “cultural property rights” — when to translate, what translation does and where to avoid it.
The English language is often hailed as the international language, but it is not the global language. In fact, the global language would have to adopt tens of thousands of non-European concepts from China, India and Japan. The list goes on.
Chinese academics are making great efforts to promote East Asian terms into the global lexicon, Chinese words like tianxia, shengren and junzi, and even the mythical long.
The reason is simple: Scientists may have indexed the animal and plant kingdoms, and the material world, but the taxonomization of culture has only just begun.
Capitalism has taught us that nations should compete for market share, natural resources and human capital. What is often omitted in these theories is that nations should also compete for their terminologies. The main task for Chinese artists, writers, journalists and academics is (no matter how international they are), as I see it, to choose the correct Chinese names and terms each and every time over misleading English translations.
Why?
Because, just like in real life, if we give our names, ideas and inventions away to another group, that group might quickly put another name to it and thereby automatically obtain what the Germans call deutungshoheit — the sovereignty over the definition of thought.
It is quite surprising to me that few have noticed this before: People fight over brand names, patents, publications and intellectual property rights; yet when it comes to a token of their own cultural inventiveness, Asians tend to think first about what Americans would call this.
Translation is the oldest profession. It is reducing the world to what we already know. However, in this digital age we now have the computational capacity to expand our knowledge systems. We can now begin to find the untranslatables in each culture and return them to world history.
Japan is already ahead of China. Most readers in the West have heard about Japanese concepts such as sushi, sumo, zen, tsunami, manga and anime. These terms are part of the Japanese sociocultural originality; they could not be translated into European languages without losing their intended meanings and therefore have been adopted.
Chinese, too, should be encouraged to go out and find the untranslatable words of Chinese origin and, if they can, forbid themselves the way of all-too-convenient Western translations.
As a golden rule, each and every culture holds valuable information for all the others. However, most foreign terms that were adopted in the West come from the realms of entertainment or aesthetics, like kung fu or fengshui. However, in the fields of politics, economics, the humanities and social sciences, the “global language” is kept virtually Chinese-free. It need not to be.
China and Japan are not alone. India, the other ancient civilization, also wants a stake hold in the global language. Think about Hindu concepts such as avatar, guru, pundit, karma and yoga that have already found their way into the global lexicon.
Nations cannot expect all Westerners to study Chinese or another foreign language in all its complexity of vocabulary, grammar and etymology, but what each academic can do is to promote China’s key concepts, names and terminologies to the outside world. Let them know what zhongguo meng (“China dream”) is.
It will not be easy to stand up against hundreds of years of translation history, but it is feasible that it can be done once people become aware that the vocabularies of the world’s languages add up; they do not overlap. Names are a global resource, and we will never run out of old and new things, ideas and concepts, to spend them on.
Translation is an archaic and unscientific business. In this digital age we still need to simplify communication, but not where it destroys existential information. No one can remember so many vocabularies in his head, but we now have computers and digital encyclopedias to help us compose the future global language.
Eastern cultures should compete for their key terminologies, find the untranslatable words and promote them. If the Chinese do not bring their own vocabularies to the table, our so-called world history will forever be a Western tale.
Thorsten Pattberg is a former research fellow at the University of Tokyo and Harvard University, and is now with the Institute for Advanced Humanistic Studies at Peking University.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS