Translating Freedom

拟议的网络以各种方式与AHRC的新主题“翻译文化”相结合。“自由”是一个极具争议性的术语，经常被视为党派之争，在冲突中偏袒一方，或者被西方自由主义的全球秩序强加于外部。这是一个非常需要跨文化理解、交流和翻译的概念。该网络还对翻译和译者进行了广泛的概念化（语言之间、全球和本地之间、过去和现在之间等等）；侧重于自由的两种表达或翻译（人权和过渡司法，和公共文化）；并涉及一个具有明确政策相关性的主题。网络讨论将优先考虑冲突后环境中自由的翻译。有两个部门被确定为这种翻译的核心。1)人权和过渡时期司法（过渡时期司法是一套机制，包括审判和真相委员会，旨在帮助国家摆脱压迫或暴力的过去）。2)公共文化，包括文学、电影、戏剧、社区艺术项目和纪念活动。因此，自由的翻译一方面处于制度和规范的交叉点，另一方面处于公众辩论和创造力的交叉点。讲习班将在四个案例研究国家——埃及、北爱尔兰、卢旺达和南非举行。之所以选择这些国家，是因为它们处于冲突之外或“后”冲突的不同阶段，可以比较威权主义（埃及、南非）和冲突（北爱尔兰、卢旺达）的后果。这个项目旨在对谁是自由的译者，以及在冲突后的环境中，什么形式的翻译是重要的产生新的见解。如上所述，自由的翻译被广泛地定义为跨越语言之间的边界；在国际人权法和地方规范之间；在过去和现在之间；在本地和全球之间；在各种媒介之间；学科之间；以及在学院和各种从业者群体之间。翻译可以理解为一个双向的过程。虽然一方可能占主导地位，而且这种主导地位可能涉及更广泛的政治和权力动态，但将翻译视为谈判和斗争的过程可以获得重要的见解。两个概念框架支撑了这一观点：罗斯伯格（2009）的“多向”记忆（翻译也可以是多向的），以及恩格尔·梅里（2006）将译者描述为白话化过程中的中介（适应当地制度和意义）。继续说到自由，翻译自由的概念能把这个词从它更有问题的联想中解放出来吗？像“阿拉伯之春”这样的事件表明，当代自由必须被理解为一套当地知情的要求，以及一套全球议程（经济、外交、军事）。两个概念性框架有助于提供一个更具包容性的框架。罗斯福提出的四大自由是一个有益的起点：表达自由、信仰自由、匮乏自由、恐惧自由。其次，Sen（1999）提醒我们，自由不仅仅是没有国家强制，还包括能动性和行使真正选择的能力。每次研讨会都将明确地讨论罗斯福的四项自由中的一项或多项，以集中当地的讨论，并为比较分析提供基础。该网络提议在案例研究国家举办四个讲习班，在约克举办两个讲习班（其中一个已经得到资助）和相关活动，旨在建立一个国际和跨学科研究网络，包括不同群体的学者以及人权和文化实践者。该网络将提交主要的合作资助投标，并就“翻译自由”这一主题进行开创性的研究。

The proposed network engages with the AHRC emerging theme 'Translating Cultures' in various ways. 'Freedom' is a highly contentious term, often seen as partisan, favouring one party to a conflict, or externally imposed by a Western, liberal global order. It is hard to think of a concept more in need of cross-cultural understanding, communication and translation. The network also conceptualises translation and translators broadly (between languages; global and local; past and present; etc.); focuses on two expressions or translations of freedom (human rights and transitional justice, and public culture); and engages with a theme that has clear policy relevance.Network discussions will prioritise translations of freedom in post-conflict settings. Two sectors have been identified as central to such translations. 1) Human rights and transitional justice (transitional justice is a set of mechanisms including trials and truth commissions that seek to assist countries to move on from an oppressive or violent past). 2) Public culture, ranging from literature, film and theatre to community arts projects and memorialisation. As such, translations of freedom are situated at the intersection of institutions and norms on the one hand, and public debate and creativity on the other. Workshops will take place in four case study countries - Egypt, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, and South Africa. These countries have been chosen because they are at different points beyond or 'post' conflict, and enable a comparison between the aftermaths of authoritarianism (Egypt, South Africa) and the aftermaths of conflict (Northern Ireland, Rwanda). This project aims to generate new insights into who the translators of freedom are, and what forms of translation matter, in post-conflict settings. As noted above, translation of freedom is conceptualised broadly as crossing boundaries between languages; between international human rights law and local norms; between past and present; between the local and the global; between various media; between academic disciplines; and between the academy and various practitioner communities. Translation will be understood as a two way process. While one partner may be dominant, and the dominance may speak to broader political and power dynamics, important insights can be gained by viewing translation as a process of negotiation and struggle. Two conceptual frameworks underpin this idea: Rothberg's (2009) 'multidirectional' memory (translation too can be multidirectional), and Engle Merry's (2006) description of translators as intermediaries in processes of vernacularisation (adaptation to local institutions and meanings). Moving on to freedom, can the notion of translating freedom liberate the term from its more problematic associations? Events such as the Arab Spring suggest that contemporary freedom must be understood as both a locally informed set of demands, and a set of global agendas (economic, diplomatic, military). Two conceptual frameworks help to provide a more inclusive framework. Roosevelt's four freedoms are a useful place to start: of expression, of worship, from want, from fear. Second, Sen (1999) reminds us that freedom is not just an absence of state coercion, but also agency and the ability to exercise genuine choice. Each of the workshops will explicitly address one or more of Roosevelt's four freedoms to focus local discussions and provide a basis for comparative analysis. The network proposes to host four workshops in case study countries, two workshops in York (one of which is already funded) and associated events, designed to establish an international and interdisciplinary research network including a diverse group of scholars as well as human rights and cultural practitioners. The network will submit major collaborative fundings bids and conduct ground-break research on the theme of 'translating freedom'.