Congreso Iberoamericano de masculinidades y equidad, Barcelona

The pioneering Iberian-American conference on Masculinities and Equity, held in October 2011, was described in an earlier post.  Here is a video of my keynote address, with Spanish translation (click the phrase "Conferencia Raewyn Connell").


While in Barcelona, I did an interview with the leading Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia.  You can read it here

On Being Translated

There is now a whole genre of research about translation; but not much that I have seen about being translated.  Here are some thoughts about the experience.

Being translated is flattering.  Somebody has thought well enough of my text to put time and effort into it.  I feel warmed, even when the result is a mystery to me.

The Japanese edition of Gender and Power, for example, is a beautiful piece of book-making (see below), but I can only guess what it’s like as a text.  And I can hardly imagine what it would be like to read Gender and Power in Japan, with its own gender order and debates about gender questions.
Gender and Power in Japanese

With a language I can follow sentence by sentence, the feeling is different.  I have an immediate connection with this text; yet it’s still not the text I sweated to produce.  It’s like being a grandmother rather than a mother, perhaps.

When a translator approaches me with queries – something I encourage strongly – I learn unexpected things about my own writing.

I once imagined my prose style to be plain, clear English, a blend of George Orwell and Jane Austen with a touch of Dashiell Hammett.  I discover it is actually laced with allusions, figures of speech and assumptions of prior knowledge – like the previous sentence.

For instance, one translator was stumped when I wrote “letting things slide”.   I hardly thought of that as a metaphor – but it is.  “Jobs for the boys” was another puzzle for the translator – think of the literal meaning.

Worse: I’m from a generation that was brought up on Shakespeare, the Bible, and the anglican Prayer Book.  So I sometimes quote from the 17th century almost without realizing it, and certainly without identifying it as a quotation.

Nouns in apposition; semi-technical terms, such as “embodiment”; slang, such as “sexpot”: those are traps too.

Allusions and jokes may go dead flat – and not only in translation.  The final passage of Gender and Power is entitled “Concluding Notes on the World to which a Social Theory of Gender Might Lead”.  This is a joking allusion to John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory.  Nobody seems to have noticed.

I have come to realize how much I rely on the rhythm of English to scaffold an argument, connect pieces of evidence, or convey nuances.  When I am writing, I speak the sentences in my head, and constantly correct for sound.  Since punctuation is the main tool for conveying rhythm in written English, I get very touchy about punctuation.  I once had a terrible argument, lasting half the night, with an editor who had deleted all my semi-colons.

How does a translator convey the rhythm, in a language with a different sound-pattern?  I simply don’t know; I’m not fluent enough in any other language to tell.

Some translators have worked very hard on the text, and discussed many of the difficulties with me.  The German translation of Masculinities, for instance, called Der gemachte Mann, is the product of admirable scholarship and teamwork.  I know this translation has a strong reputation in Germany.  It feels good to be associated with such a text, though it was other people who did the work!

There is always a feeling of displacement.  A translation appears later, sometimes many years later, than the original.  I don’t know in advance what pieces will get picked up.  Very little of my work has yet been translated into French, none into Arabic. Some of my best writing has not been translated at all.

I still feel there is something miraculous about my words going out into the world in new forms. Every translation means an unexpected audience, a chance for new connection and exchange of ideas.  That is culturally and politically important, given the xenophobia being whipped up in my country, and around the world, today.

But it leaves a dilemma.  To write the best work I can – the most worth translating - is to write English at full stretch, using the marvellous resources of the language.   But using all those resources makes the product more difficult to translate.   When I give a lecture to an audience whose first language is not English, I try for clarity above all.  I used to think that was the priority in writing, too.  But now I’m not so sure.

Sociology Considered as One of the Fine Arts

Sociology has an evil reputation.  We might predict the future, mend broken hearts, cure cancer, defeat alien invasions and save the planet, but we Cannot Write.  Sociology is a by-word for jargon, abstraction, pretentiousness and convoluted curdled prose.

With some reason.  When I began in the trade, the greatest sociologist in the world was Talcott Parsons of Harvard University, whose idea of fine English prose was a literal translation of mutterings by Max Weber with a headache.  Later I discovered that one of Parsons’ predecessors in the professoriate at Harvard was Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the world’s windiest poet, which seemed to explain a lot.

Still, if you boiled his prose down (C. Wright Mills, who had a sense of humour, once shrank a book of Parsons' theory into four paragraphs) it did say something you could sink your teeth into, and prove how bad it was.  Other theorists spent years building systems of definitions that said nothing substantial about anything, and couldn’t even be refuted.

This bothered me as a beginner, and to tell the truth, it still does.  Sociology deals with the most important issues in contemporary life.  Why shouldn’t sociological writing be noted for vivid description, crisp analysis, vigorous and witty argument?  Why shouldn’t our books be best-sellers, shaking the nation and attracting admiring reviews, questions in parliament, and furious television debates?

The topics that sociologists concern themselves with can be the subject of very fine writing.  Consider the delicate ethnography of country life in Ontario in the short stories of Alice Munro, who should have been awarded three Nobel Prizes by now.  Family dynamics, generational turnover, labour processes, gender relations, urban-rural relations, social change: it’s a whole textbook of sociology.

Or consider the haunting picture of a decayed imperial outpost and the corruption of power in Waiting for the Barbarians by J. M. Coetzee, who did get the Nobel Prize.  Or the terrifying evocation of illness, time and social dislocation in his Age of Iron.  Or...

But sociology is science, not fiction.  Its claim to attention involves empirical knowledge as well as capacity for critique.  We do research, we don’t dream up our facts.  We document our procedures and our sources. We compare findings in one study with those in another.  We have peer-reviewed journals, the worst method of scientific quality control except for all the others.

With all that, sociology is capable of good writing.  Consider Robert and Helen Lynd’s urban ethnography Middletown, a classic of US sociology in its period of greatest creativity, the 1920s.  Admittedly they didn’t have Alice Munro’s way with words.  But they did build up a memorable picture of a local social order, performing the eerie feat of making the familiar strange.

Or consider Michael Messner’s Out of Play, published just five years ago.  Messner is one of the leading sociologists of sport, and this book collects essays that go behind the glossy surfaces to questions of justice, gender stereotyping, violence and exclusion.  They include vivid description as well as reflection, they are written with passion and humour, and they are very good sociology.

Powerful writing can occur in unexpected genres.  Saskia Sassen’s Global Cities is structural sociology, tracing the concentration of power and wealth around transnational corporate headquarters.  But there is a fierce irony in this book, as Sassen shows the consequences: heightened exploitation in the urban hinterland, among the service industries and migrant workers who make possible the daily life of the privileged.

And if we are looking for irony, consider Michael Gilding’s Secrets of the Super Rich.  It sounds like an airport self-help title, but is actually a subtle sociological study of the new rich.  When a rising businessman has spent a lifetime defeating his rivals and building a fortune, what does he do with it at the end?  Hand it over to sons? Daughters? Managers? Bigger companies?  Will struggles over the fortune wreck the family it was built for? Read on – it’s a gripping tale.

Much of sociological writing, it’s true, does not sparkle.  University life in every discipline allows formulaic publications.  The neo-liberal managers who control higher education systems nowadays are ramping up competitive pressures that will produce more of this.  When sociology is dull, it’s usually because the authors are not thinking about who they are speaking to and what news they are bringing.

But the news sociology brings is important.  It’s about what people do and suffer in a world of giant institutions, massive inequalities, and complex differences. Working at its full capacity, sociology can produce accounts of human life as subtle as anything in mainstream literature, and more relevant to the decisions we, collectively, have to make.  Science, and art, both.
Back to Top