STEPHEN A.

TYLER
140
" l i s t e n i n g t o " a n d i n t h e m u t u a l i t y o f "talking w i t h . " It t a k e s its TALAL ASAD
m e t a p h o r f r o m a n o t h e r part of the sensorium a n d replaces the
m o n o l o g u e o f the bullhorn with dialogue.
1 4 . I call e t h n o g r a p h y a m e d i t a t i v e v e h i c l e b e c a u s e w e c o m e
t o it n e i t h e r as t o a m a p o f k n o w l e d g e n o r as a g u i d e t o a c t i o n , n o r T h e Concept of Cultural
e v e n f o r e n t e r t a i n m e n t . W e c o m e t o it as t h e start o f a d i f f e r e n t
kind of journey.
Translation in British Social
Anthropology
T h e paper given at the Santa Fe seminar on the Making of Ethnographic Texts has
been revised and "sandwiched" between the "Context" and "Supplement" appearing
here. Both "Context" and "Supplement" were written after the seminar and are as
much dialogical responses to seminar papers and discussion as they are the working out
of themes and conflicts in these parerga to The Said and the Unsaid (Tyler 1978).

Introduction

A l l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h E. B . Tylor's f a m o u s d e f i ­
n i t i o n o f c u l t u r e : " C u l t u r e o r C i v i l i z a t i o n , t a k e n i n its w i d e e t h n o ­
g r a p h i c s e n s e , is t h a t c o m p l e x w h o l e w h i c h i n c l u d e s k n o w l e d g e , belief,
art, m o r a l s , law, c u s t o m , a n d a n y o t h e r capabilities a n d h a b i t s a c ­
q u i r e d b y m a n as a m e m b e r o f society." It w o u l d b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o t r a c e
h o w a n d w h e n this n o t i o n o f c u l t u r e , w i t h its e n u m e r a t i o n o f "capabil­
ities a n d h a b i t s " a n d its e m p h a s i s o n w h a t L i n t o n c a l l e d social heredity
(focusing o n the process of learning), was transformed into the n o t i o n
o f a text—that is, i n t o s o m e t h i n g r e s e m b l i n g a n i n s c r i b e d d i s c o u r s e .
O n e o b v i o u s c l u e t o this c h a n g e is t o b e f o u n d in t h e w a y t h a t a n o t i o n
o f language as t h e p r e c o n d i t i o n o f h i s t o r i c a l c o n t i n u i t y a n d s o c i a l
l e a r n i n g ("cultivation") c a m e t o d o m i n a t e t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f s o c i a l a n ­
t h r o p o l o g i s t s . I n a g e n e r a l way, o f course, s u c h an interest in l a n g u a g e
p r e d a t e s T y l o r , b u t i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h a n d early t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s it
t e n d e d t o b e c e n t r a l t o v a r i e t i e s o f n a t i o n a l i s t literary t h e o r y a n d e d u ­
c a t i o n (cf. E a g l e t o n 1 9 8 3 : c h . 2) r a t h e r t h a n to t h e o t h e r h u m a n sci­
e n c e s . W h e n a n d i n w h a t w a y s d i d it b e c o m e c r u c i a l f o r B r i t i s h social
a n t h r o p o l o g y ? I d o n o t i n t e n d to attempt such a history here, but
m e r e l y to r e m i n d o u r s e l v e s that the phrase "the translation o f cul­
t u r e s , " w h i c h i n c r e a s i n g l y s i n c e t h e 1950s h a s b e c o m e a n a l m o s t b a n a l
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e d i s t i n c t i v e task o f social a n t h r o p o l o g y , w a s n o t al­
w a y s s o m u c h i n e v i d e n c e . I w a n t t o stress t h a t this a p p a r e n t s h i f t is
not identical with the old pre-Functionalism/Functionalism periodiza-
t i o n . N o r is it s i m p l y a m a t t e r o f a d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n l a n g u a g e a n d
m e a n i n g t h a t w a s p r e v i o u s l y l a c k i n g (Crick 1 9 7 6 ) . B r o n i s l a w M a l i ­
nowski, o n e o f the f o u n d e r s o f the so-called Functionalist school,
wrote m u c h o n "primitive language" and collected e n o r m o u s q u a n -
142 TALAL ASAD
T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 143

tities o f l i n g u i s t i c m a t e r i a l ( p r o v e r b s , k i n s h i p t e r m i n o l o g y , m a g i c a l E v e n M a x G l u c k m a n (1973:905), r e s p o n d i n g shortly afterward

s p e l l s , a n d s o o n ) f o r a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l analysis. B u t h e n e v e r t h o u g h t t o L e a c h , a c c e p t s t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f "cultural t r a n s l a t i o n , " w h i l e p r o p o s ­
o f his w o r k in t e r m s o f the translation o f cultures. i n g a very different g e n e a l o g y for that anthropological practice.
G o d f r e y L i e n h a r d t ' s p a p e r " M o d e s o f T h o u g h t " ( 1 9 5 4 ) is p o s s i b l y Yet d e s p i t e t h e g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h w h i c h this n o t i o n h a s b e e n
o n e o f the earliest—certainly o n e of the most s u b t l e — e x a m p l e s o f the a c c e p t e d as p a r t o f t h e s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n o f B r i t i s h social a n t h r o p o l o g y , it
u s e o f this n o t i o n o f t r a n s l a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y to d e s c r i b e a c e n t r a l task o f h a s r e c e i v e d little s y s t e m a t i c e x a m i n a t i o n f r o m w i t h i n t h e p r o f e s s i o n .
s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g y . " T h e p r o b l e m o f d e s c r i b i n g to o t h e r s h o w m e m ­ O n e partial e x c e p t i o n is R o d n e y N e e d h a m ' s Belief, Language, and Expe­
b e r s o f a r e m o t e tribe t h i n k t h e n b e g i n s to a p p e a r l a r g e l y as o n e o f rience ( 1 9 7 2 ) . T h i s is a c o m p l e x , s c h o l a r l y w o r k t h a t d e s e r v e s e x t e n d e d
translation, o f m a k i n g the c o h e r e n c e primitive t h o u g h t has in the lan­ t r e a t m e n t . H e r e , h o w e v e r , I w i s h to c o n c e n t r a t e o n a s h o r t e r t e x t ,
g u a g e s it r e a l l y lives i n , as c l e a r as p o s s i b l e i n o u r o w n " (97). T h i s s t a t e ­ E r n e s t G e l l n e r ' s " C o n c e p t s a n d Society," w h i c h a p p e a r s t o b e fairly
m e n t is q u o t e d a n d c r i t i c i z e d i n t h e article b y E r n e s t G e l l n e r t h a t I w i d e l y u s e d i n u n d e r g r a d u a t e c o u r s e s at B r i t i s h u n i v e r s i t i e s a n d is still
a n a l y z e i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n , a n d I shall r e t u r n t o it in t h e c o n t e x t o f available in several p o p u l a r collections. I p r o p o s e , therefore, to d e v o t e
G e l l n e r ' s a r g u m e n t . H e r e I d r a w a t t e n t i o n briefly t o L i e n h a r d t ' s u s e o f t h e n e x t section to a detailed e x a m i n a t i o n o f that essay a n d t h e n to
t h e w o r d " t r a n s l a t i o n " to r e f e r n o t t o l i n g u i s t i c m a t t e r p e r se, b u t t o take u p s o m e points that e m e r g e f r o m m y discussion in the sections
" m o d e s o f t h o u g h t " t h a t a r e e m b o d i e d in s u c h m a t t e r . It m a y n o t b e that follow.
w i t h o u t significance, incidentally, that L i e n h a r d t has a b a c k g r o u n d in
E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e , t h a t h e w a s a p u p i l o f F. R. Leavis's at C a m b r i d g e
b e f o r e h e b e c a m e a p u p i l a n d c o l l a b o r a t o r o f E. E. E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d ' s
A Theoretical Text
at O x f o r d .
O x f o r d is, o f c o u r s e , f a m o u s as t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l c e n t e r i n B r i t ­ G e l l n e r ' s " C o n c e p t s a n d S o c i e t y " is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e w a y i n
a i n m o s t s e l f - c o n s c i o u s a b o u t its c o n c e r n w i t h " t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f c u l ­ w h i c h F u n c t i o n a l i s t a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s d e a l w i t h p r o b l e m s of i n t e r p r e t ­
t u r e s . " T h e b e s t - k n o w n i n t r o d u c t o r y t e x t b o o k to e m e r g e f r o m t h a t i n g a n d t r a n s l a t i n g t h e d i s c o u r s e o f a l i e n s o c i e t i e s . H i s basic a r g u m e n t
c e n t e r , J o h n Beattie's Other Cultures ( 1 9 6 4 ) , e m p h a s i z e d t h e c e n t r a l i t y is t h a t (a) c o n t e m p o r a r y a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s insist o n i n t e r p r e t i n g e x o t i c
o f t h e " p r o b l e m o f t r a n s l a t i o n " f o r social a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d d i s t i n ­ c o n c e p t s a n d b e l i e f s w i t h i n a social c o n t e x t , b u t t h a t (b) i n d o i n g s o
g u i s h e d ( b u t d i d n o t s e p a r a t e ) " c u l t u r e " f r o m " l a n g u a g e " in a w a y t h a t t h e y e n s u r e t h a t a p p a r e n t l y a b s u r d o r i n c o h e r e n t a s s e r t i o n s a r e al­
w a s b e c o m i n g f a m i l i a r to a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s — t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r i l y w a y s g i v e n a n a c c e p t a b l e m e a n i n g , a n d t h a t (c) w h i l e t h e c o n t e x t u a l
t h e r e f o r e e n t i r e l y c l e a r ( s e e p p . 89—90). m e t h o d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is in p r i n c i p l e valid, t h e " e x c e s s i v e c h a r i t y "
It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o f i n d E d m u n d L e a c h , w h o h a s n e v e r b e e n a s s o c i ­ t h a t u s u a l l y g o e s w i t h it is n o t . T h e p a p e r c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l d i a g r a m s
a t e d with O x f o r d , e m p l o y i n g the s a m e n o t i o n in his c o n c l u s i o n to a i n t e n d e d t o fix a n d clarify t h e r e l e v a n t c u l t u r a l p r o c e s s e s visually.
h i s t o r i c a l s k e t c h o f social a n t h r o p o l o g y a d e c a d e later: G e l l n e r i n t r o d u c e s t h e p r o b l e m o f interpretation by r e f e r e n c e to
Let m e recapitulate. We started by emphasizing how different are "the K u r t S a m u e l s s o n ' s Religion and Economic Action ( 1 9 6 1 ) , w h i c h is a n
others"—and m a d e them not only different but remote and inferior. Senti­ e c o n o m i c historian's a t t a c k o n t h e W e b e r i a n P r o t e s t a n t - e t h i c t h e s i s .
mentally we then took the opposite track and argued that all h u m a n beings S a m u e l s s o n t a k e s i s s u e w i t h t h e fact t h a t W e b e r a n d h i s s u p p o r t e r s
are alike; we can understand Trobrianders or the Barotse because their moti­ h a v e r e i n t e r p r e t e d r e l i g i o u s t e x t s i n a w a y that e n a b l e s t h e m t o e x t r a c t
vations are just the same as our own; but that didn't work either, "the others" m e a n i n g s t h a t c o n f i r m t h e t h e s i s . G e l l n e r p r e s e n t s this e x a m p l e m e r e l y
r e m a i n e d obstinately other. But now we have come to see that the essential to bring o u t m o r e sharply the contrasting position of the Functionalist
problem is o n e of translation. T h e linguists have shown us that all translation |j| anthropologist:
is difficult, a n d that perfect translation is usually impossible. A n d yet w e know
that for practical purposes a tolerably satisfactory translation is always pos­ I a m not c o n c e r n e d , nor competent, to argue whether Samuelsson's employ­
sible e v e n w h e n the original "text" is highly abstruse. Languages are different ment, in this particular case, o f his tacit principle that o n e must not re­
but not so different as all that. Looked at in this way social anthropologists are interpret the assertions o n e actually finds, is valid. What is relevant here is
e n g a g e d in establishing a methodology for the translation of cultural lan­ that if such a principle is made explicit and generalized, it would make n o n ­
g u a g e . (Leach 1 9 7 3 : 7 7 2 ) sense of most sociological studies of the relationship of belief and conduct. We
144 TALAL ASAD T h e C o n c e p t of Cultural Translation 145

shall find anthropologists driven to employ the very opposite principle, the everyday language was merely a disguise for d e f e n d i n g established
insistence rather than refusal o f contextual re-interpretation. (20) w a y s o f s p e a k i n g a b o u t t h e w o r l d , f o r d e n y i n g t h a t it w a s p o s s i b l e f o r
s u c h s p e e c h - w a y s t o b e illogical o r a b s u r d . G e l l n e r h a s a l w a y s b e e n d e ­
B u t this m o d e s t disclaimer o f c o m p e t e n c e allows t o o m a n y inter­
t e r m i n e d to maintain t h e distinction b e t w e e n d e f e n d i n g a n d explain­
e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s t o d r i f t b y . T o b e g i n w i t h , it calls f o r n o g r e a t c o m p e ­
i n g "concepts a n d beliefs" a n d t o w a r n against t h e kind o f a n t h r o p o ­
tence to n o t e that Samuelsson does n o t hold to the principle that o n e
l o g i c a l t r a n s l a t i o n t h a t r u l e s o u t a p r i o r i t h e critical d i s t a n c e n e c e s s a r y
m u s t never r e i n t e r p r e t . N o r d o e s h e insist t h a t t h e r e is never a signifi­
f o r e x p l a i n i n g h o w c o n c e p t s a c t u a l l y f u n c t i o n , f o r "to u n d e r s t a n d t h e
c a n t c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n a r e l i g i o u s t e x t a n d its s o c i a l c o n t e x t , b u t
working o f t h e c o n c e p t s o f a society," h e w r i t e s , "is t o u n d e r s t a n d its
o n l y t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h e W e b e r thesis s e e k s t o m a k e c a n n o t b e e s ­
i n s t i t u t i o n s " ( p . 1 8 ; s e e also n o t e 1 o n t h e s a m e p a g e ) .
t a b l i s h e d . ( S e e , e . g . , S a m u e l s s o n 1 9 6 1 : 6 g . ) T h e r e is, f u r t h e r m o r e , a
T h i s is w h y G e l l n e r ' s b r i e f s t a t e m e n t a b o u t m o d e r a t e F u n c t i o n a l -
real contrast that Gellner might have picked u p b e t w e e n t h e S a m u e l s ­
i s m q u o t e d a b o v e l e a d s h i m i m m e d i a t e l y t o a d i s c u s s i o n o f D u r k h e i m 's
s o n e x a m p l e a n d t h e typical a n t h r o p o l o g i s t ' s p r e d i c a m e n t . F o r e c o ­
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, w h i c h , b e s i d e s b e i n g " o n e o f t h e
n o m i c historians a n d sociologists involved in t h e W e b e r d e b a t e , his­
f o u n t a i n h e a d s o f F u n c t i o n a l i s m i n g e n e r a l " (22), is c o n c e r n e d t o e x ­
t o r i c a l t e x t s a r e a p r i m a r y d a t u m i n r e l a t i o n t o w h i c h t h e social
plain rather than to d e f e n d c o n c e p t s — t o explain, m o r e precisely, "the
c o n t e x t s m u s t b e r e c o n s t r u c t e d . T h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l fieldworker b e ­
c o m p u l s i v e n a t u r e o f o u r c a t e g o r i a l c o n c e p t s " (22) i n t e r m s o f c e r t a i n
g i n s w i t h a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n w h i c h s o m e t h i n g is s a i d , a n d it is t h e
collective processes. T h u s :
cultural significance o f these e n u n c i a t i o n s that m u s t b e r e c o n s t r u c t e d .
T h i s is n o t t o say, o f c o u r s e , t h a t t h e h i s t o r i a n c a n e v e r a p p r o a c h h i s Our contemporary invocations o f the functional, social-context approach to
a r c h i v a l m a t e r i a l w i t h o u t s o m e c o n c e p t i o n o f its h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t , o r the study a n d interpretation o f concepts is in various ways very different from
t h a t t h e fieldworker c a n d e f i n e t h e social s i t u a t i o n i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f Durkheim's. Durkheim was not so much concerned to d e f e n d the concepts o f
w h a t w a s s a i d w i t h i n it. T h e c o n t r a s t , s u c h as it is, is o n e o f o r i e n t a ­ primitive societies: in their setting, they did not need a defence, and in the
t i o n , w h i c h f o l l o w s f r o m t h e fact t h a t t h e h i s t o r i a n is given a text a n d setting o f m o d e r n a n d changing societies he was not anxious to d e f e n d what
t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r h a s to construct one. was archaic, n o r loath to suggest that some intellectual luggage might well be
archaic. H e was really concerned to explain the compulsiveness o f what in
I n s t e a d o f i n v e s t i g a t i n g this i m p o r t a n t c o n t r a s t , G e l l n e r r u s h e s
practice did not seem to n e e d any defence (and in so doing, h e claimed h e was
a l o n g t o d e f i n e a n d c o m m e n d w h a t h e calls " m o d e r a t e F u n c t i o n a l - solving the problem o f knowledge whose solution had in his view evaded Kant
i s m " as a m e t h o d , w h i c h a n d others, a n d t o b e solving it without falling into either empiricism o r apri-
orism). W h e t h e r h e was successful I d o not propose to discuss: for a variety o f
consists o f the insistence o n the fact that concepts and beliefs d o not exist in
reasons it seems to m e that h e was not. (23)
isolation, in texts o r in individual minds, but in the life o f m e n a n d societies.
T h e activities and institutions, in the context of which a word or phrase o r set It is c l e a r t h a t G e l l n e r h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h e basic p r o j e c t o f Elemen­
of phrases is used, must be known before that word or those phrases can be
tary Forms—namely, its a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n t h e c o m p u l s i v e n a t u r e o f
u n d e r s t o o d , before we can really speak o f a concept or a belief. (22)
s o c i a l l y d e f i n e d c o n c e p t s — b u t h e m o v e s t o o hastily f r o m a c o n s i d e r a ­
T h i s is w e l l p u t , a n d , e v e n if it h a s b e e n said b e f o r e , it is w o r t h tion o f what m i g h t b e involved in such a p r o b l e m to a dismissal o f
r e s t a t i n g . A t this p o i n t t h e r e a d e r m i g h t e x p e c t a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e dif­ D u r k h e i m ' s a t t e m p t at e x p l a n a t i o n . T h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a p r i o r i de­
f e r e n t w a y s i n w h i c h l a n g u a g e is e n c o u n t e r e d b y t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r i n nunciation m a y n o t f u r t h e r t h e p u r p o s e s o f e x p l a n a t i o n a n y b e t t e r
t h e field, h o w u t t e r a n c e s a r e p r o d u c e d , v e r b a l m e a n i n g s o r g a n i z e d , t h a n defense d o e s n o t s e e m t o b e e n v i s a g e d i n " C o n c e p t s a n d Society."
r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t s a t t a i n e d , a n d c u l t u r a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e s elic­ I n s t e a d , t h e r e a d e r is r e m i n d e d , b y w a y o f q u o t a t i o n f r o m L i e n h a r d t ,
i t e d . A f t e r all, W i t t g e n s t e i n h a d a l r e a d y s e n s i t i z e d B r i t i s h p h i l o s o ­ t h a t t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y a n t h r o p o l o g i s t typically " a p p e a r s t o m a k e it a
p h e r s t o t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f l a n g u a g e - i n - u s e , a n d J. L . A u s t i n h a d s e t c o n d i t i o n o f a g o o d t r a n s l a t i o n t h a t it c o n v e y s t h e c o h e r e n c e w h i c h h e
u p distinctions b e t w e e n t h e different levels o f s p e e c h p r o d u c t i o n a n d a s s u m e s is t h e r e t o b e f o u n d i n p r i m i t i v e t h o u g h t " (26). S o w e h a v e
r e c e p t i o n i n a way that f o r e s h a d o w e d what a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s w o u l d h e r e w h a t I t h i n k is a m i s l e a d i n g c o n t r a s t — D u r k h e i m ' s a t t e m p t t o e x ­
l a t e r call t h e e t h n o g r a p h y o f s p e a k i n g . B u t G e l l n e r h a d p r e v i o u s l y r e ­ plain versus t h e contemporary anthropologist's attempt to d e f e n d . I
j e c t e d t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t this p h i l o s o p h i c a l m o v e m e n t h a d a n y t h i n g shall r e t u r n t o this p o i n t later, b u t h e r e I w a n t t o insist t h a t t o a r g u e
o f v a l u e t o t e a c h ( s e e h i s p o l e m i c i n Words and Things 1 9 5 9 ) , a n d l i k e f o r a f o r m o f c o h e r e n c e b y w h i c h a d i s c o u r s e is h e l d t o g e t h e r is n o t
o t h e r critics, h e a l w a y s i n s i s t e d t h a t its c o n c e r n w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g i p s o f a c t o t o j u s t i f y o r d e f e n d t h a t d i s c o u r s e ; it is m e r e l y t o t a k e a n
 TALAL ASAD T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 147
146
e s s e n t i a l s t e p i n t h e p r o b l e m o f e x p l a i n i n g its compulsiveness. A n y o n e H a v e w e n o t g o t here s o m e very curious assumptions, which n o
f a m i l i a r w i t h p s y c h o a n a l y s i s w o u l d take this p o i n t q u i t e easily. W e p r a c t i c e d t r a n s l a t o r w o u l d e v e r m a k e ? T h e first is t h a t e v a l u a t i v e d i s ­
m i g h t p u t it a n o t h e r w a y : t h e c r i t e r i o n o f abstract " c o h e r e n c e " o r c r i m i n a t i o n is a l w a y s a m a t t e r o f c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n p o l a r a l t e r n a t i v e s ,
"logicality" ( G e l l n e r t e n d s t o u s e t h e s e a n d o t h e r t e r m s i n t e r c h a n g e ­ a n d s e c o n d , t h a t e v a l u a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e finally r e d u c i b l e t o " G o o d "
a b l y ) is n o t a l w a y s , a n d i n e v e r y c a s e , d e c i s i v e f o r a c c e p t i n g o r r e j e c t ­ a n d " B a d . " C l e a r l y n e i t h e r o f t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s is a c c e p t a b l e w h e n
i n g d i s c o u r s e . T h i s is b e c a u s e , as G e l l n e r h i m s e l f c o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e s , s t a t e d as a g e n e r a l r u l e . A n d t h e n t h e r e is t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e
" L a n g u a g e f u n c t i o n s i n a variety o f ways o t h e r t h a n 'referring to o b ­ t r a n s l a t o r ' s task n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s m a t c h i n g s e n t e n c e f o r s e n t e n c e .
j e c t s ' " (25). N o t e v e r y u t t e r a n c e is a n assertion. T h e r e a r e m a n y t h i n g s B u t i f t h e s k i l l e d t r a n s l a t o r l o o k s first f o r a n y p r i n c i p l e o f c o h e r e n c e
t h a t l a n g u a g e - i n - u s e d o e s , and is intended to do, w h i c h e x p l a i n s w h y w e in t h e d i s c o u r s e t o b e t r a n s l a t e d , a n d t h e n tries t o r e p r o d u c e t h a t c o ­
m a y r e s p o n d positively to discourse that m a y s e e m i n a d e q u a t e f r o m a h e r e n c e a s n e a r l y as h e c a n in h i s o w n l a n g u a g e , t h e r e c a n n o t b e a
n a r r o w "logical" p o i n t o f v i e w . T h e f u n c t i o n s o f a p a r t i c u l a r l a n g u a g e , g e n e r a l r u l e as t o w h a t u n i t s t h e t r a n s l a t o r will e m p l o y — s e n t e n c e s ,
t h e intentions o f a particular discourse, are of course part o f what paragraphs, o r e v e n larger units o f discourse. T o turn m y point
e v e r y c o m p e t e n t e t h n o g r a p h e r tries t o g r a s p b e f o r e h e c a n a t t e m p t a r o u n d : t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e unit e m p l o y e d itself d e p e n d s o n
an a d e q u a t e translation into his o w n language. the principle of coherence.

G e l l n e r d o e s s e e m h a l f - a w a r e o f this p o i n t , b u t q u i c k l y b r u s h e s it B u t Gellner's parable o f t h e anthropologist-translator requires t h e

aside in his e a g e r n e s s to display to Functionalist a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s their a s s u m p t i o n t h a t it is s e n t e n c e s t h a t t h e latter m a t c h e s , b e c a u s e t h a t
"excessive charity" in cultural translation. m a k e s it e a s i e r t o d i s p l a y h o w t h e sin o f e x c e s s i v e c h a r i t y o c c u r s . H a v ­
i n g m a d e a n initial e q u i v a l e n c e b e t w e e n a s e n t e n c e in t h e local l a n ­
T h e situation, facing a social anthropologist w h o wishes to interpret a con­ g u a g e a n d o n e in his o w n , the anthropologist notices that the English
cept, assertion or doctrine in an alien culture, is basically simple. H e is, say, s e n t e n c e carries a "Bad" impression. T h i s worries the anthropologist
faced with an assertion S in the local language. H e has at his disposal the large
b e c a u s e , s o r u n s Gellner's parable, an e t h n o g r a p h i c a c c o u n t g i v i n g
or infinite set o f possible sentences in his own language. . . .
such a n impression m i g h t b e t h o u g h t to be disparaging t h e natives h e
H e may not be wholly happy about this situation, but he cannot avoid it.
h a s s t u d i e d , a n d t o d i s p a r a g e o t h e r c u l t u r e s is a s i g n o f e t h n o c e n -
T h e r e is n o third language which could mediate between the native language
and his o w n , in which equivalences could be stated and which would avoid the t r i s m , a n d e t h n o c e n t r i s m in t u r n is a s y m p t o m o f p o o r a n t h r o p o l o g y
pitfalls arising from the fact that his own language has its own way of han­ according to the doctrines o f Functionalist anthropology. Functional­
dling the world, which may not be those of the native language studied, and ist m e t h o d r e q u i r e s t h a t s e n t e n c e s a l w a y s b e e v a l u a t e d i n t e r m s o f
which consequently are liable to distort that which is being translated. their o w n social context. S o the worried anthropologist reinterprets
Naively, people sometimes think that reality itself could be this kind of t h e original s e n t e n c e , with a m o r e flexible a n d careful u s e o f t h e c o n ­
mediator a n d "third language." . . . For a variety of powerful reasons, this is textual m e t h o d , in o r d e r to p r o d u c e a "Good" translation.
o f course n o g o o d . (24—25) T h e s i n o f e x c e s s i v e charity, a n d t h e c o n t e x t u a l m e t h o d itself, a r e
A g a i n , this sensible statement m i g h t s e e m to s o m e r e a d e r s t o s u p ­ t o g e t h e r linked, Gellner writes, to t h e relativistic-functionalist view o f
p o r t t h e d e m a n d t h a t t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r m u s t try t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e t h o u g h t that g o e s back to t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t :
v a r i o u s w a y s in w h i c h t h e "native l a n g u a g e " h a n d l e s t h e w o r l d , c o n ­
T h e (unresolved) dilemma, which the thought of the Enlightenment faced,
veys information, a n d constitutes experience, before translating a n
was between a relativistic-functionalist view o f thought, a n d the absolutist
alien d i s c o u r s e into t h e l a n g u a g e o f his e t h n o g r a p h i c text. B u t Gell­
claims o f enlightened Reason. Viewing man as part of nature, as enlightened
ner's a c c o u n t p r o c e e d s i n a d i f f e r e n t , a n d v e r y d u b i o u s , d i r e c t i o n . Reason requires, it wished to see his cognitive and evaluative activities as parts
H a v i n g located an equivalent English sentence, h e continues, t h e of nature too, and h e n c e as varying, legitimately, from organism to organism
a n t h r o p o l o g i s t n o t i c e s t h a t it i n e v i t a b l y c a r r i e s a v a l u e c o n n o t a t i o n — and c o n t e x t to context. (This is the relativistic-functionalist view.) B u t at t h e
t h a t it i s , i n o t h e r w o r d s , e i t h e r G o o d o r B a d . "I d o n o t s a y ' t r u e ' o r same time in r e c o m m e n d i n g life according to Reason and Nature, it wished at
'false', f o r t h i s o n l y a r i s e s w i t h r e g a r d t o s o m e t y p e s o f a s s e r t i o n . W i t h the very least to e x e m p t this view itself (and, in practice, some others) from
r e g a r d to others, o t h e r dichotomies,, s u c h as 'meaningful' a n d 'absurd' such a relativism. (31)
o r ' s e n s i b l e ' o r 'silly' m i g h t a p p l y . I d e l i b e r a t e l y u s e t h e ' G o o d ' a n d
' B a d ' s o a s t o c o v e r all s u c h p o s s i b l e p o l a r a l t e r n a t i v e s , w h i c h e v e r Typically, G e l l n e r ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n p r e s e n t s this " u n r e ­
m i g h t b e s t a p p l y t o t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f S" (27). s o l v e d d i l e m m a " as a n abstract o p p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t w o c o n c e p t s — " a
 TALAL ASAD T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 149
148
relativistic-functionalist view o f t h o u g h t " a n d "the absolutist claims o f possible? W h y d o e s o n e e v e r say to f o r e i g n e r s that t h e y h a v e mis­
e n l i g h t e n e d R e a s o n . " B u t h o w d o these two " c o n c e p t s " w o r k as " c o r ­ u n d e r s t o o d s o m e t h i n g t h e y h e a r d o r saw? D o e s social l e a r n i n g p r o ­
r e l a t e s o f . . . t h e institutions o f [Western] society"? (cf. G e l l n e r , p . 18). d u c e n o skills in the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f r e l e v a n t c o n t e x t s ? T h e a n s w e r s
It w o u l d n o t b e difficult to a r g u e that t h e claims o f " e n l i g h t e n e d R e a ­ to t h e s e q u e s t i o n s s h o u l d b e o b v i o u s , a n d they a r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h the
s o n " a r e materially m o r e successful in T h i r d W o r l d c o u n t r i e s t h a n fact t h a t t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t ' s translation is n o t m e r e l y a m a t t e r o f
m a n y relativistic views, that they h a v e e x e r t e d g r e a t e r authority t h a n m a t c h i n g s e n t e n c e s in t h e abstract, b u t o f learning to live another form of
t h e latter in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f industrial e c o n o m i e s a n d t h e f o r m a ­ life a n d to s p e a k a n o t h e r k i n d o f l a n g u a g e . W h i c h c o n t e x t s a r e r e l e ­
tion o f n a t i o n states. W e shall h a v e occasion to discuss this f u r t h e r v a n t in d i f f e r e n t discursive events is s o m e t h i n g o n e l e a r n s in t h e
w h e n e x a m i n i n g translation as a p r o c e s s o f p o w e r . T h e p o i n t is t h a t c o u r s e o f living, a n d e v e n t h o u g h it is often very difficult t o v e r b a l i z e
"the absolutist claims o f e n l i g h t e n e d R e a s o n " are in effect an institu­ t h a t k n o w l e d g e , it is still k n o w l e d g e a b o u t s o m e t h i n g "in the n a t u r e o f
tionalized force, a n d t h a t as s u c h it is by definition c o m m i t t e d to advanc­ society," a b o u t s o m e a s p e c t o f living, that indicates ( a l t h o u g h it d o e s
ing i n t o a n d a p p r o p r i a t i n g alien territory, a n d that its o p p o n e n t s n o t "dictate") j u s t h o w m u c h c o n t e x t is r e l e v a n t to a n y g i v e n u t t e r ­
( w h e t h e r explicitly relativistic o r not) are by definition defensive. T h u s a n c e . T h e point, o f c o u r s e , is n o t that the e t h n o g r a p h e r c a n n o t k n o w
w h e n G e l l n e r c o n t i n u e s o n the s a m e p a g e to c h a r a c t e r i z e this abstract w h a t c o n t e x t is a p p r o p r i a t e for g i v i n g sense to typical s t a t e m e n t s , o r
d i l e m m a in the attitudes o f a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , h e fails to c o n s i d e r w h a t t h a t h e is i n d u c e d to be m o r e charitable t h a n h e s h o u l d be in translat­
" c u l t u r a l translation" m i g h t i n v o l v e w h e n it is c o n s i d e r e d as institu­ i n g t h e m , b u t t h a t his attempts at translation m a y m e e t w i t h p r o b l e m s
t i o n a l i z e d practice g i v e n t h e w i d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f u n e q u a l societies. r o o t e d in the linguistic materials h e w o r k s with and the social c o n d i ­
F o r it is n o t t h e abstract logic o f w h a t i n d i v i d u a l W e s t e r n a n t h r o p o l o ­ t i o n s h e w o r k s i n — b o t h in the field a n d in his o w n society. M o r e o n
gists say in their e t h n o g r a p h i e s , b u t the c o n c r e t e logic o f w h a t t h e i r this later.
c o u n t r i e s (and p e r h a p s t h e y t h e m s e l v e s ) do in their relations with t h e T h e latter h a l f o f G e l l n e r ' s essay is d e v o t e d to e x a m p l e s f r o m e t h ­
T h i r d W o r l d that s h o u l d f o r m the starting p o i n t for this p a r t i c u l a r n o g r a p h i c studies in o r d e r to display, first, excessive charity in transla­
d i s c u s s i o n . T h e d i l e m m a s o f "relativism" a p p e a r d i f f e r e n t l y d e p e n d ­ tion, a n d t h e n , the e x p l a n a t o r y a d v a n t a g e s o f t a k i n g a critical l o o k at
i n g o n w h e t h e r w e t h i n k o f abstracted u n d e r s t a n d i n g o r o f historically t h e l o g i c o f alien r e l i g i o u s d i s c o u r s e .
situated practices. T h e first set o f e x a m p l e s c o m e s f r o m Evans-Pritchard's Nuer Reli­
H o w e v e r , G e l l n e r says he is n o t in p r i n c i p l e against a n t h r o p o l o g i ­ gion ( 1 9 5 6 ) , in w h i c h o d d - s o u n d i n g initial translations o f N u e r reli­
cal relativism. " M y m a i n p o i n t a b o u t t o l e r a n c e - e n g e n d e r i n g c o n ­ g i o u s d i s c o u r s e , such as the n o t o r i o u s s t a t e m e n t that "a twin is a b i r d , "
t e x t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , " h e writes, "is that it calls for c a u t i o n " (32). B u t a r e r e i n t e r p r e t e d . " T h i s k i n d o f statement," G e l l n e r o b s e r v e s ,
w h y s u c h c a u t i o n is r e s e r v e d f o r " t o l e r a n c e - e n g e n d e r i n g " as o p p o s e d " a p p e a r s to b e in conflict with the p r i n c i p l e o f identity o r n o n ­
to i n t o l e r a n c e - e n g e n d e r i n g c o n t e x t u a l interpretations is n o t e x ­ c o n t r a d i c t i o n , o r w i t h c o m m o n sense, o r w i t h m a n i f e s t o b s e r v a b l e
p l a i n e d . A f t e r all, G e l l n e r insisted earlier that all translated s e n t e n c e s fact: h u m a n twins a r e not birds, a n d vice v e r s a " (34). A c c o r d i n g to
a r e b o u n d to b e r e c e i v e d e i t h e r as " G o o d " o r as " B a d . " W h y s h o u l d w e G e l l n e r , Evans-Pritchard's reinterpretation absolves N u e r t h o u g h t
b e s u s p i c i o u s o n l y o f those that a p p e a r " G o o d " ? I f "it is t h e prior d e ­ f r o m t h e c h a r g e o f " p r e - l o g i c a l m e n t a l i t y " b y an arbitrary u s e o f the
t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t S, t h e i n d i g e n o u s affirmation, b e i n t e r p r e t e d f a v o u r ­ c o n t e x t u a l m e t h o d . T h e a p p a r e n t absurdity is r e i n t e r p r e t e d to d e n y
ably, w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s j u s t h o w m u c h c o n t e x t will be t a k e n i n t o c o n ­ t h a t N u e r beliefs conflict with manifest fact by r e l a t i n g the m e a n i n g o f
t h e " a b s u r d " s t a t e m e n t to " l o g i c a l " b e h a v i o r . G e l l n e r indicates h o w
s i d e r a t i o n " (33), c a n w e p e r h a p s e s c a p e this vicious c i r c u l a r i t y b y
this is d o n e b y q u o t i n g (with the d e l i b e r a t e o m i s s i o n o f o n e significant
a d o p t i n g a n unsympathetic attitude? G e l l n e r d o e s n o t a d d r e s s h i m s e l f
sentence) from Evans-Pritchard:
d i r e c t l y t o this possibility h e r e , b u t o n e m u s t a s s u m e that it c a n n o t b e
a s o l u t i o n , especially in view o f the claim that " t h e r e is n o t h i n g [sic] in n o contradiction is involved in the statement which, on the contrary, appears
t h e n a t u r e o f things o r societies to dictate visibly j u s t h o w m u c h c o n ­ quite sensible and even true, to o n e who presents the idea to himself in the
t e x t is r e l e v a n t to a n y g i v e n u t t e r a n c e , o r h o w the c o n t e x t s h o u l d b e N u e r language and within their system o f religious thought. [ H e does not
d e s c r i b e d " (33). then take their statements about twins any more literally than they make and
Y e t c a n this last r e m a r k b e m e a n t seriously? Nothing}] H o w , t h e n , understand t h e m themselves.] They are not saying that a twin has a beak, feathers,
and so forth. Nor in their everyday relations as twins do Nuers speak of them as birds or
is c o m m u n i c a t i o n e v e n b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s in the s a m e society e v e r
 TALAL ASAD T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 151
15°
act towards them as though they were birds. (35. Sentence in brackets omitted by gest that o n l y s o m e o n e with a very naive u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t w a s
Gellner; emphasis supplied by Gellner.) i n v o l v e d i n t r a n s l a t i o n c o u l d t h i n k t h a t it d o e s .
Yet G e l l n e r ' s d i s c o u r s e typically e v a d e s t h e i s s u e s it s e e m s t o b e
A t this p o i n t G e l l n e r b r e a k s o f f t h e q u o t a t i o n a n d i n t e r j e c t s i n
r a i s i n g , i n a style t h a t s e e k s t o h u r r y t h e r e a d e r a l o n g o v e r a s e r i e s o f
m o c k d e s p a i r : " B u t w h a t , t h e n , would c o u n t as p r e - l o g i c a l t h o u g h t ?
archly phrased disclaimers:
O n l y , p r e s u m a b l y , t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a totally d e m e n t e d p e r s o n , s u f f e r ­
i n g f r o m p e r m a n e n t h a l l u c i n a t i o n s , w h o would t r e a t s o m e t h i n g w h i c h I d o not wish to be misunderstood: I am not arguing that Evans-Pritchard's
is p e r c e p t i b l y a h u m a n b e i n g as t h o u g h it h a d all t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f a account o f N u e r concepts is a bad one. (Nor am I anxious to revive a doctrine
b i r d " (35). S o e a g e r is G e l l n e r t o nail u t t e r a n c e s t h a t m u s t c o u n t as of pre-logical mentality a la Lévy-Bruhl.) O n the contrary, I have the greatest
e x p r e s s i o n s o f " p r e - l o g i c a l t h o u g h t " ( w h y is h e s o e a g e r ? ) t h a t h e d o e s admiration for it. What I a m anxious to argue is that contextual interpreta­
n o t p a u s e t o c o n s i d e r c a r e f u l l y w h a t E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d is t r y i n g t o tion, which offers an account o f what assertions "really mean" in opposition to
d o . I n fact, E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d d e v o t e s s e v e r a l p a g e s t o e x p l a i n i n g t h i s what they seem to mean in isolation, does not by itself clinch matters. (38)
s t r a n g e s e n t e n c e . It is p l a i n t h a t h e is c o n c e r n e d t o explain (in t e r m s o f N o w w h o w o u l d h a v e c l a i m e d it d i d ? C e r t a i n l y E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d d o e s
N u e r s o c i a l life), n o t t o justify (in t e r m s o f W e s t e r n c o m m o n s e n s e , o r not. In a n y case the opposition b e t w e e n a "contextual interpretation"
W e s t e r n v a l u e s ) . T h e a i m o f this k i n d o f e x e g e s i s is c e r t a i n l y n o t t o a n d o n e t h a t is n o t c o n t e x t u a l is e n t i r e l y s p u r i o u s . N o t h i n g h a s m e a n ­
p e r s u a d e Western readers to a d o p t N u e r religious practices. N o r d o e s i n g "in i s o l a t i o n . " T h e p r o b l e m is a l w a y s , w h a t k i n d o f c o n t e x t ?
it r u l e o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s p e a k e r s m a k e m i s t a k e s o r B u t t h a t is s o m e t h i n g G e l l n e r n e v e r d i s c u s s e s , e x c e p t b y s u g g e s t ­
utter absurdities in their religious discourse w h e n e m p l o y i n g their i n g that t h e a n s w e r m u s t involve a vicious circularity—or by u t t e r i n g
t r a d i t i o n a l w a y s o f t h i n k i n g . It is n o t c l e a r , t h e r e f o r e , w h y G e l l n e r r e p e a t e d w a r n i n g s a g a i n s t " e x c e s s i v e " charity ( w h e n is c h a r i t y n o t " e x ­
s h o u l d p o i n t t o t h i s e x a m p l e f r o m Nuer Religion t o s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s cessive"?). H e a p p e a r s u n a w a r e that for t h e translator t h e p r o b l e m o f
c h a r g e o f excessive charity o n the part o f Functionalist a n t h r o p o l o ­ d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e l e v a n t k i n d o f c o n t e x t i n e a c h c a s e is s o l v e d b y skill
g i s t s . E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d is t r y i n g t o e x p l a i n t h e c o h e r e n c e t h a t g i v e s in t h e u s e o f t h e l a n g u a g e s c o n c e r n e d , n o t by a n a priori "attitude" o f
N u e r r e l i g i o u s d i s c o u r s e its s e n s e , n o t t o d e f e n d t h a t s e n s e as h a v i n g a i n t o l e r a n c e o r t o l e r a n c e . A n d skill is s o m e t h i n g t h a t is learned—that
u n i v e r s a l s t a t u s — a f t e r all, E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d h i m s e l f w a s a C a t h o l i c is, s o m e t h i n g t h a t is n e c e s s a r i l y circular, b u t n o t v i c i o u s l y s o . W e a r e
b o t h b e f o r e a n d after his m o n o g r a p h o n N u e r religion was written. d e a l i n g n o t w i t h a n a b s t r a c t m a t c h i n g o f t w o sets o f s e n t e n c e s , b u t
N o w w h e t h e r Evans-Pritchard succeeds in e x p l a i n i n g t h e basic c o ­ w i t h a social p r a c t i c e r o o t e d i n m o d e s o f life. A t r a n s l a t o r m a y m a k e
h e r e n c e o f N u e r r e l i g i o u s d i s c o u r s e is, o f c o u r s e , a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n . mistakes, o r h e m a y knowingly misrepresent s o m e t h i n g — m u c h as
S e v e r a l British a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s — f o r e x a m p l e , R a y m o n d Firth (1966) p e o p l e m a k e m i s t a k e s o r lie i n e v e r y d a y life. B u t w e c a n n o t p r o d u c e a
— ( t h o u g h n o t , to m y k n o w l e d g e , any N u e r themselves) h a v e d i s p u t e d g e n e r a l principle for identifying such things, particularly n o t t h r o u g h
aspects o f Evans-Pritchard's interpretation. B u t such d i s a g r e e m e n t s w a r n i n g s to b e careful o f "the contextual m e t h o d o f interpretation."
a r e still a b o u t d i f f e r e n t w a y s o f m a k i n g s e n s e o f N u e r r e l i g i o u s d i s ­ A n d s o t o a n o t h e r o f Gellner's c h a r m i n g d i s c l a i m e r s : " T o say all
c o u r s e , n o t a b o u t t o o m u c h o r t o o little "charity" i n t r a n s l a t i o n . I n fact this is n o t to a r g u e for a scepticism o r agnosticism c o n c e r n i n g w h a t
c o n t r a r y t o G e l l n e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s , E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d ' s e x e g e s i s does m a k e m e m b e r s o f a l i e n l a n g u a g e s m e a n , still less t o a r g u e f o r a n a b s t e n t i o n
q u i t e e x p l i c i t a p p a r e n t " c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , " o r at l e a s t a m b i g u i t i e s , i n f r o m t h e contextual m e t h o d o f interpretation. ( O n the contrary, I
N u e r c o n c e p t s — f o r e x a m p l e , b e t w e e n t h e n o t i o n o f "a s u p r e m e a n d s h a l l a r g u e f o r a f u l l e r u s e o f it, f u l l e r i n t h e s e n s e o f a l l o w i n g f o r t h e
o m n i p r e s e n t b e i n g " a n d that o f "lesser spirits," b o t h o f w h i c h a r e c a t e ­ p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t w h a t p e o p l e m e a n is s o m e t i m e s a b s u r d . ) " (39). T h e
g o r i z e d as kwoth. A n d it is p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e E v a n s - P r i t c h a r d i n s i s t s o n c h a r m o f this s t a t e m e n t c o n s i s t s i n Gellner's c h e e k y a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f
k e e p i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t s e n s e s o f kwoth t o g e t h e r as p a r t s o f " o n e c o n ­ his o p p o n e n t ' s m e t h o d to s t r e n g t h e n his o w n distinctive position.
c e p t " a n d d o e s n o t t r e a t t h e m as h o m o n y m s (as M a l i n o w s k i m i g h t B u t b e f o r e t h a t is d o n e , w e a r e g i v e n f u r t h e r e x a m p l e s o f t h e
have d o n e by relating the w o r d to different contexts o f use) that t o l e r a n c e - e n g e n d e r i n g c o n t e x t u a l m e t h o d at w o r k i n Leach's Political
t h e N u e r c o n c e p t o f spirit m i g h t b e s a i d t o b e " c o n t r a d i c t o r y . " B u t Systems of Highland Burma. T h u s a c c o r d i n g t o L e a c h , K a c h i n s t a t e ­
w h e t h e r the identification o f ambiguities a n d "contradictions" in the m e n t s a b o u t t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l w o r l d a r e "in t h e last a n a l y s i s , n o t h i n g
basic c o n c e p t u a l repertoire o f a l a n g u a g e provides obvious e v i d e n c e m o r e than ways o f describing t h e formal relationships that exist
o f " p r e - l o g i c a l t h o u g h t " is, o f c o u r s e , a d i f f e r e n t i s s u e — I w o u l d s u g - b e t w e e n r e a l p e r s o n s a n d real g r o u p s i n o r d i n a r y K a c h i n s o c i e t y "
152 TALALASAD
T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 153

( q u o t e d o n p . 40). A t this p o i n t G e l l n e r i n t e r v e n e s : "It is p o s s i b l e t o l a r s t a t e m e n t s ( o r t h e y w o u l d n o t u s e it), a n d it m a k e s s e n s e a l s o , a l ­

d i s c e r n w h a t h a s h a p p e n e d . Leach's e x e g e t i c p r o c e d u r e s h a v e a l s o t h o u g h o f a d i f f e r e n t k i n d , t o G e l l n e r , w h o states t h a t b y d e c e i v i n g its
s a v e d t h e K a c h i n s f r o m b e i n g c r e d i t e d w i t h w h a t t h e y appear t o b e say­ u s e r s it s o m e h o w u p h o l d s a social s t r u c t u r e . S e n s e o r n o n s e n s e , l i k e
i n g " a n d t h u s m a d e it p o s s i b l e "to a t t r i b u t e m e a n i n g t o a s s e r t i o n s t r u t h o r f a l s e h o o d , a p p l i e s t o statements a n d n o t t o a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t s .
w h i c h m i g h t o t h e r w i s e b e f o u n d to lack it" ( 4 1 ) . G e l l n e r g o e s o n t o T h e r e s e e m s to m e n o evidence here o f a "nonsensical" concept, b e ­
insist t h a t h e is n o t c o n c e r n e d t o d i s p u t e Leach's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , b u t c a u s e t h e r e is n o a n a l y s i s o f socially s i t u a t e d s t a t e m e n t s .
m e r e l y "to s h o w h o w t h e r a n g e o f c o n t e x t , a n d t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h B u t t h e r e is a l s o a m o r e i m p o r t a n t f a i l u r e e v i d e n t i n this e x a m p l e :
t h e c o n t e x t is s e e n , n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " ( 4 1 ) . T h i s is a t h e lack o f a n y a t t e m p t t o e x p l o r e its coherence—that w h i c h m a k e s its
s i g n i f i c a n t r e m a r k , b e c a u s e it is i n d e e d n o t Leach's r e d u c t i o n i s m t o s o c i a l e f f e c t s u c h a p o w e r f u l possibility. O f c o u r s e , p o l i t i c a l d i s c o u r s e
w h i c h G e l l n e r o b j e c t s ( w e shall find h i m i n s i s t i n g o n it h i m s e l f l a t e r i n e m p l o y s l i e s , h a l f - t r u t h s , l o g i c a l trickery, a n d s o o n . Yet t h a t is n o t
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h B e r b e r r e l i g i o u s i d e o l o g y ) b u t t o t h e fact t h a t this e x ­ w h a t g i v e s it its compulsive c h a r a c t e r , a n y m o r e t h a n t h e u s e o f t r u e o r
a m p l e o f r e d u c t i o n i s m — w h i c h G e l l n e r m i s l e a d i n g l y calls " c o n t e x - c l e a r s t a t e m e n t s d o e s , a n d c o m p u l s i v e n e s s is p r e c i s e l y w h a t is i n v o l v e d
t u a l i s m " — s e e m s t o d e f e n d , r a t h e r t h a n t o attack, t h e c u l t u r a l d i s ­ i n G e l l n e r ' s e x a m p l e . It is n o t t h e abstract l o g i c a l s t a t u s o f c o n c e p t s
course concerned. t h a t is r e l e v a n t h e r e , b u t t h e w a y i n w h i c h specific political d i s c o u r s e s
G e l l n e r ' s d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f h o w "the uncharitable m a y b e ' c o n t e x - s e e m to mobilize o r direct the behavior o f people within given cultural
tualist' i n t h e s e c o n d , d e e p e r a n d b e t t e r s e n s e " (42) b e g i n s b y p r e s e n t ­ s i t u a t i o n s . T h e c o m p u l s i v e n e s s o f "bobility" as a political c o n c e p t is a
i n g a fictitious w o r d i n a h c t i t i o u s s o c i e t y — t h e w o r d "boble," u s e d i n a feature n o t o f gullible m i n d s b u t o f c o h e r e n t discourses a n d practices.
w a y r e m a r k a b l y like t h e E n g l i s h w o r d " n o b l e . " T h u s w e a r e t o l d t h a t it T h a t is w h y it is e s s e n t i a l f o r a t r a n s l a t o r o f p o w e r f u l political i d e o l o ­
c a n b e a p p l i e d t o p e o p l e w h o actually d i s p l a y c e r t a i n h a b i t u a l f o r m s g i e s t o a t t e m p t t o c o n v e y s o m e t h i n g o f this c o h e r e n c e . T o m a k e n o n ­
o f c o n d u c t , a s w e l l as t o p e o p l e w h o o c c u p y a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s t a t u s s e n s e o f t h e c o n c e p t is t o m a k e n o n s e n s e o f t h e society.
i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e i r b e h a v i o r . " B u t t h e p o i n t is: t h e s o c i e t y i n q u e s t i o n G e l l n e r ' s final e x a m p l e c o m e s f r o m h i s o w n fieldwork a m o n g t h e
d o e s n o t d i s t i n g u i s h two concepts, b o b l e (a) a n d b o b l e (b). It o n l y u s e s c e n t r a l M o r o c c a n B e r b e r s , a n d is i n t e n d e d t o c l i n c h t h e a r g u m e n t
t h e w o r d b o b l e t o u t c o u r t " (42). T h e l o g i c o f b o b i l i t y is t h e n a n a l y z e d that an uncharitable contextualist makes better sense o f the society h e
further to show how d e s c r i b e s b y e m p h a s i z i n g t h e i n c o h e r e n c e o f its c o n c e p t s : " T w o c o n ­
c e p t s a r e r e l e v a n t , " h e w r i t e s , "baraka a n d agurram (pi. igurramen).
bobility is a conceptual device by which the privileged class of the society in Baraka is a w o r d w h i c h c a n m e a n s i m p l y ' e n o u g h ' , b u t it a l s o m e a n s
question acquires some of the prestige of certain virtues respected in that so­ p l e n i t u d e , a n d a b o v e all b l e s s e d n e s s m a n i f e s t e d a m o n g s t o t h e r t h i n g s
ciety, without the inconvenience o f n e e d i n g to practice it, thanks to t h e fact in p r o s p e r i t y a n d t h e p o w e r to cause prosperity in o t h e r s by s u p e r ­
that the same word is applied either to practitioners o f those virtues or to oc­ n a t u r a l m e a n s . A n agurram is a p o s s e s s o r o f baraka" (43).
cupiers of favoured positions. It is, at the same time, a manner o f reinforcing
Igurramen—translated as "saints" i n G e l l n e r ' s later w r i t i n g s ( e . g . ,
the appeal o f those virtues, by associating them, through the use o f the same
1 9 6 9 ) — a r e a fairly p r i v i l e g e d a n d i n f l u e n t i a l m i n o r i t y i n t h e tribal s o ­
appellation, with prestige and power. But all this needs to be said, and to say it
is to bring out the internal logical incoherence of the c o n c e p t — a n incoher­ c i e t y o f c e n t r a l M o r o c c a n B e r b e r s w h o act as f o c i o f r e l i g i o u s v a l u e s
ence which, indeed, is socially functional. (42) a n d a l s o a s m e d i a t o r s a n d a r b i t r a t o r s a m o n g s t t h e tribal p o p u l a t i o n
w i t h w h o m t h e y live. " T h e local b e l i e f is t h a t t h e y a r e s e l e c t e d b y G o d .
I n fact t h e c o n c e p t o f "bobility" is n o t s h o w n t o b e incoherent—even if Moreover, G o d makes his choice manifest by e n d o w i n g those w h o m
it b e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e a m b i g u i t y o f t h e word a l l o w s it t o b e u s e d in h e h a s selected with certain characteristics, i n c l u d i n g magical p o w e r s ,
p o l i t i c a l d i s c o u r s e t o c o n s o l i d a t e t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f a r u l i n g class ( a n d a n d great generosity, prosperity, a consider-the-lilies attitude, paci­
t h e r e f o r e , in principle, also to u n d e r m i n e that legitimacy). Gellner's fism, a n d s o f o r t h " (43).
s a t i s f i e d c o n c l u s i o n t o h i s fictional e x a m p l e is s u r e l y f a r t o o h a s t y : T h i s is G e l l n e r ' s " t r a n s l a t i o n . " B u t h i s t o o - f l u e n t u s e o f a r e l i g i o u s
" W h a t t h i s s h o w s , h o w e v e r , is t h a t t h e o v e r - c h a r i t a b l e i n t e r p r e t e r , d e ­ vocabulary with strong, a n d p e r h a p s irrelevant, Christian o v e r t o n e s
t e r m i n e d t o d e f e n d t h e c o n c e p t s h e is i n v e s t i g a t i n g f r o m t h e c h a r g e m u s t p r o m p t d o u b t s a n d q u e s t i o n s at this p o i n t . W h a t p r e c i s e l y a r e
o f l o g i c a l i n c o h e r e n c e , is b o u n d t o m i s d e s c r i b e t h e social s i t u a t i o n . To t h e b e h a v i o r a n d d i s c o u r s e s t r a n s l a t e d h e r e a s "a c o n s i d e r - t h e - l i l i e s at­
make sense of the concept is to make nonsense of the society" (42, e m p h a s i s titude," "makes his c h o i c e manifest," a n d "endowing," for instance?
a d d e d ) . C l e a r l y t h e w o r d "bobility" m a k e s s e n s e t o its u s e r s in part i n i D o t h e B e r b e r s b e l i e v e that G o d endows t h e i r "saints" w i t h d i s p o s i -
154 TALAL ASAD T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 155

tional characteristics such as "great generosity a n d pacifism," o r d o d o n o t k n o w as t h e a g e n t — i n fact, t h e s u r r o u n d i n g t r i b e s m e n t h e m ­

t h e y t a k e it r a t h e r t h a t t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e conditions o f saintli- s e l v e s . T h e igurramen a r e " s e l e c t e d " ( f o r a p a r t i c u l a r social r o l e ? f o r a
n e s s , o f t h e c l o s e n e s s o f igurramen t o G o d ? D o t h e B e r b e r s r e a l l y b e ­ m o r a l virtue? f o r a religious destiny?) by the p e o p l e . T h e "selection"
h a v e a s t h o u g h r e l i g i o u s a n d m o r a l virtues w e r e " m a n i f e s t a t i o n s " o f a p p e a r s t o b e vox Dei a n d is i n reality vox populi. O r is it?
d i v i n e c h o i c e ? W h a t d o t h e y say a n d h o w d o t h e y b e h a v e w h e n p e o p l e I n reality t h e social p r o c e s s d e s c r i b e d b y t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t as "se­
fail t o d i s p l a y t h e v i r t u e s t h e y ought t o h a v e ? B y w h o m is a n agurram's l e c t i o n " is t h e l o c u s o f a vox o n l y i f it is p r e t e n d e d t h a t t h a t p r o c e s s
b e h a v i o r c o n c e p t u a l i z e d as a " c o n s i d e r - t h e - l i l i e s a t t i t u d e , " g i v e n t h a t constitutes a cultural text. For a text m u s t have a n a u t h o r — t h e o n e
h e h a s b o t h f a m i l y a n d p r o p e r t y , a n d t h a t this fact is t a k e n b y t h e B e r ­ w h o m a k e s h i s v o i c e h e a r d t h r o u g h it. A n d i f t h a t v o i c e c a n n o t b e
bers t o b e perfectly in o r d e r ? G e l l n e r d o e s n o t give t h e r e a d e r t h e G o d ' s , it m u s t b e s o m e o n e e l s e ' s — t h e p e o p l e ' s . T h u s G e l l n e r t h e a t h e ­
r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e f o r a n s w e r i n g t h e s e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s , w h o s e sig­ ist i n s i s t s o n a n s w e r i n g a t h e o l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n : w h o s p e a k s t h r o u g h
n i f i c a n c e f o r h i s t r a n s l a t i o n will e m e r g e i n a m o m e n t . h i s t o r y , t h r o u g h s o c i e t y ? I n this p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , t h e a n s w e r d e p e n d s
o n t h e t e x t c o n t a i n i n g at o n c e t h e "real," u n c o n s c i o u s m e a n i n g a n d its
T h e reality o f the situation is, however, that the igurramen are in fact se­
a p p r o p r i a t e t r a n s l a t i o n . T h i s f u s i o n o f s i g n i f i e r a n d s i g n i f i e d is e s p e ­
lected by the surrounding ordinary tribesmen who use their services, by being
cially e v i d e n t i n t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e I s l a m i c c o n c e p t o f baraka is m a d e
called to perform those services and being preferred to the rival candidates
t o s o u n d r e m a r k a b l y like t h e C h r i s t i a n c o n c e p t o f g r a c e as p o r t r a y e d
for their performance. What appears to be vox Dei is in reality vox populi.
by a n e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y skeptic, so that t h e conditions d e f i n i n g t h e
Moreover, the matter o f the blessed characteristics, the stigmata [sic] o f
agurram-hood is more complicated. It is essential that successful candidates to agurram's baraka a r e r e f e r r e d t o w i t h a k n o w i n g G i b b o n i a n s m i l e as
agurram status be credited with these characteristics, but it is equally essential, " s t i g m a t a " — a n d b y t h a t d e f t s i g n , a p o r t i o n of t h e B e r b e r c u l t u r a l
at any rate with regard to some of them, that they should n o t really possess t e x t is a t o n c e c o n s t r u c t e d ( m a d e u p ) a n d d e s i g n a t e d ( s h o w n u p )
t h e m . For instance, an agurram w h o was extremely generous in a consider- w i t h i n G e l l n e r ' s t e x t , as e x q u i s i t e a u n i o n o f w o r d a n d t h i n g as a n y t o
the-lilies spirit would soon be impoverished and, as such, fail by another cru­ b e f o u n d i n all h i s w r i t i n g s .
cial test, that o f prosperity. B u t s o c i e t y is n o t a t e x t t h a t c o m m u n i c a t e s i t s e l f t o t h e s k i l l e d
T h e r e is here a crucial divergence between concept and reality, a diver­ r e a d e r . It is p e o p l e w h o s p e a k . A n d t h e u l t i m a t e m e a n i n g o f w h a t
gence which moreover is quite essential for the working of the social system. t h e y s a y d o e s n o t r e s i d e i n s o c i e t y — s o c i e t y is t h e c u l t u r a l c o n d i t i o n i n
(43-44) w h i c h speakers act a n d are acted u p o n . T h e privileged position that
I t i s n o t a t all c l e a r f r o m t h e a c c o u n t g i v e n b y G e l l n e r w h a t is G e l l n e r a c c o r d s h i m s e l f f o r d e c o d i n g t h e real m e a n i n g o f w h a t t h e
m e a n t b y t h e s t a t e m e n t , " T h e local b e l i e f is t h a t t h e y a r e s e l e c t e d b y B e r b e r s s a y ( r e g a r d l e s s o f w h a t t h e y t h i n k t h e y say) c a n b e m a i n t a i n e d
G o d " — " s e l e c t e d " f o r w h a t e x a c t l y ? For b e i n g arbitrators? B u t a r b i t r a ­ o n l y b y s o m e o n e w h o s u p p o s e s that t r a n s l a t i n g o t h e r c u l t u r e s is e s ­
t i o n m u s t b e i n i t i a t e d b y o n e o r o t h e r m e m b e r o f t h e tribal s o c i e t y , sentially a m a t t e r o f m a t c h i n g written s e n t e n c e s in t w o l a n g u a g e s ,
a n d t h a t fact c a n h a r d l y b e u n k n o w n t o t h e t r i b e s m e n . F o r b e i n g p a ­ s u c h t h a t t h e s e c o n d s e t o f s e n t e n c e s b e c o m e s t h e "real m e a n i n g " o f
cific? B u t p a c i f i s m is a v i r t u e , n o t a r e w a r d . F o r w o r l d l y s u c c e s s a n d t h e first—an o p e r a t i o n t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t a l o n e c o n t r o l s , f r o m field
p r o s p e r i t y ? B u t t h a t c a n n o t b e a local definition o f s a i n t l i n e s s , o r t h e n o t e b o o k t o p r i n t e d e t h n o g r a p h y . I n o t h e r w o r d s , it is t h e p r i v i l e g e d
F r e n c h c o l o n i a l r u l e r s w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e g a r d e d as m o r e saintly t h a n position o f s o m e o n e w h o d o e s not, a n d can afford n o t to, e n g a g e in a
any agurram. g e n u i n e d i a l o g u e w i t h t h o s e h e o r s h e o n c e l i v e d w i t h a n d n o w writes
I t is really n o g r e a t e x p l a n a t o r y a c h i e v e m e n t f o r a E u r o p e a n a n ­ a b o u t (cf. A s a d , e d . 1 9 7 3 : 1 7 ) .
thropologist to inform his agnostic a n d / o r m o d e r n E u r o p e a n readers I n t h e m i d d l e o f h i s article, w h e n d i s c u s s i n g a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l r e l a ­
that t h e Berbers believe in a particular kind o f direct intervention o f t i v i s m , G e l l n e r c o m p l a i n s t h a t " a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s w e r e relativistic, t o l e r ­
t h e d e i t y i n t h e i r affairs, t h a t t h e y a r e o f c o u r s e m i s t a k e n i n this b e l i e f , a n t , c o n t e x t u a l l y - c o m p r e h e n d i n g vis-à-vis t h e s a v a g e s w h o a r e a f t e r
a n d t h a t t h i s m i s t a k e n b e l i e f c a n h a v e social c o n s e q u e n c e s . I n this all s o m e d i s t a n c e away, b u t absolutistic, i n t o l e r a n t vis-à-vis t h e i r i m m e ­
k i n d o f e x e r c i s e w e d o n o t l e a r n what t h e y b e l i e v e , b u t o n l y that w h a t diate n e i g h b o u r s o r predecessors, t h e m e m b e r s o f o u r o w n society
t h e y b e l i e v e is q u i t e w r o n g : t h u s , t h e B e r b e r s b e l i e v e t h a t G o d " s e ­ w h o d o n o t share their c o m p r e h e n d i n g outlook a n d are themselves
l e c t s " igurramen; w e k n o w G o d d o e s n o t e x i s t ( o r i f s o m e o f u s still "be­ ' e t h n o c e n t r i c ' . . ." ( 3 1 ) .
lieve" h e d o e s , w e "know" h e d o e s n o t i n t e r v e n e directly in secular his­ W h y h a v e I t r i e d t o insist i n this p a p e r t h a t a n y o n e c o n c e r n e d
t o r y ) ; e r g o t h e "selector" m u s t b e a n o t h e r a g e n t w h o m t h e t r i b e s m e n with t r a n s l a t i n g f r o m o t h e r c u l t u r e s m u s t l o o k f o r c o h e r e n c e i n d i s -
156 TALAL ASAD
T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 157

c o u r s e s , a n d yet d e v o t e d so m a n y pages to s h o w i n g that Gellner's text e n l a r g e a n d m a k e m o r e c o h e r e n t . S u c h a c r i t i q u e — n o less t h a n t h e

is l a r g e l y i n c o h e r e n t ? T h e r e a s o n is q u i t e s i m p l e : G e l l n e r a n d I s p e a k o b j e c t o f c r i t i c i s m — i s a p o i n t o f v i e w , a ( c o n t r a ) version, h a v i n g o n l y
t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e , b e l o n g to t h e s a m e a c a d e m i c p r o f e s s i o n , live i n provisional a n d limited authority.
t h e s a m e society. I n t a k i n g u p a critical s t a n c e t o w a r d h i s t e x t I a m W h a t h a p p e n s w h e n the languages concerned are so r e m o t e that
contesting w h a t h e says, n o t translating it, a n d t h e r a d i c a l d i f f e r e n c e b e ­ it is v e r y difficult t o r e w r i t e a h a r m o n i o u s intentio? R u d o l f P a n n w i t z ,
t w e e n t h e s e t w o activities is p r e c i s e l y w h a t I insist o n . Still, t h e p u r p o s e q u o t e d i n t h e B e n j a m i n essay o n w h i c h I have j u s t d r a w n , m a k e s t h e
o f m y a r g u m e n t is n o t t o e x p r e s s a n a t t i t u d e o f " i n t o l e r a n c e " t o w a r d following observation:
a n " i m m e d i a t e n e i g h b o u r , " b u t t o try a n d i d e n t i f y i n c o h e r e n c e s i n h i s
O u r translations, even the best ones, proceed from a wrong premise. T h e y
t e x t t h a t call f o r r e m e d y , b e c a u s e t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l task o f t r a n s l a ­ want to turn Hindi, Greek, English into German instead o f turning German
t i o n d e s e r v e s t o b e m a d e m o r e c o h e r e n t . T h e p u r p o s e o f this criti­ into Hindi, Greek, English. O u r translators have a far greater reverence for
c i s m , t h e r e f o r e , is t o f u r t h e r a c o l l e c t i v e e n d e a v o r . C r i t i c i z i n g " s a v a g e s the usage o f their o w n language than for the spirit of the foreign works. . . .
w h o a r e a f t e r all s o m e d i s t a n c e away," i n a n e t h n o g r a p h i c m o n o g r a p h T h e basic error o f the translator is that he preserves the state in which his o w n
they cannot read, does not seem to m e to have the same kind o f pur­ l a n g u a g e h a p p e n s to be instead of allowing his language to be powerfully af­
p o s e . I n o r d e r f o r c r i t i c i s m t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e , it m u s t a l w a y s b e a d ­ fected by the foreign tongue. Particularly w h e n translating from a language
d r e s s e d t o s o m e o n e w h o c a n c o n t e s t it. very remote from his o w n h e must go back to the primal elements o f language
itself a n d penetrate to the point where work, image, and tone converge. H e
m u s t e x p a n d and d e e p e n his language by means of the foreign language.
(1969:80-81)

The Inequality of Languages T h i s call t o t r a n s f o r m a l a n g u a g e i n o r d e r t o t r a n s l a t e t h e c o h e r ­

e n c e o f t h e o r i g i n a l , p o s e s a n i n t e r e s t i n g c h a l l e n g e t o t h e p e r s o n satis­
A careful r e a d i n g o f Gellner's p a p e r s h o w s that a l t h o u g h h e fied w i t h a n a b s u r d - s o u n d i n g t r a n s l a t i o n o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e
r a i s e s a n u m b e r o f i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s , h e n o t o n l y fails t o a n s w e r original m u s t have b e e n equally absurd: the g o o d translator d o e s n o t
t h e m , b u t misses s o m e o f t h e m o s t crucial aspects o f t h e p r o b l e m with i m m e d i a t e l y a s s u m e t h a t u n u s u a l difficulty i n c o n v e y i n g t h e s e n s e o f
w h i c h t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r is e n g a g e d . T h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g o f t h e s e , it a n a l i e n d i s c o u r s e d e n o t e s a fault i n t h e latter, b u t i n s t e a d critically
s e e m s t o m e , is t h e p r o b l e m o f w h a t o n e m i g h t call " u n e q u a l - l a n ­ e x a m i n e s t h e n o r m a l state o f h i s o r h e r own l a n g u a g e . T h e r e l e v a n t
g u a g e s " — a n d it is t h i s I w a n t n o w t o d i s c u s s i n s o m e d e t a i l . q u e s t i o n t h e r e f o r e is n o t h o w t o l e r a n t a n attitude t h e t r a n s l a t o r o u g h t
All g o o d translation seeks to r e p r o d u c e the structure o f a n alien t o d i s p l a y t o w a r d t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r ( a n abstract e t h i c a l d i l e m m a ) ,
d i s c o u r s e w i t h i n t h e translator's o w n l a n g u a g e . H o w t h a t s t r u c t u r e b u t h o w s h e c a n test t h e t o l e r a n c e o f h e r o w n l a n g u a g e f o r a s s u m i n g
( o r " c o h e r e n c e " ) is r e p r o d u c e d will, o f c o u r s e , d e p e n d o n t h e g e n r e unaccustomed forms.
c o n c e r n e d ("poetry," "scientific analysis," "narrative," e t c . ) , o n t h e r e ­ B u t t h i s p u s h i n g b e y o n d t h e limits o f one's h a b i t u a l u s a g e s , t h i s
s o u r c e s o f t h e translator's l a n g u a g e , as well as o n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e b r e a k i n g d o w n a n d r e s h a p i n g o f one's o w n l a n g u a g e t h r o u g h t h e p r o ­
t r a n s l a t o r a n d / o r h i s r e a d e r s h i p . A l l s u c c e s s f u l t r a n s l a t i o n is p r e m i s e d c e s s o f t r a n s l a t i o n , is n e v e r a n easy b u s i n e s s , i n p a r t b e c a u s e (if I m a y
o n t h e fact t h a t it is a d d r e s s e d w i t h i n a specific l a n g u a g e , a n d t h e r e ­ b e a l l o w e d a h y p o s t a t i z a t i o n ) it d e p e n d s o n t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o f t h e
f o r e a l s o t o a s p e c i f i c s e t o f p r a c t i c e s , a specific f o r m o f life. T h e f u r ­ t r a n s l a t o r ' s language t o s u b j e c t itself t o this t r a n s f o r m i n g p o w e r . I a t ­
t h e r t h a t f o r m o f life is f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l , t h e less m e c h a n i c a l is t h e t r i b u t e , s o m e w h a t fictitiously, v o l i t i o n t o t h e l a n g u a g e b e c a u s e I w a n t
r e p r o d u c t i o n . A s Walter B e n j a m i n wrote: " T h e l a n g u a g e o f a transla­ t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t t h e m a t t e r is l a r g e l y s o m e t h i n g t h e t r a n s l a t o r c a n ­
t i o n c a n — i n fact m u s t — l e t itself g o , s o t h a t it g i v e s v o i c e t o t h e intentio n o t d e t e r m i n e b y i n d i v i d u a l activity ( a n y m o r e t h a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l
o f t h e o r i g i n a l n o t as r e p r o d u c t i o n b u t as h a r m o n y , as a s u p p l e m e n t s p e a k e r c a n a f f e c t t h e e v o l u t i o n o f his o r h e r l a n g u a g e ) — t h a t it is g o v ­
t o t h e l a n g u a g e i n w h i c h it e x p r e s s e s itself, as its o w n k i n d o f intentio" e r n e d by institutionally defined p o w e r relations b e t w e e n the lan­
( 1 9 6 9 : 7 9 ) . It is, i n c i d e n t a l l y , f o r t h e r e a d e r t o e v a l u a t e t h a t intentio, g u a g e s / m o d e s o f life c o n c e r n e d . T o p u t it c r u d e l y : b e c a u s e t h e l a n ­
not f o r t h e translator to p r e e m p t t h e evaluation. A g o o d translation g u a g e s o f T h i r d World societies—including, o f course, t h e societies
s h o u l d a l w a y s p r e c e d e a c r i t i q u e . A n d w e c a n t u r n this a r o u n d b y say­ that social a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s h a v e traditionally s t u d i e d — a r e "weaker" i n
i n g t h a t a g o o d c r i t i q u e is always a n " i n t e r n a l " c r i t i q u e - — t h a t is, o n e relation to Western l a n g u a g e s (and today, especially to English), t h e y
b a s e d o n s o m e s h a r e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o n a j o i n t life, w h i c h it a i m s t o a r e m o i e likely t o s u b m i t t o f o r c i b l e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n t h e t r a n s l a t i o n
158 TALAL ASAD T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 159

p r o c e s s t h a n t h e o t h e r w a y a r o u n d . T h e r e a s o n f o r this is, first, t h a t i n o w n society; in d o i n g so, it is not finally some mysterious "primitive philoso­
their political-economic relations with T h i r d World countries, West­ phy" that w e are exploring, but the further potentialities o f o u r thought and
e r n n a t i o n s h a v e t h e g r e a t e r ability t o m a n i p u l a t e t h e latter. A n d , s e c ­ language. ( 1 9 5 4 : 9 6 - 9 7 )
o n d , W e s t e r n l a n g u a g e s p r o d u c e a n d d e p l o y desired k n o w l e d g e m o r e
readily than T h i r d World languages d o . ( T h e k n o w l e d g e that T h i r d I n t h e field, as L i e n h a r d t r i g h t l y s u g g e s t s , t h e p r o c e s s o f t r a n s l a t i o n
W o r l d l a n g u a g e s d e p l o y m o r e easily is n o t s o u g h t by W e s t e r n s o c i e t i e s t a k e s p l a c e at t h e v e r y m o m e n t t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r e n g a g e s w i t h a s p e ­
in quite t h e s a m e way, or for the s a m e reason.) cific m o d e o f l i f e — j u s t as a c h i l d d o e s in l e a r n i n g t o g r o w u p w i t h i n a
T a k e m o d e r n A r a b i c as a n e x a m p l e . S i n c e t h e early n i n e t e e n t h s p e c i f i c c u l t u r e . Fie l e a r n s t o find h i s w a y in a n e w e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d a
century there has b e e n a g r o w i n g v o l u m e of material translated f r o m n e w l a n g u a g e . A n d like a c h i l d h e n e e d s t o v e r b a l i z e explicitly w h a t
E u r o p e a n languages—especially French and English—into Arabic. t h e p r o p e r w a y o f d o i n g t h i n g s is, b e c a u s e t h a t is h o w l e a r n i n g p r o ­
T h i s i n c l u d e s scientific t e x t s as w e l l as "social s c i e n c e , " "history," " p h i ­ c e e d s . (Cf. A . R. L u r i a o n " s y n p r a x i c s p e e c h " i n L u r i a a n d Y u d o v i c h
l o s o p h y , " a n d "literature." A n d f r o m t h e n i n e t e e n t h century, Arabic 1 9 7 1 : 5 0 . ) W h e n t h e c h i l d / a n t h r o p o l o g i s t b e c o m e s a d e p t at a d u l t
as a l a n g u a g e h a s b e g u n as a result to u n d e r g o a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n (lex­ w a y s , w h a t h e h a s l e a r n t b e c o m e s implicit—as a s s u m p t i o n s i n f o r m i n g
ical, g r a m m a t i c a l , s e m a n t i c ) t h a t is f a r m o r e r a d i c a l t h a n a n y t h i n g a s h a r e d m o d e o f life, w i t h all its r e s o n a n c e s a n d a r e a s o f u n c l a r i t y .
to b e identified in E u r o p e a n l a n g u a g e s — a transformation that has B u t l e a r n i n g t o l i v e a n e w m o d e o f life is n o t t h e s a m e as l e a r n i n g
p u s h e d it t o a p p r o x i m a t e t o t h e latter m o r e c l o s e l y t h a n i n t h e p a s t . a b o u t a n o t h e r m o d e o f life. W h e n a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s r e t u r n t o t h e i r
S u c h t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s s i g n a l i n e q u a l i t i e s i n t h e p o w e r (i.e., i n t h e ca­ c o u n t r i e s , t h e y m u s t w r i t e u p "their p e o p l e , " a n d t h e y m u s t d o s o i n
pacities) o f t h e r e s p e c t i v e l a n g u a g e s in r e l a t i o n t o t h e dominant f o r m s the c o n v e n t i o n s o f representation already circumscribed (already
o f d i s c o u r s e t h a t h a v e b e e n a n d a r e still b e i n g t r a n s l a t e d . T h e r e a r e "written a r o u n d , " "bounded") by their discipline, institutional life,
v a r i e t i e s o f k n o w l e d g e t o b e l e a r n t , b u t also a h o s t o f m o d e l s t o b e a n d w i d e r society. "Cultural translation" m u s t a c c o m m o d a t e itself to a
i m i t a t e d a n d r e p r o d u c e d . I n s o m e c a s e s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e s e m o d e l s is d i f f e r e n t l a n g u a g e n o t o n l y i n t h e s e n s e o f E n g l i s h as o p p o s e d t o
a precondition for the production o f m o r e k n o w l e d g e ; in other cases D i n k a , o r E n g l i s h as o p p o s e d t o K a b b a s h i A r a b i c , b u t a l s o i n t h e s e n s e
it is a n e n d i n itself, a m i m e t i c g e s t u r e o f p o w e r , a n e x p r e s s i o n o f d e ­ o f a B r i t i s h , m i d d l e class, a c a d e m i c g a m e as o p p o s e d t o t h e m o d e s o f
s i r e f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . A r e c o g n i t i o n o f this w e l l - k n o w n fact r e m i n d s l i f e o f t h e "tribal" S u d a n . T h e stiffness o f a p o w e r f u l e s t a b l i s h e d
us that industrial capitalism transforms n o t only m o d e s o f p r o d u c t i o n s t r u c t u r e o f life, w i t h its o w n d i s c u r s i v e g a m e s , its o w n " s t r o n g " l a n ­
b u t a l s o k i n d s o f k n o w l e d g e a n d styles o f life i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d . A n d g u a g e s , is w h a t a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s finally d e t e r m i n e s t h e e f f e c t i v e ­
with t h e m , f o r m s o f l a n g u a g e . T h e result o f h a l f - t r a n s f o r m e d styles n e s s o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n . T h e t r a n s l a t i o n is a d d r e s s e d t o a v e r y s p e c i f i c
o f life will m a k e f o r a m b i g u i t i e s , w h i c h a n u n s k i l l f u l W e s t e r n t r a n s ­ a u d i e n c e , w h i c h is w a i t i n g t o r e a d about a n o t h e r m o d e o f life a n d t o
l a t o r m a y s i m p l i f y in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f h i s o w n " s t r o n g " l a n g u a g e . m a n i p u l a t e t h e t e x t it r e a d s a c c o r d i n g t o e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s , n o t t o
W h a t d o e s this a r g u m e n t i m p l y f o r t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t l e a r n to live a n e w m o d e o f life.
o f c u l t u r a l t r a n s l a t i o n ? T h a t p e r h a p s t h e r e is a g r e a t e r stiffness i n e t h ­ If B e n j a m i n was right in p r o p o s i n g that translation m a y require
n o g r a p h i c linguistic c o n v e n t i o n s , a greater intrinsic resistance t h a n n o t a mechanical r e p r o d u c t i o n o f the original but a h a r m o n i z a t i o n
can b e o v e r c o m e by individual experiments in m o d e s o f e t h n o g r a p h i c w i t h its intentio, it f o l l o w s t h a t t h e r e is n o r e a s o n w h y this s h o u l d b e
representation. d o n e o n l y i n t h e s a m e m o d e . I n d e e d , it c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t " t r a n s ­
I n h i s p e r c e p t i v e e s s a y " M o d e s o f T h o u g h t , " w h i c h G e l l n e r criti­ l a t i n g " a n a l i e n f o r m o f life, a n o t h e r c u l t u r e , is n o t a l w a y s d o n e b e s t
cizes for m a k i n g over-charitable assumptions about the c o h e r e n c e o f t h r o u g h t h e representational discourse o f e t h n o g r a p h y , that u n d e r
" p r i m i t i v e t h o u g h t , " L i e n h a r d t h a s this t o say: certain conditions a dramatic performance, the execution o f a dance,
o r t h e p l a y i n g o f a p i e c e o f m u s i c m i g h t b e m o r e apt. T h e s e w o u l d all
W h e n we live with savages and speak their languages, learning to represent
b e productions o f t h e o r i g i n a l a n d n o t m e r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s : t r a n s ­
their experience to ourselves in their way, we come as near to thinking like
t h e m as we can without ceasing to be ourselves. Eventually, we try to represent f o r m e d instances o f the original, n o t authoritative textual representa­
their conceptions systematically in the logical constructs we have been brought t i o n s o f it (cf. H o l l a n d e r 1 9 5 9 ) . B u t w o u l d t h e y b e t h o u g h t o f b y m o s t
u p to use; and we hope, at best, thus to reconcile what can be expressed in s o c i a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s as valid e x e r c i s e s in t h e " t r a n s l a t i o n o f c u l t u r e " ?
their languages, with what can be expressed in ours. We mediate between I t h i n k n o t , b e c a u s e t h e y all r a i s e a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t d i m e n s i o n o f
their habits o f thought, which we have acquired with them, and those o f o u r ( h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l "work" a n d its a u d i e n c e ,
i6o TALAL ASAD T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 161

t h e q u e s t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t uses ( p r a c t i c e s ) , as o p p o s e d m e r e l y t o d i f f e r ­ words by Lele, nor did I even eavesdrop a conversation between diviners
e n t writings and readings ( m e a n i n g s ) o f t h a t w o r k . A n d as social a n ­ covering this g r o u n d . . . .
t h r o p o l o g i s t s w e a r e trained to translate o t h e r cultural l a n g u a g e s as What kind o f evidence for the meaning o f this cult, or o f any cult, can be
texts, n o t to i n t r o d u c e o r enlarge cultural capacities, learnt f r o m sensibly d e m a n d e d ? It can have many different levels and kinds o f m e a n i n g .
But t h e o n e o n which I g r o u n d my argument is the m e a n i n g which e m e r g e s
o t h e r w a y s o f l i v i n g , i n t o o u r o w n . It s e e m s t o m e v e r y likely t h a t t h e
out o f a pattern in which the parts can incontestably be shown to b e regularly
n o t i o n o f c u l t u r e as text h a s r e i n f o r c e d this v i e w o f o u r task, b e c a u s e it
related. N o o n e m e m b e r o f the society is necessarily aware o f the whole pat­
f a c i l i t a t e s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t r a n s l a t i o n is essentially a m a t t e r o f v e r ­ tern, any more than speakers are able to be explicit about the linguistic pat­
bal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . terns they employ. ( 1 9 6 6 : 1 7 3 — 74)

I've s u g g e s t e d e l s e w h e r e ( A s a d 1983a) t h a t t h e a t t r i b u t i o n o f i m ­
p l i c i t m e a n i n g s t o a n a l i e n p r a c t i c e regardless of whether they are acknowl­
Reading Other Cultures
edged by its agents is a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r m of t h e o l o g i c a l e x e r c i s e , w i t h
a n ancient history. H e r e I want to note that r e f e r e n c e to t h e linguistic
T h i s inequality in the power o f languages, together with t h e
patterns produced by speakers does not make a good analogy because
f a c t t h a t t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t typically w r i t e s a b o u t a n i l l i t e r a t e ( o r a t
l i n g u i s t i c patterns a r e n o t m e a n i n g s t o b e t r a n s l a t e d , t h e y a r e r u l e s t o
any rate non-English-speaking) population for a largely a c a d e m i c ,
b e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d e s c r i b e d a n d a n a l y s e d . A n a t i v e s p e a k e r is a w a r e o f
E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g a u d i e n c e , e n c o u r a g e s a t e n d e n c y I w o u l d n o w like
h o w such patterns should be produced even w h e n h e cannot verbalize
t o d i s c u s s : t h e t e n d e n c y t o r e a d t h e implicit i n a l i e n c u l t u r e s .
t h a t k n o w l e d g e e x p l i c i t l y i n t h e f o r m of r u l e s . T h e a p p a r e n t lack of
A c c o r d i n g t o m a n y social a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , t h e o b j e c t o f e t h n o ­
ability t o v e r b a l i z e s u c h s o c i a l k n o w l e d g e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t i ­
g r a p h i c t r a n s l a t i o n is n o t t h e historically s i t u a t e d s p e e c h (that is t h e
t u t e e v i d e n c e o f u n c o n s c i o u s m e a n i n g s (cf. D u m m e t t 1 9 8 1 ) . T h e c o n ­
task o f t h e f o l k l o r i s t o r t h e l i n g u i s t ) , b u t "culture," a n d t o t r a n s l a t e
c e p t of "unconscious m e a n i n g " belongs to a theory o f the repressive
c u l t u r e t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t m u s t first r e a d a n d t h e n r e i n s c r i b e t h e i m ­
u n c o n s c i o u s , s u c h as F r e u d ' s , i n w h i c h a p e r s o n m a y b e said t o " k n o w "
plicit m e a n i n g s t h a t l i e b e n e a t h / w i t h i n / b e y o n d s i t u a t e d s p e e c h . M a r y
something unconsciously.
D o u g l a s p u t s this n i c e l y :
T h e b u s i n e s s o f i d e n t i f y i n g u n c o n s c i o u s m e a n i n g s i n t h e task o f
T h e anthropologist w h o draws out the whole scheme of the cosmos which is " c u l t u r a l t r a n s l a t i o n " is t h e r e f o r e p e r h a p s b e t t e r c o m p a r e d t o t h e a c ­
implied in [the observed] practices does the primitive culture great violence if tivity o f t h e p s y c h o a n a l y s t t h a n t o t h a t o f t h e l i n g u i s t . I n d e e d B r i t i s h
h e seems to present the cosmology as a systematic philosophy subscribed to anthropologists have s o m e t i m e s presented their work in precisely
consciously by individuals. . . . So the primitive world view which I have d e ­ t h e s e terms. T h u s David Pocock, a pupil o f Evans-Pritchard's, writes:
fined above is rarely itself an object of contemplation and speculation in the
primitive culture. It has evolved as the appanage of other social institutions. In short, t h e work o f t h e social anthropologist may b e regarded as a highly
T o this extent it is produced indirectly, and to this extent the primitive culture c o m p l e x act o f translation in which author and translator collaborate. A m o r e
must be taken to be unaware o f itself, unconscious of its o w n conditions. precise analogy is that o f the relation between the psychoanalyst and his sub­
(.1966:91) ject. T h e analyst enters the private world of his subject in order to learn the
g r a m m a r o f his private language. If the analysis goes n o further it is no differ­
O n e difference b e t w e e n the anthropologist and the linguist in the e n t in kind from the understanding which may exist between any two p e o p l e
m a t t e r o f t r a n s l a t i o n is p e r h a p s this: t h a t w h e r e a s t h e l a t t e r is i m m e ­ w h o know each other well.[!] It becomes scientific to the extent that the private
d i a t e l y f a c e d w i t h a specific p i e c e o f d i s c o u r s e p r o d u c e d w i t h i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f intimate understanding is translated into a public language, how­
s o c i e t y s t u d i e d , a d i s c o u r s e t h a t is then t e x t u a l i z e d , t h e f o r m e r m u s t ever specialized from the layman's point of view, which in this case is the lan­
c o n s t r u c t t h e d i s c o u r s e as a c u l t u r a l t e x t i n t e r m s o f m e a n i n g s implicit g u a g e o f psychologists. But the particular act o f translation does not distort
i n a r a n g e o f p r a c t i c e s . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f c u l t u r a l d i s c o u r s e a n d its the private experience of the subject and ideally it is, at least potentially, ac­
t r a n s l a t i o n t h u s s e e m t o b e f a c e t s o f a s i n g l e act. T h i s p o i n t is b r o u g h t ceptable to h i m as a scientific representation o f it. Similarly, the model o f
N u e r political life which emerges in Professor Evans-Pritchard's work is a sci­
o u t in Douglas's c o m m e n t s o n h e r o w n translations o f t h e m e a n i n g s o f
entific m o d e l meaningful to his fellow-sociologists as sociologists, and it is
t h e p a n g o l i n cult a m o n g the Lele:
effective because it is potentially acceptable to the Nuer in some ideal situation in
T h e r e are n o Lele books o f theology o r philosophy to state the m e a n i n g o f the which they could be. supposed to be interested in themselves as men living in society. T h e
cult. T h e metaphysical implications have not been expressed to m e in so many collaboration o f natural scientists may from this point of view be seen as devel-
l62 TALAL ASAD T h e Concept o f Cultural Translation 163

o p i n g l a n g u a g e enabling certain people to communicate with increasing sub­ s i d e r t h e s o c i e t y , a n d n e i t h e r d o its m e m b e r s c o n s i d e r t h e m s e l v e s t o

tlety about a distinct area of natural p h e n o m e n a which is defined by the n a m e b e , sick: t h e s o c i e t y is n e v e r s u b j e c t t o t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t ' s a u t h o r i t y .
o f the particular science. T h e i r science is, in the literal m e a n i n g o f the term, B u t t h i s a r g u m e n t is n o t q u i t e as c o n c l u s i v e as it m a y s e e m a t first
their c o m m o n s e n s e , their c o m m o n meaning. T o move from this c o m m o n s i g h t . It r e m a i n s t h e c a s e t h a t t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r ' s t r a n s l a t i o n / r e p r e -
sense to the "common sense" of the wider public involves again an act o f
s e n t a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r e is i n e v i t a b l y a t e x t u a l c o n s t r u c t , t h a t
translation. T h e situation of social anthropology, or sociology in general, is
as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n it c a n n o t n o r m a l l y b e c o n t e s t e d b y t h e p e o p l e t o
not at this level so very different. T h e difference lies in the fact that so­
w h o m it is a t t r i b u t e d , a n d t h a t as a "scientific t e x t " it e v e n t u a l l y b e ­
ciological p h e n o m e n a are objectively studied only to the extent that their sub­
jective m e a n i n g is taken into account and that the people studied are poten­ c o m e s a privileged e l e m e n t in t h e potential store o f historical m e m o r y
tially capable of sharing the sociological consciousness that the sociologist has for t h e nonliterate society c o n c e r n e d . I n m o d e r n a n d m o d e r n i z i n g
of them. (1961:88—89; emphasis added) societies, inscribed records have a greater p o w e r to s h a p e , to r e f o r m ,
s e l v e s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a n folk m e m o r i e s d o . T h e y e v e n c o n s t r u c t
I h a v e q u o t e d this r e m a r k a b l e p a s s a g e i n full b e c a u s e it states v e r y l u ­ folk m e m o r i e s . T h e anthropologist's m o n o g r a p h m a y return, retrans­
c i d l y a p o s i t i o n that is, I t h i n k , b r o a d l y a c c e p t a b l e t o m a n y a n t h r o p o l ­ lated, into a "weaker" T h i r d World language. In the long run, there­
o g i s t s w h o w o u l d o t h e r w i s e c o n s i d e r t h e m s e l v e s t o b e e n g a g e d in v e r y f o r e , it is n o t t h e p e r s o n a l a u t h o r i t y o f t h e e t h n o g r a p h e r , b u t t h e s o ­
d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f e n t e r p r i s e . I h a v e q u o t e d it a l s o b e c a u s e t h e n a t u r e cial a u t h o r i t y o f h i s e t h n o g r a p h y that m a t t e r s . A n d t h a t a u t h o r i t y is
o f t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n b e t w e e n " a u t h o r a n d t r a n s l a t o r " is n e a t l y b r o u g h t i n s c r i b e d i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d f o r c e s of i n d u s t r i a l c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y
o u t i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p s y c h o a n a l y s t as scientist: i f t h e ( s e e p a g e 1 5 8 a b o v e ) , w h i c h a r e c o n s t a n t l y tending t o p u s h t h e m e a n ­
a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l t r a n s l a t o r , like t h e a n a l y s t , h a s final a u t h o r i t y i n d e ­ i n g s o f v a r i o u s T h i r d W o r l d s o c i e t i e s i n a s i n g l e d i r e c t i o n . T h i s is n o t
t e r m i n i n g t h e subject's m e a n i n g s — i t is t h e n t h e f o r m e r w h o b e c o m e s t o s a y t h a t t h e r e a r e n o r e s i s t a n c e s t o this t e n d e n c y . B u t " r e s i s t a n c e " i n
the real author o f t h e latter. I n this v i e w , "cultural t r a n s l a t i o n " is a itself indicates t h e p r e s e n c e o f a d o m i n a n t force.
matter o f d e t e r m i n i n g implicit m e a n i n g s — n o t the m e a n i n g s t h e na­ I m u s t stress I a m n o t a r g u i n g t h a t e t h n o g r a p h y plays a n y g r e a t
t i v e s p e a k e r actually a c k n o w l e d g e s in h i s s p e e c h , n o t e v e n t h e m e a n ­ r o l e i n t h e r e f o r m a t i o n o f o t h e r c u l t u r e s . I n this r e s p e c t t h e e f f e c t s o f
i n g s t h e n a t i v e l i s t e n e r n e c e s s a r i l y a c c e p t s , b u t t h o s e h e is " p o t e n t i a l l y e t h n o g r a p h y cannot b e c o m p a r e d with s o m e other forms o f repre­
c a p a b l e o f s h a r i n g " w i t h scientific a u t h o r i t y "in s o m e i d e a l s i t u a t i o n " : s e n t i n g s o c i e t i e s — f o r e x a m p l e , t e l e v i s i o n films p r o d u c e d i n t h e W e s t
it is w h e n h e c a n say, f o r e x a m p l e , w i t h G e l l n e r , t h a t vox Dei is i n r e a l ­ that are sold to T h i r d World countries. (That anthropologists recog­
ity vox populi, t h a t h e u t t e r s t h e t r u e m e a n i n g o f his t r a d i t i o n a l d i s ­ n i z e t h e p o w e r o f t e l e v i s i o n is r e f l e c t e d , i n c i d e n t a l l y , i n t h e i n c r e a s i n g
c o u r s e , a n e s s e n t i a l m e a n i n g o f h i s c u l t u r e . T h e fact t h a t i n t h a t "ideal n u m b e r o f a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l films b e i n g m a d e f o r t h e m e d i u m in B r i t ­
situation" h e would n o longer b e a Muslim Berber tribesman, b u t a i n . ) Still less c a n t h e effects o f e t h n o g r a p h y c o m p a r e w i t h t h e p o l i t i ­
s o m e t h i n g c o m i n g to resemble Professor Gellner, does not a p p e a r to cal, e c o n o m i c , a n d m i l i t a r y c o n s t r a i n t s o f t h e w o r l d s y s t e m . M y p o i n t
worry such cultural translators. is o n l y t h a t t h e p r o c e s s o f "cultural t r a n s l a t i o n " is i n e v i t a b l y e n m e s h e d
T h i s p o w e r to create m e a n i n g s for a subject t h r o u g h t h e n o t i o n o f in conditions o f power—professional, national, international. A n d
t h e "implicit" o r t h e " u n c o n s c i o u s , " to authorize them, h a s o f c o u r s e a m o n g t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s is t h e a u t h o r i t y o f e t h n o g r a p h e r s t o u n c o v e r
b e e n d i s c u s s e d for t h e analyst-analysand relationship (e.g., recently in t h e i m p l i c i t m e a n i n g s o f s u b o r d i n a t e s o c i e t i e s . G i v e n t h a t t h a t is s o ,
M a l c o l m 1982). It h a s n o t , to m y k n o w l e d g e , b e e n c o n s i d e r e d with r e ­ t h e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n f o r e n q u i r y is n o t w h e t h e r , a n d i f s o t o w h a t
g a r d t o w h a t t h e cultural translator d o e s . T h e r e are, o f course, i m p o r ­ e x t e n t , a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s s h o u l d b e relativists o r r a t i o n a l i s t s , critical o r
tant d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e case o f t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i s t . It m a y b e p o i n t e d charitable, toward other cultures, but h o w p o w e r enters into t h e pro­
o u t t h a t t h e latter d o e s n o t impose h i s t r a n s l a t i o n o n t h e m e m b e r s o f c e s s o f " c u l t u r a l t r a n s l a t i o n , " s e e n b o t h as a d i s c u r s i v e a n d as a n o n -
t h e society w h o s e cultural discourse h e unravels, that his e t h n o g r a p h y discursive practice.
is t h e r e f o r e n o t a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n t h e w a y t h e analyst's c a s e s t u d y is. T h e
a n a l y s a n d c o m e s t o t h e a n a l y s t , o r is r e f e r r e d t o t h e l a t t e r b y t h o s e
w i t h a u t h o r i t y o v e r h i m , as a p a t i e n t i n n e e d o f h e l p . T h e a n t h r o p o l o ­ Conclusion
gist, b y contrast, c o m e s to t h e society h e wants to read, h e sees h i m s e l f
as a l e a r n e r , n o t as a g u i d e , a n d h e w i t h d r a w s f r o m t h e s o c i e t y w h e n F o r s o m e y e a r s I h a v e b e e n e x e r c i s e d b y this p u z z l e . H o w is it
h e h a s a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o i n s c r i b e its c u l t u r e . H e d o e s n o t c o n - that t h e a p p r o a c h e x e m p l i f i e d b y Gellner's p a p e r r e m a i n s a t t r a c t i v e t o
164 TALAL ASAD

s o m a n y a c a d e m i c s i n s p i t e o f its b e i n g d e m o n s t r a b l y f a u l t y ? Is it p e r ­ G E O R G E E. M A R C U S
h a p s b e c a u s e t h e y a r e i n t i m i d a t e d b y a style? W e k n o w , o f c o u r s e , t h a t
a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , like o t h e r a c a d e m i c s , l e a r n n o t m e r e l y t o u s e a s c h o l ­
arly l a n g u a g e , b u t t o f e a r it, t o a d m i r e it, t o b e c a p t i v a t e d b y it. Yet t h i s
d o e s n o t q u i t e a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t tell u s why s u c h
a scholarly style s h o u l d c a p t u r e so m a n y intelligent p e o p l e . I n o w p u t
Contemporary Problems
f o r w a r d t h i s t e n t a t i v e s o l u t i o n . W h a t w e h a v e h e r e is a style e a s y t o of Ethnography in
t e a c h , t o l e a r n , a n d t o r e p r o d u c e (in e x a m i n a t i o n a n s w e r s , a s s e s s m e n t
e s s a y s , a n d d i s s e r t a t i o n s ) . It is a s t y l e t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s t h e t e x t u a l i z a t i o n the Modern World System
o f o t h e r cultures, that e n c o u r a g e s the construction o f d i a g r a m m a t i c
a n s w e r s t o c o m p l e x c u l t u r a l q u e s t i o n s , a n d t h a t is w e l l s u i t e d t o a r ­
r a n g i n g f o r e i g n c u l t u r a l c o n c e p t s in c l e a r l y m a r k e d h e a p s o f " s e n s e "
o r " n o n s e n s e . " A p a r t f r o m b e i n g easy to teach a n d to imitate, this style
p r o m i s e s visible results that can readily be g r a d e d . S u c h a style m u s t
s u r e l y b e at a p r e m i u m in a n established university discipline that as­ E t h n o g r a p h i e s h a v e a l w a y s b e e n w r i t t e n in t h e c o n t e x t of
p i r e s t o standards o f s c i e n t i f i c objectivity. Is t h e p o p u l a r i t y o f t h i s s t y l e , h i s t o r i c c h a n g e : t h e f o r m a t i o n o f state s y s t e m s a n d t h e evolution
t h e n , not a reflection of the kind of pedagogic institution we inhabit? o f a w o r l d political e c o n o m y . B u t aside f r o m the use o f a f e w well-
established t e c h n i q u e s for taking into account c h a n g e , history, a n d p o ­
A l t h o u g h it is n o w m a n y y e a r s s i n c e G e l l n e r ' s p a p e r w a s first p u b ­ 1
litical e c o n o m y , e t h n o g r a p h e r s of an interpretive b e n t — m o r e inter-
l i s h e d , it r e p r e s e n t s a d o c t r i n a l p o s i t i o n t h a t is still p o p u l a r t o d a y .
I have in m i n d the sociologism according to which religious i d e o l o g i e s
1. T h e two most common modes for self-consciously fixing ethnography in his­
a r e s a i d t o g e t t h e i r r e a l m e a n i n g f r o m t h e political o r e c o n o m i c s t r u c ­
toric time are what I shall call the salvage mode and the redemptive mode. I n the sal­
t u r e , a n d t h e s e l f - c o n f i r m i n g m e t h o d o l o g y a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h t h i s r e ­ vage mode, the ethnographer portrays himself as "before the deluge," so to speak.
d u c t i v e s e m a n t i c p r i n c i p l e is e v i d e n t t o t h e ( a u t h o r i t a t i v e ) a n t h r o p o l o ­ Signs of fundamental change are apparent, but the ethnographer is able to salvage a
g i s t a n d n o t t o t h e p e o p l e b e i n g w r i t t e n abo.ut. T h i s p o s i t i o n t h e r e f o r e cultural state on the verge of transformation. This rhetoric is most transparent when a
succession of ethnographers writing on the same cultural subject position themselves
a s s u m e s t h a t it is n o t o n l y p o s s i b l e b u t n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e a n t h r o p o l o ­ historically in the same momentous way; each ethnographer is "before the deluge," but
g i s t t o a c t as t r a n s l a t o r a n d critic at o n e a n d t h e s a m e t i m e . I r e g a r d nonetheless each finds a culture he or she can relate to previous representations without
t h i s p o s i t i o n as u n t e n a b l e , a n d t h i n k t h a t it is r e l a t i o n s a n d p r a c t i c e s much sensitivity to historical change between periods of fieldwork. I n the redemptive
mode, the ethnographer demonstrates the survival of distinctive and authentic cultural
o f p o w e r t h a t g i v e it a m e a s u r e o f viability. (For a critical d i s c u s s i o n o f systems despite undeniable changes. T h e redemption of cultural authenticity is often
t h i s p o s i t i o n as it r e l a t e s t o I s l a m i c h i s t o r y , s e e A s a d 1980.) undertaken and measured against some imputed pre-modern or pre-capitalist state—
the "golden age" motif—or else a spatial, rather than temporal, preserve is found for
T h e positive p o i n t I h a v e tried to m a k e in t h e c o u r s e o f m y inter­
cultural authenticity amidst transformation—the anthropologist's Odyssey up-river or
r o g a t i o n o f Gellner's text has to d o with w h a t I have called the inequal­ to the back country to situate fieldwork where "they still do it." Rabinow's Moroccan
ity o f l a n g u a g e s . I h a v e p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l e n t e r p r i s e fieldwork (1977) as epic journey employs this narrative posture, but in the end, he ex­
plodes the illusion that the pure ethnographic subject can be found even in the back
o f c u l t u r a l t r a n s l a t i o n m a y b e v i t i a t e d by t h e fact t h a t t h e r e a r e a s y m ­
country. I n his recent sophisticated Samoan ethnography, Shore (1982) elides the his­
metrical t e n d e n c i e s a n d pressures in the l a n g u a g e s o f d o m i n a t e d a n d toric context by this move of finding spatially a place for ethnography free of the un­
d o m i n a n t societies. A n d I h a v e s u g g e s t e d that a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s n e e d to wanted complications of a compellingly present world-historical political economy.
T h e r e are many similar examples of magisterial ethnographies that make their contri­
e x p l o r e t h e s e p r o c e s s e s i n o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e h o w f a r t h e y g o i n d e ­
butions at the cost of such maneuvers. What is finally shaking ethnography free of these
fining t h e possibilities a n d t h e limits o f effective translation. ahistorical modes of taking account of the historical contexts of its production are ex­
periments either oriented explicitly to locating their subjects within the framework of
historicist world-system perspectives or probing the nature of historical consciousness
in their subjects' lives. T h e latter kind of experiment, involving the simultaneous repre­
I n addition to the members of the Santa Fe seminar who discussed an early draft sentation of multiple temporal perspectives, opens up ethnography to issues of history
of this article—and especially Paul Rabinow, who commented on it at length—I wish to and historical narrative in unprecedented ways, which go far beyond merely embed­
thank Tanya Baker, John Dixon, Rodney Needham, and Keith Nield for their helpful ding ethnographic subjects more effectively in Western historical narratives. Renato
criticism. Rosaldo's recent account (1980) of the Ilongot histories is a key experiment in this vein.
H e , too, ends with a "before the deluge" motif, but the sense of being on the verge of