Foreignization and Domestication: A View from the Periphery
The aim of this paper is to show the limits of Schleiermacher's dichotomy between foreignization and domestication and explore the fuzzy nature of the two concepts, which are in themselves imprecise, adaptable and therefore prone to misunderstanding and manipulation. It is maintained that the attitude towards them is conditioned historically and culturally, depending primarily on how a given community views itself and others and, consequently, on its perceived need for foreign impulses (or lack of it) and its (in)tolerance of them. Given this, the value of the two concepts, which are more than anything else heuristic tools that help us better understand some translation tendencies and their motivations, is relative. It is necessarily determined by the role ascribed to translated texts (or subgroups thereof) in the target culture and by the agenda they are supposed to serve in linguistic, literary, cultural or political terms. Depending on the target circumstances, both approaches can be employed to reinforce the existing state of things or to encourage changes, and both can lead to a translation's success or contribute to its failure.