Assessment of Student Learning

Positionality in translation is often framed in terms of spatial metaphors, using such concepts as the “periphery,” the “in between,” and the “borderlands,” among many others. Given that the Latin root for the word “translation,” 'translatio,' means “to carry across,” this tendency to think of the translator’s position in the concrete terms of travel through physical space is not surprising. However, because the movement of information and ideas no longer requires material transportation, it may no longer be theoretically useful to approach positionality in such concrete terms, and thus a reassessment and re-contextualization of these spatial metaphors is needed. Moreover, the sociological turn’s growing awareness of the translator’s contextual embeddedness reinforces the need to re-conceptualize positionality, shifting away from notions of physical space and toward an ideological construct. Indeed, upon closer examination, these spatial metaphors often prove problematic in several ways, not the least of which being the common undertone of peripherality that readily associates translation with marginality and subjugation. This article analyzes some of the spatial metaphors commonly used in translation scholarship in order to interrogate what they can contribute to a reformulation of the translator’s position in ideological rather than spatial terms. Turning to systems theory for a more nuanced and applicable take on peripherality and centrality, translation is removed from the subordinate position associated with physical notions of the periphery and shifted instead to an ideological position as an agent of inter- and intrasystemic transfer. The translator navigates the systemic periphery, a dynamic, fluid space of intersystemic overlap and interaction, but does not remain there. The translator’s position is therefore both a shifting and powerful one, as translating the peripheral experience of confronting otherness into the centre results in the need to reformulate the Self, for the individual as well as potentially on a larger, systemic level.

This paper seeks to explore the phenomenon of the musical mashup within the historical context of creative appropriation as it extends from the Middle Ages, through the era of postcolonialism, and on into the digital age.  Using the image of cannibalism as a metaphor for both the subversive and destructive side of appropriation as well as the concept of tribute and homage involved in the act, the musical mashup is placed within the larger framework of translation (literary or otherwise) as cultural appropriation.  Based on this groundwork, this paper discusses the various disputes over the legitimacy of the musical mashup as an art form (including copyright, authorship, and artistic theft), the concept of cultural production (literary, artistic, and scientific) as a collective social process, and the reasons behind the overwhelming popularity of musical sampling today (based in technological accessibility, a critical response to media immersion, and referential familiarity).  By demonstrating the prevalence throughout history of the tradition of appropriation, the musical mashup, as well as many other forms of appropriation (including literary translation), is legitimized as a valid art form which is both referential and derivative as well as a creative process in its own right as a novel mode of expression.  This examination of the historical, cultural, and technological context of the musical mashup leads to the determination that appropriation is an act inherent to human nature.  Culture thus continually “eats” itself, thereby creating new productions through (re)iteration.  Culture has always “eaten” itself, and it will inevitably and perpetually continue to do so.