Kathleen Davis. Deconstruction and Translation, (Translation Theories Explained Vol. 8, ed. Anthony Pym), St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester, UK & Northampton, MA (2001).

This interpretation of deconstruction as endless freeplay is common among both supporters and opposers of the theory. Deconstruction has been both criticised and celebrated in translation sudies as well, as a rather reckless and pointless activity that implies “bottomless chessboards and random, accidental development, without an end,” as “play without calculation, wandering without an end or telos” (Gentzler 1993, pp. 159,167). According to Davis, complete freeplay is precisely what Derrida is not arguing. She draws the reader’s attention to the double binds of language: to the stability and instability of meaning, to the similarity and difference that constitute iterability. This leads her to contemplate undecidability and to emphasise translators’ responsibility. I find it easy to agree with Davis’ interpretation of (Derridean) deconstruction; it is harder to accept her choice of leaving contributions from translation studies largely undiscussed. According to Davis, in Derrida’s later work the emphasis shifts from the question of différance to “that which is excluded and effaced (the ‘wholly other’) in the ‘differential’ positing of an identity or origin” (p. 91). Subjecting Deconstruction and Translation to a deconstructive analysis in this manner, one cannot help but conclude that for Davis, the sole origin of deconstructionist translation theory is Derrida himself, and that translation studies are the excluded and effaced “wholly other” in her study. Throughout her book, Davis concentrates on Derrida's texts; she makes but passing references to translation studies, and no input from any TS scholar is discussed at any length. “Deconstruction, of course, cannot be considered a translation theory,” Davis states in her introduction (p. 2). To a certain extent, I agree: Jacques Derrida is not a translation theorist but a philosopher interested in language and translation. But when his ideas are used to build new approaches to translation within translation studies, in these new contexts deconstruction becomes a translation theory. Given the fact that the book belongs to the series “Translation Theories Explained” I would have expected it to research and “explain” Derrida's influence in translation studies, placing deconstruction in its historical context within TS, illustrating the main ideas within TS, and summarizing the most significant debates within TS. I find it extremely problematic that a volume in the series should put forward a theory which does not even seem to exist in the field of translation studies. This exclusion of translation theorists could be rooted in the fact that Davis’ discussion is claustrophobically English. Her work does not contain a single reference to any texts that are not available in English. This limitation is particularly unfortunate when considering the case of Rosemary Arrojo, a pioneer of deconstruction in translation studies throughout the 1990s. Considering her prominent status in this field, her relative absence in Deconstruction and Translation is striking. Davis includes only three of Arrojo’s articles, and the only one discussed in any detail is Arrojo’s critique of feminist translation. There is no mention, let alone investigation, of Arrojo’s (and other Brazilian scholars’) earlier work (from the early 1990s) where she introduces deconstruction to translation theory. They are obviously omitted because they are not in English but originally in Portuguese. While it is a fact of life, however deplorable, that Portuguese is not a major language by today’s academic standards, it is more difficult to justify the exclusion of these texts, considering they are also available in German translation (Wolf (ed.), 1997). Davis is not oblivious to the problems arising from her exclusive “Englishness”. She maintains that it “should not be read as privileging English, or American, deconstruction” (p. 68). That is, as far as I can judge, also not …