Afterword: Diaspora as translation

The word “diaspora” is neither simple nor thin. From its first appearance in the Septuagint translated from Hebrew into Greek as διασπορά, which refers to a divine punishment of religious disobedience for the Jews, to the indication of Jewish historical dispersals such as the Babylonian and Roman exiles (Dufoix 2019, 13), from its first scholarly use in the 1930s in the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, which extends the term beyond the Jewish population (Dubnow 1931, 126), to its current applications to migrants of various kinds, “diaspora” has become increasingly complex. The modern concept of diaspora now encompasses both forced expulsions and voluntary migrations, recognizing a plethora of motives ranging from economic aspirations and educational pursuits to geopolitical upheavals and ecological exigencies. More abstractly, it also indicates the formation and influence of hybrid identities, foregrounding an interstitial milieu where the so-called traditional or stereotypical cultural norms intersect and blend with new forms of cultural experiences and configurations. Instead of questing for some certain rigid definition or typology of diaspora, focusing on how the applications and insights of the idea can help understand human migration may be more practical. However, it is also possible that an open conception can be too flexible to hold any solid meaning and even engender powerful distortions, especially when linked with specific geopolitics, capitalization, and institutional agendas.

Perhaps, for just one brief moment, we can be bold enough to try to cut things out of context once. To be diasporic is to settle in or to be brought to another place. The diasporic is dispersed from its original land, if there is one ontologically, to an alien ground. Diaspora carries across, distributes and diffuses, transfers and transforms. In a metaphorical sense, diaspora is translation. Then, the nuanced lens of the conceptualization of translation might be able to help unravel part of the intricate tapestry of diaspora. Let us take a little detour to translation studies. In a traditional view of interlingual translation, equivalence is paramount. The source text is hailed as the superior original, while the translated text an inferior duplicate. Traduttore, traditore. Any unnecessary deviation from the source is violation. That is, the process of translation is required to be conducted through a transparent conduit. Since the 1980s, the epistemological stance of humanities has moved from pursuing universality to heeding the role and influence of the observer, from positivism to post-positivism. Accordingly, translation studies has extended its attention from language to history and culture – that is, the “cultural turn”. Familiar categories based on textual and linguistic equivalence, such as original and faithfulness, are supplemented by new terms such as “cultural representation and transformation, alterity, displacement, discontinuity cultural difference and power” (Bachmann-Medick 2012, 27). Many theoretical approaches in translation studies that have developed since the 1980s emphasize, or at least acknowledge, the presence and agency of the translator, as well as the discursive construction of translation. For example, the Tel Aviv school, represented by Gideon Toury (2012), takes a target-oriented starting point and focuses on historical and sociocultural norms of the target culture that can influence or even determine the product of translation. André Lefevere (2012), following a hermeneutical perspective and seeing translation as refraction within cultural and literary system, reveals that originality only exists in complete isolation from both the tradition and the present of the text, which would lose the continuum of history and is impossible. Simply put, neither the source nor the target exists in vacuum; translation is always contextual. Consequently, the traditional view of translation as subservient has given way to perspectives that regard translation as relatively autonomous and actively constructed. The dualistic conduit metaphor of translation is thus recast, and many new ones are introduced to foreground different features of translation. Rainer Guldin (2016) proposes the metaphor of a strait:

Straits are narrow navigable passages of water that connect two larger also navigable bodies of water. [ … ] Contrary to the steady and quiet one-way flow of rivers, straits articulate an idea of risk, challenge, danger and even fear. They are tangible metaphors for tension, dynamism and the permanence of passages. Straits are complex geographical and meteorological settings where sudden changes necessitate different methods of crossing. [ … ] Straits are porous membranes, regulating the passage from one world to another. Straits allow for circulation between antagonistic spaces that cannot completely fuse into each other because they are of different natures. The essential aspect of straits is their fluctuating, composite waters, meeting between two shores and two seas, linking and separating them simultaneously. (66–67)

The metaphorical connotation of a strait highlights the liminality and dynamism of translation. The transformation is both temporal and spatial, and the boundary between the source and the target becomes a porous threshold, a zone of dynamism and transition, of linking and separating. In the process of translation that involves a series of vortices and turbulences, languages seep into each other without losing their proper/original identities and gains new meanings. The translator, akin to a navigator sailing through the strait, possesses his or her own agency while continuously being influenced by multilayered forces. Translation becomes a risky travel, where it meets migration and diaspora. Thus, from an epistemological standpoint, the heuristic metaphor of translation as a strait enables a rethinking of diaspora beyond “being” (what: definition and typology) and “becoming” (how: the formation of hybrid identity) (Demir 2022, 5), but as “evolving” – fluctuating, dynamic, ongoing, and heterogeneous. Diaspora becomes a porous conceptualization: it separates and links, distinguishes and blends. It is also applicable to more contextually specific socialcultural ethnic groups, such as the Chinese diaspora or, more specifically, Chinese Americans. As Adam McKeown astutely observes, “the idea of a distinct entity called the ‘Chinese diaspora’ is contentious”, particularly given that the name “Chinese” itself is already heavily loaded, not to mention the diverse realities of the Chinese overseas population (2005, 65). And many overseas Chinese have lived in multiple and transregional sociocultural spaces that are difficult to confine within a rigid and singular context (66). Although in modern Chinese language, there is the word huaren (华人), which usually refers to Chinese individuals irrespective of nationalities, and huaqiao (华侨) for Chinese nationals living overseas, these terms, with their unique connotations and political undertones (Tan 2013, 3), only scratch the surface of the complexity of the Chinese diaspora. The ethnic realities encompassed by these terms are far more intricate, illustrating the vast spectrum of experiences and identities within the Chinese diaspora. And the reliability of boundaries – geographic, linguistic, or otherwise – that often define typologies and identities is questionable. These delineations are not always sufficient to capture the multifaceted realities of diaspora. Anyone who finds himself or herself in this metaphorical strait may translate, rewrite, and introduce new social, cultural, and political configurations into circulation. Thus, the rigid distinctions between the ancestral and the host societies, between diasporic ties and local integration, as well as between the etic (outsider’s perspective) and the emic (insider’s perspective) points of view, become obscured, while the incommensurabilities are acknowledged and maintained. That is, in our highly globalized world, we all experience diaspora in one way or another, from one side or another.

The current Special Issue, “Chinese Diasporic Writing”, underlines the liminality of diaspora and brings together various perspectives from different regions and times. It not only offers insights into a variety of Chinese diasporic experiences around the world, but also dissolves the tension between the etic and the emic perspectives. The issue includes contributions from a diverse group of authors, encompassing various regions and backgrounds – diasporic and non-diasporic; Chinese, non-Chinese, and Chinese of mixed heritage. And each contribution presents some nuanced understanding of the complex field. The issue commences with Cheung’s analysis of Russell Leong’s “Azure in Angel City”, where Leong’s poem serves as a modern, multicultural odyssey. It exemplifies diasporic Chinese literature’s contribution to world literature and advocates for cross-cultural understanding against global challenges. Then, Yow’s study of Singapore’s Chinese-language literary production observes and reveals varying degrees of recognition and resources among writers from diverse backgrounds within the Singaporean Chinese community. Mao’s interpretation of Jong Ah Siug’s “The Case” (1872) delves into the linguistic ambiguities in Siug’s autobiography, highlighting how language shapes perceptions of sanity and identity within the confines of Australian colonial culture. Lee’s exploration of Hong Kong influences in English-language poetry illustrates how the fusion of Hong Kong Chinese heritage with English poetry challenges postcolonial conditions. Hart’s analysis of interpoetics in the works of poets such as Hannah Lowe, Russell Leong, Marilyn Chin, and Fred Wah provides insight into the cultural poetics of betweenness. These poets’ works reflect a hyphenated reality of the Chinese diaspora, representing multilayered identities and confronting stereotypes. In Lan’s evaluation of the Chinatown narratives in Fae Myenne Ng’s novels, we find Chinatown depicted as both a symbol of collective memory and a space of conflicts. Then Zhao’s discussion of David Henry Hwang’s Soft Power showcases the play as a critique of western cultural arrogance and unilateral foreign policies. Finally, Hart’s interview with Russell Leong offers a personal and historical insight into Leong’s life as a Chinese American poet. His experiences, influenced by major sociopolitical events and his identity as a person of colour in America, reveal the complexities of navigating between cultures and the impact of these experiences on his poetry and visual art.

This collection of articles presents a mosaic of perspectives on Chinese diaspora. The diverse themes explored – ranging from intercultural literary analysis and sociological perspectives on literary production, to the nuanced studies of individual authors and their works – underscore the multifaceted nature of the Chinese diaspora. The contributions in this issue collectively portray the Chinese diaspora through the metaphor of a strait: a dynamic and heterogeneous constellation of experiences and narratives. Just as a strait connects two vast bodies of water, yet possesses its own unique and fluctuating ecosystem, the Chinese diaspora serves as a liminal zone of transformation between varied cultural realms, enriched by its own distinct experiences and stories.

In a time of escalating geopolitical tensions, economic downturns, and intensifying anti-globalization, the study of diaspora becomes more critical than ever. As to some extent, willingly or not, we are all submerged in the strait of diaspora and translation. Existence precedes typologies. We could all be a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Hopefully, this issue can shed some light on the subtleties of diaspora and Chinese diasporic writing in this increasingly complex world.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shang Wu

Shang Wu teaches at the College of Foreign Languages, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, and holds a fellowship at the International Cooperation Centre for Cultural Studies and Digital Humanities, Shandong University. Her interests include Asian American studies, translation theories, and travel writing. Her recent publications include “Writing Travel as Janus: Cultural Translation as Descriptive Category for Travel Writing” in Interlitteraria, and “Revisiting Asian American Poetics: A Review of Heterogeneity and a Case of Russell Leong” in Canadian Review of American Studies.