venuti

308 The Translator’s Invisibilitymonumentality of the foreign text, its worthiness of translation, butonly by showing that it is not a monument, that it needs translationto locate and foreground the self-difference that decides itsworthiness. Even “classical masterpieces,” writes Blanchot, “liveonly in translation” (ibid.). And in the process of(de)monumentalizing the foreign text, the translator precipitatesequally “violent or subtle changes” in the translating language.Blanchot cites “Luther, Voss, Hölderlin, George, none of whomwere afraid in their work as translators to break through thebounds of the German language in order to broaden its frontiers”(ibid.:85).The power of Blanchot’s suggestive observations can be released ifwe translate them yet again (after Sieburth’s translation and after theversion presented in the foregoing commentary), situating them morelocally, taking into account the material determinations of culturalpractices. The difference that makes a source-language text valuable toBlanchot is never “available” in some unmediated form. It is always aninterpretation made by the translator, not necessarily open to everyreader, gaining visibility and privileged only from a particularideological standpoint in the target-language culture. Every step in thetranslation process—from the selection of foreign texts to theimplementation of translation strategies to the editing, reviewing, andreading of translations—is mediated by the diverse cultural values thatcirculate in the target language, always in some hierarchical order. Thetranslator, who works with varying degrees of calculation, undercontinuous self-monitoring and often with active consultation ofcultural rules and resources (from dictionaries and grammars to othertexts, translation strategies, and translations, both canonical andmarginal), may submit to or resist dominant values in the targetlanguage, with either course of action susceptible to ongoingredirection. Submission assumes an ideology of assimilation at work inthe translation process, locating the same in a cultural other, pursuinga cultural narcissism that is imperialistic abroad and conservative,even reactionary, in maintaining canons at home. Resistance assumesan ideology of autonomy, locating the alien in a cultural other,pursuing cultural diversity, foregrounding the linguistic and culturaldifferences of the source-language text and transforming the hierarchyof cultural values in the target language. Resistance too can beimperialistic abroad, appropriating foreign texts to serve its owncultural political interests at home; but insofar as it resists values thatexclude certain texts, it performs an act of cultural restoration which