Propaganda and manipulation: When translation shapes politics

Translating literature is a fine art. But time and again, it is also abused to manipulate people. With the world getting more interconnected, the problem may have become smaller, but historically this method has caused a lot of damage. While this used to be effective, it often feels almost comical nowadays. Here are some of the most striking examples.

The debate over whether texts should be translated literally or rather reflect their meaning is more than 2,000 years old. Politician Cicero and poet Horace already addressed this issue in the first century BC. This issue was a hot topic at the time. Many Greek texts were being translated into Latin, which was considered to be a prestigious cultural project. The two men agreed on one thing: They criticized literal translation as “slavish.” In their opinions, translators should preserve the original intent of the text but adapt the ideas and impact to the respective audience. It is the oldest known description of transcreation.

The idea has become widely accepted. Nowadays, books are only translated word for word if they are study editions intended to reveal the structure and grammar of the original version.

But the downside to this approach is that translations can be used in a targeted manner to achieve political goals. History is full of examples of this tactic. Some of them are so grotesque that it is worth shining a spotlight on these humorous gems.

Religious writings: Cementing power

The Bible is a prime example here. Ironically, this is the very book that has undergone several excellent translations. For example, the European colonial powers faced a dilemma with this book. Some passages are quite harsh, such as Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling (…).” By contrast, the Book of Exodus talks about liberation from slavery. For the bible editions in African languages, the translators found “solutions” that are rather questionable from today’s perspective. They simply excluded the Book of Exodus and changed the text of the Epistle to the Ephesians to: “You workers, obey your European masters with reverence (…).” They also made a few minor changes in the Epistle to the Romans. Instead of “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities,” 13:1 was changed to: “All should follow the laws of the government and the instructions of the colonial officials.”

Having said that, this method of disinformation also works in the opposite direction. Religious Hindu texts and African myths were translated by British and French colonial officials, but in a way that made them appear particularly primitive. And it just so happens that the names of some of their gods were changed to Jehovah.

The Quran already suffered from this revisionist treatment in 1143, when Abbot Petrus Venerabilis commissioned a translation into Latin that read more like a paraphrase and polemical commentary. After all, he had to make sure that Christians did not get the crazy idea that Islam might be interesting. And that was only the beginning. Until modern times, the Quran was translated into European languages in a way that portrayed Islam as backward and threatening, which effectively influenced public opinion. Sometimes only individual terms were translated imprecisely, while in other cases there were massive changes to the entire content.

World literature: Manipulation supports ideology

The masterpieces of world literature did not fare any better. William Shakespeare’s plays offer some particularly bizarre examples of this misuse. A few deviations in the text and channeling the reader’s attention into a specific direction makes the impact particularly effective.

• Hamlet: In the former Soviet Union, passages about individual freedom were changed to praise collective values. Even translation masters like Boris Pasternak were involved in this deceptive strategy. The Nazis used similar tactics by removing the defining element of Hamlet’s psyche: his indecision. Instead, he was presented as a resolute leader on German stages – dictatorship PR at its best.
• Othello: Under the apartheid regime in South Africa, the complex character of Othello was turned into a one-dimensional, brutal man and the epitome of the foreigner. The portrayal of his relationship with Desdemona served to support racist ideology, just as the political agenda of the time demanded.
• King Lear: In Franco’s Spain, passages that could be interpreted as criticism of power and tyranny were toned down. And, as we know, there were quite a few of them. To appease the powers to be, the powerful statement “Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear; robes and furr’d gowns hide all” was simply changed to “Noble garments hide faults, as is prim and proper.”
• Julius Caesar: Fascist Italy had its own issues with Shakespeare. For example, the famous scene where one of Caesar’s murderers exclaims “Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!” was toned down to “Justice has been served!” under Mussolini.

The same thing happened to all books that criticized social injustice. The magnificent quote from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”, was omitted entirely in Soviet editions or at least stripped of its crucial second part of the sentence. A translation from Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist is downright cabaret-like. The cruel passage in which the orphan is punished for asking for a second bowl of soup, “Please, sir, I want some more”, was revised to “Comrade, I need more food to survive.”

However, manipulating texts is not limited to dictatorships. During the Cold War, the West acted in a similar and by no means more subtle manner. Here are some examples of brazen translations of Russian authors into English from the 1950s:

• Fyodor Dostoevsky, “The Brothers Karamazov”: “Everyone is responsible for everyone and everything” was revamped to “Everyone is responsible for themselves.”
• Leo Tolstoy’s argument in “War and Peace” that power does not reside in individuals, but in the collective action and will of the masses was conveniently changed to the contrary idea that true power lies in the will of great men.
• Similarly, the major theme in Maxim Gorky’s “The Mother” that the truth will change the world was amended to predict that their illusions will destroy their world.

Political writings: Why bother with details?

Dramas and fiction usually convey political messages indirectly. By contrast, theoretical political writings state more or less explicitly what the authors are concerned with. Of course, this does not stop them from conveying deliberate propaganda to substantiate their own convictions. And, as always, all sides have a tendency to be biased.

• “Das Kapital” is a cornerstone of Soviet dogma. However, Karl Marx did not always go far enough for the political leadership at the time. When Marx said that the development of capitalist production in Russia was “not yet assured,” Russian propaganda preferred to replace this statement with “…is inevitable.” As far as they were concerned, this was about deterministic historical logic!
• In the 1950s, the US was very keen to portray Lenin as authoritarian. Lenin wrote: “Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.” In the US, this statement was changed to: “No movement without rigid dogmatism.”
• A similar approach was taken in the West in the 1960s to describe Mao Zedong. To ensure that he was seen by the public as completely insane, his assertion that “contradictions are the driving force of development” was changed to “conflicts are the essence of chaos in society.” That certainly sounds pretty crazy.
• Niccolò Machiavelli also had to bend to the winds of change over time, even in his own country. In “Il Principe” he wrote: “It is better to be feared than loved, if one cannot be both.” Under Mussolini, this statement did not seem strong enough, which is why it was rephrased to “It is the duty of the leader to show strength and demand obedience.”
• It is particularly annoying when translations affect positive icons like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau opens his book “The Social Contract” with the famous line “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Sadly, a French colonial edition from the 1930s re-interpreted this powerful statement rather freely: “Man finds freedom in the order and laws of authority.”

Translation requires interpretation

Of course, Horace and Cicero are right: Translations must and should interpret to a certain extent. Good translations do not last for decades or even centuries because they are correct, but because they capture the tone and intention of the original text. Translations that serve to manipulate and influence the target audience only make this all the more apparent.