Notes from the Field | Dhondup T. Rekjong, Centering Native Languages in Western Scholarship
At the International Tibetan Studies Conference at Charles University in Prague, 2022, I delivered a brief commentary at Translating Across the Bardo: Centering the Richness of Tibetan Language in Tibetan Studies a roundtable organized by Professor Huatse Gyal from Rice University and Charlene Makley of Reed College. While the distinguished scholars at the roundtable study many different aspects of Tibetan culture, they agreed that our native language is often marginalized in Western academia. Since then, I have been thinking about the power dynamics in contemporary translation practices and knowledge production that cause native languages to be overlooked and leave indigenous intellectuals voiceless. I believe that the concerns we shared in Prague extend beyond Tibet. Throughout Asian studies, scholars have begun to recognize the ways in which native languages are underrepresented within recent humanities and social sciences research. It is imperative that we recognize the unequal standing of minority languages – not limited to Tibetan – in relation to the hegemony of English (and to some extent Chinese) and acknowledge how these unequal linguistic relationships contribute to discriminatory practices. In my work as a native translator and scholar, I have observed several practices that subtlety but persistently contribute to these unequal dynamics.
First, when approaching the translation of a text from a native language to a dominant language like English or Chinese, it is crucial to begin with a solid foundation in the colloquial and customary meanings of the source language. In the case of Tibetan, without a strong understanding of the spoken and written language – including its form and musicality, its connotations in addition to its dictionary meanings – scholars won’t be able to do a serious rendering, no matter how strong their research may be.
Many speakers of any minority language likely have amusing anecdotes to share regarding mistranslations of their native language. Regarding some recent English translations of Tibetan texts, I think it is unfortunate to see the Tibetan term gdon mi za, meaning “surely” or “certainly,” translated as “don’t eat ghost or ghost doesn’t eat,” or the term sha stag, meaning “only” or “merely,” turned into “meat tiger.” I recently read an exceptional scholarly work in which the author mistranslated the Tibetan term chang sa as the English phrase "A Drinking Place." In Tibetan, "chang sa" means marriage, despite the tradition of consuming beverages at weddings. Presumably, the author initially combined the Tibetan words for "drinking" and "place," without knowing the ordinary use of the term. Unfortunately, numerous instances of this kind occur in English-language scholarship that often depends for its arguments on Tibetan sources. In Tibetan, we say, yi ge ming tshig kun gyi rtsom gzhi yin: "language is the foundation of every lesson." While it is debatable whether or not all learning depends on language, proficiency in the native language is crucial if the scholarship is to serve as a gateway to a world that may be unfamiliar to readers.
Second, recognizing indigenous references should be a significant concern in translation and knowledge production today. In the context of Buddhist studies, many western scholars still rely upon Indian terms, even when translating from other Buddhist cultures, such as Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, which have their own terms rooted within their cultures for over a millennium at least. Yet, Western scholars working in Buddhist studies often replace Tibetan Buddhist terminologies with Sanskrit or Pali in their publications, even when their source materials are Tibetan.
“The habit of replacing indigenous terms with their non-native counterparts during translation or research constitutes a form of erasure, almost an act of violence, on the native language.”
It seems obvious that when translating from a native language, the native terms and expressions should serve as our primary point of reference. This approach acknowledges the importance of the knowledge originating from the native community. Indeed, scholarly ignorance could have far-reaching implications. In an ongoing collaboration related to modern Tibetan music, our examination of previous translations of Tibetan prayer songs, particularly those dedicated to Chenrezig, the embodiment of compassion in Indian Buddhism, revealed that English renderings often neglect the reverence inherent in the Tibetan term "Chenrezig,” replacing it with “Avalokitesvara.” This disregard extends to similar phrases embedded in the native language. This is not, of course, a claim about the Indian sources. But when translating Buddhist texts from Tibetan, the Tibetan terminology should be prioritized. I think the habit of replacing indigenous terms with their non-native counterparts during translation or research constitutes a form of erasure, almost an act of violence, on the native language.
In Tibetan, we say: ma dag rgyun byams; it means, "If a mistake becomes widespread, it embodies the norm." If we don't address these misplaced references, such oversights may become standard practice in academic translation, if they are not already. Acknowledging the indigenous terms enables us to appreciate the historical complexity of native knowledge systems.
Third, it is important to consider how endeavors to translate and analyze native texts and practices may or may not serve the interests of the communities from which their subjects originate. Within the Tibetan context, native scholars and readers often lack substantial access to research conducted in foreign languages, including English. Consequently, the communities under study, which have been custodians of Tibetan oral and written cultures, remain largely disconnected from our analytical insights and scholarly conclusions. Many of Tibetan Buddhist monastic communities in India and Tibet don’t have access to the Buddhist scholarship produced in the West.
When considering how to make our research accessible to Tibetan readers, we should also attempt to foreground the richness of native languages within Western scholarly discourse. In this context, the importance of collaboration between native and non-native scholars, as well as among native scholars themselves, becomes clear. Collaboration should be at the core of translation culture, including but not limited to the sharing of credit and acknowledgments in academic and professional publications. Only through genuine and clearly recognized collaboration can we begin to reciprocate the cultural capital we may have attained, partially returning it to the communities that facilitated our projects and even enabled us to secure academic positions in their names.
Fortunately, some scholars are paving the way by centering the work of native scholars, writers, and artists. For instance, in 2022 at Northwestern University, my supervisor Sarah Jacoby and other scholars organized the Lotsawa Translation Workshop: Celebrating Buddhist Women’s Voices in the Tibetan Tradition. This event brought 12 Tibetan and Himalayan women to the university, the first time Tibetan women's voices and writings were truly centered in a Western academic platform. I hope this workshop serves as a harbinger for many more collaborative endeavors that give priority to indigenous participants.
I believe that giving back is not only an expression of gratitude but also a demonstration of friendship, which is equally important in today's world. Collaboration serves as the foundation of our gratitude and friendship, particularly in highlighting the richness of native languages in Western scholarship. In Tibetan culture, we frequently emphasize the concept of gratitude, known as bka drin bsam shes, which entails remembering the expression of gratitude and acting upon it. Without gratitude, humanity cannot flourish.
Dhondup T. Rekjong is a Tibetan scholar and doctoral candidate in religious studies at Northwestern University. His writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, The Journal of Asian Studies, The Journal of Cultural Anthropology, Lion’s Roar, and The Treasury of Lives. He is an editor of The Tibet Reader, forthcoming from Duke University Press.
To cite this essay, please use the entry suggested below:
Dhondup T. Rekjong, “Centering Native Languages in Western Scholarship,” criticalasianstudies.org Commentary Board, May 7, 2024; https://doi.org/10.52698/OWQJ6404.