The Translation of Nonhuman Animals into Commercial Products: A Postcolonial Critique of Dairy Commercials

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore how milk is translated into a product for human consumption. In this study, translation works as a metaphor that is used for carving up an alternative reality. The metaphor of translation is informed by postcolonial translation studies, in particular the view in which translation is seen as “a channel of colonization”. For this purpose, three diary commercials are selected and a form of multimodal thematic analysis with a critical framework has been employed in order to discover the themes used in milk commercials. These themes are interpreted taking into account how translation is conceptualized by postcolonial approaches. The analysis demonstrates that colonial subjects and animals have many commonalities. Translation functioned for the colonizer as a force to assist in the silencing of the Other, to remove agency, to distort representations, to fabricate volunteer victims, to create familiar subjects, and to impose Western reason-based thought. Similarly, dairy commercials ‘translate’ cows so that they are silenced, their agencies are either removed or used in favor of the industry, the real lives of cows are obscured and their experiences are distorted, they are portrayed as being happily exploited, and they are reduced to subordinate creatures in relation to Western white, male subjects. Translation, in this study, demonstrates the power it yields in dominating others. Yet, translation can also bridge gaps, and foster nonexploitative relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. 

Keywords

• translation metaphor
• nonhuman animals
• postcolonialism
• dairy commercials

İnsan Dışı Hayvanların Ticari Ürünlere Çevirisi: Süt Reklamlarının Postkolonyal Eleştirisi

Abstract

Bu makalenin amacı, sütün insan tüketimi için bir ürüne nasıl dönüştürüldüğünü araştırmaktır. Bu çalışmada çeviri, alternatif bir gerçeklik oluşturmak için kullanılan bir metafor olarak görülmektedir. Çeviri metaforu, postkolonyal çeviri çalışmaları, özellikle de çevirinin “sömürgeleştirme aracı” olarak görüldüğü bakış açısından dayanak almaktadır. Bu amaçla üç adet süt ve süt ürünü reklamı seçilmiş ve süt reklamlarında kullanılan temaları incelemek için eleştirel kavramlar çerçevesinde multimodal tematik analiz kullanılmıştır. Bu temalar, postkolonyal yaklaşımlarda çevirinin nasıl işlev gördüğü dikkate alınarak yorumlanmıştır. Analiz, sömürülen halkların ve insan olmayan hayvanların birçok ortak yönü olduğunu göstermektedir. Çeviri, sömürge tarihinde Öteki'nin susturulmasına, failliğin silinmesi, temsillerin çarpıtılması, gönüllü kurbanların üretilmesi, tanıdık özneler yaratılması ve Batılı akla dayalı düşüncenin empoze edilmesine yardımcı olmuştur. Benzer şekilde, süt reklamları da inekleri ‘çevirir’. Böylece inekler susturulur, faillikleri ya ortadan kaldırılır ya da endüstri lehine kullanılır, ineklerin gerçek yaşamları gizlenir ve deneyimleri çarpıtılır, inekler sömürülmekten mutluymuş gibi gösterilir ve Batılı beyaz erkek öznenin karşısında madun yaratıklara indirgenirler. Bu çalışmada çevirinin başkalarına hükmetme konusundaki aracı rolü ortaya konulmaktadır. Çeviri, öte yandan, insan ve insan olmayan hayvanlar arasında köprüler de kurabilir ve sömürüye dayanmayan ilişkileri besleyebilir.

Keywords

• : çeviri metaforu
• insan dışı hayvanlar
• postkolonyalizm
• süt reklamları

References

1. Adams, W. M., & Mulligan, M. (Eds.). (2003). Decolonizing nature: Strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. Earthscan Publications.
2. Ahuja, N. (2009). Postcolonial critique in a multispecies world. PMLA, 124(2), 556–563.
3. Bassnett, S. & H. Trivedi. (1999). Introduction: Of colonies, cannibals and vernaculars. In S. Bassnett & H. Trivedi (Eds.) Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice (pp. 1-18). Routledge.
4. Bassnett, S & A. Lefevere (Eds.) (1990). Translation, history and culture. Pinter.
5. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.
6. Bi Reklamcı. (2022, 10 Ocak). Sütaş büyümix reklamı (Ocak 2014). [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-8GZLAuDM
7. Bogenç Demi̇rel, E. & Marmara, F. (2020). Müdahilb bir çeviri örneği olarak eko-çeviri. Frankofoni, 2(37), 53–63.
8. Canavan, J. (2017). “Happy cow” welfarist ideology and the Swedish “milk crisis”: A crisis of romanticized oppression. D. Nibert (Ed.), Animal Oppression and Capitalism (pp. 34-55). Praeger.

9. Chagani, F. (2016). Can the postcolonial animal speak? Society & Animals 24(6):619–37. 10.1163/15685306-12341421.
10. Cheyfitz, E. (1997). The poetics of imperialism: Translation and colonization from the tempest to Tarzan. University of Pennsylvania Press.
11. Cohen, M. (2020). Animal colonialism: The case of milk. A. Peters (Ed.), Studies in global animal law (Vol. 5). Springer Open.
12. Cole, M. (2017). Hiding and legitimating oppression in “dairy product” advertising. D. Nibert (Ed.), Animal oppression and capitalism (pp. 19-33). Praeger.
13. Cronin, M. (2017). Eco-translation: Translation and ecology in the age of the anthropocene. Routledge.
14. DeLoughrey, E. M., & Handley, G. B. (Eds.). (2011). Postcolonial ecologies: Literatures of the environment. Oxford University Press.
15. DuPuis, E. M. (2002). Nature’s perfect food: How milk became America’s drink. New York University Press.
16. Gaard, G. (2013). Toward a feminist postcolonial milk studies. American Quarterly, 65(3), 595–618. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2013.0040
17. Garner, R. (2004). Animals, politics and morality. Manchester University Press.
18. Gillespie, K. (2014). Sexualized violence and the gendered commodification of the animal body in Pacific Northwest US dairy production. Gender, Place & Culture, 21(10), 1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.832665
19. Guldin, R. (2016). Translation as metaphor. Routledge.
20. Halkla İlişkiler. (2022, 10 Ocak). Torku çiftçi sütü reklamı. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0bia9jMBgY
21. Huggan, G., & Tiffin, H. (2015). Postcolonial ecocriticism: Literature, animals, environment (Second edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
22. Keon, J. (2010). Whitewash: The disturbing truth about cow’s milk and your health. New Society Publishers.
23. Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. van. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2. ed). Routledge.
24. Lefevere, A. (1999). Composing the other. Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice, 2002, 75-94.
25. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A Multimodal introduction. SAGE.
26. Merskin, D. (2016). Media theories and the crossroads of critical animal and media studies. N. Almiron, M. Cole & C.P. Freeman (Eds.), Critical animal and media studies. Communication for nonhuman animal advocacy (pp. 11-25). Routledge.
27. Newkirk, I., & Stone, G. (2020). Animalkind: Remarkable discoveries about animals and revolutionary new ways to show them compassion. Simon & Schuster.
28. Niranjana, T. (1992). Siting translation: History, post-ttructuralism, and the colonial context. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520911369
29. Porcher, J., & Schmitt, T. (2012). Dairy cows: Workers in the shadows? Society & Animals, 20(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853012X614350
30. Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. Routledge.
31. Rafael, V. L. (1993). Contracting colonialism: Translation and Christian conversion in Tagalog society under early Spanish rule. Duke University Press.
32. Reklam Televizyonu. (2022, 10 Ocak). Sütaş reklamları süttür Sütaşın aşkı süt aşkı 41. Yıl şarkısı. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9fFxZgtVfY
33. Robinson, D. (2016). Translation and empire: Postcolonial theories explored. Routledge.
34. Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research: A Resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (4th ed.). Wiley.
35. Rogers, B. (2003). Beef and liberty. Chatto & Windus.
36. Rushdie, S. (1991). Imaginary homelands: Essays and criticism 1981-91. Granta Books.
37. Saha, J. (2016). Milk to Mandalay: Dairy consumption, animal history and the political geography of colonial Burma. Journal of Historical Geography, 54, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2016.05.016
38. Sancaktaroğlu Bozkurt, S. (2014). Sömürgecilik sonrası dönem eserlerinin Türkçeye çevrilmesinde tercih edilebilecek yöntemler: Things Fall Apart adlı eserin Türkçe çevirilerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Kebikeç, 38, 241–262.
39. Sengupta, J. (2010). Nation on a platter: The culture and politics of food and cuisine in colonial Bengal. Modern Asian Studies, 44(01), 81.
40. Shamma, T. (2018). Translation and colonialism. The Routledge handbook of translation and culture (pp. 279-295). Routledge.
41. Simon, S. (2000). Introduction. In Changing the terms: Translating in the postcolonial era (pp. 9-29). University of Ottawa press.
42. Tymoczko, M., & Gentzler, E. (Eds.). (2002). Translation and power. University of Massachusetts Press.
43. Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging translation, empowering translators. St. Jerome Pub.
44. Valenze, D. M. (2011). Milk: A local and global history. Yale University Press.
45. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
46. Vidal Claramonte, M. (2018). Power. S. A. Harding & O. Carbonell i Cortés (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation and culture (pp. 79–98). Routledge.