In [my disagreement about gender-inclusive language with Dr. Craig
Carter][], I have found one sure point of agreement between the two of
us: ideology should not govern the translation of the Bible. The problem
we have encountered is that we cannot agree on what constitutes ideology
in translation. Carter has posted some additional thoughts under the
title "Inclusive Language and the Doctrine of the Trinity." Here
follows a general response to Carter's argument. My primary purpose in
this post is not to argue for gender-inclusive idiom per se (I don't as
yet have a fully-formed opinion on the matter), but to come to the
defense of translators who employ such language and have consequently
been portrayed by Carter as compromised by "egalitarian ideology."
Defining the Issue
First of all, a discussion of gender-inclusive idiom in English (e.g.
the use of "they" as a generic singular pronoun) must be rightly divided
from other issues. Translators are concerned with communication. The
reasons for a change in a language's idiom are not material to the
practice of translation, whether or not said changes are wholly or
partly the result of an ideological movement to which the translator
objects. In the context of Carter's posts, this ideological movement is
purportedly feminism. I will accept for the sake of argument that
feminism is indeed the engine behind the rise of gender-inclusive
pronouns in English (though I think it is a claim wanting evidence), but
even then I think that the concerns with feminism are irrelevant.
Another area where careful delineation of the issues is in the doctrine
of the Trinity (per Carter's post) or any other theological matter. If
there is indeed a movement to remove the use of gendered pronouns ("he")
and nouns ("father," "son") from describing God, it is a separate issue
from gender-inclusive idiom. The former deals with the proper address
and nature of God, while the latter deals with how English-speakers
indicate a generic individual. Or: the former is a matter of theology
and the latter is a matter of conventions. Carter's initial assertion
was that translators who use gender-inclusive pronouns are motivated by
ideology. I believe that this charge was based on a confusion between
gender-inclusive idiom and other issues relating to gender. In other
words, gender-inclusive idiom may be required by the task of translating
the Bible into modern English and need not be motivated by ideology at
all. Indeed, to demand that gender-inclusive language not be used is
itself a form of ideology.
Contemporary Idiom and Intelligibility
One of Carter's chief arguments against updating translations to reflect
new gender idiom is that the old translations are still intelligible to
most readers. That may or may not be true in every case (though it
stands to reason the deprecated forms will become less intelligible as
they fall out of use). As an example, Carter provides Matthew 16:24
If anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself and take up his
cross and follow me.
I am inclined to agree that most modern readers could understand that
"he" in this context is generic and can refer to women as well as men. I
would go so far as to suggest that the average modern English speaker
could even make sense of the Episcopal Church's Rite 1:
It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all
times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, holy Father,
almighty, everlasting God.
But the question is: is mere intelligibility the goal of translation? It
seems to me that translations ought to target the contemporary and
natural speech of those who will be hearing the result. Sure, we could
go back to thees and thous (and by so doing relieve much confusion about
singular v. plural in the New Testament), but that would not be the sort
of translation which would be most natural for modern readers. If Carter
wants to fight ideology through translation, he may have to accept a
stilted, dated translation.
Diachronic Study and Style
Carter's must unusual argument comes in defense of Milton, Shakespeare,
and the like:
The problem is that, once the concession is made that traditional
language is exclusive of women (which is never was), then the
integrity and credibility of all the texts of Western civilization are
placed in question. Since everything prior to 1970 uses "non-inclusive
language," everything is open to suspicion of being "patriarchial" and
thus non-binding. This applies to the concept of classic texts in
literature, law, philosophy and history, as well as all theological
texts up to and including Holy Scripture itself.
Thankfully this is not now nor has it ever been the case. We can track
the changes in language through diachronic study. In so doing we can
know how to interpret literature based on its context. The use of "he"
as a generic pronoun is not a marker of patriarchy but of an older idiom
for a generic person. Carter himself admitted that modern readers could
tell the difference (see above). I find it particularly ironic that he
mentions Holy Scripture as a potential victim of this misunderstanding,
seeing as this could be easily remedied by updating translations to use
the new gender-inclusive idiom! Changes in English today are not going
to destroy our appreciation of ancient English literature. It is doing
just fine, thanks to diachronic study. Indeed, it has survived many
changes in idiom.
We can safely update our translations to use contemporary idiom without
undermining our own literary foundations. I should also note a criticism
of Carter's that the new idioms do not sound good. Style is of course in
the ear and on the tongue of the beholder. We all must from time to time
accept that changes in language will make our favorite stylistic
flourishes passe while newer, distasteful elements will achieve
hegemony. That is, contemporary English style may change without our
approval or consent.
Conclusion
Carter's treatment of the topic of gender-inclusivity utilizes arguments
from many fronts: sociology, theology, literacy, literary history, and
style. However, none of his arguments against the use of
gender-inclusive language in Bible translations stand on their own
merits. Moreover, Carter's war on inclusive language appears to be
motivated by the desire to oppose liberalism and not the desire to
produce accurate, modern Bible translations. Bible translators who use
gender-inclusive language out of a desire to produce good translations
should not be called ideologues for failing to comply with Carter's own
ideology.
[my disagreement about gender-inclusive language with Dr. Craig
Carter]: http://thelibrarybasement.com/2009/08/10/gender-inclusivity/