Paper short abstract:

While researching almost any cultural phenomenon one faces possible difficulties in its interpretation. Is it possible during this process to be immune to the political and economic implications that cause a glitch in translation? Must we always be lost in cultural translation?

Paper long abstract:

While researching almost any cultural phenomenon one faces possible difficulties in its interpretation. It is not merely a question of facts which can be successfully or poorly researched. It is the matter of the perspective through which one interprets the phenomenon and which provides us with the premises for our future conclusions. Eliade showed us that in order to understand other, non-European cultures we must break away from our Eurocentrism. Eliade proves that we can translate the cultural phenomena of the Ancients to our European languages and mentalities, but only provided that we respect their raison d'etre and sociocultural perspectives, and never translate literally, solely through the conceptions of the interpreter of these cultures. Said exposed the misconception of Oriental cultures that arose out of the misunderstandings of their content which was the result of the cultural interpretation envisioned in order to accommodate the needs and views of Western Christianity. In light of the Foucauldian analysis of the discourse of power, the question arises whether the understanding of other cultures, however familiar or distant they are, is at all possible? The Orientalist has made a profession out of constantly turning the Orient from one thing into another: he does it for himself, his culture, and in certain occasions, he believes he is doing it for the benefit of the said Oriental. Is it possible during this process to be immune to the political and economic implications that cause a glitch in translation? Must we always be lost in cultural translation?