Convivial relations can build deep understanding without assuming full translatability

Evidence

In elaborating his understanding of conviviality as a ‘minimal consensus’ Heil (2020) identifies ‘translation’ as a key practice for convivial life. However, Heil approaches translation as a practice oriented towards ‘“knowing just enough” of each other’ (291). Emma’s relationship with Nazreen illustrates a different approach to translation – one which does not assume meaning can be fully translated (Gal 2015) or selves rendered transparent (Young 1990), but which nonetheless strives to form deep interpersonal understandings. In this process, Emma and Nazreen attempt to navigate not only linguistic barriers, but the weight and rupture of Nazreen’s experience as a refugee. — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others, 53

Categorization

  • XREF: Resonates with the reader’s interest in cross-cultural care and conviviality in ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’ and ‘Home Boy’ — living with difference rather than erasing it. — connects to: Specific relational modes offer more analytic traction than generalized conviviality. — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others: for a…, 84; Social relations can be analyzed purely as formal configurations — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 208; capacities for living with difference arise through situated relations, not abstract categories — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others: for a…, 72 (+1 more)
  • DEFINE: Distinguishes two models of ‘translation’ as a convivial practice: minimal knowing-enough vs. striving for deep understanding.
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others: for a…, 53

Broader Connections