The Clash of Interpretations

In 1993, Samuel P. Huntington introduced the world to the concept of “The Clash of Civilizations” positing that future conflicts would be driven by cultural and religious differences. Fast forward three decades, and we are witnessing the rise of a similar kind of cultural clash - not as important as the one the author describes, to be fair, but still of some interest to people involved in translation: I call it the "Clash of Interpretations."

The Nature of the Clash

The clash of interpretation is an emerging conflict between human interpreters and AI translation systems, involving companies, professionals, and researchers. It revolves around the debate of who should have the right to translate spoken words, and is a struggle for space, rights, and dignity in multilingual communication. This clash is emblematic of a broader trend affecting many professions affected by automation. After years of simmering tensions, the conflict is now becoming more pronounced, and it is fairly easy to acknowledge its existence. Playing with the polysemic word "interpreting," it is also, in a sense, a clash over how to interpret the evolving reality, and is therefore applicable to many fields affected by technological disruption.

Narratives and Beliefs

A defining characteristic of this conflict is the reliance on narrative rather than hard facts, on belief rather than knowledge. Each side feels entitled to be universally better than the other by some strange alchemy that no one can really define, so the terms of argument are generally vague, unscientific, and mostly based on rhetoric, emotion, and confirmation bias. The prospect of future change is ignored. Instead of facts, the arguments seem to be based on different "interpretations" of reality and are therefore culturally driven. Sometimes they even approach the fervor of religious orthodoxy. In this sense, they most resemble the thesis of Huntington's article.

The Role of Social Media

Recently, the clash has intensified, as evidenced by the publication of petitions, open letters, and position statements on the one hand, and marketing campaigns and exaggerated claims on the other. These are common forms of resistance and/or propaganda, but they often seem quite naive and boring. Social media in particular has become the perfect battleground for this narrative warfare, where posts facilitate both subtle and overt attacks. On social media, any weapon is acceptable. Gurus are born, and people begin to follow instead of trying to understand. As technology continues to advance, these conflicts are likely to escalate in a never-ending cycle of verbal and ideological confrontation. Polarization will continue until the new reality sets in. Unlike the clash of civilizations, the clash of interpretations will be brief. Eventually, in retrospect, this clash will be seen as naive and counterproductive, and the time would have been better spent on the playground of rationality and mutual understanding. This clash, we must not forget, is also characterized by asymmetry in terms of power and impact on reality.

Conclusion

Personally, it is deeply disheartening to witness this decline in intellectual depth and unwillingness to seek the truth. It goes so far that professional associations are calling for a ban on the teaching of AI in university translation curricula. The stakes are high for all involved, and intense conflict is inevitable. Anyone with an interest, as history teaches, feels compelled to fight to protect it. This is perfectly understandable. And there are many things worth fighting for: fair compensation, working conditions, accessibility, and the democratization of translation, to name a few. Ideally, it would just be more productive to resolve conflicts on the basis of rationality, i.e. sound arguments and facts (read: science). However, clashes rarely follow this ideal; they are often a messy, contentious affair.