| HOME : Mission : History : Chancellors : Projects : Essays : Photos : Site Directory : Contact |
Materials Provided by the
Bahá'í World Centre on Gender in the Writings,
Translation, Universal
Languages
Contents……………………………………………………………………………………….1
Attachment
#1 - From the Universal House of Justice, Department of the Secretariat,
25
July 2002 email to Nancy Branham Songer……………………………………………….2
Attachment #2 -
Use of Masculine Pronouns and Images…………………………………..3
Attachment #3 - The Use of the Masculine Gender in the
Bahá’í Writings Extracts
from
Letters Written By and on Behalf of the Universal House of Justice…………………..6
Attachment #4 - Literary
Style – Translation………………………………………………...12
Attachment #5 - The
Difficult Art of Translation – Selected Extracts From Letters
Written By and On Behalf of
the Universal House of Justice Concerning the
Translations of Shoghi
Effendi……………………………………………………………….17
Attachment #6 - Importance
of and Guidance on Translating the Bahá’í Writings into
Indigenous and Other
Languages…………………………………………………………….21
***
Attachment #1 - Department of the Secretariat, 15 August 2002, email to
Nancy Branham Songer, re:
universal auxiliary language and universal language………….26
Attachment #2 - Extract from
a Research Department memorandum dated 7 July 1994……27
Attachment #3 – The
Principle of an International Auxiliary Language……………………30
Attachment #4 –
International Auxiliary Language…………………………………………38
Attachment #5 – Bahá'í World
Centre Library A Partial Bibliography of Published
Works on an Auxiliary
Language 3 September 1991……………………………………….39
THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF
JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARIAT
Bahá’í World Centre • P.O. Box 155 • 31 001 Haifa, Israel
Tel: 972 (4) 835 8358 • Fax: 972 (4) 835 8280 • Email:
secretariat@bwc.org
25 July 2002
Transmitted by email:
nsonger@sc.rr.com
Mrs. Nancy Branham Songer
U.S.A.
Dear Bahá’í Friend,
The Universal House of
Justice referred your emailed letter dated 22 June 2002 to its
Research Department for
comments, and it commends to your study the enclosed memorandum
prepared in response to your
queries concerning the use of masculine pronouns and images in
the Sacred Writings of the
Faith. We hope this information will prove useful to your endeavors,
and you are free to use any
of the contents in your presentation at the Association for Bahá’í
Studies conference.
With loving Bahá’í greetings,
Department of the Secretariat
Enclosure with four
attachments
M E M O R A N D U M
To: The Universal
House of Justice Date: 25 July 2002
From: Research
Department
The
Research Department has studied the questions on the above-mentioned subject
raised by Mrs. Nancy Branham
Songer in her emailed letter dated 22 June 2002 to the
Universal House of Justice.
Mrs. Songer observes that in the authorized English translations
of the Bahá’í Scriptures and
in the English writings of the Guardian, God is invariably termed
“Father”, masculine pronouns
are used in reference to the Divinity, and the term “man” is used to represent
humanity as well as individuals. From her study of the Bahá’í teachings Mrs.
Songer is aware that “this usage is a product of convention and the images are
generic and intended to be inclusive”. She is also cognizant of the fact that
“these practices nevertheless raise certain questions because of the importance
of language in the formation of worldview”. In this regard she states that
“according to [her] understanding, two important spiritual features of this age
will be the deanthropomorphization of God in the minds of human beings and the
equality of the sexes”. However, it is her view that the present “language of
the Bahá’í scriptures … can be seen to repeat and reinforce the sense that the
Divine is somehow male”, and the “consistent use of ‘man’ and masculine
pronouns in the Writings to represent humanity and individuals contributes to
an image that the human archetype is male”. In light of these observations,
Mrs. Songer poses a number of detailed questions concerning the work of
translation—the implications of present practice for future translations,
whether “Bahá’í English with regard to gender was crystallized at the point of
the Guardian’s translations”, whether the universal auxiliary language will
need “to retain masculine imagery in order to be true to the message or will it
be able to establish new forms”, and whether “there are spiritual implications
to sex-specific imagery … being fixed in holy Scriptures for all time or at
least until the end of this dispensation”. We provide the following comment.
By
way of introduction, we wish to note that the Research Department has not, to
date, been able to locate
detailed guidance concerning the specific technical issues raised by
Mrs. Songer about the
practical implications of present translation practices for the future work of
translation, especially as they relate to gender issues. To assist Mrs. Songer
in thinking about the questions she poses, we attach the following four
compilations:
q “The Use of the Masculine
Gender in the Bahá’í Writings”, a compilation of extracts from letters written
by and on behalf of the Universal House of Justice. The extracts in the
compilation set out a number of general principles in relation to this subject
and the Bahá’í perspective on it. We note, for example, the House of Justice
indicates that:
§
“In
many languages the use of the masculine gender, unless intended specifically
todenote masculinity, is generic” (extract 1, see also extracts 2 and 6).
§
“The
translation of the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith must of
necessityagree in full detail with the original in conveying the exact meaning
of the Words as
The Use of Masculine
Pronouns and Images 25
July 2002
Page 2
they have been revealed”
(extracts 2, 8 and 9). In addition, the Universal House of
Justice indicates that it
“does not feel it appropriate to change Shoghi Effendi’s usage of
certain nouns in his
translations” (extract 8). Indeed, “The style of translation into
English was set by Shoghi
Effendi” (extract 10).
resolved either by changing
the usage of nouns, or by permitting the consciousness of
sexual equality to modify
the meaning of nouns as they are now used. No doubt both
courses will be followed in
the evolution of the language. It is generally considered
preferable to permit the
change of consciousness to change the meaning that people
attribute to words, rather
than to press the use of forms of words, which may seem
contrived” (extract 8).
§
“The
challenge … is to accept the use of pronouns in their generic sense, which will
lead one to view the matter
in terms of a spiritual response, rather than one of
semantics” (extracts 8 and
10).
q “Literary
Style—Translation”, a compilation of materials that was prepared some time ago.
The compilation includes a statement from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá about translation,
extracts from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and the Universal
House of Justice, and a description of the writings of Shoghi Effendi excerpted
from RúHíyyih Rabbani’s “The Priceless Pearl” (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
1969), pages 196–204.
q “The Difficult Art of
Translation—Selected Extracts from Letters Written By and on Behalf of the
Universal House of Justice Concerning the Translations of Shoghi Effendi”.
Extracts in the compilation address such issues as:
§ The status of Shoghi
Effendi’s translations (extracts 1 and 6). The importance of his translations
as a starting point for translations into other European languages (extract 1).
§ The Guardian’s approach to
translation (extracts 2, 4, and 7).
§ The interpretative aspect to
Shoghi Effendi’s translations (extracts 1, 5, and 6).
§ Translators are encouraged
to “strive to render the words of the Báb, Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá into
English in a way that reproduces as accurately as possible the meaning of the
originals, that is as beautiful as possible, and that harmonizes closely with
the style used by Shoghi Effendi” (extract 4).
q “Importance of and Guidance
on Translating the Bahá’í Writings into Indigenous and Other Languages”. This
compilation, consisting mostly of the correspondence of the Universal House of Justice, was prepared some time ago.
Despite the fact that there is a degree of
The Use of Masculine
Pronouns and Images 25 July 2002
Page 3
repetition in the content,
it is included because of Mrs. Songer’s interest in the importance
and use of language.
As
to Mrs. Songer’s question concerning whether “the universal auxiliary language
needs to retain masculine imagery in order to be true to the message or will it
be able to establish new forms”, the Research Department has not, to date, been
able to locate any references to this subject in the authoritative literature
of the Faith. However, we call attention to the following statement of the
Universal House of Justice in a letter dated 8 December 1964, which is included
in extract 1 of the attached document “The Difficult Art of Translation”:
We also feel that it is
still premature to decide upon the question of the International Auxiliary
Language. It is quite clear from the Texts that any living
or invented language may be
chosen, but the time and manner of its choosing and propagation are not yet
decided.
Attachments 4
The Use of the Masculine Gender in the Bahá’í Writings
Extracts from Letters Written By and on Behalf of the Universal House
of Justice
In
many languages the use of the masculine gender, unless intended specifically to
denote
masculinity, is generic. For
instance, in English we speak of the race of man, or mankind, in
both instances meaning every
member of the human race—men, women and children. There
would be no reason to
interpret “O Son of Being”, or “O Son of Man” as addressed only to
males. It is the same with
pronouns.
(5
April 1981, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an
individual
believer) [1]
The
principle of the equality of men and women which is firmly established by the
Author of the Faith and
forms one of the basic tenets of our belief will be fully realized as the
human race matures in its
understanding of the significance of Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation.
Equality will be achieved as
a direct result of the adjustments the friends are required to make
in their attitude towards
this fundamental issue so essential to the establishment of the unity of
mankind, and despite the
exigencies of the languages in which the revealed Words have been
received and in which they
have been translated. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says: “...in His estimate there is
no question of sex.” “In the
estimation of God there is no gender.”1…
The
translation of the Writings of the Central Figures of the Faith must of
necessity agree
in full detail with the
original in conveying the exact meaning of the Words as they have been
revealed. The Guardian did
not even approve the changing of pronouns in Bahá’í prayers when
they are read. Therefore, no
deviation in translation from the actual meaning of the words, to
accommodate the general
trend of thought and behaviour affecting a language, is conceivable,
unless, of course, the
equivalent of the original word does not exist in a given language. In one
of His talks quoted in “The
Promulgation of Universal Peace”, page 76, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says:
The
truth is that all mankind are the creatures and servants of one God, and in His
estimate
all are human. “Man” is a generic term applying to all humanity. The biblical
statement
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” does not mean that woman
was
not created. The image and likeness of God apply to her as well. In Persian and
Arabic
there are two distinct words translated into English as man: one meaning man
and
woman
collectively, the other distinguishing man as male from woman the female. The
first
word and its pronoun are generic, collective; the other is restricted to the
male. This
is
the same in Hebrew.
Concerning
the English language, it is interesting that the 1983 edition of the Concise
Oxford English Dictionary
gives “human being” as the first meaning of “man”; and only as the
fourth meaning “adult human
male, opp. to woman, boy, or both.” Therefore, the use of “man”
or “men” in translating the
intent of the Revealer of the Words to embrace all humankind seems
a good choice.
(20
May 1984, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an
individual
believer) [2]
1 “The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered
by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during His Visit to theUnited States and Canada in 1912”, rev.
ed. (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1995), pp. 174 and 374.
The Use of the Masculine
Gender in the Bahá’í Writings 25
July 2002
Page 2
We
have considered your memorandum of 6 June 1989 and appreciate the points you
have raised concerning the sensitivity
of women, both Bahá’í and non-Bahá’í, to the use of
what are construed to be
exclusively masculine words in the Sacred Writings of the Bahá’í
Faith.
While
we recognize that the problem of gender in language presents difficulties at
the
present time, we must also
recognize that the problem varies considerably from language to
language, depending on the
number of grammatical genders that each language uses.
Since
the immediate concern in the translations … centres on usage in English, we
shall
concentrate on the problem
as it exists in that language. English is fortunate in having a
common gender. The problem
of gender-specific nouns is, therefore, susceptible of two lines of
solution. One is to change
the usage of nouns, the other is to permit the consciousness of
sexual equality to modify
the meaning of nouns as now used. Undoubtedly both courses will be
followed in the evolution of
the language. The word “doctor” for example, is now clearly of
common gender in English,
although originally masculine. Our feeling is that, in general, it is
preferable to permit the
change of consciousness to change the meaning that people attribute to
the words, rather than to
press the use of forms of words that seem contrived and, to many
people, ridiculous—a reaction
that does not help the advancement of the cause of the equality
of the sexes. Following this
reasoning, as you will have noted, we used the word “chairman” in
relation to the sessions of
the International Convention, although all were women.
In
respect to the Sacred Writings, the originals, clearly, cannot be changed, and
we do not
feel at liberty to change
Shoghi Effendi’s usage of “man” or “mankind” to “humanity” or
“humankind”.
(27
November 1989, from a memorandum from the Universal House of Justice
to
a Bahá’í Office of Public Information) [3]
There
are, as you indicate, many conventions of expression in use at the present time
which reflect the male
dominance of human society in the past. We must hope that as the
consciousness of human
beings changes and as the equality of the sexes comes to be accepted
in theory and in practice
throughout the world, the meanings attached to certain words will
change accordingly, as will
the usage of words. Language is a living thing and changes as the
culture which it reflects
changes….
The
important point here is that one will not persuade people to change their usage
of
language until one has
convinced them of the true understanding of the reality of things; but
when they once understand
the truth, the meaning that they attach to words changes, and thus a
change in usage becomes much
less important, if not irrelevant.
(8
March 1990, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an
individual)
[4]
… the House of Justice is
well aware that, at various times, the meaning attached to certain
words becomes influenced by
emotions and can assume overtones which are offensive to some
segments of the population.
In the case of the generic terms in the English translations of the
Bahá’í Writings, the
tendency to take such terms as being applicable only to males is a
reflection of the
male-dominated society which has prevailed for so long, and to which there is
The Use of the Masculine
Gender in the Bahá’í Writings 25
July 2002
Page 3
a reaction from women who
are seeking legitimate recognition and equality. Bahá’ís can well
sympathize with such
concerns, while pointing out that language is a living thing and that the
intended meaning of the
generic terms will doubtless become more readily apparent as the
influence of the Bahá’í
commitment to equality of the sexes permeates human society more
fully.
It
is understandable that some non-Bahá’ís are initially disturbed by the use of
those
terms in our Writings which
are associated conventionally with a male orientation. Seekers
after truth should be
assisted to determine the intended meaning of such terms through
reference to the Bahá’í
Teachings, rather than through assuming that these terms have the
meaning now prevalent in the
world; thus they will find that they should seek that meaning
which is consistent with
equality of men and women, and which also happens to be the primary
meaning associated with
classical usage of the English language to convey spiritual truths. A
similar approach is called
for when a seeker encounters a number of other terms and phrases in
the Writings.
Members
of the Bahá’í community should not fall unconsciously into the error of
labelling the Bahá’í
Writings as being “sexist” or “discriminatory”, or of feeling a need to
apologize to non-Bahá’ís for
the terms used. Such an attitude would be indicative of a lack of
understanding of the Bahá’í
approach to this issue, and a lack of confidence in the position
adopted by the Faith in
regard to use of generic terms.
(26
September 1993, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a
National
Spiritual Assembly) [5]
We
regret the very long delay in responding to your request … for help in locating
something in print regarding
the use of the male pronoun in the Bahá’í Writings. In this regard
we are enclosing a copy of
extracts from letters written on behalf of the Universal House of
Justice to individual
believers regarding the use of the masculine gender in the Writings.
Related to this subject is
the reference on page seven in the introduction to “The Kitáb-i-Aqdas”
where it is stated that it
is apparent from the writings of the Guardian that “where Bahá’u’lláh
has given a law as between a
man and a woman, it applies ‘mutatis mutandis’ between a woman
and a man unless the context
makes this impossible”.
(26
June 1994, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an
individual
believer) [6]
In
relating the Teachings of the Faith to the discussion of contemporary social
issues,
Bahá’í publications are
challenged by the need to adapt editorial policies to the ever-changing
public perceptions of those
issues, without compromising the fundamental Bahá’í principles
and concepts involved. The
question of “gender inclusive language” guidelines is a case in
point. The editors of a publication
like the Journal will certainly have acquainted themselves
with the various points of
view on the subject current among the readership which they and
their authors are
addressing, together with prevailing modes of expression. These factors will
exercise an influence on
Bahá’í editorial policy, but must do so within the context of the
Teachings.
Clearly,
the Scriptures of the Faith, as revealed by the Founders and interpreted by
‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the
Guardian, impose their own requirements on Bahá’í authors and editors
The Use of the Masculine
Gender in the Bahá’í Writings 25
July 2002
Page 4
alike. On the one hand, an
editorial board will quite properly be concerned to take into account
the preferences and
convictions common to the great majority of the intended readers of its
publication. On the other,
Bahá’í authors must be left entirely free to discuss the Revelation of
Bahá’u’lláh in its own terms
and language as set out in the Bahá’í Scriptures themselves and in
their authorized interpretations,
irrespective of current fashions in academic and other public
discourse. That is to say:
the Sacred Writings of the Faith and those of the Guardian do not use
the “gender inclusive
language” now in vogue, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the
Editorial Board to impose
such current standards on Bahá’í authors.
(26
July 1996, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National
Spiritual
Assembly) [7]
Your
letter of 19 September 1996 expressing your concern regarding the use of
inclusive
masculine terms in the
Sacred Writings has been received by the Universal House of Justice,
and we have been asked to
reply.
The
point you have raised regarding the sensitivity of women, both Bahá’í and non-
Bahá’í, to the use of
masculine nouns and pronouns when referring to God is noted and your
concern appreciated. It is
recognized that the question of gender in language presents
difficulties at this time;
however, it must also be recognized that the problem varies
considerably from language
to language, depending on the number of grammatical genders that
each language uses.
English
is fortunate in having a common gender. Therefore, the issue of gender-specific
nouns may be resolved either
by changing the usage of nouns, or by permitting the
consciousness of sexual
equality to modify the meaning of nouns as they are now used. No
doubt both courses will be
followed in the evolution of the language. It is generally considered
preferable to permit the
change of consciousness to change the meaning that people attribute to
words, rather than to press
the use of forms of words, which may seem contrived.
Likewise,
when considering the manner in which masculine nouns and pronouns are used
to refer to God, it is
important to bear in mind that when Bahá’u’lláh was revealing His
Scriptures He had to use
language and forms of expression which could be understood by those
whom He was addressing. This
is the case with every Prophet; He is compelled to use old
forms through which He will
raise humanity to a new level of understanding. In Arabic and
Persian, as in English and
most European languages, it has been customary to refer to God as
“Lord” and “Father”, rather
than “Lady” and “Mother”. While using the conventional wording
Bahá’u’lláh approached the
matter on two levels. In relation to God He devoted vast numbers
of Tablets to conveying the
truth that God is not only neither male nor female, but is far above
all human understanding. If
you study deeply the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh that portray both the
transcendence and immanence
of God you will find that the entire question of sex in this
context falls into total
insignificance.
On
the human level, the Bahá’í Teachings stress again and again the equality of
men and
women. They do not ignore
the differences between the sexes, but repeatedly emphasize their
equality. This is a
universal concept, irrespective of the language in which it is expressed.
Regarding the pronouns which
refer to the Deity, in Arabic there is a distinction between
the masculine and feminine;
however, the Persian language does not make such a distinction in
pronouns between the sexes.
As you have noted in your letter, the style of translation into
The Use of the Masculine
Gender in the Bahá’í Writings 25
July 2002
Page 5
English was set by Shoghi
Effendi. In respect to the Sacred Writings, the originals clearly
cannot be changed, and the
House of Justice does not feel it appropriate to change Shoghi
Effendi’s usage of certain
nouns in his translations. The Guardian did not even approve the
changing of pronouns in
Bahá’í prayers when they are read. Therefore, no deviation in
translation from the actual
meaning of the words, to accommodate the general trend of thought
and behavior affecting a
language, is permissible, unless, of course, the equivalent of the
original word does not exist
in a given language.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá
says: “...in His estimate there is no question of sex.” “In the estimation of
God there is no gender.”
The
challenge, therefore, is to accept the use of pronouns in their generic sense,
which
will lead one to view the
matter in terms of a spiritual response, rather than one of semantics.
The
principle of the equality of men and women, which is firmly established by
Bahá’u’lláh and forms one of
the basic tenets of our Faith, will be fully realized as the human
race matures in its
understanding of the significance of His Revelation. Equality will be
achieved as a direct result
of the transformations the believers make in their attitudes toward
this fundamental issue, and
despite the exigencies of the languages in which the revealed Words
have been received and
translated.
(24
October 1996, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an
individual
believer) [8]
In response to your email of
21 August 1998 requesting guidance concerning the use of
“gender-sensitive language”
for use in your “discussions with potential authors and in the
editing of their work”, we
are able to provide the following comments.
The
Universal House of Justice has previously stated in response to a similar query
that
the use of “gender inclusive
language” is one of the many contemporary issues which challenge
Bahá’í publications to adapt
editorial policies to the ever-changing public perceptions without
compromising the fundamental
Bahá’í principles and concepts involved. It is the responsibility
of authors and editors to
acquaint themselves with the various points of view on the subject
current among the readership
which they are addressing, together with the prevailing modes of
expression. These factors
will exercise an influence on Bahá’í editorial policy, but must do so
within the context of the
Teachings.
Clearly,
the Scriptures of the Faith, as revealed by the Founders and interpreted by
‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the
Guardian, impose their own requirements on Bahá’í authors and editors
alike. On the one hand, an
editorial board will quite properly be concerned to take into account
the preferences and
convictions common to the great majority of the intended readers of its
publication. On the other,
Bahá’í authors must be left entirely free to discuss the Revelation of
Bahá’u’lláh in its own terms
and language as set out in the Bahá’í Scriptures themselves and in
their authorized
interpretations, irrespective of current fashions in academic and other public
discourse.
It
is not surprising that the struggle to achieve such a balance during an era of
unprecedented social and
intellectual turmoil is very challenging to Bahá’í publishers.
Inevitably, there will be
certain segments of the public who will object in some degree to
The Use of the Masculine
Gender in the Bahá’í Writings 25
July 2002
Page 6
whatever resolution is
arrived at in any given case, but this should not unduly distress either
Bahá’í authors or Bahá’í
editors.
(16
September 1998, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a
Bahá’í
Publisher) [9]
The
Universal House of Justice has received your email message of 17 September 1999
requesting guidance on the
question of gender as it relates to the Deity and the use of gender
specific pronouns when
referring to God.
When
considering the manner in which masculine pronouns are used to refer to God, it
is
important to bear in mind
that when Bahá’u’lláh was revealing His Scriptures He had to use
language and forms of expression
which could be understood by those whom He was
addressing. This is the case
with every Prophet; He is compelled to use old forms through
which He will raise humanity
to a new level of understanding. In Arabic and Persian, as in
English and most European
languages, it has been customary to refer to God as “Lord” and
“Father”, rather than “Lady”
and “Mother”. While using the conventional wording,
Bahá’u’lláh devoted vast
numbers of Tablets to conveying the truth that God is not only neither
male nor female, but also is
far above all human understanding. If one studies deeply the
Writings of Bahá’u’lláh that
portray both the transcendence and immanence of God it becomes
clear that the entire
subject of sex in this context is essentially irrelevant….
The style of translation into English was set by Sho