Note Regarding the Source Text for the J-into-E Portion of the 21st JAT Translation Contest
This year’s J-into-E passage touches on issues related to the ongoing war in Gaza. As a professional organization for translators, JAT does not take a position on any specific issue, but JAT definitely does not condone violence, genocide, or any other form of criminal activity. JAT does not endorse the views of any writer whose material appears in this contest, any more than 中央公論—the magazine that initially published the essay used as this year’s contest passage—endorses the views of the writers whose essays appear in the magazine. That being said, we judges do not believe that this essay condones violence or genocide. If it did, we would not have used it in this contest. Online research into the writings of this author in other venues supports this conclusion. The writer raises an important issue, and he asks difficult questions, but this passage was selected for this contest solely on the basis of the linguistic challenges contained therein. We hope all readers will understand the distinction we are making by using this passage in this contest.
Jim Davis
Coordinating Judge for the J-into-E Portion of the JAT Translation Contest
*****
Jim Davis
General Comments
One of the tenets of professional translation states that a translator should read (or at least skim) the entire document before beginning a translation. Getting a general sense of the document before beginning the translation will help the translator make the many decisions (related to the writer’s intended meaning) that must be handled well if the translator is to successfully recreate the writer’s intent. Making good decisions on the first draft places the translator in a “virtuous cycle,” in which one good decision leads to other good decisions. (Unfortunately, the opposite is also true.)
The author of this essay is a commentator, as well as a historian. Generally speaking, commentators seek a larger meaning behind individual events. Historians often view individual events as clues to larger trends. In this essay the author does both. He cites a particular event at a particular museum and uses that event to pose a rhetorical question related to political activism. As in any essay, the title gives the reader a hint as to the key point the writer intends to make in the essay. The title of this particular essay includes the rhetorical question that lies at the heart of the essay. An expanded discussion that revolves around the same question appears in the fifth paragraph on page 15. If we handle the title and this sentence well, we are on our way to successfully making the writer’s intent accessible to the English-language reader.
The full title reads, 政治的に正しければ「愛国無罪」か. The phrase 政治的に正しい indicates that the writer is referring to something that is “politically correct.” It is worth noting that the four-kanji compound 愛国無罪 is enclosed by 鉤括弧. This could be because the term itself has particular significance, or it could be that the writer is simply being cute. (Not all occurrences of 鉤括弧 in a Japanese text call for the inclusion of quotation marks in an English translation.) This question can be easily resolved by a quick Internet search. In fact, Internet research indicates that the four-kanji compound 愛国無罪, which came to Japanese from Chinese, is a compound with some significance in modern Chinese history. A Google search for the Japanese term yields nearly 56,000 hits, and a similar search for the Chinese term (爱国无罪) yields over 30,000 hits. There is even an entry devoted to 愛国無罪 in the Japanese version of Wikipedia. Clearly, this is not a term concocted by the writer specifically for this essay. Literally, this term conveys the idea that no patriotic act can be regarded as a crime. If so, the title could be rendered as, “If an Act is Politically Correct, is the Act Not a Crime Simply Because It is Patriotic?” Of course, a succinct title is generally preferable, so it would be better to focus on concepts, rather than actions. One option would be, “Is Political Correctness Equivalent to Patriotic Immunity?” Some people might prefer “Patriotic Innocence” over “Patriotic Immunity.” However, the term “immunity” often conveys the idea that a person is protected from criminal prosecution (e.g., “diplomatic immunity”), so this term is a good fit in this context. In recent decades the term 愛国無罪 has been used in the People’s Republic of China to justify the sometimes violent policies of the Communist Party of China. The writer—who is, after all, a modern historian—is certainly familiar with the term and its usage. Given the history of this term, it is possible that its use by the author is an indication of his concern that negative consequences for society as a whole may arise from the excessive application of the concept of political correctness. If so, the rhetorical question in the title is a cautionary one, and a translation could read, “Is Political Correctness Any Different from Patriotic Immunity?” The writer expands on his concern in the second half of the essay.
The fifth sentence in the fifth paragraph on page 15 reads, ただ、政治的に正しいことをやっていれば杓子定規に肯定するというのは「愛国無罪」のようなものであって、表現の軽視になりかねないと言いたいのである. Dividing a long Japanese sentence into two shorter English sentences often approves the readability of the translation, and this sentence is no exception. The word 表現 literally means “expression,” but the issues discussed in this essay pertain to a person’s expression of his/her views on a particular matter, so “self-expression” or “free expression” is arguably the focus of the writer’s concern. The word 軽視 often conveys a sense of contempt or disdain for something. If 表現 does indeed refer to “self-expression” or “free expression,” then 軽視 could indicate a threat or a danger to a right that is currently the subject of political debate in many countries around the world: free speech. Putting everything together, this sentence could read, “However, I am saying that unthinking/blanket approval of an action simply because that action is politically correct is no different from the claim that a patriotic act cannot be considered a crime. In my opinion such unthinking/blanket approval could threaten an individual’s right to self-expression.”
In the final sentence of the first paragraph on page 15 the writer describes one of the protesters’ demands: 西美は、同館のオフィシャルパートナーになっている同社に武器輸入を止めるよう働きかけるべきだ. With regard to the underlined portion, E03, E48, E53, and E64 referred to “import of weapons” or “importing weapons.” Although these translations are literally correct, it is clear from the context that the protesters are not demanding a total ban on the importation of weapons from all other countries. Rather, they would like KHI to stop “importing Israeli weapons,” as E18 indicated. (E45 referred to “the transport of weapons,” which is a misreading of the text.) The addition of this one word significantly alters the meaning of the sentence from the perspective of the English-language reader. The protest in question is not a pacifist protest; it is a protest against the actions of one particular country. Japanese is a high-context language. This means that the Japanese-language writer may assume that the writer and the reader share an understanding of many things. Accordingly, the writer does not need to explicitly state every detail related to the point the writer is trying to make. In contrast, English is a low-context language. This means (among other things) that a writer can assume very little on the part of the reader. When translating from Japanese into English, it is often necessary to provide for the English-language reader specific information that the Japanese-language writer omitted because the Japanese-language writer assumed that those details were obvious to the Japanese-language reader. This sentence provides one example of that fact.
The writer’s use of the word “J アーティスト” in the sixth paragraph on page 15 could give a translator pause. To whom is the writer referring? A specific individual or a group of people? Did the writer create this term himself, or did he borrow it from some other context? Internet research indicates that there are individuals who use some variation of “J.artist” as stage names, but those individuals have no connection to Japan. It appears that this term is simply a way to describe the “typical” Japanese artist in a rather sarcastic manner. Most of the finalists opted for “Japanese artists” or “Japanese creatives.” Either option is reasonable.
E03
Many portions of this translation are well written, but a few points deserve special attention.
At the end of the third paragraph E03 refers to “the fuss of a police mobilisation.” The word “fuss” is often used in daily conversation, but if we consider the overall tone of this essay, “fuss” is probably too casual. An alternative such as “disturbance” (E18) or “commotion” (E53, E64) would be a better choice. In a time of crisis, the term “mobilisation” or “mobilization” is generally used with regard to the military or (in the U.S.) the National Guard. In the case of law enforcement any of the following would work: “police being dispatched” (E18), “police response” (E45), “police ... intervening” (E48), “police intervention” (E53), or “police involvement.”
The second paragraph on page 15 begins with the word 昨今, which E03 translated as “last night.” E03 may have misread 昨今 as 昨夜. Good translations for 昨今 in this context include “in recent years” (E18, E64), “recently” (E45), “in recent times” (E48), and “lately” (E53).
The first half of the second sentence in the same paragraph reads, 国際的な動きにもかなうということで. Referring to other examples of protests by environmental activists, E03 offered, “Since these have been effective internationally, ...” The writer’s use of the verb かなう does not indicate that such protests have been “effective.” (Effectiveness would suggest the achievement of some goal, but that is not what the writer is discussing.) Rather, in this context かなう indicates that protests in a range of disparate locations are consistent with a pattern that has grown into an international movement. Looking ahead to the second half of the sentence, this portion could read, “As evidence that such protests are in line with an international movement, ...”
E03 handled the third paragraph on page 15 very well. The writer’s concern that he may be regarded as overly critical of the protesters comes through quite clearly.
In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 15 E03 identified three items (“the appropriateness of such guerilla tactics,” “the subject of the protest,” and “Iiyama’s closely-linked works”) that the writer suggests be considered independently of each other. If we look closely at the structure of the Japanese sentence, we note the writer’s use of the particle とand a comma after 抗議のやり方. This suggests that the writer intended to list two items (抗議のやり方 and 出展作品の是非), each of which is modified by other words. (The phrase 抗議内容と密に連動する is a modifying clause that describes 飯山の出展作品.) If so, this sentence could read, “At the same time, the manner in which the unexpected protest unfolded must be considered separately from the merits of the works by Iiyama that appear in the exhibition and address the concerns raised by the protestors.” The remainder of this paragraph is well done.
The fifth sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 15 was introduced in the General Comments. In the translation of the clause 表現の軽視になりかねない (“runs the risk of taking the pronouncement too lightly”) E03 understood the word 表現 to be a reference to a specific action. However, in this paragraph the writer is focused on large concepts: political correctness and patriotic immunity. In this context 表現 probably refers to a third large concept: “self-expression,” which the writer views as potentially threatened by excesses associated with the other two concepts. If so, the final clause of this sentence (表現の軽視になりかねない) could be rendered, “such unthinking/blanket approval could threaten an individual’s right to self-expression.” The remainder of this paragraph is well done.
E03 shows potential but needs to remember that each sentence in a document is part of the larger message that the writer is trying to convey. When revising a translation, it is important to consider how each sentence fits into that overall message.
E18
E18 understood most elements of this essay, but some portions could be improved.
The title of the essay was discussed in detail in the General Comments section. E18 chose to express 政治的に正しい as “Political Stance” and 愛国無罪 as “Patriotic Innocence.” The term “politically correct” is widely used to refer to opinions that fall into a specific category, and 政治的に正しい seems to be a Japanese rendering of this concept. In contrast, “political stance” is a very neutral term that could apply to anyone, regardless of the content of that person’s views. The writer of this essay seems to focus on people who hold a specific set of views, so “politically correct” or “political correctness” would be the term we need. It is true that Google Translate offered “patriotic innocence” as a translation for 愛国無罪, while DeepL offered “patriotic and innocent.” However, the writer does not seem to be interested in whether a person is guilty or innocent of anything. Rather, he seems to be interested in whether people (and the views they espouse) should or should not be protected from punishment. For that reason, “patriotic immunity” is a better choice than “patriotic innocence.” The same comments apply to the fifth paragraph on page 15, in which the writer discusses these same topics in greater detail.
In the third paragraph the writer explains what the protesters were opposed to (「パレスチナで現在起きているイスラエル政府のジェノサイド」). E18 accurately rendered the content but did not enclose that content in quotation marks. It is true that 鉤括弧 in Japanese do not always require quotation marks in an English translation, but this appears to be a direct quote from the protesters, so quotation marks should be included.
In the first paragraph on page 15 the writer explains the connection in the eyes of the protesters between KHI and genocide. The second sentence in E18’s translation of this paragraph reads, “This means they’re complicit in genocide.” E18 clearly understood the sentence. This issue here is one of expression. The word “they’re” is often used in casual conversation, but an essay of this type requires a more formal tone. Also, one might ask, “Who exactly is ‘they’?” A comparable sentence in a comparable English-language magazine would probably read, “This means the company is complicit in genocide.” The final sentence in the same paragraph begins with the word “Finally.” The use of “finally” suggests that the writer is adding another item to some kind of list, but that is not the case in this instance. This sentence is a logical conclusion drawn by the protesters from the information provided in the previous sentence. Thus, the word “finally” should be omitted. On the other hand, the second half of this same sentence in the source text contains no explicit mention of Israel, but E18 astutely recognized that the proposed ban would prevent KHI “from importing Israeli weapons.”
The third paragraph on page 15 begins with なるほど, which E18 translated as “Suddenly.” In this paragraph the writer transitions from a general discussion of political protests to the writer’s own thoughts about such protests. In this context, a better translation of なるほど would be “Indeed” (E03, E45) or “Having said that” (E48).
In the fifth paragraph on page 15 the writer lists three criteria that he considers valuable metrics for the evaluation of statements in the public sphere. E18’s rendering of these metrics (“How eloquently that information is conveyed, how extensively it was researched, and how widely it appeals to an audience are just a few of the additional criteria we can consider.”) shows excellent facility with language. In the final sentence of the same paragraph the writer indicates his concern about 表現の軽視. E18 noted that blanket endorsements based on political correctness “could lead to your statement being brushed aside.” Throughout most of this translation E18 maintained the tone that an English-language reader would expect to encounter in a magazine of this caliber. However, the writer of this type of essay would probably not include a reference to “you” in the text of the essay. In addition, the 表現 in this final sentence of the paragraph refers back to the same 表現 that appeared in the first sentence of the paragraph. Thus, a more general term—“expression” or “self-expression”—is called for. Good options include “which could lead to undervaluing expression” (E45), “it risks undermining people’s expression” (E48), and “risks losing sight of the intrinsic value of expression itself” (E53).
The sixth paragraph on page 15 begins with the word とことが. E18 chose “Incidentally.” The word “incidentally” is normally used to introduce information that is of passing interest, not to introduce a topic that is key to the overall point the writer is trying to make. If we look carefully at the flow of ideas from the previous paragraph into this paragraph, we see that in this paragraph the writer informs the reader that not everyone agrees with the concern he outlined in the previous paragraph. This is an important element of the writer’s overall message. If so, better options for ところが include “However” (E03, E45, E64) and “Nonetheless” (E53).
E45
E45’s use of “Patriotic Immunity” in the title and again in the body of the essay shows a good understanding of the writer’s overall message.
In the second paragraph the writer explains that Matsukata acquired the works that became the core of the NMWA’s collection 欧州で (“in Europe”), but this information is missing from E45’s translation. Otherwise, this paragraph is well done.
In the third paragraph the writer explains what the protesters were opposed to (「パレスチナで現在起きているイスラエル政府のジェノサイド」). E45 accurately rendered the content but did not enclose that content in quotation marks. It is true that 鉤括弧 in Japanese do not always require quotation marks in an English translation, but this appears to be a direct quote from the protesters, so quotation marks should be included.
In the final sentence of the first paragraph on page 15 the writer describes one of the protesters’ demands: 西美は、同館のオフィシャルパートナーになっている同社に武器輸入を止めるよう働きかけるべきだ. With regard to the underlined portion, E45 indicated that the protesters wanted the company “to end the transport of weapons.” This is a misreading of the word 輸入. In addition, as mentioned in the General Comments, the protesters are specifically concerned with weapons from Israel. Thus, the underlined portion should read, “to end the importation of Israeli weapons” or “to stop importing
weapons from Israel.”
The final sentence of the third paragraph on page 15 reads 虐殺に反対するというメッセージの内容に異論があろうはずもない. E45 expressed this sentence as follows: “A message against genocide does not invite disagreement.” E45 captured the general thrust of the writer’s message, but this sentence is awkward, and any connection between this sentence and the previous sentences in this paragraph has been lost. The options provided by several other finalists maintain this important connection:
“There can also be no objection to their message that genocide should be opposed.” (E03)
“There couldn’t possibly be any objection to their central statement that they oppose genocide.” (E18)
“There should be no objection to their message of opposing genocide.” (E53)
The key question regarding the first sentence in the fourth paragraph on page 15 is, “What should be regarded separately from what?” E45 rendered this sentence as follows: “On the other hand, the merits of Iiyama’s displayed works, closely linked to the method of the sudden protest and its message, must be examined separately.” In essence E45 is saying that the merits of Iiyama’s works must be treated separately from something. That “something” is undefined. However, if we look closely at the structure of this sentence, we note the writer’s use of the particle と and a comma after 抗議のやり方. This suggests that the writer intended to identify two items (抗議のやり方 and 出展作品の是非) that should be regarded independently of each other. Each item is modified by other words. (The phrase 抗議内容と密に連動する is a modifying clause that describes 飯山の出展作品の是非.) If so, this sentence could read, “At the same time, the manner in which the unexpected protest unfolded must be considered separately from the merits of the works by Iiyama that appear in the exhibition and address the concerns raised by the protestors.”
The fifth paragraph on page 15, which is probably the key paragraph in the entire essay, is well done. E45 clearly understood the writer’s intent, and E45’s choice of words for specific portions of the paragraph (e.g., describing the three additional criteria as “quality of expression, thoroughness of research, and breadth of appeal”) would make the writer of this essay proud.
E48
E48’s take on the title (“Can the politically correct do no wrong?”) is interesting, and it is the most compact option among these six translations. The author’s concern about the excesses of political correctness certainly shows through in this title. However, any direct link to the term 愛国無罪 has been lost. Given the history of this term and its use in the PRC—as described in the General Comments—it may be better to preserve in the title some explicit connection to this term. As mentioned in the General Comments, a translation along the lines of “Is Political Correctness Any Different from Patriotic Immunity?” is probably the best option.
In the second paragraph the writer explains that Matsukata acquired the works that became the core of the NMWA’s collection 欧州で (“in Europe”), but this information is missing from E48’s translation. Otherwise, this paragraph is well done.
In the third paragraph E48 included quotation marks around the phrase that explains the target of the protestors’ outrage, which is good, but E48 chose to use single quotation marks, rather than double quotation marks. Single quotation marks also appear in the following two paragraphs. Most style guides state that double quotation marks are used for direct quotations, while single quotation marks are used to indicate a quote within a quote. Thus, double quotation marks should have been used in all three paragraphs.
The second sentence in the second paragraph on page 15 reads, 国際的な動きにもかなうということで、飯山らの行動には SNS 上で賛同する声が早々に上がった. E48 expressed this sentence as follows: “Because they are well suited for international movement in particular, Iiyama and her allies have quickly gained traction on social media.” The verb かなう can indeed carry the meaning “to be suitable (for something).” However, in this instance かなう indicates that protests in a range of disparate locations fit a pattern that has grown into an international movement. Also, E48’s use of “they” is problematic. E48 rendered the first sentence in this paragraph as, “In recent times art museums have become a stage for political performances, by climate activists and the like.” Does the word “they” in the second sentence refer back to the art museums? To the political performances? To the climate activists? Or is “they” a reference to “Iiyama and her allies”? Different readers might reach different conclusions. One option for the first half of this sentence that avoids such issues is the following: “As evidence that such protests are in line with an international movement, ...” The second half of the sentence is fine.
The challenge in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 15 is to determine what the writer thinks should be considered separately from what. E48 offered the following translation: “Having said that, we can critique her tactics as someone who colludes with other artists to stage disruptive protests. But we must do this without attacking her exhibition piece.” If we look closely at the structure of the Japanese sentence, we note the writer’s use of the particle と and a comma after the phrase 抗議のやり方. This suggests that 抗議のやり方 is to be considered separately from 飯山の出展作品の是非. This, in turn, means that the phrase 抗議内容と密に連動する describes the 出展作品. The verb 連動する is often used to represent an action, and this may be why E48 translated 連動する as “colludes.” However, 連動する can also indicate that one entity is linked to another, and that is the case here. Based on this analysis, this sentence could read, “At the same time, the manner in which the unexpected protest unfolded must be considered separately from the merits of the works by Iiyama that appear in the exhibition and address the concerns raised by the protestors.”
In the fifth paragraph on page 15 the writer suggests alternative metrics for evaluating actions or statements. For the second metric (調査の徹底度) E48 suggested “scientific rigour.” If we consider the range of actions or statements the writer may have in mind, this translation is probably too narrow. (For example, there is nothing scientific about the example of the protest at the NMWA.) An option such as “how extensively it was researched” (E18), “thoroughness of research” (E45), “the rigor of investigation” (E53), or “depth of research” (E64) would be a better choice.
In the remainder of this paragraph the writer expands upon the theme he expressed in the title of this essay. E48 tried to be creative but seemed to lose track of the content. With the sentence “But if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” E48 drifted too far from the point the writer was trying to make. Consequently, the writer’s actual message has been lost. It is not clear where the following sentence (“And if the only thing you consider is political correctness, then everything looks politically incorrect.”) came from. This paragraph was discussed in detail in the General Comments.
Most of the remainder of this essay is well done. However, the final sentence (肝心の展示を見ずしてバッシングに加わる人間の多さがその証拠だった。) in the seventh paragraph on page 15 deserves additional thought. E48’s translation reads, “The number of people ignoring the point of the exhibition to add to the pile-on is testament to that.” The phrase 肝心の展示 refers to an “important exhibition” or a “crucial exhibition,” rather than “the point of the exhibition.” If that is the case, the verb 見ずして can be understood to mean “without seeing (something),” rather than “ignoring (something).” If so, this sentence could read, “The sheer number of people who have levied intense criticism without even viewing the exhibition that is at the center of this debate is evidence of this fact.”
E53
Generally speaking, a good translation requires solid comprehension of the content from the source text and facility in the expression of that content in the translation. E53 has combined both attributes in this translation.
The first sentence of the third paragraph on page 15 reads なるほど、彼女たちの問題意識はわかりやすい. E53’s translation reads, “I understand their desire to problematize and question; their concerns are clear.” The text that appears before the semicolon seems to be an attempt to account for the presence of なるほど as the initial word of this sentence. However, E53’s effort may be overdone. In this context なるほど could be understood to mean, “I get it,” but this overly informal phrase would not be suitable for an essay of this type. A more appropriate translation that accounts for the presence of なるほど would be, “Indeed, their concerns are clear.”
In many ways the fifth paragraph on page 15 is the key paragraph of the entire essay. An essay in a magazine usually has one overriding message, and it is in this paragraph that the writer reveals that message. A clear understanding of the writer’s thoughts in this paragraph provides clarity into the writer’s intended meaning in other parts of the essay. E53 did an excellent job in expressing the writer’s thinking and the writer’s concern.
In the final sentence (世界の潮流を知らない、「J アーティスト」的な振る舞いだというのだ。) of the sixth paragraph on page 15 the writer makes specific reference to a 「J アーティスト」的な振る舞い. E53 rendered this sentence as, “Critics labeled them as tone-deaf and ignorant of global affairs.” In the entire essay the writer encloses only three terms (excluding the names of exhibitions and the names of specific pieces of art) in 鉤括弧: 愛国無罪, 政治的な正しさ, and J アーティスト. That decision may have been made because the writer viewed these terms as central to his overall message. If so, a translation that holds fast to the writer’s intent should explicitly include all three terms. E53 incorporated 愛国無罪 and 政治的な正しさ, but not J アーティスト. One issue that is touched upon in the second paragraph of the essay—and is an important aspect of the NMWA exhibition—is the question of whether or not Japanese artists have “caught up” with the rest of the world. This emphasis on Japanese artists is another reason to account for J アーティスト explicitly. One option would be the following: “This view has been called the view of a typical Japanese artist—someone who knows nothing of the trends coursing through the modern world.”
E64
E64’s take on the title (“Is political correctness exempt from criticism?”) is interesting, and it is concise. The author’s concern about political correctness certainly shows through in this title. However, any direct link to the term 愛国無罪 has been lost. Given the history of this term and its use in the PRC—as described in the General Comments—it may be better to preserve in the translation of the title some explicit connection to this term. A translation along the lines of “Is Political Correctness Any Different from Patriotic Immunity?” is probably the best option.
In the first paragraph the writer states that the exhibition in question is a 現代美術の企画展. However, E64 described the exhibition simply as “a special exhibition.” The fact that the exhibition is devoted to “modern/contemporary art” is a significant aspect of the story the writer is telling in these opening paragraphs, and this fact should definitely appear in the translation.
In the second paragraph E64 states that “The NMWA was founded in 1959 by Kojiro Matsukata.” The source text does not say that the NMWA was founded by Matsukata, who died in 1950. Rather, the text indicates that the core of the NMWA’s collection was acquired by Matsukata, who provided the inspiration for the founding of the NMWA. This is a significant difference. One option would be the following: “The NMWA opened in 1959, with the bulk/core of its collection at that time being works of art acquired in Europe during World War I by Matsukata Kojiro, then president of Kawasaki Dockyard Company.”
In the first paragraph on page 15 the writer indicates that KHI is 現在、イスラエルよりドローンを輸入して防衛省に販売しようとしている. E64 stated that KHI is “currently importing drones from Israel and selling them to the Ministry of Defence.” However, the pattern 販売しようとしている makes it clear that KHI is “attempting
to sell” such drones. At the time of the protest no sales had occurred, and the protesters hoped to prevent any sales from taking place.
The first sentence of the third paragraph on page 15 reads なるほど、彼女たちの問題意識はわかりやすい. E64’s translation reads, “It’s evident that Iiyama and her group are deeply passionate about their cause.” The word 問題意識 generally refers to an “awareness” of something or a “concern” about something, rather than an emotional response to something. If so, this sentence could read, “Indeed, it is not difficult to understand the concerns of Iiyama and her colleagues.”
In the fourth paragraph on page 15 the writer begins to hedge in his assessment of the protest. The first sentence in this paragraph reads そのいっぽうで、このような突発的な抗議のやり方と、抗議内容と密に連動する飯山の出展作品の是非については別に検討されなければならない. E64 expressed this content as follows: “At the same time, it shouldn’t be taboo to critique the ways in which Iiyama conducted her unannounced protest. Onlookers should be able to judge her exhibits, as they provide context to her activism.” It is difficult to see how E64 arrived at this translation. The main clause of this sentence consists of the following: ... のやり方と、... 飯山の出展作品の是非については別に検討されなければならない. Thus, the writer urges the reader to consider the やり方 and the 是非 separately/independently of each other. Filling in the missing pieces, this sentence could read, “At the same time, the manner in which the unexpected protest unfolded must be considered separately from the merits of the works by Iiyama that appear in the exhibition and address the concerns raised by the protestors.” The remainder of this paragraph is well done.
E64 begins the fifth paragraph on page 15 on a strong note. “My personal view is that political correctness should not be the only lens through which we evaluate one’s argument. We must also consider other metrics—...” The content is accurate, and the tone is exactly what the reader expects at this point in the essay. However, the third metric suggested by the writer is 幅広い訴求性, which E64 rendered as “persuasiveness.” If 訴求性 is understood to mean “appeal,” then 幅広い訴求性 would be “broad appeal.”
The remainder of this paragraph is problematic. E64 may have been trying to be creative, but the translation (“Activists who hide behind a shield of political correctness for validation often mirror extreme nationalists who wield patriotism like a weapon—in both cases, their claims lack substance.”) deviates too far from the writer’s intended meaning to be effective. The final sentence in this paragraph reads ただ、政治的に正しいことをやっていれば杓子定規に肯定するというのは「愛国無罪」のようなものであって、表現の軽視になりかねないと言いたいのである. The comma divides this sentence into two distinct parts. In the first part of the sentence the writer compares a blanket endorsement of activities simply because they are politically correct to the concept of “patriotic immunity.” (This concept was discussed at length in the General Comments.) In the second part of the sentence the writer expresses his concern that such behavior could lead to 表現の軽視 (the devaluing of free expression or a threat to self-expression). In this sentence the term 表現 carries a general meaning for society as a whole; the author is not referring to the kind of specific action that is the focus of the first part of the sentence. Putting everything together, this sentence could read, “However, I am saying that unthinking/blanket approval of an action simply because that action is politically correct is no different from the claim that a patriotic act cannot be considered a crime. In my opinion such unthinking/blanket approval could threaten the right to self-expression.”
The sixth paragraph on page 15 is well done. The phrase “nuanced perspective” expresses the fine line that the writer is attempting to walk as he considers the proper role for political correctness in modern society, and the description of some Japanese artists as “blissfully ignorant of international topics” captures the intended meaning of J アーティスト.