British writer and editor David Ferguson, honorary chief English editor of the Foreign Languages Press, one of the oldest publishing houses in China, is also a recipient of the Chinese government Friendship Award, the highest award given to foreigners for contributions to building bridges between China and the outside world. He is also the chief English editor of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, a collection of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speeches, letters and articles in four volumes. His interests include China’s poverty alleviation experience, the use of English in China, Chinese theories and initiatives, and the history of the Communist Party of China.

A photo presents the front profile of David Ferguson. He stands wearing a medal around his neck.

David Ferguson

David Ferguson talks about the complexities of communicating Chinese thoughts effectively to the outside world. Translating key terms in Chinese political discourse is often a challenge. For example, the phrase jiaqiang dang de jianshe (加强党的建设), which literally means “party building.” Can foreign readers understand this or will they mistakenly think it is about a building that can be visited? In a world where the Western media controls the international discourse, communicating China’s real image and true stories, and thereby China’s voice to the West, needs effective communication.

CNS: With China’s international influence increasing, Western countries are giving greater emphasis to Chinese issues but the results have often been disappointing. Why do the things that China wants to convey to the West often end up being misinterpreted or misunderstood?

David Ferguson: It’s a mistake to consider it as “misunderstanding,” which suggests a problem that can be resolved by providing the facts and reason. The fact is that China is being subjected to a deliberate campaign of misrepresentation and stigmatization by the Western media and politicians, with the intent of creating hostility to China. The U.S. calls the shots in the Western world. Having been the top dog in the world, it now sees a challenger to its predominance, and its first response is to lash out—to destroy the “China threat” that exists only in its twisted psyche—rather than to seek partnership and accommodation. The rest of the West is simply following the U.S. Some Western media fabricate stories, not reporting the truth on China-related subjects.

China has to recognize that trying to solve the problem by explaining things better is no use. The people behind the campaign have no intention of allowing China to present a more balanced and accurate picture, and they have the power to block or distort information coming from the Chinese side because the international discourse is in the hands of Western media.

CNS: Is there an effective solution to this situation?

David Ferguson: Once China realizes that there is a deliberate campaign of misrepresentation and stigmatization by the Western media and politicians in the international arena, I think the best way to tackle the situation is to invest more in its informal discourse—its soft power—and to directly reach out to Western audiences.

For example, they can bypass the Western media through movies—bear in mind that a movie goes directly to its final audience without being distorted through local political and media filters. The Chinese are good at making big movies. My People, My Country (an anthology of seven stories by seven directors on seven defining moments in the annals of the People’s Republic of China), released on the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic, is such a clever film. While preserving the formal political discourse as the official voice, China should, at the same time, develop its informal discourse to engage with Western audiences on a human level.

CNS: How to make foreigners who have no idea of China’s history or culture better understand China’s political discourse? What are the problems in translating China’s policies and political concepts?

David Ferguson: The most important issue in translating political discourse is not just translating words but presenting the message.

For example, the word kexue (科学) appears frequently in the Chinese political discourse. It is mostly translated literally into “science” or “scientific.” But in English, “science” refers to natural science, which is obviously not the meaning in China’s political discourse. The “Scientific Outlook on Development,” (the concept put forward by a key meeting of the CPC in 2003 to address the fallouts of China’s rapid economic growth, such as pollution, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and excessive consumption of resources, through sustainable development), is a perfect example of this. This concept represented a massive transformation in China’s development strategy—a switch from purely economic growth to a balanced strategy considering economic, social and environmental factors. But the words in the English translation capture nothing of this—they make it sound like some kind of technocratic scheme involving chemistry and physics. So China missed a huge opportunity to send a vital and important message to the world about a fundamental strategic change.

China’s political discourse is very conceptual and abstract in nature, so you have to deconstruct the concept and provide Western audiences with the actual meaning behind the concept. An example of good translation is “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”

“Xi Jinping Thought” represents a philosophy and a set of values and principles that will persist over a long period of time. Therefore, great care was given to the wording, which had to be weighed and optimized.

The initial draft used the words “in the new era.” However, this seemed to suggest that the “new era” was something that was being imposed on China by external forces, and that China was reacting. The most senior experts in Chinese translation circles went over this and then it was agreed to use “for a new era,” which implies that China is driving and proactively controlling the development trends of the new era.

“Party building” is one of the biggest problems. It’s a very important and often-used expression, but if you say it to English speakers who know nothing about China’s discourse, their first reaction will be that you are talking about a building maybe where you take children to hold their birthday party. Therefore, it should be translated as “strengthening the Party.”

CNS: When conveying China’s political discourse to the West, how can it be an international discourse? When translating China’s policies and political concepts, what could cause misunderstandings and how to avoid them?

David Ferguson: English is the international language, so China has to make its discourse understandable in English. Eighty years ago, Chairman Mao made a speech during the Yan’an Rectification movement (held in Yan’an, a remote, mountainous city in Shaanxi Province in the northwest, the stronghold of the communists, with the objective of “rectifying mistaken ideas,” including the blind imitation of the Soviet model). Mao called it “Oppose stereotyped Party writing”—in which he criticized the Party’s writing style.

Then in 2005, Xi Jinping, who was then Party secretary of Zhejiang Province in east China, wrote an article detailing similar criticism, and warning against issues like repetition, verbosity, clichés and formulaic writing.

China has to adopt these counsels when conveying its political discourse to foreigners. Things like the “Two Upholds,”Footnote 1 the “Three Represents,”Footnote 2 the “Four Confidences,”Footnote 3 etc. may confuse the Western public who has no idea of their importance and what is behind them.

We need a completely new approach that starts by recognizing that there’s a problem. We need to stop fussing about whether something is the same as the Chinese version and start looking to create a message that is understandable. The best way to do that is to ask yourself, “How would a native English speaker express this?” rather than “How can we translate this from Chinese?”.

CNS: Can translation of China’s political discourse correct Western preconceptions about China?

David Ferguson: In my view it is an issue of culture, not translation. I think translators and interpreters should play a far more active role in the process of conveying China’s political discourse.

Creativity has to play a greater role in political translation than in other translations because political discourse is dry in nature and hard to understand. So translators and interpreters should learn to not only translate the words but also analyze the message and even make some adaptations. This is one way to correct Western preconceptions of China.

(Interviewed by Chen Jinghan)