“On the Road” in China: the cultural dynamics and the historical transformations of its Chinese retranslations (1962–2006)

Abstract

From the perspective of cross-cultural communications, translation is frequently perceived as a cross-cultural process influenced by ideological forces. The history of the multiple Chinese retranslations of On the Road—a cornerstone of American Beat literature—published in mainland China between the 1960s and the early twenty-first century serves as a compelling testament to this notion. Over the decades, this novel has been translated into five distinct Chinese editions, with interpretations of the original text fluctuating significantly—from being dismissed as literary trash to being celebrated as a literary classic. By situating these shifts in textual interpretation within the historical and sociocultural context of mainland China, this paper seeks to demonstrate that the relationship between ideology and translation is neither linear nor unidirectional. Instead, it often exhibits more intricate dynamics. On one hand, there are evident cases of manipulation, or what might be described as collusion, between translation and prevailing ideologies. On the other hand, translation can also evolve independently of ideological frameworks, occasionally diverging to the extent of challenging or even subverting dominant ideologies. Such a phenomenon underscores the inherent autonomy of translation as sociocultural acts.

Introduction

To date, five Chinese editions of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road¹ have been published in mainland China. Over the years, the interpretation of these translations has undergone notable transformations, beginning with its initial reception as literary trash and culminating in its canonization as a literary classic. These dramatic shifts underscore the subtle yet profound impact of ideology. From a socio-cultural perspective, such phenomena are often attributed to the manipulation of translation by ideology. However, this explanation risks oversimplifying the nuanced interplay between the two. A closer analysis reveals that the evolving interpretations of these five Chinese translations do not entirely align with the trajectory of dominant ideological shifts in mainland China during the same period. For instance, while the 1962 Chinese edition dismissed On the Road as literary trash, the 1998 edition elevated it to the status of a literary classic, representing a complete reversal in interpretation. By contrast, mainland China’s dominant ideological discourse, though it evolved significantly over this period, did not exhibit such an abrupt or total reversal. This suggests that translation and ideology can at times follow divergent paths, challenging the simplistic, linear model of ideological manipulation.

Much of the existing scholarship on the relationship between ideology and translation tends to emphasize the unidirectional influence of ideology on translation. Consequently, it often fails to account for cases where the trajectories of translation and ideology do not align. By situating the five Chinese editions of this literary classic within their respective sociocultural contexts, this study seeks to analyze how the shifting Chinese interpretations of the novel parallel or diverge from the evolution of mainland Chinese ideological trends. The objective is to illuminate the complexities underlying the relationship between translation and ideology and, in doing so, to deepen our understanding of the sociocultural dimensions of translation practices.

The manipulation of translation by ideology

Analyzing translation through the lens of ideology provides valuable insights into its sociocultural dimensions. André Lefevere, a prominent figure in this research paradigm, posits that ideology serves as a central force shaping the translation process. It often dictates decisions regarding which texts are chosen for translation and the strategies employed in their rendition (2010: 16). Drawing inspiration from Lefevere’s theory, Chinese scholars have explored similar phenomena within the Chinese context, uncovering the pervasive role of ideology in influencing translation practices.

For instance, Wang Dongfeng highlights that in the early twentieth century, Yan Fu, a prominent Chinese enlightenment (around 1920) thinker and translator, adapted his translations by selectively omitting content from the source texts or incorporating his own commentary. These practices, deeply rooted in his ideological goal of enlightening the masses, underscore the ideological motivations behind his translation strategies (2003: 16–23). Similarly, Liang Qichao, another leading enlightenment thinker, employed translation as a tool to raise public awareness. His translations frequently included digressions, humorous remarks, and even lines from Byron’s poetry that he deemed appropriate for China’s national context, reflecting his ideological commitment to general deducation of the public (Luo Xuanmin, 2006: 56–62).

In mid- to late twentieth-century China, the influence of ideology on translation remained equally pronounced. Studies of translation practices during this period have consistently reached similar conclusions. For example, Wang Xiaoyuan’s analysis of the 1950s Chinese translations of Longfellow’s The Song of Hiawatha reveals that the ideological climate of the time, marked by intense opposition between China and the West, shaped translation practices. The primary goal of these translations was to foster an ideological environment that resisted Western political, economic, and cultural hegemony (1999: 10–4). Likewise, Wang Yougui’s research on text selection in the 1930s and 1940s highlights a deliberate preference for works by authors from “weaker” nationalities over those by British or American writers. Mao Dun, a renowned Chinese writer, and Bing Xin, despite their extensive knowledge of English and Western literature, notably avoided translating major British or American authors. Instead, they focused on translating works that aligned with the ideological priorities of their time (Wang, 2003: 11–15). Similarly, from the 1950s to the 1970s, translations of Russian and Soviet literature flourished, while modern Western literature was conspicuously absent from translation efforts.

Li (2008) further observes that the ideological manipulation of translation operates on multiple levels, including the motivations behind translation, the strategies employed, and even the unspoken assumptions about the nature of translation itself (2008: 9–15). Supporting this view, Sun Yifeng asserts that when meaning is rearticulated in translation, source texts are often appropriated and rewritten, primarily under the influence of ideology. This process highlights how ideology profoundly shapes translators’ strategic choices (2003b: 4–10).

Whether examining history or describing the translation process, the aforementioned studies provide valuable insights into how mainstream ideology in China during specific historical periods influenced translation, thereby offering a localized interpretation of Lefevere’s theory. However, as previously noted, these discussions often portray translation as entirely subservient to ideology—depicting it as a passive, obedient instrument. Such a portrayal neglects the aspirations and agency of translators, as well as the potential dissatisfaction or resistance that may arise when translators are coerced or subjected to ideological suppression. Translation is not only subject to ideological manipulation but can also deviate from or even challenge it. Recognizing this dynamic adds depth to our understanding of the intricate relationship between translation and ideology.

To explore the intricate interplay among these elements, this study adopts a diachronic descriptive approach, integrating Lefevere’s tripartite manipulation theory and Venuti’s theory of resistant translation as its analytical framework. Lefevere’s constraint model (1992) identifies three key factors governing translation:

• Ideology: A deeply embedded normative system that guides translators’ textual additions, omissions, and discursive reframing.

• Poetics: Literary conventions of the target culture that impose alignment with prevailing esthetic norms.

• Patronage: Institutions of power (e.g., governments, publishers) that influence the production and circulation of translations through resource allocation.

These constraints operate as a “manipulation apparatus.” When the heterogeneity of the source text challenges the norms of the target culture, they typically trigger domestication strategies that neutralize such differences—rendering translations “transparent” while obscuring underlying power dynamics. Venuti’s theory of resistant translation (1995, 1998, 2019) offers a critical counterpoint: translators can adopt resistant strategies to deliberately preserve cultural difference and resist the ethnocentric violence embedded in domestication. By retaining foreignizing features (e.g., non-standard syntax, literal renditions of culture-specific elements), resistant translation disrupts readers’ expectations of fluency and naturalness, compelling them to confront cultural incommensurability and thus undermining hegemonic norms.

Importantly, resistance does not operate outside of these three constraints but rather within them. Its feasibility depends on the dynamic negotiation between poetics and patronage. For example:

• When patronage shifts toward market-driven models, poetics-based preferences for “literariness” may create a space for resistant translation.

• Translators can exploit such openings to embed foreignness beneath superficially domesticated structures—engaging in what Venuti calls “resistant rewriting.”

In essence, translation serves both as a product of manipulation under institutional constraints and as a means of ideological subversion through resistance. This dual functionality allows for the strategic contestation of dominant cultural values from within. The integrated framework thus offers a robust analytical lens to trace translational shifts from complicity to subversion.

Guided by this framework, the study examines three Chinese translations of On the Road (1962/1990/1998). Paratextual analysis (e.g., translators’ prefaces) investigates ideological positioning and canonization trajectories, while descriptive textual analysis compares the treatment of key lexical and discursive features to reveal the interplay between translation strategies and ideological orientations.

Following the establishment of mainstream ideology in mainland China in 1949, its influence was prominently reflected in the literary and artistic domain, where “proletarian literature” emerged as the dominant framework (Mao, 1996: 474). This framework was encapsulated in the dictum: “Put political standards first, and artistic standards second.” Under this ideological mandate, literary activities, including translation, predominantly exhibited “collusion” with mainstream values, while “subversive” elements were actively suppressed. The 1962 Chinese edition of On the Road exemplifies this dynamic. In this translation, decisions surrounding text selection, translation strategies, and paratextual elements vividly illustrate the manipulation of mainstream ideology.

The selection of On the Road was a deliberate choice, intended to serve as a counterpoint to so-called “progressive” works. At the time, “progressive” was a key term in ideological discourse, particularly under the guiding principle of socialist realism, which dominated literature and art from the 1950s to the mid-1970s. Works that adhered to socialist realism were deemed “progressive,” whereas Western modernist literature, such as absurdist fiction, existentialist works, and the Beat Generation, was labeled “regressive” and associated with capitalist ideology. In an effort to underscore the vitality and promise of socialist China, publishers such as the People’s Literature Publishing House and China Theatre Press undertook the translation of certain modernist works, aiming to expose the perceived decadence and decline of capitalism. These translations were marked by uniform design elements, such as yellow or gray covers—colors imbued with symbolic political significance. Furthermore, they were designated “For internal use only,” with a strictly limited print run of 900 copies, reserved exclusively for readers in leadership positions. On the Road was among these works.

Originally published in 1957, On the Road captures the rebellious spirit of American youth in the aftermath of World War II. The novel follows the wanderings of Sal, Dean, and their companions, chronicling their bohemian lifestyles characterized by relentless travel, excessive drinking, drug use, sexual escapades, and reckless driving. Through these episodes, the novel portrays their defiance of societal norms and rejection of the stifling socio-political climate of post-war America. Instead of conforming to mainstream values, the protagonists exhibit disdain and resistance toward an America they perceive as betraying its tradition of freedom. The narrative seeks to awaken readers’ moral and social consciousness, probing how humanity might evolve in the wake of the collapse of traditional values. Upon its release, On the Road was celebrated in the English-speaking world as the definitive masterpiece of the Beat Generation. Also, the publication of On the Road garnered attention across the Pacific, but the cultural distance effectively dismantled the Western understanding of the text in mainland China. Presented to Chinese readers as “literary trash,” the novel’s reception in China stood in stark contrast to its acclaim in the English-speaking world. This divergence in interpretation echoed the intense ideological hostility that defined Sino-American relations during the period. With two opposing ideological systems, such contradictory readings of the text were almost inevitable.

The 1962 Chinese edition, released by the Writer’s Publishing House, was translated by scholars specializing in American literature and translation. However, ~40 percent of the original text was omitted, including entire chapters. Much of the excised content related to the protagonists’ bohemian lifestyles—critical passages that celebrated freedom and individuality, which are central to the novel’s themes. These elements fundamentally clashed with the ideals of proletarian literature, likely explaining their removal. The translator’s afterword confirms this motive, stating: “We have published this so-called “representative work” of the “Beat Generation” in abridged form mainly to let readers see the so-called “Beat Generation” as a social phenomenon, to see how capitalism continues to decay and move further into reaction, and to see what sorts of rotten, foul things the American bourgeoisie is propagating” (Shi and Wen, 1962: 322). Regarding the novel’s literary value, the translator bluntly remarks: “On the Road barely qualifies as a “novel.” The original is even more disorganized than this abridged version, filled with countless tedious repetitions and trivial travel notes, which have now mostly been omitted” (ibid).

These remarks reflect the dominant ideological discourse of the time in mainland China. Beyond fulfilling the publishers’ requirements (i.e., those of the patrons), this translation process demonstrates the forceful manipulation of a text by ideological forces. The protagonists’ bohemian behaviors—drinking, casual sex, and drug use—were deemed to “spread bourgeois decadence” and thus had to be eliminated. Otherwise, the translator risked being criticized for deviating from the standards of proletarian literature. The abridgment and the translator’s explanatory notes clearly underscore their political stance, denouncing Western liberal ideas while reinforcing socialist ideology. Under the rigid ideological atmosphere of that era, escaping “collusion” with mainstream ideology was nearly impossible; failure to comply could result in severe political repercussions.

In this context, the collusion between translation and ideology became so pronounced that poetics was relegated to a marginal position. The narrative structure was disrupted, leading to inconsistencies and occasional logical gaps, and the text largely lost its literary essence as a classic. While the novel was celebrated as a masterpiece in the English-speaking world, its cultural status as a classic was almost entirely erased in the Chinese abridgment. Consequently, Chinese readers encountering this version would likely have perceived it as nothing more than “literary trash.” Perhaps more precisely, it would have been nearly impossible for them to recognize it as a classic at all. From this perspective, describing the relationship between translation and ideology during this period as mere “manipulation” seems inadequate; “violence” may be a more fitting term. Despite the severe ideological constraints that dismembered the novel’s literary qualities and restricted its circulation to “internal use only,” On the Road quietly found its way into the hands of young readers. This underground dissemination may have subtly foreshadowed the shift in interpretation that would emerge nearly three decades later.

The “subversion” of translation

By the mid-1970s, China had emerged from the “ten years of turmoil,” signaling a gradual retreat of class-struggle rhetoric from mainstream ideological discourse. This shift opened up greater space for the development of diverse ideologies. While mainstream ideology underwent significant adjustments during this time, it did not shift to the opposite extreme. Due to the deep inertia accumulated over nearly three decades since 1949, the previously dominant ideology persisted rather than disappearing abruptly. The 1980s thus became a period characterized by the coexistence of socialist ideology with a range of emerging ideologies. During this era, many young people in China experienced a sense of confusion, akin to the societal disorientation that marked post–World War II America. It was precisely this environment that rekindled interest in On the Road and drove the demand for its retranslation.

In 1990, Lijiang Publishing House released a new Chinese edition of On the Road, translated by two young translators. This version restored much of the content that had been omitted in the 1962 edition, although eleven pages of the original text (pp. 152–154 and 196–203) were still excluded. Unlike the 1962 edition, which removed extensive passages depicting the characters’ rebellious behaviors—such as wandering, drug use, and sexual activity—the 1990 translation retained these elements, only excising sections explicitly dealing with sex. As a result, this edition largely reclaimed the novel’s original thematic intent, in contrast to the earlier version, which had distorted its core meaning. However, when measured against the English original’s standing as a literary classic, the 1990 translation still fell short, existing as a transitional artifact between “trash” and “classic.” This intermediate status aligned with the more open but still tentative ideological climate of 1980s China.

In the mid-1980s, mainland China experienced a political campaign opposing “bourgeois liberalization.” This campaign represented the mainstream ideology’s attempt to counter the growing ideological pluralism fostered by the reform era. Although the campaign did not entirely reverse the trend toward diversification, it reactivated remnants of the dominant ideological framework from the 1960s and 1970s, thereby slowing the pace of ideological transformation.

The paratexts of the 1990 translation reflect this tension between ideological progress and retreat. In their preface, the translators acknowledged the novel’s depiction of American youth’s emotional struggles while simultaneously questioning its artistic merit. This ambivalent stance created a balance of praise and critique, deliberately positioning the text in a state of ideological ambiguity.

“Much like other works of the Beat Generation, On the Road merely describes a group of marginal drifters, living wild and carefree lives. It reflects a new sense of feeling and a new attitude toward life, namely a rebellion against reality as well as a commitment to self-actualization and self-expression.” (Tao, 1990: 4)

A comparison with the 1962 edition’s afterword, which was steeped in highly politicized rhetoric shaped by mainland China’s unique historical climate, underscores the significant shifts in attitudes over time. Although the 1990 translation can still be regarded as an “intermediate product,” it marks the beginning of the deconstruction of mainstream ideological control over translation. Simultaneously, translation as a literary activity began to assert its constructive agency, with its subversive potential in relation to mainstream ideology gradually coming into focus.

By the 1990s, China’s economic reforms and open-door policy had gained substantial momentum, fostering increasingly pluralistic social and intellectual currents. Amid the formation of modernity discourse, there was a growing demand for literary explorations of modernity. It was within this context that the 1998 translation of On the Road emerged. Unlike the 1990 edition’s cautiously ambivalent tone, the 1998 version boldly proclaimed the novel as a world literary classic, fully overturning the interpretation established by the 1962 edition. This reversal represented an outright repudiation of nearly four decades of ideological readings in mainland China.

Commissioned and published once again by Lijiang Publishing House, the 1998 version was a complete translation. The progression from the heavily abridged 1962 edition to the partially restored 1990 edition, and finally to the 1998 unabridged version, reflects the evolving attitudes toward American values in China - shifting from vehement rejection to a more appreciative and pluralistic engagement. Beginning in the late 1970s, China embarked on a historical process of modernity-building. By the 1990s, as pluralistic ideas gained traction, modernity had emerged as a prominent ideological discourse. While literary explorations of modernity were not explicitly encouraged during this time, they were no longer subject to the violent suppression that characterized earlier decades.

The 1998 translation exemplifies the subversive potential of translation. Beneath the title on the cover, the translator added the subtitle, “A Classic of World Vagabond Literature,” unequivocally affirming a fundamental stance toward the original text. The preface systematically evaluated both the thematic and artistic significance of the novel, offering a critical yet appreciative assessment of its enduring literary value:

“The nonconformist attitude of Dean and his cohorts was indeed shocking at the time, but it cannot simply be dismissed as decadent. It carried profound social implications” (Wen, 1998:7). … Their lifestyle, to some extent, foreshadowed the hippie movement, the New Left movement, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. … Dean symbolizes the antihero and countercultural spirit of the 1960s in the United States. To repressive regimes stifling individual freedoms, to unchecked power, and to the brand of idealism glorified by the American bourgeoisie, he was undoubtedly a fearsome demon; yet for the emergent “new sensibility”—an angel. (Wen, 1998: 13–14)

Whereas earlier interpretations denounced the protagonists’ rebellious lifestyles, the 1998 translator reframes them as pioneers in the quest for intellectual emancipation—marking a significant shift toward the Chinese literary world’s acceptance of the Anglophone understanding of Kerouac’s masterpiece.

In 1962, the novel was dismissed as “messy” and “illogical.” However, the 1998 translator offers a contrasting perspective, asserting: “Though the work may appear chaotic, each “incident” is quite vividly captured. thereby constituting a truly modern-day Odysseus saga of the Beat Generation, this work stands as a faithful chronicle of their lifestyle and ethos from the late 1940s to the early 1950s, presenting a faithful record of Beat lifestyles and emotions” (Wen, 1998: 12). Furthermore, the translator links the narrative style to “following the path of past thinkers,” suggesting its inheritance of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Transcendentalist tradition (Wen, 1998: 10). Consequently, the once-maligned writing style is now understood as part of a distinguished tradition in American literature. Any trace of earlier subservience to mainstream ideology has disappeared; in its place is a clear determination to challenge and overturn past criticisms.

Beyond strongly affirming the novel’s status as a literary classic, the 1998 translator also expresses dissatisfaction with its prior negative interpretations. In the preface, he writes:

“After On the Road was published, its unconventional subject matter and Kerouac’s spontaneous style attracted denunciations from a small number of critics, calling it meaningless—trash, even. But in time, Kerouac, hailed as the King of the Beat Generation, and especially On the Road, have come to be more fairly appraised” (Wen, 1998: 15).

Additionally, the translator includes essays by two American literary critics in an appendix, both of which reinforce On the Road’s literary status. These paratexts comprehensively reflect American literary scholarship’s recognition of Kerouac’s work and the cultural significance of the Beat Generation. They also underscore the translator’s ambition—and boldness—in re-establishing the novel’s canonical status in China. Through this effort, the translator sought to reshape the reception of the text, overturning the earlier “literary trash” label and restoring its rightful place as a classic.

Another manifestation of the subversive potential of translation lies in the translator’s approach to the text. This 1998 edition is the first in China to adopt a full-text translation strategy, preserving even culturally sensitive passages—such as those involving sexual content—that had previously been prime targets for censorship. Since the sexual narrative is integral to the novel’s thematic framework, the translator, aiming to present a comprehensive view of its literary value, confronted potential political and moral criticism with composure. By prioritizing a pluralistic ideology and an evolving poetics over the dictates of mainstream ideology, the translator demonstrated a commitment to faithfully representing the original.

Regarding the author’s intent, he leans toward adherence to the source text; in terms of linguistic form, he consistently employs interpretive adjustments to ensure the acceptability of the translation. When confronted with multiple semantic choices, he invariably favors expressions with positive connotations. The following example highlights the distinct approach taken in the 1998 edition, contrasting it with the earlier two Chinese versions.

Example 1:

“That’s what I was trying to tell you—that’s what I want to be. I want to be like him. He’s never hung-up, he goes every direction, he lets it all out, he knows time, he has nothing to do but rock back and forth. Man, he’s the end! You see, if you go like him all the time you’ll finally get it.” (Kerouac, 2007: 141)²

(1) “我想告诉你的就是这个--- 我想要做到的也是这个。我希望能像他这个样子。他从不停顿, 他从各个方向前进, 他什么都发泄出来, 他明白时机, 他除了摇摆什么也不用干。嘿, 他就是最后的目的! 你瞧, 只要你也老像他那样, 到最后你总会得到它的。” (Shi and Wen, 1962: 11)

(1) “What I’m trying to tell you is exactly that—this is also what I want to. achieve. I hope I can be just like him. He never stops; he goes in every direction, he lets everything out, he knows the right moment, and he doesn’t need to do anything except swing. Hey, he’s the ultimate goal! Look, if you always do what he does, in the end you’ll get it.”³

(2) “我要告诉你就是这个----这也就是我想要做的。他随心所欲, 无拘无束, 从来不会茫然无措, 他太懂得及时行乐了, 所以除了尽情摇摆, 其他什么也不干。伙计, 他可真绝了! 你瞧, 如果你一直像他那样, 最后总会得到他的。” (Tao and He, 1990: 111)

(2) “What I want to tell you is precisely this—this is what I want to do as well. He follows his heart, free and unrestrained, never at a loss, and he really knows how to seize the moment, so he doesn’t do anything except go all out. Buddy, he’s truly amazing! Look, if you keep acting like him, in the end you’ll get what he has.”

(3) “我只想对你说----我也想那么干, 要是我像他那样, 该有多好。他从不优柔寡断, 想干什么就干什么, 无拘无束, 尽情发泄, 他懂得生活, 除了狂欢作乐, 他别的全不在乎。伙计, 瞧他多痛快! 真他妈绝了! 要是你一直跟着他, 像他那样, 你准会明白那是怎么回事! ” (Wen, 1998: 167)

(3) “I just want to tell you—I want to do the same thing. Wouldn’t it be great if I could be like him? He never wavers, he does whatever he wants, unrestrained, letting it all pour out. He knows how to live; apart from reveling, he cares about nothing else. Man, look how carefree he is! He’s so damn incredible! If you stick with him, do what he does, you’ll definitely figure out what it’s all about!”

Example (1) illustrates the characteristics of collusion under a tripartite constraint system. Under intense political-ideological pressure (reflecting a state-sanctioned critical stance), the translator adopts strategies of domestication and reduction to serve dominant ideological interests:

• “he knows time” (life enlightenment) → “understand the timing” (stripping the phrase of its philosophical depth);

• “rock back and forth” (jazz improvisation) → “sway” (erasing cultural symbolism);

• “he’s the end” (ultimate truth) → “the final goal” (rendered as a vacuous slogan).

The translated text reflects clear features of ideological collusion, recasting Dean as a “blindly active and degenerate hippie” in line with the political agenda of the sponsor (Writers’ Publishing House) to “expose Western decadence.” This underscores the absolute dominance of ideology over the translation process.

Example (2) demonstrates implicit resistance under a relatively relaxed poetic framework. By the 1990s, as Chinese literary norms eased—partly due to rising esthetic expectations—the translator employed a veiled domestication strategy to introduce cultural heterogeneity:

• “never hung-up” → “unrestrained” (the slang is positively reframed, thereby diminishing its political negativity);

• “knows time” → “understand timely enjoyment” (reinterpreted through Taoist philosophy, creating local cultural resonance);

• “he is the end” → “really amazing” (neutralization of American slang to avoid potential censorship).

While superficially conforming to the dominant discourse of “opposing bourgeois decadence,” this translation begins to challenge mainstream ideology. It effectively reconstructs Dean as a “free-spirited life philosopher” via cultural translation—achieving what Venuti terms “subversion from within the system” through camouflaged domestication.

Example (3) achieves value reconstruction through resistant translation strategies. With the shift in sponsor (Yilin Publishing House adopting a market-oriented approach), greater space for resistance emerged, enabling the translator to question and overturn previous textual norms:

• “never hung-up” → “never indecisive” (retaining the colloquial tone while emphasizing Dean’s rebellious resolve);

• “knows time” → “understand life” (restoring the existentialist essence by resisting semantic dilution);

• “he is the end” → enriched as “damn it’s really amazing!” (use of profanity deliberately violates poetic taboos).

Through semantic reconstruction, the translation generates a subversive effect. The translator’s preface characterizes Dean as a “rebel hero,” while the book’s cover labels it a “World Literary Classic.” These paratextual elements, in conjunction with resistant translation strategies (drawing on Lefevere and Venuti), actively dismantle the ideological framing imposed during the 1960s.

From Example (1) to Example (3), a clear continuum from collusion to subversion emerges. The 1962 translation exemplifies Lefevere’s theory of ideological manipulation, in which the translation is wholly dominated by external power, and collusion serves as the precondition for textual survival. The 1990 translation aligns with Venuti’s strategy of disguised domestication, whereby the translator leverages poetic flexibility to subtly reshape power relations, thus achieving a muted form of subversion. The 1998 translation demonstrates that the loosening of sponsor control created space for alienation strategies, enabling the translator to actively reconstruct dominant discourses and exert a subversive influence on mainstream ideology.

The tripartite constraints that defined the 1962 context necessitated domestication and ideological collusion. However, the historical relaxation of these constraints—specifically the liberalization of poetic norms in the 1990s and the weakening of sponsor control by 1998—transformed resistant translation from a theoretical possibility into a tangible reality. Wen Chu’an’s translation directly confronts ideological hegemony through alienation techniques, marking a decisive shift: translation moves from being a passive object subjected to power to an active agent in the reconstruction of power itself.

Example 2:

“I suddenly realized that Dean, by virtue of his enormous series of sins, was becoming the Idiot, the Imbecile, the Saint and the lot.” (Kerouac, 2007: 174)

(1) “我突然领悟到, 狄恩由于他那些不胜枚举的罪行, 已经成为我这样人中的白痴、低能儿和圣者了。” (Shi and Wen, 1962: 199)

(1) “I suddenly understood that, because of his countless sins, Dean had. already become the idiot, the feeble-minded one, and the saint among people like us.”

(2) “我突然意识到, 他所有那些不同凡俗的行为举止使他变得那么天真、无知和神圣。” (Tao and He, 1990: 233)

(2) “I suddenly realized that all those extraordinary things he had done made him so innocent, so ignorant, and yet so sacred.”

(3) “我突然意识到, 哪怕他真的十恶不赦, 此刻却那么癫狂, 那么愚蠢, 他以他特有的方式作弄着命运, 像圣者那样蔑视着这一切的一切。” (Wen, 1998: 252–3)

(3) “I suddenly realized that even if he really was beyond redemption, at this moment he was so wild, so foolish, twisting fate in his own peculiar way, scorning everything around him like a saint.”

The three translations of this example illustrate a three-stage evolution in emotional reframing:

• (1) The 1962 translation adopts a pejorative bundling strategy shaped by dominant ideological discourse:

• “Idiot/Imbecile/Saint” → “白痴、低能儿和圣者” (“idiots, imbeciles, and saints”) (a mechanical juxtaposition that nullifies the sanctity of “saint”);

• The added phrase “我这样人中的” (“among people like me”) positions Dean as “a representative of the degenerate group.”

This collusive strategy operates through a causal chain (i.e., “sins → idiot”), ultimately branding Dean with the label of a “schizophrenic Beat reject,” in line with Lefevere’s notion of political-ideological manipulation.

• (2) The 1990 translation adopts a neutrally recoded, poetically softened strategy characterized by value detachment:

• “Sins” → “不同凡俗的行为举止” (“extraordinary behavior and manners”) (transforming moral transgression into esthetic eccentricity);

• “Idiot/Imbecile” → “天真、无知” (“innocence and ignorance”) (diluting pathological pejoratives into cognitive limitations).

This sequence reconstructs the notion of sin along an “innocence → sanctity” trajectory. It achieves covert subversion by reframing the pejorative chain within a Taoist-inspired metaphor of “return to primal authenticity,” aligning with Venuti’s strategy of domestication-as-masquerade.

• (3) The 1998 translation implements resistant sanctification as an assertive, agential declaration, initiating a syntactic revolution enabled by the loosening of patronage control:

• A concessive clause is added: “哪怕他真的十恶不赦” (“even if he were truly guilty of heinous crimes”), which separates the concept of sinfulness from that of sanctity;

• “Idiot/Imbecile” → “癫狂、愚蠢” (“wild eccentricity and stupidity”), preserving the connotations of rebellion while removing their derogatory force;

• The central sentence “像圣者那样蔑视着这一切的一切” (“scorning all this, all of this, like a saint”) features the semantic addition of “蔑视” (“scorn”), absent in the original, to inject defiance, while the repetitive structure “这一切的一切” intensifies the scope of resistance.

In this version, Dean is transformed from “the judged” into “a saint weaponizing sinfulness”—a figure who places dominant moral values on trial. This aligns with Venuti’s theory of foreignizing resistance, and represents an overt act of subversion.

The emotional valence across the three translations shifts from pejorative ambiguity (1962) → neutral sublimation (1990) → confrontational sanctification (1998). This progression marks the translator’s agency evolving from passive “ideological erasure” to active “value reconstruction.” The addition of the verb “蔑视” (“to scorn”) serves as the emotional fulcrum of Wen Chu’an’s version—through semantic augmentation and rhetorical repetition, it elevates Dean into a saintly figure who judges the mainstream, thereby effecting a historic transformation from complicit survival to resistant declaration.

This translation strategy retains the original Chinese examples while rendering the analytical framework fully accessible to English readers, striking a careful balance between scholarly precision and narrative fluency.

Example 3:

“Dean made a profile shot and looked around coyly.” (Kerouac, 2007:12)

(1) “狄恩偷偷摸摸地四处乱望, 只照出了一张侧影。” (Shi and Wen, 1962: 10)

(1) “Dean looked around furtively in every direction and only managed to get one profile shot.”

(2) “狄恩也拍了一张, 显得有些害羞。” (Tao and He, 1990: 9)

(2) “Dean also took one photo, looking a bit shy.”

(3) “狄安侧着身照了一张, 有点儿腼腆。” (Wen, 1998: 9)

(3) “Dean turned sideways for a shot and seemed slightly, bashful.”

These three translations exhibit a clear three-stage trajectory of desexualization:

• (1) The 1962 version deliberately reinforces moral stigma through lexical choices:

• “Coyly” (flirtatious shyness) → “偷偷摸摸” (“sneakily” or “stealthily”), substituting theft-related vocabulary that evokes criminal undertones;

• An added phrase, “四处乱望” (“looking around furtively”), intensifies vulgar associations.

These manipulations align with the ideological imperative to “expose the Beat Generation’s moral corruption,” consistent with Lefevere’s concept of ideological constraint.

• (2) The 1990 version removes sexual connotations entirely:

• “Coyly” → “害羞” (“shy”), a desexualized and neutralized term;

• The omission of the “looked around” action reflects poetic compromise. Dean is recharacterized as an “awkward youth,” a move that satisfies market-driven safety expectations—an embodiment of Venuti’s domestication-as-masquerade strategy.

• (3) The 1998 version achieves literary restoration through subtle resistance:

• “Coyly” → “腼腆” (“bashful”), a term that carries a culturally positive connotation in Chinese and suggests restrained eroticism;

• The added phrase “侧着身” (“turning sideways”) subtly implies bodily suggestion;

• The translation preserves the character’s charm within the framework of Chinese poetics, deploying a hybrid foreignizing-localizing strategy that underscores the translator’s resistant stance.

Evolutionary insight

This three-stage progression—from the 1962 version’s explicit stigmatization (through pejorative augmentation), to the 1998 version’s cultural transcoding (especially the nuanced rendering of “腼腆”)—highlights the erosion of rigid ideological constraints and the concurrent rise of translator agency.:

Example 4:

“…red brick, dirty, characters drifting by, trolleys grating in the hopeless dawn, the whorey smell of a big city.” (Kerouac, 2007:75)

(1) “红砖房子、脏污的街道、如流的人群、电车在凄凉的清晨嘎吱嘎吱的响着, 到处是妓院里的味道。” (Shi and Wen, 1962: 63)

(1) “Red-brick houses, grimy streets, crowds flowing like water, and streetcars creaking in the bleak early morning—everywhere was the smell of brothels.”

(2) “肮脏的红砖建筑, 来去匆匆的演员, 黎明暗淡的街头电车发. 出令人厌恶的声响, 还有在大城市都可觅到的妓女的身影。” (Tao and He, 1990: 87)

(2) “Filthy red-brick buildings, actors hurrying by, the. faint light of. dawn revealing streetcars making grating, unpleasant noises, and the figures of prostitutes lurking in every big city.”

(3) “清一色的红砖建筑物, 已经黯然失色, 形形色色的人在这令. 人沮丧绝望的黎明涌向电车站栅栏, 到处弥漫着大城市所特有的那种污秽淫荡气息。” (Wen, 1998: 87)

(3) “Rows of red-brick buildings had already lost their color, throngs. of people surged toward the streetcar gates in the gloom of a despairing dawn, and the city’s unique foul, licentious odor drifted everywhere.”

• (1) This translation achieves semantic clarity but exhibits slight stylistic stiffness—for example, the phrase “妓院里的味道” (“the smell in the brothel”) reads awkwardly in tone. The rendering of “凄凉的清晨” (“desolate early morning”) effectively foregrounds the scene’s bleak atmosphere, whereas “如流的人群” (“streaming crowd”) weakens the original image of drifting displacement.

• (2) This version demonstrates excessive domestication through radical semantic transformation.

• “Characters” is mistranslated as “演员” (“actors”);

• “Smell” is replaced with “身影” (“silhouettes”), obscuring sensory imagery;

• The verb “觅到” (to seek/find) is inappropriately substituted;

• The word “hopeless” is diluted to “黎明暗淡” (“dim dawn”), thereby sacrificing the semantic precision and emotional intensity of the original image.

• (3) This translation shows strong textual fidelity and literary sophistication.

• “清一色…黯然失色” (“uniform color…gloomily lose color”) skillfully integrates the image of “red brick, dirty” into vivid poetic language.

• “形形色色的人…涌向电车站栅栏” (“people of all stripes…surging toward the tram station fence”) dynamically captures both the movement of the crowd and the grating mechanical noise, through effective contextual supplementation.

• “令人沮丧绝望的黎明” (“a dawn that renders one despondent and hopeless”) fully conveys the intensity of the “hopeless dawn.”

• “弥漫着…污秽淫荡气息” (“permeated with… foul licentious air”) transforms “whorey smell” into a literarily potent yet culturally appropriate expression.

The 1998 version revives the core esthetic and ideological values of the source text to reconstruct its canonicity. This is achieved through:

• 1. Imagistic synthesis: rendering of “discolored red bricks” with poetic economy;

• 2. Atmospheric intensification: enhanced portrayal of hopeless dawn and surging crowd dynamics;

• 3. Literary precision: “污秽淫荡” (foul and licentious) reinstates the original’s grim tonality while maintaining rhetorical elegance.

Through this, the translation reconstructs the modernist urban landscape of the original—grim, squalid, and sexually charged—capturing its:

• Artistic potency (in terms of naturalist representation), and Ideological significance (by exposing urban alienation and the lived struggles of the underclass).

  The reception of the 1998 version in mainland China was unexpectedly enthusiastic. The initial print run of 8000 copies quickly sold out, prompting the publisher to issue a second printing in 2001 with 10,000 additional copies, which also sold out. In response to this evident demand, Shanghai Translation Publishing House undertook multiple reprints, ultimately releasing a total of twelve editions by early 2009.③ These successive reprints indicate that the work—in its Chinese form—had achieved widespread acceptance among Chinese readers. This success is particularly noteworthy given the general decline in interest in pure literature in China during this period, making the popularity of On the Road all the more striking.

  The complex relationship between the Chinese translations of On the Road and ideology is not an isolated phenomenon; rather, it forms an integral part of China’s broader intellectual re-evaluation of Western modernist and postmodernist thought during the 1980s and 1990s. Within this cultural movement, translations of modernist and postmodernist literature operated as a vanguard, with On the Road serving as a representative case.

  From the 1960s to the 1990s, China published a series of translations of canonical modernist/postmodernist works. These translations consistently followed an acceptance trajectory—from ideological condemnation to eventual canonization. The evolution of their translation strategies reveals this progression:

• Politically domesticated (1960s) → 

• Scholarly foreignized (1980s) → 

• Reader-oriented balance (1990s)

This transformation illustrates the intricate interplay between translational praxis and ideological constraint. Representative texts in this corpus include The Stranger, The Catcher in the Rye, Look Back in Anger, and Waiting for Godot, among others.

Paradigm Shift in The Stranger:

• 1963 Translation (Ideological Manipulation): The editorial preface condemned Camus as a “chief representative of France’s reactionary existentialist philosophical trend,” whose work “reveals the extent of Western Europe’s cultural decay” (Meng, 1963: v). Meursault’s emotional detachment was interpreted as the result of “capitalist alienation of humanity.”

• 1998 Translation (Poetic Subversion): Published under the Yilin World Literature Classics: Modern & Contemporary Series, this edition explicitly repudiated the 1963 interpretation. Its preface asserted: “Readers may not recall Meursault’s appearance—whether tall or short, fat or thin—but they cannot forget him. He lingers like a phantom across nations and in readers’ minds” (“Superfluous Man or Rational Man? On Camus’ The Stranger,” Guo, 1998: 8).

• 2010 Retranslation (Canonical Consolidation): The introduction affirmed the text’s status as “a profound classic of contemporary world literature” despite its brevity, praising its “unique perspective, incisive social critique, and philosophical depth in conveying human complexity” (Liu, 2010: 4, 13).

Works such as The Catcher in the Rye and Look Back in Anger followed similar trajectories: initial ideological denunciation, followed by eventual canonization achieved through translational reframing and progressive dismantling of political constraints via poetic and scholarly intervention.

Discussion and conclusion

The relationship between ideology and translation is inherently complex, manifesting primarily at two levels: the manipulation of translation by ideology and translation’s dual role as both an object of control and a potential force for counteraction. The 1962 edition of On the Road exemplifies the product of socialist-period ideology in China, illustrating the manipulative power of ideology and the resulting collusion in translation practices. During this era, ideology exerted a near-violent form of control over translation, leaving little space for agency of translation. From the selection of source texts to the translation process itself, the spirit of collusion was pervasive. Typically, texts are selected for their constructive cultural value. In the case of On the Road, however, it was chosen precisely for its perceived negative qualities, serving as a tool for reinforcing mainstream ideological narratives. Recast as material for critique, the novel’s artistic features were profoundly distorted, transformed into a convenient target for negation. While this represents an especially extreme example, it vividly highlights the intrinsic characteristic of collusion in certain translation endeavors.

The 1990 edition emerged during a period of ideological transition in China, producing a translation that moved from condemning the novel as trash toward acknowledging its potential as a classic. This shift reflects the interplay between ideological transformation and textual interpretation, underscoring an intrinsic connection between ideology and translation that carries significant sociocultural implications. While the evolution of the 1990 translation initially aligned with changes in the dominant ideology, it soon diverged, revealing translation’s latent capacity for ideological subversion.

From the 1990s onward, Chinese society experienced increasing ideological pluralism. With ongoing market reforms and a broad push for national modernization, constructing a discourse of modernity became a central objective, leading to the formation of multiple ideologies. Although mainstream ideology did not undergo a radical reversal, its once-monolithic dominance gradually eroded, enabling the literary sector to engage with modernity on a more pluralistic level. As autonomy of translation and diverse ideologies gained prominence, the balance of power began to shift, ultimately overturning earlier interpretations of On the Road. This evolution demonstrates that translation is not merely an accomplice to ideology but can also serve as a subversive force—capable of not only sustaining ideology but also driving its transformation.