Introduction
Translating cultural content never consists simply of replacing words with their equivalents in another language.
An artwork, a curatorial text, a publication, a cultural programme or a media narrative always travels with historical references, categories, implicit assumptions and particular ways of naming the world. When such content moves from one linguistic environment to another, part of that context has to be reformulated, explained or, at times, deliberately left open.
Translation therefore becomes an act of mediation.
It does not merely transmit content. It also helps determine what becomes intelligible, what requires additional contextualisation and what may be simplified in the process of circulation.
This question becomes particularly important in transnational cultural exchange, where languages, institutions and narratives do not have equal capacities for dissemination.
Translation also means choosing a framework of interpretation
Every translation involves choices.
A term may be translated literally, replaced by a concept considered more accessible, accompanied by an explanation or retained in its original language.
Each of these decisions produces a different effect.
When a cultural concept is replaced by a category already familiar to the reader, it may become easier to understand while losing part of its specificity. Conversely, retaining the original term may preserve that specificity but require additional contextualisation.
Translation therefore involves more than identifying the closest linguistic equivalent.
It also means creating the conditions in which content produced within one cultural environment can be read in another without being entirely absorbed into the categories of the receiving context.
What resists equivalence
Some realities move only with difficulty from one language to another because they are closely tied to a particular history, institution or social practice.
A term describing a form of cultural organisation, a social relationship, an institutional status or an artistic practice may have a grammatical equivalent without having an exact cultural counterpart.
The problem is not that translation becomes impossible.
Rather, apparent equivalence may conceal important differences between two contexts.
Translation then requires decisions about what must be explained so that readers understand not only the term itself, but also the system of references to which it belongs.
This work of contextualisation becomes especially important in cultural publications, exhibitions, international collaborations and editorial projects that circulate content across several linguistic environments.
Languages occupy unequal positions in cultural circulation
Languages do not have the same degree of presence within international spaces of publishing, research, mediation or cultural dissemination.
These differences affect the circulation of narratives.
When a language occupies a strong position within international institutional or media networks, content produced in that language often has greater opportunities for direct circulation. Other content may first need to be translated in order to enter those same spaces.
This does not mean that translation automatically produces cultural domination.
It does, however, show that international circulation also depends on linguistic infrastructures: translation capacities, editorial resources, publishing networks, professional expertise and institutional decisions.
The question then becomes less whether a piece of content can be translated than under what conditions it becomes accessible, visible and interpretable.
Translation and the production of visibility
These mechanisms are particularly visible in cultural and editorial environments.
The decision to translate an artwork, catalogue, article, interview or institutional programme already contributes to producing a form of visibility.
Not everything can be translated at the same time.
Actors therefore make decisions about which content will receive time, resources and spaces of dissemination.
Translation operates within a broader chain of mediation: selecting, translating, contextualising, editing, publishing and distributing.
At each stage, decisions are made about what should be shown and how it should be presented to a new audience.
The international visibility of a cultural narrative therefore depends not only on its existence, but also on the presence of structures capable of making it readable beyond its original context of production.
Europe–Africa: translating categories as well
This issue becomes particularly sensitive in cultural relations between Europe and Africa.
Such exchanges involve more than multiple languages. They also bring into contact institutional histories, professional categories and cultural traditions that do not necessarily correspond to one another.
Concepts that may appear shared — cultural institution, heritage, independent scene, mediation, community or public space — can refer to significantly different realities depending on the territories and systems in which they are used.
A strictly lexical translation may therefore create an illusion of equivalence.
Mediation instead requires making visible the contextual differences that lie behind apparently similar terms.
This attention is particularly important when narratives circulate in spaces where historical and institutional relationships are already marked by asymmetries.
The point is not to understand every act of translation as a relation of domination, but to recognise that translation always involves a position, an audience and a framework of circulation.
From translation to contextual adaptation
This distinction invites us to move beyond the assumption that the same publication must necessarily be reproduced identically in every language.
In some cases, a relatively direct translation may be sufficient.
In others, contextual adaptation becomes necessary: explaining an unfamiliar reference, reformulating an institutional category, changing the order of information or adding an element that helps a new audience understand what could remain implicit in the original version.
The aim is not to produce different texts to the point of altering their meaning.
It is to preserve intellectual coherence while recognising that readers do not necessarily approach a text with the same frames of reference.
Translation therefore becomes a situated editorial practice.
Rather than seeking perfect identity between versions, it aims to maintain a meaningful relationship across different linguistic contexts.
Communicating without erasing difference
Intercultural communication does not require the elimination of every difference.
It requires the ability to recognise which differences should remain visible.
Successful mediation does not necessarily transform an unfamiliar reality into something entirely familiar. It may also preserve a degree of distance while providing readers with enough context to understand why that distance exists.
This perspective changes the function of translation.
It is no longer simply a tool for facilitating circulation. It becomes a practice that organises relationships between different systems of reference.
This responsibility concerns translators, but also cultural institutions, media organisations, curators, editors and all those involved in making narratives accessible to audiences situated in other contexts.
Conclusion
The international circulation of cultural content depends on more than the ability to cross linguistic boundaries.
It also depends on how contexts, categories and references are made intelligible.
Translation therefore involves a continuous negotiation between accuracy, readability and contextualisation.
This process takes place in environments where capacities for dissemination and recognition remain unevenly distributed. It is therefore necessary to examine not only the words that circulate, but also the structures that make such circulation possible.
Beyond linguistic equivalence, translation can thus be understood as a form of cultural mediation: a practice capable of connecting different spaces without assuming that they can be fully reduced to the same categories.
