An author’s solidarity and cultural power

The significance of Sally Rooney turning down a Hebrew translation of her new novel.

Sourced: The Irish Times

“A boycott is directed against a policy and the institutions which support that policy either actively or tacitly. Its aim is not to reject, but to bring about change.”

                                              – John Berger

Earlier this fall, acclaimed author of Normal People, Sally Rooney, gained attention for refusing to sell the Hebrew translation rights of her new book Beautiful World Where Are You to Israeli-based publishing house Modan, which had previously worked on two of her novels. In October, Rooney put out a statement noting that while she was “very proud” to have had her previous novels translated into Hebrew, she has now chosen to decline translation rights to a publisher not compliant with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement's institutional guidelines.

The BDS movement is a campaign that works to “end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law”. Rooney’s decision was made on the grounds of showing “solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom, justice and equality” whom she sees living in an “apartheid state under international law”. In her statement, the author said that she “simply [does] not feel it would be right under the present circumstances to accept a new contract with an Israeli company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid and support the UN-stipulated rights of the Palestinian people”.

This decision, quite expectedly, has stirred controversy amongst scholars, fans and literary critics alike. On one hand, the author has been accused of being an “anti-semite”, targeting Israeli national identity and being a hypocrite – allowing her new novel to be translated into Chinese and Russian, tailored for readers based in countries where human rights violations are also present. On the other hand, Rooney has been praised by numerous Palestinian activists and allies for understanding the importance of a cultural boycott and providing her support. 

Many have made negative assertions about Rooney’s decision, invoking the “essence of Literature'' as a “power to bring a sense of coherence and order to the world” which is now “negated by Rooney’s choice to exclude a group of readers because of their national identity”. Others have also put forth the potential impacts of Rooney’s decision to pick a side, which will prevent her Hebrew readership from critically engaging with her writing and perspective. Incontestably, the circulation of cultural and literary output mobilises peoples and enhances their perspectives. So yes, in denying translation rights to her novel, Rooney is to an extent depriving her Hebrew readership access to her perspective. However, in this case, it is vital to remind ourselves that for cultural boycotts to be effective, a side needs to be chosen.

Moreover, BDS targets complicity, not identity.

Rooney’s objective is not to single out Israelis or Jewish people and prevent them from reading her work. The key reason behind her decision is to support a movement that seeks to dismantle an apartheid government and its oppressive policies with regards to Palestinians.  Rooney isn't criticising Israeli culture or its people, but rather their government's handling of a political crisis. To echo John Berger, her aim is not to reject, but instead to help bring about change. 

Undoubtedly, the validity of Rooney’s decision is open to debate, but this should not legitimise personally charged attacks against her. The Irish writer is far from the first famous artist to take such a stance and support a cultural boycott in response to the crisis in Palestine. Numerous artists and academics, including Alice Walker, Naomi Klein, Arundathi Roy, Judith Butler, and Elvis Costello, have vocalised the crucial nature of cultural and academic boycotts as a way to create both internal and external pressure. 

Indeed, such boycotts have been effective in the past in pressurising regime change and compliance with international law, most notably in South Africa during the racial apartheid. A cultural boycott movement like BDS is a way for international allies and friends to support the Palestinian struggle. Much like her literary predecessors and contemporaries, Rooney’s choice is not one of singling out a state. In a similar way that declining to eat certain dishes or foods is not a boycott of an entire cuisine and its associated culture, having standards about who you publish with is not a boycott of a language or people. As Rooney has made clear, the Hebrew translation rights to her new novel are still available.

Rooney’s choice is not about getting her readers to “understand where she came from”, nor is her novel’s content concerned with her political stance on this specific regional matter. So, accusing the author of going against the true nature of literature is a rather intellectually weak argument. If Rooney, with her influential position and popularity, has decided to take a stand and shed light on a matter that she believes needs to be addressed, she has the complete right to do so. And whilst harsh criticism regarding her decision was and is a given, it is naive to disregard the fact that such is the case with any political action or choice made by someone in her position and artistic occupation.

It must be remembered that the BDS movement is not a principled stance. It is a non-aggressive political tool emanating from a long history of Global South resistance aimed at bringing about action via democratic means. And Rooney has actively chosen to engage with it by taking control of the circulation of her work in translation. 

Will Rooney’s choice provide the impetus to force a regime change? Probably not.

But if nothing more, the fact that there is potent conversation about Rooney’s decision, and a large wave of reactions to it, means that an eminent author’s choice does have cultural significance and impact. Rooney has proved to those who believe cultural boycotts like BDS are futile that such boycotts are indeed “more than a social media wheeze of western keyboard warriors”.

So, following Rooney’s moral conviction, while being dangerously aware of sounding credulous, the reality is: just as cultural and literary media have the power to bring about change, so do cultural boycotts. 

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.