Refraction, not Reflection

What do we mean when we say that a translation does not reflect another culture, but refracts another culture?

Refraction, with regard to light, disperses a ray of light into its various wavelengths. This reveals the spectrum of colors contained in the original beam of light. Therefore, refraction does not create anything new – the frequency of the light remains the same and is determined by the source of the light (paraphrased from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/refr.html). Refraction only reveals what is already there. It exposes the parts of the whole by separating them, but nothing is created or destroyed in the act.

If translation refracts another culture, it opens up the text in a way that can be understood by those outside of that culture and yet experienced in the same way that those of the parent culture would experience it (i.e. invoking emotion, humor, morale, whatever…). A mere reflection of another culture would often fall flat in a different language. The humor’s not the same; the history’s not the same; the social mores aren’t the same. If the goal of the original (before translation) is to teach other cultures about the culture from which the work originates, then perhaps a reflection would be adequate. However, if the elements of the story are in service to some larger objective of the work, then reflection of the original elements likely would not accomplish this with a reader reading it in translation. A translation refracts the story to reveal its essence or intent, so that this can be communicated in another language. It is this essence/intent that is far more important than the individual words.