Translation and solidarity in the century with no future: prefiguration vs. aspirational translation

The article interrogates how orientations to time—past, present, and future—mediate activist translation strategies in the 21st century. It contrasts prefiguration, associated with a belief in progress and the capacity to enact desired futures through present practices, with aspirational translation, a strategy more attuned to a widespread loss of hope and the overwhelming pressure of the present. Drawing particularly on Franco Berardi’s analysis of semiocapitalism and the “century with no future,” the paper asks how shifting temporal moods shape the appeal and efficacy of activist translation. Although not based on new empirical data, the argument is informed by earlier work on translation in the Egyptian revolution. The study also situates its claims within broader domains (e.g., medical humanities and knowledge translation), highlighting the practical importance of temporality for care, adherence, and communication across generations and contexts.

The paper synthesizes scholarship across social movement studies, political theory, human geography, anthropology, and translation studies. It outlines the dominant understanding of prefiguration in social movement studies (e.g., Maeckelbergh, Yates, Rohgalf, Reinecke, Trott), emphasizing organizational forms and embodied performance (horizontalism, egalitarian decision-making). It contrasts this with a semiotic/textual extension of prefiguration in translation studies (Baker; Taviano; Buts), aligning it with Anderson’s typology of anticipatory practices (imagination vs performance). Berardi’s oeuvre (After the Future; Futurability; essays on semiocapitalism) provides the core theoretical frame: the erosion of futurity due to speed, density, virtuality, commodification, and disembodiment. The review engages Anderson on preemption/anticipation, Appadurai on uneven futurity and the ethics of possibility, and Cassegård & Thörn on environmental activism’s post-apocalyptic orientation. It also connects to medical humanities and temporality in care (Kristeva et al.; Hautamäki; Reach). Empirical examples from the Egyptian and broader Arab contexts (e.g., Mosireen, Words of Women; Alsharif & Rizk) illustrate how linguistic choices (vernacular vs Modern Standard Arabic; English as lingua franca) intersect with solidarity and temporal logics (including the temporality of social media).

Conceptual and theoretical analysis grounded in critical reading of interdisciplinary scholarship, with illustrative case material. The article does not collect or analyze new empirical data. Its argument is informed by the author’s prior empirical research on the Egyptian revolution, which included 11 semi-structured interviews with activists and activist translators and analysis of subtitled documentary videos produced between 2011 and 2015, as well as reflections compiled in an edited volume. The present paper juxtaposes theoretical frameworks (Berardi’s semiocapitalism, Anderson’s anticipatory action, social movement prefiguration literature) with examples from activist translation practice (e.g., vernacular subtitling, Spanish “x” for gender inclusivity, terminological choices in urban discourse) to develop and differentiate the concepts of prefiguration and aspirational translation and to assess their temporal orientations.

- Prefiguration denotes strategies that enact desired futures in the present. In social movement studies it is primarily organizational/performative (horizontal decision-making, simulations of egalitarian structures), whereas in translation studies it can be semiotic/textual (innovative narratives, symbols, and linguistic subversions that imagine futures). - Under semiocapitalism, characterized by speed, density, virtuality, and commodification, the capacity to imagine and confidently act toward a brighter future erodes; disruption is absorbed and commodified, solidarity is undermined by fragmentation and disembodiment, and prefigurative politics lose some appeal—especially in highly repressed and precarious contexts. - Aspirational translation (after Gaber) privileges the present and draws on locally resonant language to empower communities and advocate modest, concrete change. It may mobilize elements from the past (e.g., classical Arabic ʿumrān for “urban”) to reconfigure analysis and resist state/security vocabularies (e.g., araadi al-dawla) but does not rest on utopian experimentation or a strong future-oriented imaginary. - Temporal orientation varies geographically and socially. In many Global South contexts marked by severe repression and poverty, activists experience catastrophe as ongoing, which constrains experimentation and shifts strategy toward present-focused, survivability-oriented practices. - Translation choices (vernacular vs standard varieties; reliance on English) entail trade-offs for solidarity and accessibility; no single strategy fits all contexts, and the temporal logic of digital platforms complicates participatory decision-making. - Translators, as mediators, can help arrest the erosion of possibilities inscribed in the present by aligning strategies with lived temporality and contextual constraints. - Note: Earlier empirical work informing the paper involved 11 interviews and analysis of subtitled videos from 2011–2015, but the present article itself presents no new empirical statistics.

The analysis addresses how temporal orientations—confidence in futurity versus the weight of the present and recourse to the past—shape activist translation strategies. Prefiguration assumes potency to enact a better future and thrives on experimentation; in the current epoch of semiocapitalism, this assumption is often untenable or less persuasive, particularly where repression is severe. Aspirational translation responds to this shift by centering present-lived experience, local idioms, and pragmatic advocacy, leveraging linguistic resources to resist dominant frames without presuming a utopian horizon. This temporal reframing explains divergent choices such as vernacular subtitling or reclaiming classical terms, and clarifies why experimentation may be seen as inappropriate amid acute trauma. The discussion underscores that temporal logics are uneven across regions; hence, strategy selection must be context-sensitive, balancing accessibility, solidarity-building, and the disruptive affordances and constraints of digital temporality. The insights generalize to knowledge translation in medicine, where clinical and experienced time frames impact adherence and care, suggesting that translation practices should be attuned to generational and societal temporal moods.

The paper distinguishes organizational and semiotic prefiguration from the emergent notion of aspirational translation and situates both within Berardi’s diagnosis of a 21st-century erosion of futurity under semiocapitalism. It argues that aspirational translation—rooted in present realities, drawing selectively on the past, and oriented toward modest, context-grounded change—may be more viable for many activists today, especially in the Global South. Translation practices should avoid dogmatic uniformity and instead flexibly combine strategies to navigate temporal constraints and opportunities. Future research could: (1) formalize and refine the concept of aspirational translation; (2) undertake comparative empirical studies across regions and movements to map temporal orientations and strategy efficacy; (3) examine how digital temporality reshapes deliberation and solidarity; and (4) explore implications for knowledge translation and care in health contexts, where temporality affects treatment adherence and patient experience.

The article is conceptual and presents no new empirical data; its claims are informed by earlier research centered on Egypt and may not generalize across contexts. The concept of aspirational translation is derived largely from a single source (Gaber) and remains under-defined. Illustrative examples are limited, and the analysis may be shaped by the particularities of post-2011 Arab contexts. Potential selection bias and lack of systematic comparative data constrain causal claims about strategy efficacy under different temporal conditions.