In Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, Pym mainly defends the necessity as well as the significance of the existence of translation activities. Though problematic, natural equivalence is also remarkable as a first step examining the central problems in translation studies. It is unlikely to achieve complete equivalence in all respects, but to some extent it is possible to reach equivalence in some ways, such as in form or in function, at the sacrifice of certain loss. There are different approaches to fulfill such goal. However, are translators and theorists work so hard to bring diversity or unity into different cultures?
It seems that those who aim to domesticate strive to bring unity while those who deliberately leave distance between ST and TT aim to emphasize the difference and thus produce diversity. However, the purposes of translation do not always match with the outcomes. On the one hand, it is understandable that when translators domesticate source culture they synthesize the foreign culture and represent it in a way that is common in target culture. By doing this they are trying to build up a world in the atmosphere of certain culture, for example, to enrich Chinese tradition with British ideas, to construct a Britain inside Chinese culture, and finally to achieve a unity of British and Chinese culture. However, for those translators who deliberately foreignize the work, I think they also help to build up a unified culture. What they do is to introduce different languages and world-views and allow them collide with each other; in the end, ideally, it seems to me that such collision will temporarily generate certain diversity for sure but in the long term will result in a relatively universal world-view and culture; even the difference among languages will diminish. What do you think of the outcome of translation activities?