Thanks for the exposition
@Banno.
Being somewhat concrete and visual in my thinking, I like to see how things work in practice. So
here's one I watched earlier.
There are two aspects that relate somewhat, that I want to mention, and anyway it's a fascinating program if you have access.
The first is a matter of translation. The Himba are said to have 'marriages' but they differ from the Christian tradition in being polygamous, and more of a social organisation than anything remotely romantic or even sexual. Other relationships are translated as having 'girlfriends' and 'boyfriends', and one woman talked quite openly and matter-of-factly about her boyfriend being the father of her most of her children. Marriage for the Himba man seems to be mainly a matter of having someone-or two or three to cook for him. It's a social relation for which there is no English word, and we use 'marriage' with a new meaning that becomes gradually clearer as one watches the programs.
So we find, if we accept these considerations, that language cannot be set aside unless one also sets aside ones conceptual scheme; we find ourselves in the position of equating translation of language with translation of conceptual scheme. We may say that if what one person holds to be the case cannot be translated for another person, then these two folk hold to distinct conceptual schemes. — Banno
So all I want to say is that
in practice, translation has to involve a learning of a new culture - my brief characterisation here is as inadequate as the translation it points out the inadequacy of.
The second aspect has to do with those 'deep biases' of the article linked above, and relates to certain threads current here.
The show has attracted some negative criticism. The representation of Himba participants has been described as racist and exploitative, while the Moffatt family were seen as selfish and ignorant.
Yet while critics of the show may be well meaning, their views portray the Himba as passive victims with neither agency nor power, and the Moffatts as uneducated intruders. This reveals a deeply embedded paternalistic and imperialistic view of both Indigenous and working-class people and highlights why we need TV shows that challenge these biases.
My view of the article's view of the critic's view of the program's portrayal and treatment of a culture, or rather of two cultures, is that there is indeed 'a measurement problem' that is very real, even if the very idea of it is incoherent.
So "language use including interpretation thereof not behaving like there's a scheme-content distinction" is the proposed defeater of "there are wildly varying conceptual schemes that lead to untranslateable sentences between agents that use/have those schemes". — fdrake
Nothing is in principle untranslatable, but in practice in so many cases, life's too short.