Modernity is usually taken to be an historical phenomenon that spreads from the West as its place of origin to various parts of the world. It is not for nothing then that modernization is understood in terms of the world becoming “Westernized” or even “Americanized.” What we thus see is a specific model that presents modernity as a cultural phenomenon as one of emanation. “Emanation” here refers to a process by which modernity spreads from its original place in the West toward the rest of the world. It seems that one can find a striking similarity between the common conception of modernity and that of translation. In this conception, translation is understood as a transmission of the message from the “original” to the “target” language. From this point of view, good translation is one in which there is no serious loss of the original message. One sees the emanation model at work here again, for in the normal process of translation what is contained in the original place or language should be carried in its entirety to another place. Conceived in this way, the process of the world becoming modern or the spread and emanation of modernity is not different from that of translation. This paper, however, attempts at a radically different conception of modernity and translation. Modern history shows that modernization has been fraught with conflicts and struggles. While it may be true that “the rest of the world” has become modernized and Westernized, it is also true that the modernity it has achieved remains incomplete, which would mean that the translation of modernity by the “rest of the world” has failed. This would mean among other things that modernity is not a unitary flow emanating from the center to peripheries. This paper also envisions a different conception of translation in that it conceives of translation as an attempt to construct linguistic relationships at a site where social, political, cultural realities affect the practices of translation and the process of a society becoming modern. From this perspective, one may finally argue that modernity should be understood always in the plural.