Steiner and Bellos comments

 Honestly, Steiner's hermeneutic motion makes a lot of sense to me, at least in a historical context. To some extent I believe the motions of trust, aggression and incorporation make enough sense in the history of Japanese to English translation at least, that I would not disagree with. To elaborate, early translations of Japanese works were to my understanding, fairly neutral and 'trusting,' at least until late Edo-early Meiji era translations, which are almost violently domesticating and bereft of their original form, as well as being in some ways condescending to the source texts and languages, in particular the translation of waka, which sometimes had its form changed to an iambic pentameter poem with a rhyme scheme. Comparing this to now where Japanese pop culture, started and fueled by translation, is now fairly commonplace, and even words like umami are used much more acceptingly by the people. All in all invasion, extraction, and bringing home may seem like very visceral descriptions, historically I believe this to be true nonetheless. 

The idea of selective foreignism is very interesting, and I think something most translators eventually find themselves grappling with as they work their ways through publishers and bosses. In regards to the prompts posted though, I think the line you draw when you consider keeping foreignizing elements ultimately has to end with the individual translator and their loyalties. Some may draw the line and removing honorifics in the translation, and others might not care what foreignizing elements are cut out entirely. Personally I fall towards the latter, probably, but I can certainly understand wanting to keep as many elements as possible, especially when they carry so much contextual weight as they do in Japanese. 

 Steven