Constructing a Sociology of Translation.pdf

Locating systems and individuals in translation studies 127extremely fruitful in the last two decades, 2 and yet polysystem theory, togetherwith other systemic methods, 3 have been criticised by many scholars (Niranjana1992; Hermans 1999), for what seems to be a mechanical conceptualisation of theforces at play in translation practices.Hermans is probably the scholar who has gone furthest of contemporary systemicapproaches, and has become particularly aware of their limitations: the weakestpoint of several systemic models have been meticulously illustrated as early as1999 (Hermans 1999). According to Hermans, system theory does not seem totake into proper account the social and political interests (involving producers andconsumers of translations as well as institutions) linked to translation practices. Itis the material, social milieu of translation which is somehow overlooked: for example,questions of power and ideology, issues of primary concern for researchersand practitioners alike, run the risk of appearing obscure and ineffectual if they arenot linked to the actual people involved in translation activities.Hermans also stresses the fact that translation phenomena should be analysedwithout loosing sight of their complexity: it is not enough for system theoryto postulate that translation is both produced by and in turn helps to produce theenvironment which houses it, if the model does not appear to be fully capable ofaccounting for the manifold aspects of the process. The level of analysis envisagedby many systemic models may appear too simplistic in this respect, as it isbuilt around a series of binary oppositions (centre vs. periphery, innovative vs.conservative cultural practices, etc.) which make it impossible for researchers toinvestigate those ambivalent and hybrid cases, which cannot be given a clear-cutdefinition (Hermans 1999: 118, 119).This kind of critique led several scholars to work out “correctives” to the moredeterministic aspects of systemic models – such as research on the degree ofagency of individual translators (a topic which has been accompanied by a flourishingdebate on ethics, see Pym 1998, 2001) or study of the function of powerand ideology. The latter subject was initially developed by Lefevere, who as earlyas 1992 called attention to social and individualized control factors on translationactivities (namely, patronage and ideology on the one hand, and poetics onthe other). The task of these elements is to regulate the interdependence betweentranslation practices and their socio-cultural context (Lefevere 1992). This taskhas been more recently taken over by other control factors, that is norms (Toury2. See the following works, for example: Vanderauwera (1985); Lefevere (1992); Lambert(1997); Bassnett and Lefevere (1998); Tymoczko (1999).3. Cf. for ex. norm theory or the early descriptive paradigm, particularly in Toury (1995).