Systemic Thinking

In his “Polysystem Theory”, Itamar Even-Zohar defines translation as a multi-referential activity that concerns ‘a complex bundle of relationships’ rather than a unidirectional transfer of a specific text into another language. By doing so, he takes not the isolated texts but the ‘systems’ they belong to as his main subject of study. It’s for sure that it’s a grand task to take source and target systems as a main concern rather than merely a translated text and its original and this may direct the focus towards other issues apart from translation at times. Still, only such a wide view seems to achieve such comprehensive and accurate results in the analysis of the phenomena of translation, especially when it comes to locating it into the larger historical contexts.

1. General terms
In his systemic approach towards translation, Even-Zohar resorts to explicating the phenomena through embracing both sides of the binaries. The clear-cut and stable distinctions in between are effaced, because the possibility of changing roles never ceases. That’s why the first thing that comes to my mind in Even-Zohar’s theory is the constant dynamic in his explication: the non-canonized becomes canonized, primary produces the secondary, the peripheral dethrones the central, the dynamic becomes stable, heterogeneous becomes homogenous, and according all these types of positional shifts, the norms, therefore translational behavior, change. All this change brings forth not only the historical characteristic of the phenomena but also the existence of its multi-referential nature.

2. Positing translated literature within the scheme
After drawing the portrayal of his general view that relates the phenomena of translation with its surrounding dynamics and explicates the general functioning (in terms of internal and external proceedings and interactions) of such an interactive situation, Even-Zohar embarks upon defining the ‘concrete’ position of translation within the literary polysystem.

Firstly he clarifies the fact that translated literature is both a system of its own that carries its own internal concerns (possessing a hierarchical order, dynamic stratification betwen layers etc) and an active agent within the functioning of the literary polysystem. Even-Zohar enumerates three cases in which this active participation of translation is given a central position: when the literature is young, when it’s peripheral (and is exposed to the hegemonia of the central literature), when such turning points as ‘literary vacuum’ occur. Obviously , in all three cases, translation introduces new literary models to the target culture.

Explaining his three cases, Even-Zohar makes a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ literatures, the former of which is claimed to be dependent on the phenomena of translation more. Firstly, it should be noted that Even-Zohar’s dynamic-favoring theory sees stability as a threaten for the existence of any system. Both weak and strong literatures are in need of the ‘change’ eventually. The difference, as he points, is that the ‘strong’ is able to produce the new with its internal components, whereas, the ‘weak’ is in need of an external interaction, or transfer one may call it, to meet new models. ‘Strong’ has its peripheral components that would nourish it in the case of stagnation, whereas, ‘weak’ directly resorts to ‘import’ in such cases.

These all reminded me the period in which Turkish literary system bestowed translation with a central position. Which of the three cases could be a rational behind this historical positioning? The literature was in its establishment process, it occupied a peripheral position within the general literary polysystem, and there was a ‘literary vacuum’ (‘no item in the indigenious stock is taken to be acceptable’ Even-Zohar 1990: 194). All three carry their historical motives, and most importantly, here, ‘power’ occupies a great position. In the case of the development of Turkish literary system in particular, translation is ‘made’ to occupy a central position, whereas, Even-Zohar seems to refer to a ‘natural’ type of transition from peripheral to central (as a natural outcome of the dynamic stratification within the system). Still, I suppose, this case justifies his major thesis of the existence ‘complex bundle of relationships’ within the positioning of the phenomena. There’ll always be more to explore, since this is not a unidirectional transfer from a single source to a single target. As Even-Zohar also states, there are always such preliminary stages as selecting the text and arousing a necessity in the target culture and other stages as breaking the resistence and making it function properly.

3. Lastly: `Transfer` in more concrete terms
In his article “The Making of Culture Repertoire and the Role of Transfer”, Even-Zohar concretizes the terms he’s refered within “Polysystem Theory” through using the concepts of ‘power’, ‘market’ and ‘repertoire’ interrelatedly. Here, zooming out of the textual level, Even-Zohar focuses on the process of ‘cultural transfer’and systematizes the development and functioning of cultural ‘repertoire’.

In this article, new concepts such as ‘necessity’, ‘resistance’ and ‘consumption’ are introduced to the context of ‘transfer’. As seen, the process is enlargened, the agents involved (either active or passive) are increased, therefore the phenomena of ‘transfer’ is subjected to a more extensive problematization. In consistence with his previous statements, Even-Zohar defines the making of repertoire as a constant activity. ‘Goods’ are imported, either accepted or rejected, and if accepted, function either on the level of active repertoire (and construct a strategy of action) or the passive one (enable world ‘make-sense’). It’s important that here Even-Zohar touches on the role of ‘agents’ more than he does in his other articles. For instance, if the ‘good’ carries the potential of being rejected, the importer(s) develop strategies of creating a necessity or ‘willingness to consume new goods’ in his terms. (It’s interesting that here Even-Zohar gives examples from both ‘material’ goods such as black pepper or ‘semiotic’ goods such as hygienic habits) Briefly, to make ‘import’ a ‘transfer’, the importer is involved within a post-transition process. Moreover, there are even such cases in which the personality of these importers (which has never been mentioned in prior theories!) ‘shadow’ the products they propose.

As also seen clearly in this essay, in all his three articles Even-Zohar emphasizes one thing on top: translation is much more a complex activity than has been introduced by the prior approaches. His attempts of both generalizing and explicating this concern in more concete terms in a consistent manner is a great matter of appreciation. Such attempts both expand the borders of the discipline itself and arouse an awareness of the grand function of the phenomena within the cultural progress.

References
Even-Zohar Itamar
"Polysystem Theory"
"The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem"
"The Making of Repertoire and The Role of Transfer"