On Lefevere's Systemic Thinking

Today, systemic thinking has been adopted as a fundamental perspective within the field of translation studies. This not only elevates the discipline’s main object of analysis, but also the position of the agents involved (the researcher and translator) into a higher level. Studying translations within a broader context is a rather complicated task at times; yet, at the same time, the researcher is freed from the elitist type of textual comparisons and acquires a position that is socially recognizable. Especially such studies adopting the systemic thinking as that of Lefevere’s, the task of the scholar is concretely legitimized. In his Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame,the researcher is defined as a social expert that is expected to unearth the internalized discursive relations surrounding what Kant calls ‘thing in itself’.

Perhaps the greatest achievement of Lefevere’s theory is the link he establishes between constructivism and polysystem theory. By doing so, Lefevere overcomes what’s mostly criticised within systemic thinking, that is its abstractism and lacking agency. The addition of such components as ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ within the grand scheme enables his theory to be classified as more realist and down to earth than prior systemic theorists.

In his book, Lefevere heads from indicating the existence of a grand system of culture and its sub-systems of literature, science, politics etc that are in constant interaction. All these sub-systems display an internal functioning and possess a inner control mechanism, and simultaneously, they are controlled by the greater mechanism of the grand culture. This internal and external controls are in close-contact, in that the former follows the rules devised by the latter. As seen, all dynamic within and around systems is a product of compiled conscious practices.

In the second and third chapters of the book, Lefevere engages in defining the position and function of translation- he classifies it among other types of rewritings- relating it with patronage and poetics consecutively. Firstly, as all other types of rewriting, translation is also dominated by both internal and external control mechanisms. Besides, as all othre rewritings it may choose to remain conservative and obey rules, or become innovative and violate rules. (Here, it should be pointed that Lefevere touches on the cases in which innovative function of translation also serves for sustaining the existing patronage, but these are the cases of exception.) The fact that translation has a manipulative character- in that it is able to create ‘images’, in other words, it 'naturalizes' things through making the artificial seem natural- increases the significance of its function within the whole picture and displays its contribution to the ‘cultural construction’. When it comes to poetics- that is in close contact with patronage and ideology as all other sub-systems since they all are dominated by them- Lefevere displays the multiple role adopted by translation. Certainly, it plays a significant role in all stages: it is a means of establishing, sustaining the dominance of the existing models, introduces new models to prevent stagnation, and too innovative at times, causes a shift in the hierarchical roles. Briefly, it has the capacity of both establishing and destroying. And as exemplified by Lefevere himself within the book, studying them reveal a lot of this whole ‘complex’, ‘interrelatedly functioning’ and ‘historical’ discursive relations.

Concludingly, as Douglas Robinson says, systemic approach provides Lefevere a fruitful framework. It enables him to embrace and explicate both the internal and surrounding dynamics. Though there are things he mentions that does not exist in polysystem theory, we could say that none of his statements contradict systemic thinking. As a further outcome of adopting the theory of polysystem, Lefevere stays out of the boundries of political activism and doesn’t take a side. According to his theory, the researcher is to stay within the value-free empiric boundaries and analyse with a purely descriptive manner. What’s interesting is the fact that the main components of Lefevere’s theory, that is ideology and patronage, are subjected to such descriptivism. As Douglas Robinson says, the power described by Lefevere is value-free, unlike the one described by post-colonial theorists. This also sets him apart from his Foucauldian point of departure in that the discursive relations aren’t implied to be destroyed, but are to be unearthed with a ‘purely empirical’ focus. [1]

[1] In Foucauldian way of thinking, people are not expected to destroy the implicit discursive relations too, but the reason to this is such a practice’s impossibility. Actually, here, we could correspond both theories in that there’s always a hegemonia in both. Lefevere also mentions the ongoing hegemonic process within systems. Once the existing patronage ceases functioning, it is replaced by another. One could take this as an implication of the impossibility of eliminating power from the scene which would adhere Lefevere a social activism. Lefevere, unlike Foucault, indicates a change, but the touchstones of ‘ideology’, ‘power’ and ‘patronage’ are always there. It’s only their agents and ways of dominating that change. The examples provided by Lefevere is a clear justification of this.

References
Lefevere, Andre
Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame
Robinson, Douglas
What is Translation?