Conscious Choices vs Internalized Actions

Representing translation as a social phenomenon arouses the necessity of developing certain theoretical and methodological tools. Since the establishment of the systemic perspective and norms as main means of analysis in translational research, theoreticians have proposed various of such tools that would serve for both the justification of the social position of translation and the extension of the borders of research in the field. The ‘from retrospective to prospective’ methodology of Toury, ‘unearthing internalized discursive relations’ of Lefevere, ‘ideology-oriented focus on omitted particularities’ of Venuti and other postcolonial scholars provide us with clear exemplifications of such tools. Not disregarding the fact that these all represent the voices from different positions which belong to their particular space and time, it could be said that they all are embraced by the same perspective that dominates the discipline: the social perspective. And perhaps, it wouldn’t be wrong to include the ‘field’, ‘capital’, ‘habitus’ and ‘illusio’ of Boudieu into this ‘system of theoretical tools of translation research’.

At first sight, the importation of Bourdieu’s theory of action in translation theory doesn’t seem to bring a very innovative perspective in that such theorists as Even-Zohar, Toury and Lefevere have prepared the grounds for analysing the complex network in which the product, the producer and other external dynamics interact. Perhaps it’s Bourdieu’s strong emphasis on not the ‘action’ and ‘agent’, but the internalized rationals behind them that has attracted this much attention. As mentioned by both Jean-Marc Gouanvic and Moira Inghilleri, this strong call for action in analysing the background overcomes the abstractism of polysystem theory. Compared to Lefevere’s theory that is acknowledged to serve for the same purpose, the lack of the terms ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ - despite the implications of their existence- seems to carry Bourdieu’s theory to more empiric grounds. Otherwise, benefitting from constructivism, both theories provide the research with a framework in which internalized relations could be unearthed.

How sound is carrying the action theory that opposes the rationalist vision to translation theory? It’s hard to find an answer to this question. The journey of the researcher from `deriving out the conscious choices of the translator` to `seeing texts as the points of interaction in which the internal and external coincide` definitely entails redefinining the position of the translated text and the translator, which are still the main components of the discipline. Adopting the translator as a representor of the society to whose functioning he serves for might threaten the visibility (in terms of Vermeer, `expertise`) he has hardly acquired within centuries, his authority over the product, and the position of the product as an autonomous being itself. In other words, seeing all these main components as a part of the bigger construction, evaluating their functioning in terms of their contribution to that bigger construction might depart the researcher’s focus from translational perspective to that of sociological perspective.

Perhaps, it would be right to define the focus of study first. As mentioned above, these all are theoretical tools that provide the researcher with a framework upon which he’d attempt to build a sound argument. Compared to Latour’s argument, Bourdieusian approach might seem too homogenizing. Similarly, right next to Toury’s DTS, Venuti’s study might remain too ideology-oriented. Afterall, as mentioned by Luise Von Flotow, there’s no harm in being optimistic and embracing the disunity.