On "the Nature of Translation Studies"

James Holmes's article The Name and Nature of Translation Studies mostly focuses on the origins of the name of the field and the features/qualities of the field. What I want to focus mainly is the way he classifies these features and their relevance of the translation studies in general.
Holmes suggestion on the classification of translation studies in three categories has also different sub-categories in themselves. However, such a classification, although it proposes a systematic way to look at the translation studies, is bound to be proven ineffienct. Because Holmes's classification divides the field into too many sub-categories and lacks the uniformity to collect these into one general framework. And the general frame he suggested as general translation theory is too general and lacks the human aspect of translation.
If we are to begin with the general translation theory, we see that what is desired to be achieved here is to reach a one ultimate goal "to develop a full, inclusive theory accomodating so many elements that it can serve to explain and predict all phenomena falling within the terrain of translating and translation"[186]. However, it does not seem to be possible to create a theory that would generate the ideas/choices behind all translation activities. Because translation is not a science as it has not "reached a stage of precision, formalization, and paradigm formation"[183] but a humanly act which bounds to differentiate from time to time and person to person. If thought thoroughly, there are as many translations as translators. The very same text can be translated in various ways by different translators and even the same translator can translate the same text differently in two different times. So at least the prediction part of Holmes's propostion may not be quite right. And this general theory will probably fail in explaining the products of different translation processes.
Under this general theory Holmes describes six partial theories which have the tendency to focus in different methods/choices in translation. Although later in the text he mentions combining more than one partial theories to handle generalizations through these theories, the way he looks at them is very isolated and highlights one feature at a time. And these also can be problematic in themselves. For example, in area-restricted theories, the area, either a culture or a language, to focus on should be chosen very carefully in order not to exclude a detail and/or not to be superficial about the translation theory of a culture/language. One of the areas given as example by Holmes is the Slavic languages. However, Slavic languages are a quite big area in itself, including Russian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and many other languages. It is difficult to reach conclusive ideas on traditions of translation in these cultures just by looking at the language families. Because all these languages have different backgrounds both in social and political terms, so they all have different traditions in using the language and in communicating. To generalize all of them into one category and study on it will probably leave out some parts and will make the scholar lose track of the hypothesis behind.
Another classification made by Holmes is the applied translation field, which also has sub-divisions. One of these subcategories is translation policy which is a way to "determine what works needs to be translated in a given socio-cultural situation, what the social and economic position of the translator is and should be."[190] This sentence is only one of the sentences which shows that Holmes favoures an approach of target-oriented translation rather than a source-oriented one. However, this text does not go into much detail about the reasons of his preference of target orientedness. It is maybe because this text is not to have been written to defend a certain idea but just to describe the general idea of translation. But it confuses a reader favoring a source-oriented approach instead.