As mentioned by Douglas Robinson in the introduction of his analysing of Lefevere’s book Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, translation studies has experienced a social turn over the last decades by including rich social processes into the field and this turn actually has turned translation studies into a field where politics is discussed, produced, and reproduced. System theorists, foreignists, and post-colonialist theorists are given as examples of those following this kind of an approach to translation.
Being one of the system theorists Andre Lefevere touches upon the role of the ideology, power and culture in “translation”, or rather in rewriting as defined by him. Rewriting includes translations, criticisms, historiographies, anthologizing, and editing; that is what is written over the original writing. Thus he made two distinct categories in literature: one being the original writing and the other is the rewriting.
In spite of the “power” of rewritings in literature (i.e. reaching more people than original writings, being produced as a service of a certain ideology), they tend to be treated more like ‘“ancillary” in kind’ [Lefevere, 4] by the professional readers. Non-professional readers, on the other hand, will probably tend to choose rewritings over the originals. This can be explained by the power relations between the professional and non-professional readers, similar to the relations between the patron and the rewriter. Power of professionals comes from the easier access to economic resources, to language, to transportation opportunities in order to get the original. And this will also give them the chance to manipulate the rewritings of these texts, since the rewriters of them will most probably be among the professional readers of the texts in the first place. This manipulation is a way to create, maintain and change the cultural system [Robinson, 28] requested by the patron in order to preserve the stability of the social system as a whole. Patrons in power want to control the literary production because their power is based on it [Lefevere, 17].
This power is also based on the consumption of these rewritings by the culture/society. Making such a deduction would not be wrong since the stability of the system both in economical and ideological terms depends on the reading of these rewritings by non-professional readers. As a result, these texts should be congenial to the public. While appearing to be produced for the public taste, these rewritings serve to a bigger objective, the maintenance of the system. It is part of the “naturalization” process, the process of making the artificial (seem) natural, the imagined (seem) real [Robinson, 27]. This is actually quite similar to the situation criticized by Spivak in translation of Third World literature into English, or into other powerful languages of the West. While taking Third World to the majority, the First World, there is nothing noble about the law of the majority [Spivak, 371]. Although the objective seems to recognize and/or promote Third World literature in West, it is merely the easiest way of being “democratic” with minorities [ibid, 371].
Since Lefevere wants to analyze the systemic functioning of power, but does not want his analysis to be (mis)taken for an indictment [Robinson, 31], he makes a decision on not to take part in this political process. However, when power relations, hence the politics, come to the scene of the literary production, the rewritings will differ dramatically from the original writings as they will be shaped according to a certain ideology. Thus, even not making an indictment will be a political choice.
REFERENCES
Robinson, Douglas 1997. What is Translation?. The Kent State University Press. pp. 25-42.
Lefevere, Andre 1992. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty 1992. “The Politics of Translation” in Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti, Lawrence. pp. 369-388.
It's true that through such political terms as ideology and power, Lefevere fulfills what systemic approach has lacked, that is the role of agency within the whole functioning. As seen, the approach of Lefevere is rather close to both Toury's and Even-Zohar's later wtitings relating translation studies with such social manners as culture planning and repertoire construction. Such an approach towards the translated works that views them as 'constructed' beings that contribute to the 'construction' of the bigger scheme, as Sinem states also, brings forth issues concerning 'making indictments'. As Robinson states in his article, Lefevere manages to depart from post-colonial theorists in that he approaches such social terms as ideology, agency and power in a descriptive manner. However, I suppose, even the researcher follows adopts such a descriptive attitude as 'purely unearthing discursive relationships', the results would concern making an indictment of some sort. In other words, it may not be as easy to keep distant and be descriptive in such studies aiming to expose Faucauldian type of discursive relations that govern and relate social beings with social practices. Here, what Lefevere is trying to avoid is purely understandable Afterall, the primal aim of the study seems to explain the active participation of translation within social progress in the most comprehensive manner, not justifying some sort of an ideological point of view. Still, it's clear that both types of practices that concern translation- that is the act of translating and translation research- have inclinations towards making indictments. And such works that adopt Lefevere's attitude in both fields is found rather rare. Perhaps when it comes to the act of translation, it's even impossible.
YanıtlaSilThank you for both comments, equally good. Have you thought about the shortcomings of the concept of rewriting? Can you think of any problems with lumping various derivative textual strategies together with translation?
YanıtlaSil