A Sociology of Translation and the Central Role of the Translator

Introduction and purpose

Re-Creation, The Resilience of Architecture is an installation comprising two wooden structures that was on display in Helsinki, in Esplanade Park, throughout the summer of 2015. Re-Creation, designed by Finnish architect Anssi Lassila, is based on the concept of “universal space,” offering two physical interpretations of space shaped by two cultural contexts.

The two-part installation demonstrates how a single architectural concept, “universal space,” is translated into two different forms when situated in a new culture and social environment. The two parts of Lassila’s Re-Creation were constructed in Finland and China by two teams of local artisans. The two huts, each translating “universal space,” differ in material, shape, and building technique. The Finnish hut is constructed of horizontal spruce logs. The Chinese hut has an arched, tapering shape created by bending bamboo poles with metal bands.

Lassila’s installation explores architecture as translation. The process of building the huts took shape as a dialogue between the architect and the builder, as determined by cultural structures, social context, and local heritage. The materials and building technique were clearly determined by local contexts, resulting in two very different products, that is, two very different huts, both of which translate “universal space.”

The illustration (Figure 1) highlights one of the central propositions of this paper: translation, whether referring to the product or the process, is inherently a social activity; it is situated within a complex network of cultural and social contexts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Two huts in Anssi Lassila’s Re-Creation, The Resilience of Architecture (photo by the author).

As a product, a translation is created by individuals who belong to various social systems and who are continuously creating values and meanings in and through their translation. As a process, translation is carried out within those various social systems which determine—to one degree or another—the strategy, selection, process, production, and distribution of the translation.

Recognizing the interrelationship of these various factors helps us understand translation as, in the words of translation studies scholar Theo Hermans, a “socially regulated activity” (Hermans 1996a, 10). Translation, the product and the process, is caught up in multiple contact zones where the text and various social agencies meet: author, text, client, translator, funding source, agent of production, publisher, agent of marketing, agent of distribution, and audience. Further, each of these agencies is culturally and socially determined, prescribed to follow established norms and societal expectations, using available resources, both human and financial. Translation, as “socially regulated activity,” is bound within this complex network of determinates that are diverse and sometimes conflicting.

At the core of this interplay of socially determined activity is the translator, also a social agent who is at the same time both constructed by society and constructing within society, affected by and affecting all elements in these social networks (Figure 2). This perspective is usually labeled social constructionism or social contructivist theory.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Social networks of the translator.

Such observations and assumptions have been explored recently within translation studies, and these explorations are on the way to becoming a specific subfield, namely sociology of translation (or translation sociology or sociocultural translation). This subfield aims to highlight the intersection of translation studies and sociology, at both the theoretical and methodological levels.

In this paper, then, I will first review some of these recent writings on the emergence of a sociology of translation, then apply them in an experimental way to our own subfield of Bible translation. My goal is to explore what we might learn (or relearn) as practitioners of Bible translation when we consider the social roles of the Bible translator and the various social networks within which the translator works and Bible translation is carried out.

Before I begin such an exploration, it is appropriate to issue a caveat. I am well aware that a direct and unqualified importing of learnings from translation studies into Bible translation is not only challenging but perhaps also impossible. These two disciplines certainly inhabit the same world, but they are distinctly different in notable ways, both theoretical and methodological. I will mention two ways here, knowing much more can be said, but limiting my remarks to the distinctives of understanding translation as product and process.

First, the nature of the translation product itself is markedly different. Within translation studies, the translation product can reflect the fullest variety of literature, from a poem to a legal document to an advertisement. Further, the text to be translated is often produced by a single author. Bible translation, by contrast, deals solely with sacred literature. Bible translation, as one speciality within sacred text translation, takes up the translation of sacred literature that has emerged from particular religious communities, for use by particular religious communities. Therefore, the Bible is not the product of a single author; rather, it is the product of multiple authors, editors, redactors, and communities of users—each from multiple contexts, theological perspectives, and ideological worldviews, each engaging the Bible as sacred literature.

A second notion that makes Bible translation unique within translation studies is that the process of translation is different. Just as the Bible is not the product of any single individual, the translation of the Bible has rarely been the result of the work of a single translator. Bible translation—as it has been carried out through much of its history—normally involves many translators or, better, a translation team of three to five translators, supported and aided by others from a variety of religious communities, for example, persons who serve as linguistic and biblical specialists, reviewers, editors, or proofreaders. Both the primary team itself and the larger team of specialists are made up of individuals with their own theological and sociological frames, religious traditions, and worldviews.

Therefore, I acknowledge at the outset of this exploration that I cannot import terminology and methods from translation studies into Bible translation without such a disclaimer about these distinctives. So, whereas a sociology of translation generally highlights a single translator, in Bible translation, we would typically refer to the translators or, more accurately, the translation team. For ease of argument and writing in this article, however, I will use the singular “translator” in a collective sense when speaking, for example, about “the translator as a creative agent in translation” and “the social roles of the translator.” Likewise, I will use singular terms like “audience” or “funding source” or “client,” knowing these are more likely to be plurals in the real world of Bible translation.

The “cultural turn” in translation studies: translation as social activity

As in most interdisciplinary fields in the humanities, translation studies has been marked by various “turns,” those junctures that question existing assumptions and offer possibilities for new areas of research. Recently, what has been labelled the “cultural turn” in translation studies has helped us identify, process, and discuss such aspects as historical and cultural and anthropological perspectives, frames of meaning, and contextual situations (see, e.g., Snell-Hornby 2006 and Bassnett and Lefevere 1990). These factors are now seen as commonplace, even in our subfield of Bible translation (see, e.g., Wilt 2003), reminding us that translation never takes place in a vacuum, devoid of those multiple contexts. The “cultural turn” encouraged us to reckon with the notion that translation, even Bible translation, is shaped by cultural and social elements that have too often been disregarded and not given full credit for the impact they have on our work. Translation exists within a dynamic “web” of various cultures and social networks. Clifford Gertz, following Max Weber, one of the founding theorists of sociology, suggests that humans are “suspended in webs of significance [they themselves have] spun” (Gertz 1993, 5).

In light of this “cultural turn” of the 1980s, translation began to be recognized not as something that reflects a static view of culture and society, but instead that highlights the dynamic transformation that occurs as it confronts and is confronted by culture and society (Wolf 2007, 5–6). Just as culture and society are dynamic, so is translation. In light of these learnings from the “cultural turn,” translation studies has shifted to highlight not only these dynamic “contact zones,” but also the translators who are agents both constructed by and constructing reality through the work of translation.

Turning towards a sociology of translation

The question remains: In the wake of this “cultural turn,” has translation studies since the 1990s been experiencing what might be labelled a “social turn”? There is certainly no lack of cultural or social approaches to translation. “The social” has been noted and discussed in various ways in recent decades. Without elaborating beyond a simple mention, I highlight only a few of the approaches that can be regarded as social in nature.

Polysystem theory, as presented by Itamar Even-Zohar, situates translated literature (as a social system itself) within a network of social and literary contexts of the target culture. Literature in his sense is dynamic and functional (Even-Zohar 1990).

Gideon Toury considers translation a norm-governed activity in which translators themselves are guided by internalized social norms that are continuously negotiated by the people and organizations involved in the work. Toury’s 1990 work on translation and norms highlights clearly the role of the translator and the socially conditioned contexts the translator inhabits.

Theo Hermans picks up on Toury’s consideration of norms and stresses the extent to which they shape the translation process. He argues that translation is seen as “a complex transaction taking place in a communicative, socio-cultural context” (Hermans 1996b, 26). Again, the agents involved are brought into focus, together with their social functions related especially to power and ideology.

Other functional approaches to translation can likewise be regarded as sociologically motivated, having shifted attention from the texts themselves to the mediation of these texts. Christiane Nord, for example, in advancing a skopos theory, begins with a view of translation as “an intercultural communication act,” in which multiple social forces are at work to shape and define the skopos for reception in the target culture (Nord 1991, 9).

I also mention the attention that Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler have given to “power,” arguing that it is one of the driving forces of any social view of translation, and thereby a key issue for any subfield we might label “sociology of translation” (Tymoczko and Gentzler 2002, xvi). For them, translation is “a deliberate and conscious act of selection, assemblage, structuration, and fabrication” (xxi) and, as such, requires special consideration of various social aspects in translation. In addition, their assertions suggest that any “sociology of translation” must pay particular attention to the translator, because within the task of the translator is the ability both to create knowledge and to contribute to the shaping of culture and society.

That final point of Tymoczko and Gentzler—that the translator’s task involves both creating knowledge and contributing to the shaping of society—is, I would argue, the “break point” that moves translation studies from a “cultural” view to a “social” view. Recent translation studies scholars have reminded us that, in order to sustain a truly viable “sociology of translation,” the focus must shift from the text to the translator working within a complex network of social systems that shapes the translation process. Daniel Simeoni, in a 2007 article “Translation and Society: The Emergence of a Conceptual Relationship,” notes that although theories and approaches to translation have almost always been “social” in nature, the focus largely remained on the text, the text’s cultural and socio-historical contexts in process and as a product. Even throughout the 1980s, the decade marked as embodying the “cultural turn,” he wrote, a “sociological eye” remained secondary—social but not sociological (Simeoni 2007, 15). In a similar argument, Anthony Pym states that a slight shift in focus from the text as an object embedded in social systems towards the mediators or translators as social agents corrects a “toolbox” kind of sociocultural approach to translation studies, a toolbox from which one can pull observations (Pym 2006). Finally, I mention Andrew Chesterman, who argues that a new subfield of translation studies begs development: not sociology of translation, but what he calls “translator studies” (Chesterman 2009).

In the last few years, this “sociological eye” has certainly been opened wide. Most notably, Michaela Wolf has developed what she calls the fundamentals of a “sociology of translation” which must address three different emphases: the sociology of the translation process; the sociology of the product; and the sociology of agents (Wolf 2007, 13–18).

The translator as creative, social agent

This brief overview of some of the discussions about a “social turn” towards a sociology of translation suggests that translation studies has in recent years begun to put the translator in full focus—the translator, that is, as a powerful and creative socially constructed and constructive agent. No longer is translation thought to happen only inside the translator (e.g., in the so-called “black box” of cognition) but also outside, as the translator lives and works in multiple and competing social networks that condition (or constrain) the work. The translator is understood to live and work simultaneously on two levels.

One level, a cultural, structural level, consists of such factors as power, dominance, national and international interests, religions, or economics. The second level concerns the continuous internalization of these structures which then determines practice and behavior as social norms, values, and ideologies (Wolf 2007, 4). These two levels of translation, cultural structures and internalized social practices, Wolf argues, cannot be detached from one another, either theoretically or methodologically: “society cannot be adequately described without culture nor culture without society” (6). Such considerations of translation as social practice form the core of a sociology of translation.

Situating the translator as social agent in a sociology of translation

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu appropriated the term habitus, which has become a mainstay of recent translation theories that focus on the translator. Bourdieu defined habitus as “a durable, transposable system of definitions,” first acquired by the young child (as “primary habitus”) and subsequently transformed into a secondary and tertiary habitus by the child’s passage through maturation and socialization (see, e.g., Bourdieu 1992). Habitus is the embodiment of cultural and social habits, skills, and values that we come to possess through life experiences. Bourdieu often used sports metaphors and so defined habitus as “the feel for the game.” Our habitus, created and re-created over time through the interplay of free choice and determined structures, equips us to know how to behave, reason, prefer, and believe in our social contexts, as socially determined persons.

Finnish translation studies scholar Hanna Risku writes about the “situatedness” of the translator, an approach that emphasizes the role of physical and social contexts. The way a translator works, not only in isolation but in interaction with other agents and institutions, is of interest to her. Like the habitus, the situatedness of the translator is determined by and determines the translation process (Risku 2002).

Erich Prunč builds on Bourdieu’s notion of habitus and discusses the need to bring the translator back into the complex social and cultural spaces in which they work both with and against other agents (Prunč 2007). In his contribution to Wolf’s volume Constructing a Sociology of Translation, Prunč intends to highlight the social roles taken on by the translator, how the translator actually carries out the work of translation. In his article, which has the curious title “Priests, Princes and Pariahs: Constructing the Professional Field of Translation,” Prunč reviews the various roles that the translator takes, depending on the cultural structures of society. His article reminds us that the cultural and societal constraints under which the translator must work, sometimes even with heavy demands to control communication and translation, force the translator to adjust both working styles and practice.

Prunč sets forth what is perhaps an overly simplified continuum of the translator’s habitus as seen throughout the history of translation. On one end of this continuum is what he calls the translator-priest, and on the other is the translator-pariah (Figure 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Prunč’s continuum of the roles of the translator.

The translator-priests are the self-proclaimed “guardians of the word.” In Prunč’s definition, the translator-priest is the gatekeeper and a constructor of culture, holding the power to select, transform, and affect culture (Prunč 2007, 48). The origins of the translator-priest lie with the priests in Mesopotamia who guarded the libraries of Akkadian texts, a role later adopted by Bible translators St. Jerome and Luther, as well as by literary translators whose works became part of national literary canons. Today, says Prunč, the translator-priests are those interpreters and translators of international organizations like the EU.

The translator-pariah, at the other end of this continuum, represents the extreme marginalization of the translator and the translator’s invisibility, either self-imposed or imposed by others. Again, in Prunč’s words, the translator-pariah considers the original author as master and the customer as king. Self-effacing, the translator-pariah works simply to deliver the product, not recognizing any potentially conflicting agendas or goals (Prunč 2007, 49). The translator-pariah is completely unaware of any cultural structure or societal expectations beyond delivering the product as quickly as possible. The missionary models of Bible translation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries too often produced translations that reflect this translator-pariah perspective.

Prunč then offers a brief overview of the history of translation in order to illustrate the social factor of power in the work of the translator. He begins with noting the relative freedom that the Latin authors Cicero and Horace had in integrating the ideas and structures of ancient Greek texts into their Latin translations. They not only translated these texts but also adapted them to the target culture and thought systems, using carefully selected emendation. They had the right, argues Prunč, to carry out this translation/adaptation, wielding power with no rivals.

This scenario changed significantly with the integration of Platonic Christian concepts which endorsed monotheism over the polytheism of the Roman Empire. How did the translator working within this system sustain this monotheism in the work of translation? According to Prunč, the most direct way was to assume that the word was equal to absolute truth. Following John 1.1, the church constructed a logocentric system whose accuracy and absolute truth was guaranteed by God. Thus, word-for-word translation was the only approach to translation that was allowed. In such a system, the translator had little if any creative freedom. The work of the translator was “checked” by censors and exegetes sanctioned by the church. The translator’s habitus became therefore the translator-servant, destined to follow slavishly a word-for-word translation.

Prunč goes on to trace these issues through the Enlightenment, which brought about, he says, “the deconstruction of the theo-centric model but also the abandonment of claims that only a literal translation approach was appropriate” (Prunč 2007, 50). Curiously, there has been little change with regard to the social position and power of the translator. Even with the slow decay of the identity of the word and absolute truth in our postmodern world, argues Prunč, there is still little room for the translator to flex the creative muscle. This sets up, he argues, an almost schizophrenic habitus for the translator, caught somewhere between being recognized as translator-priest, a social agent able to construct meaning on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a translator-pariah expected simply to follow the established rules and deliver the product demanded by others. This is what might be called “the conflicted habitus” of the translator (Figure 3).

Is this one reason, Prunč asks, that the translator—whom translation studies now grants the ability to create meaning and value in social networks—is often hesitant, even fearful, to turn aside from the translator-pariah status and confront head-on those cultural structures and social norms in order to construct meaning through the process of translation? Yes, he answers, arguing that throughout history into our own time, powerful underlying socio-historical constraints have kept the translator from realizing fully the social-constructivist nature of translation (Prunč 2007, 51–52).

The central role of the Bible translator within a sociology of translation

What I have offered here is admittedly a cursory overview of recent developments in translation studies, using the “cultural turn” in the 1980s as a point of departure and winding through recent theories that aim to bring the translator back into sharpened focus—as a creative social agent enmeshed in various and sometimes conflicting social networks.

Now I want to turn from the larger field of translation studies to our specific subfield of Bible translation, applying some of the language and learnings from a sociology of translation in order to explore what I see as a need to expand the components of translator training to include some of the issues observed here. The purpose, as I see it, is to equip more systemically the translator to be aware of the variety of social and cultural factors at work in the process and product of translation.

First, I want to suggest that we keep in mind four integral components in our training programs:

Clearly, I have numbered these four components in a way that reflects the amount of attention that has traditionally been given them. We in the world of Bible translation spend a lot of time talking about, teaching, and applying data that focus on the text itself, at the linguistic level. Likewise, in recent decades, training programs have given more attention to the various historical, political, geographic, and sociocultural contexts of that text. More recently, we have begun talking about frames of reference, social and cultural perspectives, identity, and cognitive reasoning as hugely important topics in translation. My last suggestion of a sociological component, however, has received notably less attention until perhaps very recent years. My hope is that we in Bible translation might follow some of the theoretical leads being discussed in translation studies and add to our training components a focused attention on the translator.

To that end, we can fruitfully borrow Wolf’s trifold prescription for a sociology of translation (see above, p. 272), giving adequate attention to the primary agents in translation, that is, the translators themselves, the emphasis Wolf labelled sociology of the translation agents. Wolf intends to focus on the translators as both individuals and as collective members of specific social networks, networks that at the same time shape and are shaped by translation. I want to highlight again Wolf’s argument that we begin to consider and appreciate the Bible translator as a creative social agent who is both the producer and creator of texts, as well as the maker and shaper of meaning within numerous social contexts.

My argument when addressing the emphases in this fourth component of training, that is, sociological, is that we can begin by placing the translator squarely in the center of a complex network of cultural and social contexts, situated within multiple contact zones where translation as process and product meet.

Let me suggest several possible topics to include in a sociological approach to rediscovering the Bible translator within such a new paradigm of training, in no particular order of importance and along with some questions that come to mind. Most of these will not be new; perhaps the newness comes in the fuller awareness of the social-constructivist nature of the translator and the lasting effects of the translation product on societal values and norms.

Process and procedures:

Status of the translator as social agent:

Technology:

Translation product as a source of culture change:

Age:

Power:

Social roles within the translation team:

Gender:

Norms:

Language prestige:

Seeing the translator in the center of these and other sociocultural networks is daunting on the one hand, and exhilarating on the other (Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Sociocultural factors affecting and affected by the translator.

Concluding thoughts and questions

My final thoughts are more questions as to what strategies we can adopt in order to help ourselves and the translator be more mindful of these cultural structures and societal practices that condition and constrain our work in translation. These thoughts are pedagogical in nature.

Lecture-style delivery of such topics is perhaps not the most natural and efficient mode of pedagogy. My interest is also in redefining the approach of training to be more learner-centered and needs-based, appreciating multiple learning styles. Discussion in small groups is often helpful to the extent that these are open and honest, as well as practical and useful. Role-playing can also be utilized to raise awareness of such sociological topics and concerns. The challenge is to make the scenarios real and not “easy.”

The goal of such expanded training, I have argued, is to make the translator more aware of the complexity of cultural and societal networks that confront the work. Hearing from and engaging other agents in the translation process is therefore invaluable, as is listening to the multiple users and gatekeepers toward whom the product is directed, that is, the various audiences of the translation.

Recent pedagogical theories remind us of the importance of creating curiosity in learners, encouraging more questions, and giving fewer answers. Perhaps there is a lesson for us in training Bible translators: encourage curiosity and “what-ifs” and playful thinking about the work of translation and all that it entails when considering it as a constructive sociological enterprise.

Finally, I suggest one of the most crucial goals of training and reorienting Bible translators within the paradigm of a sociology of translation is to empower them to claim their role as creative and constructive agents in the translation work. They are central, as translation studies has clearly begun to recognize. Let us in Bible translation not fall behind; let us not fear bringing Bible translators out of the shadows and liberating them from any stifling, conflicted habitus. ¹