Gholam Reza Tajvidi; Parvaneh Maazallahi
Abstract
1. IntroductionThe time period between 1320S.H. /1941A.D. and 1345S.H. /1966A.D. has been considered as a momentous time span characterized by political upheavals and the appearance of diverse political tendencies in the contemporary history of Iran. In this regard, translators as social agents who were ...
Read More
1. IntroductionThe time period between 1320S.H. /1941A.D. and 1345S.H. /1966A.D. has been considered as a momentous time span characterized by political upheavals and the appearance of diverse political tendencies in the contemporary history of Iran. In this regard, translators as social agents who were strongly interconnected with social contexts drew influences from these political upheavals and tendencies, on the one hand, and affected them, on the other hand. Deposition of Reza Shah in the beginning of 1320sS.H./ 1940sA.D. And also coup d’état in 1332S.H./ 1953A.D. Had tremendous repercussions in both social space and cultural productions in a way that different fields of activity like publication were transformed and profoundly impacted upon practices of translators as cultural producers who were situated within such a field. 2. Theoretical Framework To investigate translators’ behavior as situated in the publication field during a twenty-five-year time span between 1320S.H. /1941A.D. and 1345S.H. /1966A.D. the present study heavily relied on the theory of sociology of cultural productions as formulated by Pierre Bourdieu in 1979. In this regard, habitus and field as two key concepts of this theory had been adopted to shed light on the influences drawn from developments in the field of publication by translators. In other words, publication field was remolded as a field endowed with hierarchical order, autonomy, social reproduction, and constant struggle in accordance with how Bourdieu conceptualizes formation of a given field. Meanwhile, translators’ behavior was reframed based on the concept of habitus as being subordinate to the field of publication, on the one hand, and contributory to the field of cultural production, on the other hand. Consequently, structured and structuring aspects of habitus, as emphasized by Bourdieu, were brought to the fore. It merits attention that political events like the oust of Reza Shah, establishment and dissolution of Toode party, and coup d’état in 1332S.H. /1953A.D. were formulated with respect to the concept of the field of power which dominated any other fields of practice as publication and cultural productions.3. MethodologyThis study falls into the category of conceptual studies, because it focuses on better understanding of the concept of translatorial habitus in relation to the field of publication. Furthermore, documentary analysis as a research method which is widely applied in sociological studies has been concentrated on to analyze the research data. Concerning this, archival data like interviews done with eminent translators and editors pursuing translation and editing career during the specified time period as well as documents and historical evidence have been consulted with. Meanwhile, bibliography of translated books presented in the specified time period was specially taken into account. Apart from these, different historical information concerning sociohistorical ambience of the time period under study was taken up to elaborate on the field of power as the first level of a Bourdieu Sian analysis. Then, the influences of the field of power upon the field of cultural production were brought to the fore. Afterwards, the subfield of book publication as situated within the field of cultural production subordinate to the field of power was analyzed with respect to four functioning mechanisms underlying the formation of a given field. As the last level, the ever-changing structure of the subfield of book publication was related to the translators’ behavior from the lens of translatorial professional habitus.4. Results and DiscussionThe reign of Pahlavi II culminated with development of the field of cultural production due to the freedom provided for journalists, publishers, and other cultural producers as translators. With respect to the field of publication, the change of the foreign language recognized as the state’s second language from French to English, technological improvements on printing, removal of censorship and surveillance on published materials, increase of literate individuals, etc. contributed to some changes in the field of publication. However, unfavorable economic conditions as well as ascendancy of journals and newspapers hindered the progress of book publication subfield from an ill-formed field of practice to an autonomous one. Consequently, translatorial habitus drawn meager influences from this field, rather, dominated it in terms of what cultural productions were offered to the marketplace as well as how they were produced. However, coup d’état in 1332S.H./1953A.D. brought up dramatic changes in the field of power which focused on the alteration of the field of cultural production in accordance with an acculturation policy based on which Russian socialist culture was to be substituted with American culture. Such an acculturation policy which was strictly pursued by the regime ended in establishment of state run publication institutes like Incorporation of Translation and Publication of Books and Franklin Institute during 1330s S.H./1950s A.D. It merits attention that the former was patronized by Pahlavi Foundation and the latter was financially supported by the American government. Due to the initiatives made by such institutes, the subfield of book publication was codified and transformed to an autonomous well-structured subfield. Consequently, translators lost their dominant position in this subfield and their habitus turned to a more regulated one. 5. Conclusions and SuggestionsThis study has pointed to the conclusion that translation practice is subordinate to the ambience of the field of power, in the first place, and to the field in which translators are situated, in the second place. Hence, as the field of power provides opportunities for the formation of well-structured fields, translatorial habitus orients towards further submission to the given fields. However, in ill-formed fields of practice which are devoid of codification processes as conceptualized by Bourdieu, translators are endowed with a dominant translatorial habitus. In the case of publication field under study, it appears that development of publication field from an ill-formed field of practice to a well-structured one brought about considerable changes in translatorial habitus, because translators’ behavior was regulated based on new requirements, and translators were placed in a dominated position as compared with publishers. In line with this, eminent publishers enjoyed the privilege of choosing works to translate and also controlling the quality of translation products. Meanwhile, developments of the field of publication heavily relied on the improvements made in the field of cultural production.
