Critical reflections on Bourdieu’s framework

Although different scholars have applied Bourdieu’s model, there also have been some criticisms of his work. Bourdieu’s theoretical framework has been criticised by different scholars on a number of grounds. Much criticism of Bourdieu can be found in studies outside the discipline of translation studies e.g. education, psychology, therapy, etc., however, few critical comments have been found in translation studies, as applying Bourdieu’s model is a relatively new approach in the field of TS. Hence, we have reviewed the most significant criticisms in relation to translation studies research.

In terms of Bourdieu’s main concept of field, Richard Jenkins (1992: 89) argues that one cannot determine whether a field, in our case a field of translation, does or does not exist. He (ibid) claims that Bourdieu did not clarify how a field exists and how it can be defined. It is worth noting that, in our view, Jenkins’ suspicion of the existence of a field derives from the sense that a field is not a physical entity that can be seen or touched.

As field is the main concept in Bourdieu’s model, it is necessary to determine whether it is possible to identify a field of translation that can then be examined. We might expect that there would be a field where the translations are produced. That is because, based on Bourdieu’s definition of a field, which is a structured space of possible positions occupied by agents who struggle for some sorts of capitals, one could argue that his definition applies to our case. In relation to the translational field (e.g. translational field for Mahfouz’s works), there are agents (e.g. translators, publishers, etc.) who occupy positions in a space, struggle and compete with each other to acquire types of capital available in the field. For instance, translators compete to acquire the different types of capitals such as social capital, symbolic capital, etc. However, this field, as Simeoni (1998: 19) points out, “is much less structured than the literary field, its structuring being far more heteronomous”. In support of this view, Wolf (2006: 136) concurs that the field of translation is always situated between other fields such as the literary field, the political field, academic field, etc. Hence, she implicitly recognises the existence of a field of

100

translation. On that basis, we could argue that there is a field of translation, but it is more heteronomous than other fields.

Moreover, a field is defined as an arena “of struggle for legitimation” (Swartz, 1997: 123). The struggle takes place among agents in the field over the possession of specific resources or, as Bourdieu calls them, stakes, and that is what constitutes the logic of the field (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 108). This implies that a field should contain a struggle among its agents, who should communicate in one way or another to compete over the different stakes in the field. However, the field of translation is highly heterogeneous (Simeoni, 1998: 19), which means that its agents may not interact or have contact with each other. For example, Arabic into English translators are spread all over the world (e.g. Allen in Pennsylvania, Davies in Egypt, Roberts in Jordan, Cobham and El-Enany in UK, etc.), thus, we could assume that they rarely meet each other. In view of that, Hekkanen (2009: 7) wonders how, then, would agents be able to struggle over specific resources in such a heteronomous field. One could argue that the struggle between agents in the field does not have to be through direct contact – or even maybe directly intentional. Struggle could be the product of the need to gain social capital in order to earn a living, without translators actively competing against each other in a personalised way. For example, because Mahfouz has a considerable amount of capitals in the literary field, he has acquired a high status. As a result, translators and publishers prefer his work for translation and publishing over the work of other authors. This situation would evoke the desire by other authors for competition and struggle over different source of capitals (e.g. the Nobel Prize) to attain popularity and preference from translators and publishers. This can be demonstrated through other authors’ criticisms of Mahfouz, his works and the Nobel Prize, such as those the Arabic writer Salma Alkhadra. She (in Mahmoud, 2012) states in an interview about Mahfouz’s works and the Nobel Prize, that Mahfouz “isn’t an interesting writer or a great novelist, although he has enthralled [readers] on the basis of the Arabic novel”. She (ibid) adds that Mahfouz’s winning of the Nobel Prize is due to “chance” and other competent writers also deserved to win it.

101

In this regard, we have to admit that, to some extent, this is true. That is because we believe that there are other authors who produced significant works in the field as Mahfouz did. Thus, in our view, he was awarded the Nobel Prize not only for his intelligent work, but also because he was supported by influential agents in the field who brought him to the attention of the Nobel Prize committee such as Allen and Johnson-Davies. Therefore, without support from agents in the field who valued his work and recognised his cultural and symbolic capitals, Mahfouz may not have been awarded the Nobel Prize.

Hekkanen (2009) tests the applicability of Bourdieu’s model in the translation of Finnish literary prose texts into English after the Second World War. She argues that the internal hierarchy of the translational field in her case study is highly heteronomous, with very little contact between its agents. Agents of the translational field are not only related to one field but to different fields where they acquire their forms of capitals. According to Bourdieu (1993b: 42), capitals can only be attained in the field where agents exist. On that basis, for Hekkanen, Bourdieu’s model cannot be applied on a small translational field such as the field of Finnish literary prose, where agents acquire their capitals from other fields. Hence, she recommends applying Actor Network Theory as an alternative to Bourdieu’s model because such a small field is a network with a number of actants. It is important to note that Hekkanen’s findings do not apply to our case, as the majority of Arabic into English translators own different sorts of capitals that relate to the field of cultural production. For example, all the translators interviewed for this study have at least one form of capital of the field of cultural production (e.g. authorship of literary works, awards that are relevant to translation, etc.).

In relation to habitus, King (2000: 417-418) claims that although Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is intended to overcome the opposition between the subjectivist and objectivist views, it is in fact considered as a branch of objectivism. Similarly, other scholars such as Brubaker (1985), Debra Schatzki (1987, 1997), Terry Evens (1999), etc. uphold this view. For example, Evens (1999: 9) argues that although Bourdieu insists that his intention is to overcome the subject -

102

object dualism, however, his work is a form of objectivism. This is due to Bourdieu’s view that individuals act strategically, which gives the implication that individuals are deprived of freedom of choice. However, we could point to Bourdieu’s explanation that the concept of “strategic actions” means that practice is “a mixture of conscious and unconscious behaviour at the same time” (Jenkins, 1992: 72). Therefore, it is clear that Bourdieu affirms that social agents’ act without following particular norms and that their practices are a mixture of freedom and constraint (ibid), thus, we could argue that Bourdieu implicitly indicates that his work is not a form of objectivism. To illustrate what Bourdieu means when he says that social agents’ practices are a mixture of freedom and constraint, let us take a hypothetical example. Let us assume that publishers in the field of Arabic into English translation show a preference for adding footnotes in translations when translating CSIs. In this case, translators might feel that they have to add footnotes to satisfy publishers, however, they might choose not to do so. In other words, translators might add footnotes, not adding any footnotes or add footnotes but to a very limited extent. This example demonstrates how agents’ practices can be constrained by particular conditions, but at the same time the end product of these practices is their own choice.

Moreover, Bourdieu (1990: 116) responds to this criticism when he argues that a particular habitus works only in a particular social field and that the same habitus can produce different practices and can be changed and transformed according to the demands of the field. Therefore, individuals’ practices, which are a result of their habitus, are wholly neither conscious nor unconscious, as they are triggered by a particular field.

Many scholars, such as Loic Wacquant (1989), Richard Harker (1990) and John Taylor (1993), maintain that Bourdieu has proposed a theoretical framework that can be considered as a genuine progress in social theory. Similarly, Jenkins (1992: 10) posits that Bourdieu’s work is so important first, because it provides a major contribution to the conflict between subjectivity and objectivity and, second, all of Bourdieu’s work is empirically tested.

103

However, Jenkins (1992: 90) does criticise Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field. He (ibid) claims that Bourdieu does not give a clear explanation for the relationship between habitus and field. That is, in some cases Bourdieu writes that a field generates a habitus that conforms to that field. Elsewhere, he suggests that agents bring their own pre-existing habituses to the field (Jenkins, 1992: 90). In response to this criticism, we would argue that Bourdieu’s definition of habitus is clear enough to explain the relationship between habitus and field. Bourdieu elucidates the double dimensional nature of habitus (Bourdieu, 1977a: 203). He (in Wacquant, 2008: 268) states clearly that the field structures the habitus, and in return, the habitus contributes to the structuring of the field.

Based on the above-mentioned criticisms and our responses to these, we could argue that Bourdieu’s framework can be used fruitfully to achieve the aims of this research. That is mainly because we believe that there is a translational field where the translations are produced and consumed; there is a struggle in the field where agents compete with each other over different stakes and, thus, positions; the concept of habitus is clearly defined and used by Bourdieu; and finally many researchers have successfully applied Bourdieu’s theoretical framework in their respective research (e.g. Simeoni (1998), Gouanvic (1997, 1999, 2002a, 2005), Wolf (2002, 2007), Inghilleri (2005), Buzelin (2005, 2007), Hanna (2005), Sela-Sheffy (2005), Chesterman (2006, 2007)). These scholars have empirically examined and tested Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, proving its usefulness and validity.

3.4.5. Conclusion

In this chapter we have discussed different sociological models and based on our analysis, we have argued that Bourdieu's sociological model is the best choice to be applied in this research. In addition, it has been proved that Bourdieu’s framework is a viable tool to study the field of translation from different perspectives.

104

The results from the studies presented suggest that the field is conditioned by agents’ interests in the field and there are different factors affecting translators’ behaviour in their translations. These include agents’ habitus in the source and target fields rather than the norms of these fields, as habitus plays a role in creating or adjusting the existing norms, also affecting translators’ trajectories and socio-cultural factors in the context of text production. Furthermore, it has been shown to be important to examine the role of social agents in the field, as this will lead to a thorough examination of the production process of translation.

Although the above mentioned scholars applied Bourdieu's sociology in their work, relatively few of them have focused on an in-depth analysis of the translations of a particular genre (e.g. Gouanvic studied French translations of science fiction, Liang studied translations of science fiction in Taiwan and Hanna studied drama translations in Egypt), however, none of these studies is conducted in the field of the novel genre, in an Egyptian context and around the work of Mahfouz. There is, thus, a need and an opportunity to explore Bourdieu’s sociology in this context.

In seeking to develop Bourdieu’s model with regard to the role of social agents, this study demonstrates the role different social agents play in structuring and restructuring the field of translation and how this structured field, with its socio-cultural dimensions, influences in its turn the translation agents’ practices. We analyse macro level variables in order to understand and offer explanations for micro-level translational choices, in the form of culture-specific items.

105

Chapter Four: