The Sociology of Translation: At the Intersection of Social Sciences and the Humanities. The Case of The Golden Key, or the Adventures of Buratino

The article discusses the relationship between translation studies and sociology. It is argued that the latter can prove valuable in a deepened analysis of a given society. Surprisingly, little research has been done with regard to this issue. In order to justify the point of view that translation studies can consort with social sciences in many ways, The Golden Key, or the Adventures of Buratino – a Soviet adaptation of Collodi’s Pinocchio – is analyzed. The choices of the translator are influenced by the trends and norms in the Soviet society. These norms are further analyzed through the lenses of Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts and the Manipulation School. Thus, combining sociology and translation studies can provide an interdisciplinary perspective on social phenomena. Marcin Kosman holds M.A. degrees in Linguistics and Applied Psychology from the Jagiellonian University. He was awarded twice with the Scholarship of the Minister of Science and Higher Education for Outstanding Achievements. His research interests include the sociology of translation; language contacts between Polish, English, and Russian; as well as political discourse. Contact details: University of Warsaw Faculty of Psychology


The Sociology of Translation: In Search of a Discipline
Translation is not solely a linguistic phenomenon; in fact, it is deeply grounded in social and cultural contexts. It is worth noting that translation has been surprisingly under-researched when it comes to sociological analyses. While branches of sociology such as sociology of literature, culture, or language are well-developed, there has not been much space dedicated to translation as such even though -particularly in the wake of multiculturalism and informational society -translation has become an ubiquitous part of a plethora of societies. The main focus of this article is to highlight the significance of translation and how it helps shape a particular set of values in a given society. This will be done by exam- Pierre Bourdieu claimed that means of communication (language, culture, or discourse) are instruments of symbolic power. As Bourdieu (1991) highlighted, symbolic power is power used to construct and influence reality; thus, it is a tool of social domination, achieved with the help of language: [t]he dominant culture contributes to the real integration of the dominant class (by facilitating the communication between all its members and by distinguishing them from other classes); it also contributes to the fictitious integration of society as a whole, and thus to the apathy (false consciousness) of the doomed classes; and finally, it contributes to the legitimization of the established order by establishing distinctions (hierarchies) and legitimating these distinctions. (p. 167) Similarly, Michel Foucault states that the power relationship is expressed through language. Further, discourse is what unites power and knowledge, and in every society one can observe imposing authority through it (Foucault 1972). For Foucault and Boudrieu, language is not a neutral representation of the world, but a means of symbolic violence. The relationship between language and power is discussed at length in critical discourse analysis (CDA) -an interdisciplinary approach uniting methodologies of sociology, linguistics, anthropology, and philosophy (Fairclough 1995). 2 Another branch of sociolinguistic research is represented by John J. Gumprez and Dell Hymes (1972), who -in their book titled Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication -argue that in the past linguistics had disregarded the social use of language, which was a faulty practice, since language policies (e.g. language planning) play a crucial role in forming an identity.
Before I begin the proper analysis, I shall outline the foundations of the sociology of translation and reveal its place in the world of sociology; how it combines the elements of the humanities and social sciences. The common ground between sociology and translation studies seems to be rather clear. Lawrence Venuti has called for foreignization in translation, which he understands in terms of conforming to the norms of the source culture rather than the target culture, thus emphasizing the original context and ideology. Further, Venuti argues that translators should not be invisible; on the contrary -their work has to be seen and respected (Venuti 1995:7-8).
This statement does not refer strictly to cultural or commercial acclaim, but -to quote Antoine Berman (2000:284) -"the trial of the foreign." Venuti also observes that in the Anglo-Saxon culture, the most important quality of a translation is fluency. However, Venuti states that fluency enables readers to experience the text through their domestic cultural and ideological lenses, whereas preserving the original ideology of the text is crucial in modern translation studies (Venuti 1995:12-13). Bogusia Temple (2006) sees the rise in the interest of translation studies in the question of ideology as an opportunity to combine sociological and translation/interpretation research, particularly in the context of biographical research. Also, Wolf Lepenies (1988:7) located sociology as a discipline between the natural sciences and the humanities, but one that is, in general, closer to literature than to biology or physics.
According to Magdalena Czech (2011), translation can be treated as a form of social interaction on the border between cultures and societies of source, and target languages. Further, it can be treated as a collective action. The author writes that in the act of creating translation -aside from the translator themselves -the author of the source text and their potential readers can also be considered actors. Moreover, the importance of social institutions cannot be overstated. André Lefevere, one of the founders of the Manipulation School, argues that in a given literary system the institution of patron-age is, in fact, responsible for the kind of literature that is read and endorsed. Lefevere (2000) argues that patronage have been present in all the societies since time immemorial. One can differentiate between three major components of patronage. Firstly, an ideological one, as -in the opinion of Lefevere -literature should be in line with the other systems in a given society. One needs to bear in mind that in translation studies ideology is frequently connected with politics. According to Şehnaz Tahir-Gurcaglar [t]ranslation is political because, both as activity and product, it displays process of negotiation among different agents. On micro-level, these agents are translators, authors, critics, publishers, editors, and readers. (p. 113) Thus, when translating a text, the translator has to be cautious of not just grammatical rules, but also of the ideology in the target society, i.e. how certain ideological elements from the source text would function in the target text, and how the translation would function in the whole literary system. The importance of ideology in translation often led to adjusting texts so that they could be in line with certain standards accepted by editors and institutions; or, in more extreme cases, censorship. For example, that was the case with numerous books in Franco's Spain, where Joseph Wambaugh's The New Centurions-a novel describing the difficult work of police officers in Los Angeles of the 1960s -was published only after cutting many fragments that were considered inappropriate. Mostly, the fragments that were cut included swear words which were inextricably linked with the language of the policemen in the book, but the censors argued that that language might be seen as offensive. Similarly, in Erich Segal's Love Story, one can find numerous fragments Marcin Kosman in which the Catholic Church is disregarded, since the characters do not agree with its ideology. These fragments, along with coarse words, were also omitted in Spanish translations, except the first one (Gómez Castro 2008).
The second component of patronage is an economic factor, as it is the patron who assures the writer's living and material situation. If this is the case, then the latter one has to comply with the terms of the former one. This component seems rather natural and obvious, since the position of a poet laureate has been present in various societies since time immemorial. The third and final component is a status factor, since -owing to their work -the writer can achieve a certain position in their society. Translation can thus be seen as a means of improving one's social status as well as it can serve as motivation (Lefevere 2000).
It is important to mention that patronage can be non-homogeneous. If this is the case, the economic status of the translator does not depend on ideological factors and they have enough financial support from other sources than the patron. Moreover, when translating literary works does not entail the rise in one's social status, it also means non-homogeneity of patronage. On the other hand, if all the components are in the hands of the same person or institution, whose major goal is to ensure the stability and sustainability of the social system (and literature is one of the tools that they use), then patronage is homogenous (Szymańska 2010). What is more, patrons usually influence the system in an indirect way; it is the critics, reviewers, and academic scholars who do it for them. Using the Manipulists' terminology, they are called "professional readers" (Lefevere 1992:4). On the other hand, non-professional readers, who claim to have read a text, actually know it with the whole corpora of other texts that comment it further: reviews, film adaptations, illustrations, and fore-or afterwords. This is because, according to this paradigm, a translation (or, in Lefeverian terms, refraction) is always in a way adjusted to the expectations and knowledge of the target society. Lefevere (2000) observes the ubiquitous nature of refractions and points out that the scope of translation studies should encompass categories broader than just literature: Regarding translation studies, the cultural turn refers to a cultural approach which is nowadays predominant in many branches of the humanities.
Culture-oriented translation studies are not concentrated on interlanguage transfer; rather, they are focused on a complex and multidimensional sphere of intercultural contacts. It is culture -not language, words or texts -that is, as Magda Heydel (2009:21-22) concludes, basic operational unit of translation

Literary and Translation Norms in the USSR
As mentioned before, one should bear in mind that there are two dimensions connected with one's habitus: individual experience and collective experience. In the subsection above, individual experiences of Tolstoy were outlined. The following part This fact stemmed from cultural isolation and the further nationalization of publishing houses. Therefore, in the early USSR one could observe two major processes: the Soviets tried to seize control over private publishing houses and, at the same time, they made it difficult for people to read foreign authors.
After Stalin's rise to power and the proclamation of the first five-year plan, the Soviets began to put a hold on folklore stories. In order to achieve this, the Soviets established the RAPP organization

Differences in Tone and Message Between the Two Books
It is worth noting that the first translation of Car-

Concluding Remarks
Aleksey Tolstoy's choices as a translator are predominantly determined by the norms and tendencies in the USSR at that time. As it was demonstrated above, for the Soviets literature was just a tool to raise a proper citizen. Tolstoy, having conformed to the norms, was one of the writers obedient to the system. Using Pierre Bourdieu's terminology, the field dictated the position of the agent (Tolstoy) by giving him certain capital (social position, status, and fame) that could not have been acquired otherwise. Given Tolstoy's background as one of the Whites, one can speculate that he was driven by this capital and, ultimately, he succumbed to it. He might have foreseen that the best strategy would be to act in accordance with the field. Therefore, his habitus was also tainted by other people who operated in his field -adaptation and domestication were considered the norm in the early Soviet Union. We can thus infer that certain strategies and choices might not have been random, but, rather, were rooted in the social convention of Tolstoy's times.
Nowadays, a rendition of a classic story done in a way resembling Tolstoy's Golden Key would probably be impossible, since the awareness as regards the status of translators has increased considerably.
It seems that now the translator is not perceived as the rival of the author -that point of view was particularly strong during the age of the romantics (Kvartnik 2014). This stance has changed over time. It is worth mentioning that Jacek Dukaj -who used similar strategies to that of the romantics in his translation 6 of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness -was considered provocative and scandalous (Dudek 2018).  Bourdieu (1990;1991), namely that language can be a powerful tool of oppression, influencing more than just linguistic phenomena.
Finally, a deepened analysis of an ideologically driven translation can result in extracting more data from the point of view of anthropology. Through the lenses of translation, one can see not only how a given society functioned in a given period of time, but also how it viewed another society at the same time. In conclusion, using translation studies methodology as far as sociology is concerned seems encouraging and it may prove essential in adopting an interdisciplinary perspective on phenomena such as linguistics, social impact, and ideology.