譯隻綠蠵龜

      The first few sentences of the essay sums up Theo Herman’s view towards the polysystem theory: “Description is not enough. It has to serve a purpose, such as explanation. This requires that phenomena are put into a context” (102). He aims to prove his argument in the entire essay, starting with putting the polysystem theory in its historical and cultural context. He introduces the theory from its origins in Russian Formalism and the Prague school of literary criticism as well as the key scholars Tynjanov and Even-Zohar. He then delves into the definition of the theory and key terms, pointing out that there are vague and blurry terms that need to be specified as well as some statements that are self-contradictory. Hermans uses an entire page to point out the problems in the laws of the theory (111), before proceeding to give and explain two examples applying the polysystem theory. He concludes in the end with the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, summing up its contributions, limitations, and future possibilities.

     I find it interesting that the polysystem theory which has widened up the field of translation studies because it looks at systems from a broader perspective, also finds its own limitations because of this “strength.” As Hermans has pointed out, the polysystem theory seems to aim at universal laws and principles, therefore many of its key terms and definitions are vague and not very well specified. Its laws also tend to be overly deterministic and generalized. I wonder if this is also part of the reason why the polysytem theory has not changed over 20 years, as Hermans pointed out (106). Can it be because it is very open, seeks universals and generalizations, therefore finds it hard to concretize, specify or take on another angle? Or could it be that because it is descriptive in nature, it shies away from delving into the complex relations at work between related parties, factors or subjects at hand?

     As a result, new approaches always emerge in reaction to the limitations of previous theories. It can be argued that the manipulation approach towards translation studies arises partly from the polysystem theory, in reaction against its seemingly objective, descriptive, depersonalized and abstract take. As the polysystem theory hovers over the intervention of factors from a bird’s eye perspective, the manipulative approach aims to cut in and identify specific agents of intervention and manipulation and puts the study into a more specific and concretized context. This may also be seen as a further move away from binary oppositions and generalizations of phenomena to research in more specific contexts, in which one looks at systems and subjects from the relationship of power and ideology.