1. Translators and their Norms: Towards a Sociological Construction of the Individual? Reine Meylaerts KULeuven (Belgium) 3rd ATISA Conference “Research, Role and Responsibility”, San Diego, 23-25/3/2006.

2. Towards a Sociological Construction of the Individual Central hypothesis: autopoiesis has its limits in social systems: communication-oriented paradigms (DTS) cannot ignore human agency

3. Towards a Sociological Construction of the Individual Challenge? Work out the integration of the ‘actor’ in DTS. How to conceptualise the ‘actor’?

4. Actor? “ ‘translatorship’ amounts first and foremost to being able to play a social role, i.e. to fulfil a function allotted by a community – to the activity, its practitioners and/or their products – in a way which is deemed appropriate in its own terms of reference. The acquisition of a set of norms for determining the suitability of that kind of behaviour, and for manoeuvring between all the factors which may constrain it, is therefore a prerequisite for becoming a translator within a cultural environment” (Toury 1995:53)

5. Relation Actors - Norms? “translation behaviour within a culture tends to manifest certain regularities” (56) “It is unrealistic to expect absolute regularities anyway, in any behavioural domain.” (57) “a translator’s behaviour cannot be expected to be fully systematic” (67)

6. Relation Actors - Norms? “In fact, the relative role of different agents in the overall dynamics of translational norms is still largely a matter of conjecture even for times past, and much more research is needed to clarify it.” (Toury 1995:62)

7. Translators and Norms ? text-oriented model implicit presupposition: precedence of structure (the collective) over agency (the individual) no conceptualisation of the human agent as a socialised individual conclusion: theory of the social subject is needed: a sociology at the individual level, analysing the social reality in its individualized, incorporated, internalised form (Lahire)

9. Translation in Multilingual Contexts? Translations don’t move Geography is not a distinctive feature ‘originals’ and ‘translations’, ‘source’ and ‘target’ texts, discourses, actors, institutions… share a common space

10. Intercultural Contacts? Intercultural relations are never relations of equality: hierarchichal relations between cultures Institutional and discursive structures create and change power relations, hierarchies Actors internalize and act upon these institutional and discursive structures in various and variable ways: pluriform and dynamic (intercultural) habitus (Lahire)

11. Intercultural Contacts? Fundamental aspects of the study of intercultural contacts in multilingual spaces:  the hierarchical relations created by institutional and discursive structures  their various and variable internalisations by (inter)cultural agents  relations between structure and agency

12. A = dominant language and culture = elites = institutions = most legitimate literary productions B = minority language and culture = lower classes = no/less official institutional status = less legitimate literary productions C = bilinguals

13. Translators’ Position? less geography is a distinctive feature between languages and cultures the more pervasive the institutional and discursive hierarchies between ‘source’ and ‘target’ literatures, cultures… then the more professional interculturals have to hover between competing perceptions, attitudes and practices on cultures and translation by both ‘source’ and ‘target’ sides

14. Competing Perceptions? For majority language groups:  Instrument of power  Promotion of occasional institutional translation from A into B in order to maintain institutions monolingual (e.g. translation only on explicit demand)  Promotion of literary translation from B into A to create a ‘national’ literature in the majority language For minority groups:  Translation = treachery

15. Translators’ Position? cherished by majority groups: –translation confirms their dominant position –translation delegitimises minority language and culture (selection strategies and textual stylistic options) traitors of (part of) minority culture; ideal is non- translation problematic cross-cultural habituses

16. Translators’ Position? Why start/stop/refuse translating? How (norms)? Position in ‘Source’ / ‘Target’ culture? Analysis of divergent and dynamic internalisation of oppositional institutional and discursive structures of the ‘source’ and ‘target’ fields of their mutual contacts and intersections

17. Translatorship? Individuation of collective schemes related to: his/her ‘personal’ history collective history of ‘target’ majority public collective history of ‘source’ minority public multiple and variable intersections

18. Translation Studies’ Models? ‘it’s all in the mind’ ‘Sources’ and ‘targets’ survive as individuated perception schemes of the actors’ (inter)cultural habitus Methodological consequence: ‘multiple model’ approach to integrate the actor in communication-oriented models