A Criticism of Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory with a Multifaceted Approach to the Position of Translated Literature in the Persian Literary Polysystem

The contribution of Even Zohar’s (1978/2012) polysystem theory to our understanding of the position of translated literature in the Persian literary system is crucial, though the theory has some shortcomings. In fact, by using a single approach - regardless of how appropriate it may be - it is impossible to accurately examine the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of any language. Hence, it must be investigated with a “multifaceted approach” to help eliminate the polysystem theory’s shortcomings. In this article, we critique some fundamental principles of polysystem theory by examining the position of notable translated literature cases within the Persian literary polysystem, highlighting the theory’s shortcomings and limitations in terms of external validity. The findings indicated that the most important flaws in this theory are a lack of attention to the role of the readers’ reception, a disregard for translation movements, and the agency of academics, translators, and patrons as determining factors in the position of translated literature. Hence, it is necessary to integrate the above facets into the polysystem theory to determine the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of each language.


Introduction:
While Even-Zohar’s (1978/2012) polysystem theory plays a crucial role in our understanding of the position of translation in Persian literature, it also has some flaws. Hence, it is necessary to take a “multifaceted approach” to better understand this position and to address and expand upon the shortcomings of this theory. Polysystem theory is based on the following principles:

Multiplicity: The polysystem encompasses multiple systems, such as art, religion, and politics.
Heterogeneity: In a polysystem, cultural sectors and activities are diverse.
Hierarchy: The different layers and sub-sectors that make up a literary polysystem constantly compete for a superior position.
Dynamism: There is a constant tension between the central and peripheral sectors, within which various literary genres (including translated literature) strive to dominate the center.
Historical context: The polysystem is influenced by historical and temporal contexts.
Translation as a (sub)system: According to polysystem theory, translations are not isolated texts. They are part of the literary and cultural polysystem of the target language and can influence other literary and cultural components.

In this article, we attempt to discuss the most important shortcomings of Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory by reviewing past research, referring to several case studies, and discussing the need for an integrated approach to explaining the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of each language. The main research questions are as follows:

What are the most important shortcomings of Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory?
Why should a multifaceted approach be used to explain the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of each language?

Method:
In this study, a descriptive-analytical method with an approach integrating existing theories was used to criticize, analyze, and expand Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory. From the perspective of epistemology, the current study is based on “constructivism.” In this philosophy, truth is multidimensional; hence—unlike positivism—the researcher must examine all existing concepts, theories, and perspectives from both a historical and social perspective, rather than limiting the components and variables. Understanding and constructing concepts result from the interaction and integration of the researcher’s understanding with the perspectives of others. Thus, the present study is qualitative in nature and specifically uses case studies, the potential results of which lead to hypothesis generation (Creswell and Creswell, 2023). Since the purpose of this study is to criticize a theory, previous studies were used to examine polysystem theory. As a result, the emergence and development of the theory were discussed to identify its flaws and shortcomings, as well as its advantages and strengths, and to refine and improve its principles. Moreover, the internal consistency of its principles and concepts, as well as its external validity, were also examined (APA Manual, 2020).
Results and Discussion:
Evidence from case studies, including those in Persian, suggests that the cultural approach along with the social (sociological) approach to translation that emerged in the early twentieth century collectively plays a role in explaining the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of each language. Agency is one of the factors influencing the components of each polysystem. Unfortunately, in Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory, which is mainly text-centered, the role of human factors has been neglected, while in every literary polysystem, the agency or activism of individuals is crucial. For example, Haddadian Moghadam (2014) showed how the role of human agency in the process of translating and publishing the Persian translation of Morier’s The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Ispahan made this novel a prized work among those translated into Persian, gaining a prominent position in the Persian literary polysystem.
Moreover, according to Azarang (2016), in the translation of the Zoroastrian holy book, the Avesta, which was scattered during Alexander’s invasion and whose mainly oral narratives were collected during the Parthian era, a desperate effort was made during the Sassanid era to collect, interpret, and translate it from Old Persian to Middle Persian, or Sassanid Pahlavi, and to write it in the Avestan alphabet and script. Furthermore, translation movements are driven by the agency of activists who can accelerate changes within any literary polysystem or become agents of change and transformation themselves.
It can be said that translation movements are the same turning points referred to in polysystem theory, namely, periods when a culture or literature is nascent, weakened due to socio-political crises, or experiencing a cultural vacuum. During such periods, intensified translation activity makes a culture or literature ready to accept the norms of a foreign language and be influenced by it.
On the other hand, the discussion of the reception of translation falls within the framework of a type of reader-oriented literary criticism that has a particularly historical application. For example, a particular work or all of an author’s works may be very popular and desirable to readers (i.e., in a primary position) in one period, while in another period, the praise and excellent reception of that work or the author’s entire oeuvre may decrease (i.e., become peripheral). As each historical period creates its horizon of expectation, the overall value and interpretation of each text can never be fixed or universal. Since every translator is initially a reader and the translator’s understanding of a text influences his or her interpretation and performance in translation, it seems necessary to integrate reception theory and the concept of the horizon of expectation into polysystem theory to clarify the role and influence of readers—including translators, professional critics, and ordinary readers—in determining the position of translated literary works.
Some researchers have criticized polysystem theory from different perspectives. Hermans (1999: 119) is perhaps one of the first critics to point out the problem of opposing dichotomies such as “canonical” and “non-canonical” works, “central” and “peripheral” positions, or “primary” and “secondary” translation activities in polysystem theory. He also believes that polysystem theory is limited to text, although others, such as Chang (2001, 2011), see it as a general theory of culture rather than a text- or product-centered theory. Concerning the same argument about its text-centered nature, Hermans believes that this theory is highly abstract and impersonal and does not take into account actual conditions (i.e., the agency of socio-political power and the role of individuals’ ideology) in the production of texts (1999: 118).
In addition, one criticism of this theory is that one or more case studies on the impact of translation cannot lead to generalizations (Kuhiwczak, 2000: 171). Therefore, many cases need to be examined, and perhaps the periods when translation movements occurred are more appropriate times to examine such effects. Chang (2001: 320) points out the unique characteristics of polysystems in each language and culture and believes that the analysis of each literary polysystem should also be based on its specific characteristics. He also considers the theory’s “emphasis on patterns and the canon of literary works” rather than “actual relations between political and social power or objective realities such as institutions and groups” as one of its weaknesses. With some expansion and development, Chang (2001) believes this theory could be a suitable framework for research on the politics of translation. In another article (Chang, 2011), he emphasizes the complementary role of polysystem theory alongside other cultural theories and argues that this theory needs to be revised.
Zhang (2014) criticizes the contradiction between the dualities in this theory and does not consider the boundaries between them clear. He also believes that when this theory talks about “emerging” literature, “peripheral” positions, and the literature of “weak” or “small” countries, they are not given precise and clear definitions, because the political and even military power of a country may decline but its literary-cultural impact may be preserved. He also argues that although polysystem theory positions literature in a social and historical context, it does not pay attention to the role of translators’ decision-making and choices during the translation process (i.e., what is called agency and activism in this article).
Conclusion:
By presenting the above shortcomings, the present study showed that the cultural approach, along with the social approach to translation, collectively plays a role in explaining the position of translated literature in the literary polysystem of each language. Moreover, the findings indicated that the most important flaws of this theory are the lack of attention to the role of readers’ reception, translation movements, and the agency of academics, translators, and patrons as determining factors in the position of translated literature. Undoubtedly, explaining the exact position of translated literature in the literary polysystem is very difficult due to the diversity of issues related to polysystem theory in each language, which requires access to extensive resources and facilities—something impossible due to the limitations of the present study. It is hoped that in the future, other researchers will be able to help expand this theory and eliminate its shortcomings by accessing more resources and research and using related case studies. On the other hand, comparing the results of various case studies (for example, in different cultures or languages) helps determine whether polysystem theory is universally applicable. The more the theory is verified in the diverse literary polysystems under investigation, the greater its external validity will be. This research has shown that while some case studies of translated literature in Persian confirm the external validity of the theory, in other cases, there is a need to integrate the theory with the approaches mentioned in translation studies.