Article published In: Translation Spaces
Vol. 14:2 (2025) ► pp.171–194
Rethinking censorship in translation
A Bourdieusian field approach
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with KU Leuven.
Published online: 11 July 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.24020.kar
https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.24020.kar
Abstract
This article critically addresses the contemporary challenge of broadening the concept of censorship, a
consequence of theories emphasizing constitutive modes of censorship. These theories often equate all forms of exclusion and
control with censorship, creating ambiguity around the concept. To tackle this issue, this paper offers a redefined perspective on
censorship in translation within a Bourdieusian field framework. By adopting this new conceptual framework, the article explores
and elucidates the behaviors of various actors within the context of translation censorship, shedding light on how this refined
approach clarifies the concept and offers a valuable tool for understanding its dynamics in the specific domain of
translation.
Keywords: translation, censorship, Bourdieu, field theory, censorship capital
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Censorship: An elusive notion in academic discourse
- 3.Toward disambiguating the concept of censorship
- 3.1Conceiving censorship as a field
- 3.2Actions of the orthodox agents: Censorship strategies
- 3.2.1Suppressive strategies
- 3.2.2Manipulative strategies
- 3.2.3Discriminatory strategies
- 3.2.4Avoidance strategies
- 3.3Actions of the heterodox agents
- 3.3.1Transgressive strategies
- 3.3.2Coercive self-censorship
- 3.3.3Resistant self-censorship
- 4.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (36)
Billiani, F. 2016. “Assessing
boundaries–censorship and translation: An introduction.” In Modes of
censorship and translation: National contexts and diverse media, edited by F. Billiani, 1–25. Routledge.
1986. “The
forms of capital.” In Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education, edited by J. G. Richardson 241–258. Greenwood.
Bremmer, I., and P. Keat. 2010. The
fat tail: The power of political knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford University Press.
Burt, R. 1994. “Introduction:
The “new” censorship.” In The administration of aesthetics:
Censorship, political criticism, and the public sphere, edited by J. G. Richardson, xi–xxix. University of Minnesota Press.
Camus Camus, C. 2010. “Censorship
in the Translations and Pseudo-Translations of the West.” In Why
Translation Studies Matters, edited by G. Hansen, D. Gile, and N. K. Pokorn, 41–56. John Benjamins.
Cohen, M. 2001. “Introduction:
Justifying just judgment.” In Censorship in Canadian
literature, edited by M. Cohen, 3–20. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Freshwater, H. 2004. “Toward
a redefinition of censorship.” In Censorship & cultural
regulation in the modern age, edited by B. Müller, 225–245. Rodopi.
Green, J. 2005. “Introduction.” In Encyclopedia
of censorship, edited by J. Green and N. J. Karolides, xvii–xxii. Facts On File.
Hanna, S. 2016. Bourdieu
in Translation Studies: The socio-cultural dynamics of Shakespeare translation in
Egypt. Routledge.
Holquist, M. 1994. “Introduction:
Corrupt originals: The paradox of
censorship.” PMLA 109 (1): 14–25. [URL]
Lovell, S. 2001. “Samizdat:
Soviet Union.” In Censorship: A world
encyclopedia, edited by D. Jones, 2133–2135. Fitzroy Dearborn.
Merkle, D. 2018. “Translation
and censorship.” In The Routledge handbook of translation and
politics, edited by F. Fernández and J. Evans, 238–253. Routledge.
Merkle, D., C. O’Sullivan, L. van Doorslaer, and M. Wolf. 2010. “Exploring
a neglected century: Translation and censorship in nineteenth-century
Europe.” In The power of the pen: Translation & censorship in
nineteenth-century Europe, edited by D. Merkle, C. O’Sullivan, L. van Doorslaer, and M. Wolf, 7–26. LIT.
Müller, B. 2004. “Censorship
and cultural regulation: Mapping the territory.” In Censorship &
cultural regulation in the modern age, edited by B. Müller, 1–31. Rodopi.
Nicholson, S. 2016. “Not
recommended for licence: British theatre censorship under the Lord
Chamberlain.” In Global insights on theatre
censorship, edited by C. O’Leary, D. S. Sánchez, and M. Thompson, 221–233. Routledge.
Ostrowska, J. 2016. “Hide
and seek: Selected stratagems of Polish independent theatre
companies.” In Global insights on theatre
censorship, edited by C. O’Leary, D. S. Sánchez, and M. Thompson, 109–123. Routledge.
O’Leary, C. 2016. “Introduction:
Censorship and creative freedom.” In Global insights on theatre
censorship, edited by C. O’Leary, D. S. Sánchez, and M. Thompson, 1–23. Routledge.
Schmidt, S. M., and T. A. Kochan. 1972. “Conflict:
Toward conceptual clarity.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 17 (3): 359–370.
Seruya, T., and M. L. Moniz. 2009. “Foreign
Books in Portugal and the Discourse of Censorship in Portugal in the
1950s’.” In Translation and censorship in different times and
landscapes, edited by T. Seruya, and M. L. Moniz, 3–20. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sherry, S. 2015. Discourses
of regulation and resistance: Censoring translation in the Stalin and Khrushchev era Soviet
Union. Edinburgh University Press.
Snyder, C. R., and R. W. Mack. 1957. “The
analysis of social conflict: Toward an overview and synthesis.” Journal of Conflict
Resolution 1 (2): 212–248.
Specht, B. 2001. “Tamizdat:
Publication abroad by writers in the Soviet Union,
1929–85.” In Censorship: A world
encyclopedia, edited by D. Jones, 2379–2380. Fitzroy Dearborn.