International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences.

ISSN 2250-3226 Volume 6, Number 1 (2016), pp. 105-116

© Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com

Proposing a Theoretical Framework of Patron’s

Ideology in Translation

Shunyi Chen

Department of Translation, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Patron’s ideology in translation has not gained sufficient attention in

academia. The study of patron’s ideology integrates theories of patronage and
ideology in translation, and is actually an intersection of the two. This paper
attempts to propose a simplified theoretical framework of patron’s ideology in
translation. It first explores the concept of patronage, and moves on to a short
discussion of patron’s ideology, and then tries to propose two theoretical
models: the first one is “Manipulation Model of Ideology upon Translation”,
and the second one is “Manipulation Model of Patron’s Ideology upon
Translation”. The second model is based on the first and has developed from
the first. This is a theoretical development from general to specific. The two
models shed some light on the study of patron’s ideology in translation
studies.

Key words: patron; patronage; patron’s ideology; translation

INTRODUCTION
André Lefevere studied patronage alongside with ideology and poetics in translation
studies, and labelled them as three factors that give rise to rewriting. To Lefevere,
they are of equal importance. Following him, quite a few scholars have done research
on it, still confining to the three components of patronage (an ideological, an
economical and a status components) and not going beyond. It is not difficult to find
that there are overlappings in Lefevere’s rewriting theory: ideology is a concept in
parallel with patronage, and also a subcategory of patronage. Actually there is an
interwoven relationship between patronage and ideology. This paper tries to explore
this relationship and formulate a simplified theoretical framework of patron’s
ideology in translation.
106 Shunyi Chen

1.1 The Concept of Patronage

Patronage theory is part of the systems theories which originate from Russian
Formalism. André Lefevere views translated literature as a sub-system of the system
of literature, which is again a sub-system of another broader system. The system of
translated literature consists of a double control factor: one is professionals within the
literary system, the other is patronage outside of the literary system (Lefevere, 1992b:
14). The professionals include critics, reviewers, teachers, and translators; patrons
include persons, groups of persons, and the media (Lefevere, 1992b: 15). Patronage is
more interested in the ideology of literature than in its poetics (ibid).

Patronage consists of three inter-related components: an ideological component, an

economic component, and a status component (Lefevere, 1992b: 16), in a hierarchical
order. The ideological component constrains the choice and development of both form
and subject matter. The economic component concerns the payment of translators and
determines which may appear in the form of pension, salary or royalties. The status
component implies the translators’ social status and may occur in different forms:
appointment of some office, membership of a particular support group, shift to a
certain life style, etc. Figure 1 shows a clear picture of what has been said in this
paragraph.
Patronage

Ideological Economic Status

From Subject Pension Salary Royalties Office Support Life Style

Group

Figure 1 Components of Translation Patronage

It has to be pointed out that there is an interrelatedness and interdependence among

the three components. The ideological component plays a decisive role in translators’
payment and social status. It concerns the patron’s attitude towards and understanding
of translation and translators. Ideology determines one’s actions. If the patron attaches
great importance to translation and pays high respect to translators, he/she will
provide them with a decent income and a high status in society; a satisfactory
payment to the translator may lead to his/her conforming to the patron’s ideology and
improve his/her self-consciousness and arouse in him/her a sense of achievements; a
Proposing a Theoretical Framework of Patron’s Ideology in Translation 107

translator with a high social status can feel the respect and recognition from the
society, is happy to conform to the patron’s ideology, and may produce more
economic benefits for the patron and himself/herself in the end. These relationships
are somewhat complex and not as visible as other one-to-one relationships in society.
In translation, specifically, the ideological component determines the selection of ST:
which texts are to be translated, and in part or in whole? The economic component
ensures that translators can make a living by doing translations. A satisfactory salary
arouses in employees a sense of self-pride and directly leads to the employees’
ideological loyalty to the employer as they can feel the respect paid to their work and
themselves. The status component indicates the position translators take in the social
ladder, and this social status directly leads to the translators’ self-consciousness. Sense
of superiority/inferiority, sense of achievements, etc., of translators may all come
from the status component (Lefevere, 1992b: 17).

Lefevere also distinguished differentiated patronage and undifferentiated patronage.

The former means that the economic component is independent of the ideological
component and the status component, and latter means that the three components are
provided by the same patron and interdependent. In translation practices, the latter
outnumbers the former. Undifferentiated patronage is in a stricter sense of the term
“patronage”. Acceptance of patronage implies acceptance of the parameters or
specifications set by the patron (Lefevere, 1992b: 18), with exceptions in which
patronage is imposed forcibly on translators by a powerful person or institution, such
as a ruler (king or emperor), or a powerful person in a totalitarian regime.

However, patron’s ideology has not drawn sufficient attention in China’s academic
circle. Searching cnki.net1, the biggest database of academic papers in China, the
author of the present thesis has not found any article with “patron’s ideology”
included in the title. Most scholars employ Lefevere’s three-component patronage to
analyze translation cases in China. It is indeed true that patron’s ideology can be
drawn out from the three components and studied separately, though it bears relation
with the other two components, namely, the economic component and the status
component, because it the patron’s ideology that has a direct revelation in the target
text: the other two components are not so conspicuously revealed in the target text. It
is necessary to call the attention of the academia in China to patron’s ideology.

1.2 The Concept of Ideology

Ideology used to be an area of politics, but now it has fallen to the domain of
translation studies. It is generally held that ideology is indispensable to translation.
Some scholars even make such absolute statements as that all translational acts are
ideological and the relationship between translation and ideology is an ideological one
(Schäffner, 2003, p. 23). Lydia H. Liu (1995) stated, “Translation is no longer a
neutral event untouched by the contending interests of political and ideological
struggles. Instead, it becomes the very site of such struggles.”

There are almost as many definitions of ideology as there are theorists of it. Nobody
108 Shunyi Chen

has yet come up with a single adequate definition of ideology (Eagleton,

1991/2007:1). Eagleton lists some of the oft-quoted definitions of ideology as: the
process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life; a body of ideas
characteristic of a particular social group or class; (false) ideas which help to
legitimate a dominant political power; systematically distorted communication; forms
of thought motivated by social interests; identity thinking; socially necessary illusion;
the conjuncture of discourse and power; action-oriented sets of beliefs; the
indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure;
etc. (Eagleton, 1991/2007: xxi) There are binary oppositions in the above definitions
such as “ideas” and “false ideas”, and it can be either static or dynamic as it may be a
process, a body, a form, a conjuncture, or a medium. A process is inevitably dynamic,
and a body/form/conjecture/medium is usually static. Ideology usually carries
pejorative meanings. It is a set of values, meanings and beliefs which is to be viewed
critically or negatively (Eagleton, 1991/2007: 28). Few people reckon their own ideas
ideological and most people label others’ ideas “ideology”. For example, Napoleon
coined the term ideologue to refer to the ideas of his opponents. As can be seen from
these definitions, ideology can be both commendatory and pejorative.

André A. Lefevere, a theorist of rewriting, defined ideology as “the conceptual grid

that consists of opinions and attitudes deemed acceptable in a certain society at a
certain time, and through which readers and translators approach texts” (Bassnett &
Lefevere, 2001). He claimed, “On every level of the translation process, it can be
shown that, if linguistic considerations enter into conflict with considerations of an
ideological and/or a poetological nature, the latter tend to win out” (Lefevere, 1992b:
39). Translators are constrained by a series of ideological factors: by the dominant or
ruling ideology, by the initiator and/or patron’s ideology, by their own ideology, by
the intended readership’s ideology, etc. Translators’ ideological identity and stance are
more or less constrained by all of these factors. Translators also show certain
ideological stances in their translation activities.

In terms of subject, it can be divided into dominant ideology and individual ideology,
and ruling ideology and oppositional ideology or rebel ideology. In Marxist
philosophy, the term “dominant ideology” denotes the attitudes and beliefs, values
and morals shared by the majority of the people in a given society; as a mechanism of
social control, the dominant ideology frames how the majority of the population think
about the nature of and their places in society; of being in and of a social class
(Bullock & Trombley, 1999). As for translators, they are eager to conform to the
dominant ideology so as to facilitate the reception of their translations by the ruling
class. Dominant ideology shapes and reshapes translators’ individual ideology and
serves as a guiding principle for the translators especially when the latter enters into
conflict with the former. Individual ideology, also called translators’ ideology, refers
to ideology of individual translators and/or translator groups. It may either conform to
or deviate from the dominant ideology. Ideally, the former tries to match the latter as
was the case in the treaty translation. In translating politically colored and
ideologically loaded sensitive texts, if translators’ ideology departs from dominant
Proposing a Theoretical Framework of Patron’s Ideology in Translation 109

ideology, they may fall into the infamy of traitors and may even risk their lives.
Rather, if the two meet each other, the results are usually satisfactory.

1.3 Defining Patron’s Ideology

Ideology is often enforced by the patrons, the people or institutions who commission
or publish translations (Lefevere, 1992b: 14). Patron’s ideology can be defined as
ideas or beliefs of an patron, either a person or institution, of a particular social group
or class, on various issues or aspects of translation, with an view to manipulate the
whole process and the final product of translation, to help maintain the interests and
social status of the individual or the social group or class. Patron’s ideology sees to it
that his/her ideology has infiltrated into the whole process of translation and the three
components have played their due role in every link of the translational chain
respectively. It ensures that the translation has met all the requirements he/she set up
or the specifications reached upon between him/her and the translators before the
actual translating.

Generally speaking, patron’s ideology has to decide whether the three components
have been successfully fulfilled. It has to decide the choice and development of both
form and subject matter, the payment of translators and the form of payment, and
ensure the translators’ social status. Specifically, it determines the selection of
translators and source texts, how much and how often translators are paid (i.e., they
are paid by hour, fortnight, month or year), and what status the translators enjoy in
society and in which layer they lie in the social pyramid. What’s more, patron’s
ideology concerns whether the translators are rightly motivated for the completion of
a high-quality translation product.

Patron’s ideology may involve in a series of procedures in translation: translator

selection, source text selection, translation quality control, translation strategies, etc. It
exerts influences on the criteria of translator selection, motivations in source text
selection, means of translation quality control, and translator’s translation strategies.
Patron’s ideological manipulation may include both direct manipulation and indirect
manipulation. A Patron can exert direct ideological manipulation on translator
selection, source text selection, and translation quality control, and indirect
ideological manipulation on his translators’ translation strategies. Figure 2 shows a
general picture:
110 Shunyi Chen

Patron’s Ideology

Direct Ideological Indirect Ideological

Manipulation Manipulation

Translator Source Text Translation Quality Translators’

Selection Selection Control Translation
Strategies

Figure 2 General Manipulation Model of Patron’s Ideology upon Translation

1.4 Manipulation Model of Ideology upon Translation

Ideology in translation falls into two categories: macro-ideology and micro-ideology.
Macro-ideology covers political ideology and poetics, and micro-ideology refers to
the ideology of a series of players in the chain of translational action, such as the
patron, the translator, and the reader.

Ideology is first at all a political doctrine (Vincent, 1992). Political ideology is a

certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social
movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work,
and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political
ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should
be used (Olanrewaju, 2015). Political ideology stipulates the direction of poetics and
affects the birth of poetics mode and construct of discourse power in different fields
(Yang, 2010). Political ideology takes a very important position in Chinese
intellectuals’ minds, and political pursuit, i.e., to gain a high position in the
government, is their lofty ideal. China’s translation activities are inevitably infected
with such strong political needs, which determines China’s translation view in history.
On the one hand, political ideology makes it possible that translation caters to the
political needs of the ruling class; on the other hand, translation affects the
development and change of political ideology. Political ideology constructs the
repertoire of translated literature via its manipulation of selection of ST, general
strategies of translation, reception of translations, etc.

Poetics covers two components: the inventory component and the functional
Proposing a Theoretical Framework of Patron’s Ideology in Translation 111

component. The former includes literary devices, genres, motifs, prototypical

characters and situations, and symbols; the latter concerns the role of literature in the
social system (Lefevere, 1992b: 26). The former affects the way in which a literary
theme is treated (Lefevere, 1992b: 34); the latter influences the selection of themes
that must be relevant to the social system if the work of literature is to be accepted
(Lefevere, 1992b: 26). The selection of certain themes means the exclusion of others,
and the way the selected themes is treated reveals the dominant poetics. Poetics is not
absolute or static, but relative and dynamic. Poetics is in a constant change in
accordance with the social context. However, in a certain period of time, there are
stages of “steady state” in which all elements are in equilibrium with each other
(Lefevere, 1992b: 38). Like ideology, there is also a constant struggle between
dominant poetics and rival (oppositional) poetics, which is decided by translators as
translations are a perfect gauge for poetics (Lefevere, 1992b: 38).

Micro-ideology includes ideology of the patron, the translator, the reader, etc. The
patron is usually the person or group of person who initiate, commission, and fund
translations. His/her ideology exerts a tremendous influence on various aspects of
translation: selection of translators, selection of ST, translation procedures, translation
modes, micro- translation strategies, polishing of TT, selection/anticipation of
potential readers, interaction with readers, etc. Actually, translators are employees of
the patron, so they have to abide by the specifications agreed upon between the patron
and themselves. If they decline the specifications or are found have violated some of
the specifications, the translational action will not proceed to next step or will simply
be cancelled. The translator, though a subjective body, have limited freedom in a
translation activity patronized by someone or some institution. The translator’s
subjectivity is limited to a great extent. However, more or less, the translator exerts
(partial) influences on some of the aspects, such as translation modes, micro-
translation strategies, polishing of TT, etc. It seems that readers stand outside of the
chain of translational action as they do not participate in translation activities directly.
However, readers’ expectation and response exert a considerable influence on
translation. Before the translation starts, the patron will work out a specification
together with the translator, which takes into consideration the potential reader’s
expectation, reading habits, literary preferences, etc. After the readers view the
translation, they will consciously or unconsciously form their responses to and
comments on the translation which will in turn affects future translations. The reader
will affects translation poetics, selection of source texts, reception of target texts, etc.
Reception of target texts probably concerns literary style of translations, readability,
acceptability, etc. Figure 3 shows a clear picture of the relationships.
112 Shunyi Chen

Ideology in
Translation

Macro- Micro-
Ideology Ideology

Political Poetics Patron Translator Reader

Ideology

Selection of ST Selection of ST Selection of Translation Translation

Translators Modes Poetics

General General Selection of ST Micro- Selection of ST

Strategies of Strategies of Translation
Translation Translation Strategies

Reception of Reception of Translation Polishing of TT Reception of

Translation Translation Procedures TT

Translation Literary style

Modes of Translations

Micro- Readability
Translation
Strategies

Polishing of TT Acceptability

Selection/
Anticipation of
Potential Readers

Interaction with
Readers

Figure 3 Manipulation Model of Ideology upon Translation

Proposing a Theoretical Framework of Patron’s Ideology in Translation 113

1.5 Manipulation Model of Patron’s Ideology upon Translation

Patron’s ideology exerts a considerate influence on translation. Lefevere divides
patronage into three components: an ideological component, an economic component,
and a status component (Lefevere, 1992b: 16). Accordingly, patron’s ideology also
has the three components. The ideological component falls into direct ideological
manipulation and indirect ideological manipulation. The former cover selection of
translators, selection of source texts, translation procedures, polishing of TT, selection
of potential readers, interaction with readers, etc. The latter include translation modes
and micro- translation strategies. Translation modes means whether the translation is
full translation or partial translation, whether it is adaptation, whether it is abridging,
etc. Micro- translation strategies cover quite a few binary oppositions, such as literal
translation vs. free translation, foreignization vs. domestication, dwarfing vs. lofting,
uglification vs. beautification, etc. The economic component concerns the payment of
translators in the form of pension, salary or royalties. The status component implies
the translators’ social status which implies the recognition and respect of translators
by the society. It may be shown in the appointment of some office (official positions),
integration into a certain support group, or shift to a different lifestyle (Lefevere,
1992b: 16).
114 Shunyi Chen

Patronage’s
Ideology

Ideological Economic Status

Direct Ideological Indirect Ideological Pension Office

Manipulation Manipulation

Selection of Translation Modes Salary Support Group

Translators

Selection of ST Full/Partial Royalties Lifestyle

Translation

Translation Adaptation
Procedures

Polishing of TT Abridging

Selection of Translation
Potential Readers Strategies

Interaction with Literal vs. Free

Readers

Foreignization vs.
Domestication

Dwarfing vs.
Lofting

Uglification vs.
Beautification

Figure 4 Detailed Manipulation Model of Patron’s Ideology upon Translation

Proposing a Theoretical Framework of Patron’s Ideology in Translation 115

1.6 Interaction between Patron’s Ideology and Translators’ Ideology

The present thesis draws on Lefevere’s three-component patronage, but focuses on
patron’s ideology and the interaction between patron’s ideology and translators’
ideology to disclose their relationship: manipulating and manipulated, which ensures
that patron’s ideology is present in the whole process of translation: selection of
source texts, setting of translation strategies, review and examination of target texts,
etc.

How does patron’s ideology interact with translators’ ideology will be discussed in the
present study. Ideally, patron’s ideology is kept in conformity with translators’
ideology in patroned translation. However, the two ideologies are not always
agreeable to each other. Conflicts do arise from time to time, and struggles between
them may appear inevitably, but invisibly. The patron has his own ways in
manipulating his translators’ ideology, such as back-translation, re-translation and re-
examination of targets, as is the case in the present study, backed with economic and
social patronage.

The patron affects the strategies of his/her translators by imposing his/her ideology on
them. Ideological manipulation is a means of translation quality control. As for
translation strategies, liberal translation, rather than literal translation, is most often
preferred. F. Q. Horatius remarked, “Do not worry about rendering word for word,
faithful translator, but render sense for sense” (Lefevere, 1992a). Patronage is
something like the powers that can further or hinder the reading, writing, and
rewriting of literature (Lefevere, 1992b: 15). Accordingly, patron’s ideology is a
power that affects rewriting or translating.

CONCLUSION
The study highlights patron’s ideology and its manipulation on translation. The
theoretical models offer insights into patron’s ideology in translation, and enlightens
institutions as patrons, such as the state, local governments, translation agencies and
corporations, etc., on how to affect translation process and conduct quality control on
translations. It is noteworthy that patron’s ideology in general is in constant change:
patron’s ideology in the present time is different from that of past ages in its means,
forms, methods, and strategies of manipulation. Even a single patron’s ideology is
constantly adapted to fit the society. It is hopeful that the theoretical models proposed
in the present paper is of some help in understanding the concept of patron’s ideology
in a more systematic or comprehensive manner.

NOTES
1. CNKI is short for China National Knowledge Infrastructure.
116 Shunyi Chen

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the China Scholarship Council (CSC) and
International Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarships (iMQRES) for
their funding and support.

REFERENCES

[1] Bassnett, S. &, Lefevere, A. (Eds). Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary

Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2001. 48.
[2] Bullock, A. & Trombley, S. The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought.
Sydney: HarperCollins Publishers. 1999. 236.
[3] Eagleton, T. Ideology: An Introduction. London and New York: Verso.
1991/2007. xxi-28.
[4] Lefevere, A. Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London and New
York: Routledge. 1992a. 15.
[5] Lefevere, A. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.
London and New York: Routledge. 1992b. 14-39.
[6] Liu, L. H. Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity—China,
1900-1937. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1995. 26.
[7] Olanrewaju, T. S. Political Parties and Poverty of Ideology in Nigeria. Afro
Asian Journal of Social Sciences. 2015 (3), 1-16.
[8] Schäffner, C. Third Ways and New Centres: Ideological Unity or Difference?.
In M. Calzada-Pérez (Ed.) Apropos of Ideology. Manchester: St. Jerome. 2003,
23-42.
[9] Vincent, A. Modern Political Ideologies. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell
Publishers. 1992. 2.
[10] Yang, L. Poetics of Translation and Ideology. Beijing: Science Press. 2010. 66.