defined “polysystem” as follows:
Polysystem
is
“…a
semiotic
system…a
heterogeneous, open structure. It is, therefore, very rarely a uni-system but is, necessarily, a polysystem-a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersect with each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent.”
Any polysystem, as Even-Zohar(1990:23) argued, is actually part of a larger polysystem, which in turn constitutes part of a “maga-polysystem”, i.e. the “total culture” of the said community organizing and controlling several communities. The borders separating adjacent systems shift all the time, not only within systems, but between them. However, with a polysystem one must not think in terms of one center and one periphery, since several such positions are hypothesized. Thus, instead of analyzing single texts and classifying them, he explored multiple texts and the complex intra- and inter-relations they enter into as they form a highly stratified but unified whole.
The intra-relations of the polysystem tend to be
6
complicated and changeable. The various strata and subdivisions which comprise a given polysystem are not equal, but hierarchized within the polysystem. They are constantly competing with each other for the dominant position. In particular, in the case of the literary polysystem there is a continuous state of tension between the centre and the periphery, in which different literary genres all vie for domination of the center.
What highlights the polysystem theory should be the heterogeneity of culture, which, for instance, is manifested in a situation where a community possesses two or more literary systems, two “literature” within the realm of literature. As Even-Zohar(1990:13) claimed, the polysystem hypothesis is designed precisely to deal with such heterogeneity, aiming to investigate the particular conditions under which a certain literature may be interfered with by another literature, as a result of which properties are transferred from one polysystem to another.
Based on Shklovskij’s idea regarding “canonized” and “non-canonized”, Even-Zohar(1990:15) developed those two genres, which are defined explicitly as follows:
7
By “canonized” one means those literary norms and works (i.e., both models and texts) which are accepted as legitimate by the dominant circles within a culture and whose conspicuous products are preserved by the community to become part of its historical heritage. “Non-canonized” means those norms and texts which are rejected by these circles as illegitimate and whose products are often forgotten in the long run by the community (unless they change their status).
The tensions between “high” or “canonized” genres (e.g. poetry) and “low” or “non-canonized” genres (e.g. popular literature, popular art, translated works, “sub-culture” in whatever sense, etc.) are universally present in every human culture. The “low” genres on the periphery constantly compete for the central position, which eventually results in literary evolution. When there is no “sub-culture” to exert real pressures on canonized culture, a vital canonized culture is very unlikely to exist. In other words, any canonized activity is bound to gradually become petrified without the stimulation of a strong “sub-culture”.
The center of the whole polysystem is identical with the
8
most prestigious canonized repertoire. Repertoire is conceived of here as the aggregate of laws and elements (single, bound or total models) that govern the production of texts (Even-Zohar 1990: 17). In the repertoire there exists the primary vs. secondary opposition, that is, innovativeness vs. conservatism. In a conservative established repertoire (and system), each individual product will be highly predictable. Products of such state are labeled as “secondary”. Within an innovative repertoire (and system) which reduces the possibility of each product being predictable by the introduction of new elements, it offers models of the “primary” type. The struggle between the primary and secondary options is decisive for the system’s evolution. When a primary form maintains a central position in the literary polysystem, it brings about innovatory forces. But once it achieves the canonized status for some time, it tends to remain conservative, and becomes the secondary form because there are newer models that are pushing it to the peripheral position. However, stability or instability of repertoire do not reflect, or necessarily generate, stability or instability of the system. From the functional point of view, a system incapable of maintaining itself over a period of time is often on the verge of collapse.
As for the principle of polysystem theory, Even-Zohar
9
(1990:13) stressed that the polysystem hypothesis involves a rejection of value judgments as criteria for an a priori selection of the objects of study. Meanwhile, he explained that excluding the selection of objects to be studied according to taste does not mean that either particular “values” or evaluation in general are excluded by any section of the sciences of man as active factors to be accounted for.
To sum up, polysystem is heterogeneous and dynamic, which gives explanation to how the polysystem processes. Polysystem theory has been a challenge to the homogeneity tradition. By including all of these excluded parameters such as variety, conflict contradiction, change and the time flow, it thereby makes the idea of system fully compatible with heterogeneity and the flow of time.
2. 2 The Position of Translated Literature
As noted above, polysystem theory holds that translated literature previously unnoticed should be connected with original literature. Even-Zohar viewed literature as a polysystem, a system of systems, which can be described by a series of oppositions: between the center and the periphery, between the canonized system (which usually occupies the center of the
10