Book review

Review of Garda Elsherif & Joanna Sobesto, eds. Positionalities of Translation Studies: On the Situatedness of Translation Research

London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2025. xvi + 256 pp.

The ‘cultural turn’ in Translation Studies (TS), despite having its origins in the early 1970s, was only established as a paradigm shift when Lefevere and Bassnett (1990)Lefevere, André, and Susan Bassnett 1990 “Introduction: Proust’s Grandmother and The Thousand and One Nights: The ‘Cultural Turn’ in Translation Studies.” In Translation, History, and Culture, edited by Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, 1–13. London: Pinter.Lefevere, André, and Susan Bassnett 1990 “Introduction: Proust’s Grandmother and The Thousand and One Nights: The ‘Cultural Turn’ in Translation Studies.” In Translation, History, and Culture, edited by Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, 1–13. London: Pinter. reconceptualized translation as cultural rewriting, prioritizing context over abstraction and power dynamics over linguistic equivalence. Prior to this, numerous scholars had introduced descriptive and empirical approaches to translational phenomena, which Lambert and Toury (1989Lambert, José, and Gideon Toury 1989 “On Target’s Targets.” Target 1 (1): 1–7.Lambert, José, and Gideon Toury 1989 “On Target’s Targets.” Target 1 (1): 1–7., 6) explicitly termed “contextualization.” However, scholars aligned with cultural studies typically foregrounded the sociopolitical and ideological dimensions of translation through a more critical, activist lens to reveal its power differentials, including postcolonial conflict (e.g., Niranjana 1992Niranjana, Tejaswini 1992 Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press. Niranjana, Tejaswini 1992 Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press. ), cultural hegemony (e.g., Venuti 1995Venuti, Lawrence 1995 The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.Venuti, Lawrence 1995 The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.), and gender inequality (e.g., Simon 1996Simon, Sherry 1996 Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge.Simon, Sherry 1996 Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London: Routledge.). Hermans (1999Hermans, Theo 1999 Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Hermans, Theo 1999 Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome., 157) contended that this focus on ideology and sociopolitics “leaves little room for self-relativization and critical distance toward one’s own presuppositions.” Similarly, the narratives of translation descriptivists may demonstrate implicit biases and limited self-reflexivity; no discourse, not even scientific exposition, escapes epistemic positions and assumptions (Baker 2006Baker, Mona 2006 Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London: Routledge. Baker, Mona 2006 Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London: Routledge. ). Recognizing and confronting the embedded biases of TS, which are shaped by historical, geopolitical, linguistic, and gendered frameworks, remains an epistemological challenge.

Positionalities of Translation Studies: On the Situatedness of Translation Research, edited by Elsherif and Sobesto, is a pioneering contribution that critically examines the biases that shape the discipline. By calling for greater self-reflexivity to address Eurocentrism, Anglocentrism, and anthropocentrism, the volume aims to consolidate fragmented debates by reflecting on the closely interwoven positionalities of gender, language, humanism, and geopolitics. It also explores the discipline’s historiography within broader sociohistorical and geopolitical contexts while investigating how translation research methodologies might address these biases. The collection culminates in an in-depth discussion of future trajectories of TS. While the editors do not claim to address all conceivable positionalities, the volume’s clear and deliberate structure outlines the field’s evolving stages and directions effectively, and guides readers through the complexities of translation research situatedness via diverse voices.

In the Introduction (Chapter 1), Elsherif and Sobesto explore the notion of positionality by focusing on how unexamined sociohistorical, linguistic, and geopolitical biases have shaped — and continue to shape — TS. The editors trace the evolution of reflexive traditions, from Mannheim (1936)Mannheim, Karl 1936 Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge [orig. Ideologie und Utopie]. Translated by Louis Wirth and Edward Shils. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Mannheim, Karl 1936 Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge [orig. Ideologie und Utopie]. Translated by Louis Wirth and Edward Shils. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. and Fleck ([1935] 2021)Fleck, Ludwik [1935] 2021 Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv [Genesis and development of a scientific fact: Introduction to the doctrine of thought style and thought collective]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Fleck, Ludwik [1935] 2021 Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv [Genesis and development of a scientific fact: Introduction to the doctrine of thought style and thought collective]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. to contemporary criticisms of androcentrism, Eurocentrism, Anglocentrism, and anthropocentrism. In addition to their efforts to de-Westernize and diversify translation knowledge, the editors address essentialist binaries (e.g., East/West, scientific/pre-scientific) and tensions within activist scholarship, and advocate for sustained reflexivity without imposing uniformity by employing theoretical, historical, and methodological lenses.

The four contributions in Part I (Chapters 2 to 5) each address a core positionality within TS. In Chapter 2, Brown and Saldanha outline the development of Feminist Translation Studies, from its origins in 1970s Canada to contemporary transnational debates, characterizing the research area based on feminist translators’ visibility and interventionism. Moreover, they question the coherence of Feminist Translation Studies as a distinct subfield, highlighting tensions between essentialist and constructivist notions of ‘woman’, diverging practices, and ongoing conflicts regarding intersectionality and ethics. Finally, Brown and Saldanha urge feminist translation scholars to foreground partiality and dissent, and to reject utopian narratives in favor of nuanced, context-sensitive research that embraces feminism’s internal complexities and irreconcilable conflicts.

In Chapter 3, Rozmysłowicz critiques a common presumption in TS that humans are the only legitimate translators or translatable entities. Using a sociological lens, he investigates this bias as a construct of modernity’s “anthropological square” (Lindemann 2009Lindemann, Gesa 2009 “Gesellschaftliche Grenzregime und soziale Differenzierung [Societal border regimes and social differentiation].” Zeitschrift für Soziologie [Journal of sociology] 38 (1): 94–112. Lindemann, Gesa 2009 “Gesellschaftliche Grenzregime und soziale Differenzierung [Societal border regimes and social differentiation].” Zeitschrift für Soziologie [Journal of sociology] 38 (1): 94–112. , 98), which institutionalizes living humans as the only social actors. By examining angelic language translation in pre-modern Europe, Rozmysłowicz introduces the empirical framework of “regimes of translatability” (66), shifting the analytical focus to societal recognition of diverse translation agents. For Rozmysłowicz, the anthropocentric self-preservation inherent in TS — closely linked to Eurocentrism — mirrors modernity’s cultural norms, which machine translation and artificial intelligence continue to challenge. Similar to Brown and Saldanha, Rozmysłowicz deconstructs assumptions that have become normalized within the discipline and draws attention to its internal blind spots.

In Chapter 4, Tian extends Rozmysłowicz’s critique of Eurocentrism by situating the Chinese School of Translation Studies within contemporary debates about Western dominance in translation research. As a product of China’s ‘cultural confidence’ initiative, the School aims to contest Eurocentrism by localizing Western theoretical frameworks and revitalizing classical Chinese philosophy. However, the School has been criticized for its academic nationalism, theoretical fragility, and underlying cultural anxiety. Tian concludes that viewing the Chinese School of Translation Studies as a form of localized, narrative-based knowledge — rather than a politicized academic faction — may help extend TS beyond Eurocentric paradigms.

In Chapter 5, Gambier considers the feasibility of constructing a reflexive historiography for TS by examining Franco–Soviet intellectual exchanges from the 1950s to the 1980s. Gambier questions the existence of a distinct French-speaking sphere within the field, deconstructs the concept of a unified TS, criticizes nationalistic historiographical narratives, analyzes the mechanisms of knowledge circulation, and warns that English, as a global lingua franca, poses an epistemic threat. He recommends micro-historical, comparative, and entangled-history approaches to de-Westernize TS historiography without simply replacing one form of centrism with another. Gambier’s contribution complements the previous chapters by highlighting that positionalities emerge not only in the discipline’s theory and methodology, but also in its historiography.

In line with Gambier’s call to “provincialize Europe” (118), specific moments in the evolution of TS are discussed in Part II (Chapters 6 to 8), in which the discipline’s origins are reinterpreted within broader geopolitical frameworks. In Chapter 6, Regniers examines the Vereeniging Nederlandsche Vertalingen (Association of Dutch Translations, 1932–1950) and its periodical, Vertalen (1934–1946), revealing the association’s elitist efforts to shape translation discourse and considering its possible influence on James S. Holmes, who made formative contributions to the discipline. In Chapter 7, Farahzad traces the history of TS in Iran, analyzing the field’s scholarly development, pedagogical infrastructure, and academic milestones while foregrounding translation’s role in national modernization and the localized adaptation of international theories. In Chapter 8, Kalnychenko draws attention to another neglected tradition within the field, highlighting Volodymyr Derzhavyn’s contributions to Ukrainian translation theory from 1927 to 1931, his silencing under Stalinist repression, and contemporary scholars’ efforts to restore his legacy.

In Part III (Chapters 9 to 10), the ways in which positionality can be methodologically addressed in translation research are explored. Hokkanen and Koskinen, in Chapter 9, contend that scholars’ identities, experiences, and cultural backgrounds — too often overlooked in TS — inevitably shape every stage of research, from topic selection to data interpretation. Drawing on ethnographic and autoethnographic practices, they propose reflexivity as a methodological tool and share techniques developed in their workshops, including freewriting, identity mind-mapping, and visual self-positioning exercises. For Hokkanen and Koskinen, reflexivity is socially embedded, ongoing, and often uncomfortable, yet it is indispensable for navigating the indeterminacy of knowledge. In Chapter 10, Campanella, Igoa, Rippa, and Weisz extend this interest in methodological self-awareness by examining the challenges of rebuilding Uruguay’s translation history via a multilingual database constructed using fragmented archival records in the National Library. Rooted in principles of Big Translation History, their project not only reveals cataloging biases, but also reimagines translation flows, highlights South–South exchanges, and advocates greater visibility for translators.

The editors’ interview with Şebnem Susam-Saraeva concludes the volume in Part IV (Chapter 11). Susam-Saraeva’s academic experience ranges from conventional to interdisciplinary scholarship, including work as a doula and a recent shift toward eco-translation. In the interview, she argues that academia must increase its engagement with urgent societal concerns. The ensuing discussion refers to the discipline’s historical roots in non-Western contexts, marked by anxiety about modernization and colonial power structures, while also highlighting ongoing challenges such as Eurocentrism, anthropocentrism, and Anglophone linguistic hegemony. Susam-Saraeva calls for extending the scope of translation research to encompass interspecies communication, framing eco-translation as a potential paradigm shift that could redefine the role of TS in addressing planetary crises.

The contributions in this volume systematically examine the historical, linguistic, and ideological foundations that shape the theories, methodologies, and institutional frameworks of TS. By consolidating diverse debates about gender, Eurocentrism, Anglocentrism, and anthropocentrism, the volume can increase disciplinary self-awareness and encourage researchers to reflect on how translation knowledge is produced. The emphasis on both individual and collective positionalities promotes a shift from presumed neutrality to explicitly situated research, while the case studies and methodological reflections challenge dominant narratives, fostering greater inclusion of non-Western perspectives and epistemologies. In addition to critiquing prevailing paradigms, it suggests paths to expand the field’s scope by diversifying its linguistic and cultural centers and recognizing non-human translation agents.

By positioning reflexivity as a core methodological and ethical stance, many of the contributions strengthen the maturity and global relevance of the discipline, encouraging a more dialogic, inclusive, and critically grounded future. Nevertheless, the volume falls short in the limited self-awareness demonstrated in several chapters. Although most of the authors present compelling critiques, some of them somewhat paradoxically ignore how their analyses are shaped by their own ideologies and academic trajectories. For example, Brown and Saldanha fail to address the Eurocentric assumptions within certain strands of feminist theory, and Tian criticizes the Chinese School by foregrounding its political dimensions while sidelining its intellectual contributions. Furthermore, the authors of Chapters 5, 9, and 10 provide methodological reflections based on pedagogical and research experiences, but largely overlook the partialities and epistemic constraints of subjective perspectives.

Another shortcoming is the limited engagement with established theoretical reflections regarding positionality and reflexivity in TS. One compelling example is Hermans’s work (1999Hermans, Theo 1999 Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Hermans, Theo 1999 Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome., 144–150), which drew on Luhmann’s (1995)Luhmann, Niklas 1995 Social Systems [orig. Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie]. Translated by John Bednarz Jr. and Dirk Baecker. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Luhmann, Niklas 1995 Social Systems [orig. Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie]. Translated by John Bednarz Jr. and Dirk Baecker. Stanford: Stanford University Press. systems theory and introduced the notion of second-order observation. Herman argued that academic knowledge production about translation paralleled translators’ reflective engagement with their own practice; both are inherently subjective “secondary observations” (Hermans 1999Hermans, Theo 1999 Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Hermans, Theo 1999 Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome., 145) shaped by the observer’s positionality and value system. Baker’s (2006Baker, Mona 2006 Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London: Routledge. Baker, Mona 2006 Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London: Routledge. , 2014Baker, Mona 2014 “Translation as Re-narration.” In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by Juliane House, 158–177. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Baker, Mona 2014 “Translation as Re-narration.” In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by Juliane House, 158–177. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ) socio-narrative approach, which conceptualizes translation as a form of re-narration, encourages researchers to consider not only the coherence and fidelity of their scholarly narratives, but also the deeper, transcendental value systems that inform such narratives. Closer engagement with these foundational perspectives would have strengthened the volume’s theoretical reflexivity and methodological rigor.

Nonetheless, Positionalities of Translation Studies is an important contribution to critical meta-reflection and sociology within the field, particularly by promoting feminist, postcolonial, ecological, and historiographical approaches. By examining the situatedness of translation knowledge through a range of themes, the volume provides essential frameworks for investigating power asymmetries in TS. It constitutes essential reading for researchers exploring the discipline’s epistemological and social foundations, particularly those who are engaged in doing interdisciplinary research, challenging dominant paradigms, or reconceptualizing translation beyond Western, anthropocentric, and Anglophone approaches.