See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299015648

The polysystem theory and cultural studies

Article  in  Canadian Review of Comparative Literature · March 1997

CITATIONS READS

4 3,060

1 author:

Patrick Cattrysse
University of Antwerp
31 PUBLICATIONS   171 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adaptation Studies View project

Narrative and Screenwriting studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrick Cattrysse on 17 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

?----:$

lemlure
Volume XXIV Number 1 Volume XXIV Numéro 1
March1997 mars1997
Distributed by the Distributée par les Presses
University of Toronto Press de I'Université de Toronto
for the Canadian Comparative pour I'Association Canadienne
Literature Association de Littérature Comparée
 CanadianReviewof ComparativeLiteraÍure
RevueCanadiennede LittêraÍure Comparêe
Tableof Contents 24.1 (March/mars1997) Tablede matières

The STUDYof LITEMTURE and CWTURE: SYSTEMS and FIELDS /

ÉTUONSUTTEMIRES Ct CWTT]KELLES. SVSrÈUZSCt CHAMPS
Editedby Hendrik van Gorp, AnneleenMasschelein,Dirk de Geest,
and KoenraadGeldof

Van Gorp, Hendrik

Introduction:
The Studyof Literatureand Culture- Systemsand Fields l-5

Lambert,José
ItamarEven-Zohar'sPolysystemStudies:
An InterdisciplinaryPerspective
on CultureResearch 7-14

Even-Zohar,Itamar
Factorsand Dependenciesin Culture:
A RevisedOutlinefor PolysystemCultureResearch 15-34

Sheffy, Rakefet
Modelsand Habituses:
Problemsin the ldea of CulturalRepertoires 3547

Cattrysse,Patrick
PolysystemTheory and Cultural Studies 49-55

Verdaasdonk,Hugo
Why the SociologicalTurn of the Study of Literature
is Not Innovativein Itself 57-62

Viala, Alain
Logiquesdu champlittéraire 63-75

Geldof, Koenraad
Du champ(littéraire).
Ambiguïtésd'une manièrede faire sociologique 77-89

Van Rees,Kees
Modelling the Literary Fields:
From System-Theoretical Speculationto EmpiricalTesting 91-101
 Table of Contents/ Table de matières

Laermans,Rudi
Communicationon Art, or the Work of Art
as Communication?
Bourdieu'sField Analysis
Comparedwith Luhmann'sSystemsTheory 103-1
13

Ibsch, Elrud
SystemsTheory and the Conceptof "Communication"
in Literary Studies 115-118

Schmidt,SiegfriedJ.
A Systems-OrientedApproachto Literary Studies I 19-136

Vlasselaers,
Joris
Discourse:
A Challengefor SystemsTheory in Cultural Studies? l37_I3g

De Berg, Henk
Communicationas Challengeto SystemsTheory 141-151

Prangel, Matthias
SystemsTheory:
What It Is and What It Is Not. On SomeCurrent
Misunderstandingsin the Receptionof a Systems-Theoretical
Conceptof Meaning 153-160

De Geest,Dirk
SystemsTheory and Discursivity L6r-175

Fokkema,Douwe
The Systems-Theoretical
Perspectivein Literary Studies:
Argumentsfor a Problem-Oriented
Approach 177-t85

Selectedand BasicBibliographyof Works in the

Systemicand Field Approachesto Literature 187-189

JonathanHart
Afterword
Systemand Anti-System:Shakingup the paradigms LgO_Lgz

Addressesof contributors/ Les adresses

descollaborateurs l,g3-Lg4

Call for Papers:The Wth Biannual Conferenceof the International

Societyfor the Empirtcal Studyof Literature,
Utrecht University(August26-30, Lg98) 195

Announcementsof Books and l*arned Journals 196-204

PATRICK CATTRYSSE

The PolysystemTheory and

Cultural Studies

I. WHAT IS CULTURE?

It is a common phenomenon that discourse on culture, culturql value, cultural

identity, etc. all too often treats the concept of culture as un-problematic.
Theoretical or academicas well as practical or political discourseon culture
shows, however, a number of recurring characteristicsthat are, at best unsettling,
and at worst manipulative. The use of the concept culture presents different
problems. Firstly, the concept of culture is defined and used in different,
sometimescontradictoryways. Secondly,with the rise of "cultural studies" as
a new discipline it is more and more evident that scholarscoming from different
establisheddisciplines bring along their own terminology and methodology.
Looking at culture from the perspective of different disciplines, terminologies
and methodologies,obviously colors the way the object of study is perceived,
describedand explained.rMoreover, culture is often defined in an a-historical,
ontological way, as if it were one fixed and homogeneousphenomenonthat
exists and can be grasped outside any historical context of time and space.
culture is often linked to cultural identity where identity is consideredto be a
pre-given object that can be fixed and preservedonce and for all. All too often,
the definition of culture is left implicit, the underlying supposition being:
"Everyone understandsthe conceptthe way we do." Also, culture is far too often
linked to cultural value where a normative approachrestricts culture implicitly
to those phenomena that have cultural value. Culture is then linked with
excellenceas opposed to inferiority, good taste as opposedto bad taste, quality
as opposed to trash. In this context, popular culture or commercial culture aÍe
a contradiction in terms. This approachbecomesall the more problematic if the
criteria for value judgment are left implicit. one last problem is that the concept
of culture is often used for different manipulative purposes.

I For example,Even-Zohar's "FactorsandDependencies in Culture:A RevisedOutlinefor

PolysystemResearch"(in this volume;in my articlereferredto by FD) is clearlyrootedin a
linguistictradition,whereasthe presentarticlebearsthe stampofan audio-visual
communicational approach.

Canadian Reviewof ComparativeL iterature/Revue

Canadiennede LittératureComparée
CRCL/RCLCMarch/mars1997
0319-051X/97124.1/49l$10.00/OCanadian ComparativeLiteratureAssociation
50 / Patrick Cattrysse

The question that comes to mind when reflecting on these observations is:
How can the functioning of a phenomenonsuch as culture be studied if there is
no certainty about the definition itself? Furtherïnore, ifthe concept ofculture is
used to serve different goals, how can we detect the "real" arguments that are
hidden behind the examineddiscourse?

II, CULTURAL STUDIESAND THE POLYSYSTEMAPPROACH

I am not suggestingthat the Polysystem approach (PS) 2 can solve all problems
in the field of cultural studies.However, sincethe PS approachhas shown itself
to be quite effective in the study of complex, dynamic and heterogeneous
phenomena such as literature, cinema and art, it might provide researchwith
some interesting questions and, eventually, some interesting answers. The
observations mentioned above suggest that culture could be studied as a
polysystem, i.e., as "a heterogeneousand ever-changing set of parameterswith
the help of which human beings organizetheir life" (FD 3-4).

A FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION OF CULTURE

Since the very definition of culture remains quite problematic, it might be

interesting to begin with a dynamic functional inquiry about the functioning of
the concept in a particular time-spacecontext. In the PS framework, a functional
definition of the object of study refers to the way an object of studyfunctions,
that is the way it presentsitself and/or the way it is perceived by one or more
userswithin a particular time-spacecontext. Applying this method, a fixed, static
definition of culture is replacedby a dynamic descriptionof the way the concept
has functioned in aparticular historical context. This approachmight confirm at
leasttwo hypotheses:"Every definition is relative and largely determinedby the
position and interests of the user." I am referring to Even-Zohar who draws
attention to "the possibility of re-defining objects independently of the
institutions which may have been establishedto uphold them" (FD). The concept
of culture varies in time and space,according to different parametersthat might
be interestingto study. On this point, I join Even-Zoharwhen he hypothesizes
a link "between system heterogeneityand changeon the one hand, and between
change and structure on the other" (FD).

A DESCRIPTIVEVERSUSA NORMATIVEAPPROACH

Both political and scientific discourseson culture do not always distinguish

2 Here,I refer of courseto the writingsof ItamarEven-Zohar,GideonToury, JoséLambert,

and to my own reflections(seethe Works Cited).
 The PolysystemTheory and Cultural Studies/ 5l

clearly betweena descriptive and a normative approach.The descriptive approach

examines how culture has functioned until now. The normative approach
stipulates how culture should havefunctioned or shouldfunction from now on.
Within a PS approach, I would plead for a clearer distinction between a
descriptive and a normative approach. At the same time, I propose to make a
clearer distinction between objectives for researchon the one hand and objectives
for training or practice (for example national or European politics) on the other.
Keeping these pursuits separatedis a sine qua non for a better understanding of
the possible relationshipsbetween historical researchand training or applied
politics. Finally, a descriptiveapproachmight help to clarify in a more detailed
way how applied cultural politics have functioned in the past. On this basis, it
might be able to provide political suggestionsfor future practice.

CULTUREAS A (POLY)SYSTEM

In the PS approach, a systemcan be defined as a phenomenonperceived by the

analyst as a unity characterized by a type of non-arbitrariness. This non-
arbitrarinesspresupposessome systemic coherence.Its organization permits the
analyst to distinguish the system from other systemicunits. A system can be
complex and dynamic, the hypothesis continues. It is complex when it is
composedof severalsub-systems. Moreover,systemicrelationsarehypothesized
betweensystemsto form clustersof systemsor polysystems.On the whole, this
is not a revolutionary new idea. In cultural anthropologythe conceptsof sub-
system and polysystern correspond rather well to the well-known concepts of
substratum ar'd superstratum or superstructure. The system is dynamic when it
changes in time and space, but the dynamic nature of a system does not
necessarily endanger its identification as one system. Finally, systems are
consideredto be heterogeneousin many respects.Not all aspectsor processes
within the system function in a systematic way. But how can these theoretical
principles be applied to the study of culture?

CULTUREAS A COMPLEXAND COMPOUNDSYSTEM

It might well be that until now, too often, the conceptof culture has been dealt
with as a unique and homogeneousconcept,while in fact peoplerefer implicitly
to different sub-aspectsof culture or use a different concept of culture all
together. In this respect, publications by the European Union provide an
interesting working-field. For example, one only has to read the White-and-
Green-book on the EU and audio-visual media to encounter numerous
contradictions and paradoxes.Whereassome authorsdefend a globalizing policy,
others support a localizing policy. A closer look often reveals that whenever a
globalizing point of view is taken, culture usually refers to technology or
economics, whereas when culture is used to justify a localizing policy, it
52 I Patrick Cattrysse
,
frequently servespolitical objectives. Thesehypothesessuggestthat the concept
of culture is too compound and far too complex to serve as a solid basis for
researchor politics. It seemsmore fruitful to break it down into sub-systemsor
components,and to describeor explain eachofthe componentsseparately.Such
an approachmight provide a more detailed view on the way culture functions.
It might also reveal some hidden agendason the level of economicsor politics
where the culture label is used to serve more specific objectives. In short, a
functionalist approachforces analystsand politicians to call a cat a cat. Ifthe so-
called "preservation of cultural identity" actually comes down to political
protectionism or economical imperialism, would it not be better to drop the
euphemismaltogether?

CULTUREAS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM

A PS-approachmight reveal that cultural units do not necessarilycoincide with

other pre-establishedunities such as national, political, linguistic, religious or
other unities. According to the way culturemes (see FD) are defined, a dynamic
functionalist approach might reveal that, on the basis of new types of
experiences, new cultural communities or new culturemes are constituted.
communicationaltechniquessuchasE-mail, electronicdiscussiongroupsandthe
world wide web changethe way information is produced, passedon, retrieved
and processed.Post-structuralismhas insisted on the fact that the receiver never
plays a passive role in communication. These new types of communication
nevertheless upset the traditional roles of the traditional partners on the
traditionalcommunicationalchessboard. Shifts occuron the level of interactivity,
on the level of one-way or t\ryo-waycommunication, on the level of the number
of senders and receivers connected, and in the very nature of the traditional
communicative functions themselves.New production processesare created
which require new competenciesthat are combined in new ways. New types of
messagesare createdaccordingto new types of conventions,and new skills are
requiredfrom the receptionsideto retrieveand processthe information. In other
words,thesenew technologiesinstall new typesof communicationswhich in turn
install new rules of the game.As a consequence, some supplementaryquestions
can be addedto Even-Zohar'smethodologicalsuggestionsin FD.
How does new communicationalor information technology (IT) involve
innovationson these levels?How do repertoiresinnovatethemselves?How do
new communicationalconventionsinstall themselves?How do relationsevolve
on the level of the traditional communicational functions (producer, product,
consumer...)? How do new communicational techniques upset traditional
functions of "teachers," marketers and students or marketees?Do students, for
example,still become"willy-nilly" somesort of consumers,or do lT-revolutions
substantiallychangetheir communicativerole as well as that of the traditional
"teachers?"How do new communicational technologies disrupt/deconstruct
 The?olysystemTheoryand Cultural Studies/ 53

existingtraditional(for examplenational?)cultures,andre-constitute
andconduct
new typesof communities,and as a consequence new culturalgroupsandnew
cultural identitieswith new culturalvalues?
Before answeringthesequestions,we will haveto examinemore in detail
how cultural identitiesare constructed,how they function and eventually,how
they change.Morley suggeststhat the answersto thesequestionsarerelatedto
our knowledgeof "the constructionof our senseof ourselves, as individualsand
as 'members'of communitiesat variouslevels,whetherasmembersof families,
regions,nations,or communities of othertypes(81-82).

(TRANSLATION)
THEORYAND CULTURALTRANSFER

The notion of culture as a dynamicsystemleadsus to the conceptof cultural

transfer.How doesculturaltransferoccur?How do acculturation processes take
place?3In the field of Film AdaptationStudies,Asheim and Bluestonehave
alreadydescribedsomestrikingexamplesof Americanfilms adaptingEuropean
literature(seealsoCattrysse1992,174ff). It is interestingto noticefor instance
how culturaltransferand/oracculturationhasbeenstudiedin termsof "transfers
of meaning,"asa "passageway from thecultureof origin towardintegrationinto
the adoptiveculture" (Turgeon34). In his article on "From Acculturationto
Cultural Transfer,"Turgeonstresses that:

[He] would like to broadenthe concept [of cultural transfer; P.C.] to ... identifr
mechanisms govemingculturaltransferin societies of origin as well as in societiesof
reception.Whilerecognizing thatsuchtransferis responsive
to givenneedsin thecountry
of reception,at a particularmomentin its historyandin line with previousbonowings,
we planto studyexamplesof culturaltransferthroughthe dynamicsof appropriationand
adaptation.... Thegoalis ...to pinpointtheactualmechanisms for intercultural
exchange
overtime. (37, 4l\

Concepts like societies of origin and societies of reception still reveal a binary
approach and the presenceof these terms already suggeststhe closenessof the
applied method with the PS target-oriented terminology and methodology.a
Another interesting point is the original French term lefonctionnement which has
been translatedas qctual mechanisms.The analysis focuseson thefunctioning of
the object of study in its historical context. Turgeon borrows here from Certeau,
who is a well-known figure in functional historical cultural studies and his
L' Écriture de I'histoire.

particularlyin the field ofTranslationStudies(Even-Zohar,

Questionslike theseare addressed
Touryet al.).
I havedefendedthe advantages
of a multilateralapproachelsewhere(1997).
54 / PatrickCattrysse

CULTUREAS AN EMBEDDEDSYSTEM

Culture does not function in an isolatedway. The study of the (systemic)

relationsbetweensystemsand subsystems cangive rise to an interestingseries
of questions:Is it possibleto study/manage two adjacent(sub-)systems - for
examplethe political and the economic,or the aestheticand technological
systems- as entirely separated? How are sub-systems relatedto eachother?
How do they constituteor changea globalculturalpolysystem?Only a thorough
studyof the interrelationsbetween(sub-)systems andtheir combinedfunctioning
within their globalcontextwill showif andhow this is possible.Frow speaksin
this respectof "the relationalityof culturalforms" andthe "interlockingsystem
of relations"(35). Herealso,the objectof studyseemswell suitedto the pS
approach;or in otherwords,the PS approachseemsbefrttingto examinesuch
phenomena: not to studysub-systems of the polysystemculture as isolatedand
staticdomains,but as dynamichistoricalentitieswhich entertaincontinuously
changingrelationswith eachother.

CONCLUSION

The studyof cultureassembles know-how,methodologyandterminologyfrom

different establisheddisciplines. This situation obviously provokes meta-
theoretical communicationalproblems and complicatesthe comparisonof
researchresults.On the otherhand,it hasthe advantage of openingup different
points of view in an interdisciplinaryenvironment.Having appliedthe pS-
approachwith successto phenomena suchas (translated)literature,cinemaand
art, onemight suspectthatthe approachalsoprovesto be effectivein thebroader
domain of culture research.The obvious strong points are: the historical,
descriptiveanalysisof the objectof study,its dynamic-functionalist "definition,"
andthedescriptive-explanatory subtletyof theterminologyandmethodology.On
a meta-theoretical level,thePS-approach allowstakinginto accountandapplying
principlesof readership:evenwhen readingresearchtexts such as interviews,
letters,diaries,etc.,the positionofthe researcher asa readeris alwaystakeninto
account,This implies that systems,norÍns and models are not objective,
ontologicalobservables, butconstructedentitiesresultingfrom scientificanalysis,
that is, analyticalreading.The purposeof the meta-theoretical reflectionis not
to hide this aspectof the analysis,but, on the contrary,to makeit as explicit as
possible,so as to perceiveas clearly as possiblethe potentialimplications
resultingfrom the point of view taken.
Finally, a definitiveanswerto the addedvalueof the PS-approach in Cultural
Studieswill only becomepossiblewhenmoreresultsbecomeavailableandwhen
theseresultsarecomparedwith otherresultsobtainedthroughthe applicationof
othermethodsin the field of Cultural Studies.

University of Brussels
 é$

*. Polysystem
TheoryandCulturalStudies/ 55
,
Works Cited

Asheim,L. "FromBookto Film: MassAppeals." HollywoodQuarterly5.3 (1951):334-

49.
Asheim,L. "From Book to Film: Simplification."HollywoodQuarterly5.3(1951):289-
304.
Asheim,L. "FromBook to Film: TheNote of Affirm ation."TheQuarterlyof Film, Radio
and Television 6 (1951):54-68.
Bluestone,G. Novelsinto Films: TheMetamorphosis of Fiction into Cinema.Berkeley:
CalifomiaUP.1973.
Cattrysse,P. Pour une théoriede I'adaptation/ilmíque. Le film noir américain.Bem:
Peter Lang, 1992.
Cattrysse,P. "AudiovisualTranslationandNew Media."From OneMediumto Anotther:
BasicIssuesforCommunicating theBiblein NewMedia.Ed. R. Hodgson,Jr. andP.A.
Soukup.KansasCity: SheedandWard andthe AmericanBible Society,199'l.45-67.
Certeau,M. de. I' Ecriturede I'histoire.Paris:Gallimard, 1988.
Chambers,l. Popular Culture: TheMetropolitanExperience. London: Methuen,1986.
FrowoJ. Culnral Studiesand Culnral Value.Oxford: Clarendon,1995.
Morley, D. Television,Audíencesand CulturalStudies.London: Routledge,1992.
Nightingale, V. uWhat's 'Ethnographic' about EthnographicAudience Research?"
AustralianJournalof Communication16 (1989): 50-63.
Toury, G. Desuiptive Translation Studíesand Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
1995.
Turgeon,L. "FromAcculturationto CulfuralTransfer."Transfertsculturelsetmétissages
Amérique/EuropeXVIe-XXesiècle/CulnralTransfer,AmericaandEurope:500years
of Interculturation.Ed. L. Turgeon,D. Delàgeet R. Ouellet.Montréal:PU Laval,
1996.33-s4.
Worpole, K. Readingby Numbers:ContenporaryPublishing and Popular Fiction.
London:Comedia-1984.

View publication stats