The Translator

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20

Translation as actor-networking: actors, agencies,

and networks in the making of Arthur Waley’s
English translation of the Chinese Journey to the
West (Routledge Advances in Translation and
Interpreting Studies)
by Wenyan Luo, New York and Abingdon, Routledge, 2020, 246 pp.,
£120.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-0- 367-37502-7; £33.29 (e- book), ISBN
978-0-367-81581-3

Gisele Dionísio da Silva

To cite this article: Gisele Dionísio da Silva (2020): Translation as actor-networking: actors,
agencies, and networks in the making of Arthur Waley’s English translation of the Chinese Journey
to�the�West (Routledge Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies), The Translator, DOI:
10.1080/13556509.2020.1792223

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2020.1792223

Published online: 29 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrn20
THE TRANSLATOR

BOOK REVIEW

Translation as actor-networking: actors, agencies, and networks in the making

of Arthur Waley’s English translation of the Chinese Journey to the West
(Routledge Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies), by Wenyan Luo,
New York and Abingdon, Routledge, 2020, 246 pp., £120.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-
0-367-37502-7; £33.29 (e-book), ISBN 978-0-367-81581-3

It was nearly two decades ago that Actor-Network Theory (ANT) was first introduced to the
field of Translation Studies (TS), as part of a collective effort to conceptualise translation as
a social phenomenon and to investigate its practices through the lens of a ‘sociological eye’
(Simeoni 2007, 15). By that time, ANT was already a major – if not controversial – sociological
theory from the late 1970s, when a number of scholars led by French sociologist and anthro­
pologist Bruno Latour proposed a new way of investigating social phenomena within the field
of sociology of science and technology. Grounded on a process-oriented approach, ANT’s
proponents initially sought to understand how routine actions and negotiations between
actors in scientific settings (such as laboratories) generated networks of associations, within
which ideas were formed and later developed into scientific ‘facts’ (Latour and Woolgar 1986).
Such an emphasis on microsocial processes ultimately aimed to challenge the long-held
sociological distinction between agency and structure, wherein individual actions invariably
stemmed from broader contextual elements at play in society. As ANT gained traction in
academic circles over the next few decades, the laboratory and the production of scientific
facts were gradually superseded by other social sites of power struggles, as the theory began
to be applied to various other fields of knowledge.
Within TS, ANT-based research first emerged in the wake of increasing endorsement of
Pierre Bourdieu’s social theory, in the form of ethnographic investigations by Hélène Buzelin
(2005, 2006, 2007) on the translational practices carried out in Canadian publishing houses. In
spite of the growing popularity of ANT (and other network-based studies; see Folaron and
Buzelin 2007) among TS scholars since then, however, one could argue that the incorporation
of the theory’s concepts and epistemology has been done only partially, producing an adapted
(and perhaps more digestible) version of it that leaves a considerable portion as yet unex­
plored. It is this gap that Wenyan Luo boldly sets out to fill with her book, rightly included in
Routledge’s Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies series, dedicated to innovative
research on translation.
From the perspective of ANT, the book presents a case study of a translation project
initiated in the 1940s, following ‘the practical translation actions that took place in the process
of producing one of the English translations of Wu Cheng’en’s novel, Journey to the West [. . .]
from Chinese’ (2). As repeatedly stated throughout, the case study seeks to contribute to ANT
literature in TS by focusing on ‘a single translation project’ (2) through an analysis of a large
collection of letters and other archival materials that attest to the interactions and negotiations
between the actors involved in the project (referred to as the ‘Monkey project’ to evoke the title
of Arthur Waley’s translation, Monkey: A Folk-Tale of China). This is the first differential (among
others subsequently mentioned) between Luo’s approach and the ethnographic orientation
followed by Buzelin and other scholars, in that Luo applies ANT to a retrospective investigation
of a translation project, rather than focus on an undergoing one.
2 BOOK REVIEW

The book contains six chapters. The first presents a comprehensive overview of the
epistemological foundations of ANT and its main concepts (‘translation’, ‘long distance con­
trol’, ‘black box’, ‘human and non-human actor’, ‘obligatory passage point’); the second posi­
tions Luo’s case study within existing TS literature on process-oriented research and introduces
the novel 西游记 (xī yóu jì) [Journey to the West], its translational reception in English, and
Waley’s role in promoting Chinese culture among Western readerships through his various
translations; and the third shows the results of Luo’s bibliographic research on the Monkey
project in terms of the book’s many editions, reprints, and translations into other languages.
The last three chapters respectively address the translation project from the standpoint of
three of ANT’s cornerstones: human actors, non-human actors, and actors’ successive opera­
tions within the network, i.e. their translationsANT – a clever visual reminder that ANT’s central
concept of ‘translation’ contrasts starkly with the language-based notion of translation inher­
ent to TS research.
Grounded on a sizeable correspondence preserved in the Records of George Allen & Unwin
Ltd, the British publishing company that acquired the rights to publish Waley’s translation of
the Chinese novel, Luo painstakingly reconstructs the Monkey project from its initiation in 1941
(when publisher Stanley Unwin first contacted Waley to inquire about his translation) to 1966
(when several reprints and retranslations of Monkey were being produced in different parts of
the world). The project’s temporal outreach, spanning 25 years and eight phases of production
(which Luo labels ‘translating’, ‘initiating’, ‘designing’, ‘proofreading’, ‘printing’, ‘binding’,
‘marketing’, and ‘expansion’), constantly intersects with a spatial dimension that accounts
for at least 25 versions of Monkey, among them the original UK edition and its reprints, English
editions for the US market, and retranslations. Despite acknowledging that the original, UK-
based network around Waley’s translation later expanded to include ever more people and
resources, hence giving rise to similar networks in other publishing contexts, it is this particular
network that Luo is most keen to describe; a major portion of Chapters 3 to 6 is dedicated to
retracing actors’ steps over the course of the production process from 1941 to 1942 (when the
first edition of Monkey was published in the UK) and to assessing the extent of their contribu­
tion to the end product.
Among the various actors, special attention is given to Waley, whose renown as a Sinologist
and as a translator of Chinese literature allowed him not only to choose which texts to
translate, rendering him ‘much freedom during translating’ (67), but also to perform ‘a wide
range of activities that do not traditionally fall within the responsibilities of a translator’
(97–98), such as those of proofreader, literary consultant, and project supervisor (this even
included personally recommending a designer to work on the project). Such an accumulation
of roles endowed Waley with considerable power in decision-making processes, a status that
peaked when he was awarded the prestigious James Tait Black Prize for his translation in 1942.
Luo explores in detail how Waley’s ‘personal and private project’ (169) went on to acquire
public existence through the mobilisation of several actors, although the translator’s pivotal
role in originating and later stabilising the network is somewhat downplayed (particularly in
relation to the publisher).
The main strengths of Luo’s book stem from her outspoken wish to bring ANT into TS
without prior filters or attempts at simplification. Hence, it is a compelling and original
contribution to the debate on (sociological) process-oriented research insofar as 1) it relies
on ANT as ‘the sole theory’ (51) to be studied and applied; 2) it concentrates on less-known
concepts, such as those of obligatory passage point and long distance control; 3) it presents
ANT as a multi-proponent theory (not as ‘Latour’s theory’, as it is often called) with a broad
conceptual scope; 4) it stresses the importance of non-human actors to the development of
a translation project, which, in Luo’s case study, include the Second World War, letters
 THE TRANSLATOR 3

exchanged between the human actors, and the source and target texts (the Chinese novel and
Waley’s translation); and 5) it distinguishes between human/non-human ‘participants’ (those
who have a minor role to play in the translation network) and ‘actors’ (those directly involved
with the translation project), which enables Luo to limit the number of actors ‘to a manageable
size’ and ensure ‘close relevance of actors within the translation project’ (92).
Nevertheless, an inevitable corollary of offering ANT at face value is that comprehension
can be difficult at times (above all in Chapter 6, where Luo traces the many translationsANT
effected by the actors involved with the project), particularly for those unfamiliar with the
theory. Delving deep into a single theoretical and methodological framework such as that of
ANT, while a crucial factor in the book’s aspirations for originality, also exposes a certain
unwillingness on Luo’s part to account for the active role of the academic community at the
receiving end of interdisciplinary processes. Such resistance produces a number of mispercep­
tions whenever the author attempts to position her research within the existing literature. For
instance, Luo consistently rejects the combination of ANT and other theoretical frameworks (a
relatively fruitful practice in TS), such as Bourdieusian sociology, on the grounds that they are
irreconcilable (a contention already challenged by Buzelin 2005). Epistemological rejection
leads to a terminological one, for Luo argues that ‘most of the Bourdieusian concepts applied
in ANT-based translation research could be substituted straightforwardly by non-academic
everyday expressions used by actors’ (54, emphasis added). The resulting substitution of
Bourdieu’s ‘cultural capital’ by ‘cultural resource’, for instance, is indicative not only of
a radical interpretation of ANT’s emphasis on actors’ ‘own fully developed metalanguage’
(Latour 2005, 49) when referring to their own social interactions, but also a belief in ‘pure’
theoretical constructs, immune to cross-fertilisation and external influence. Such a stance
appears difficult to uphold by the end of the book, at which point Luo concedes that ANT’s
overemphasis on individual actions and disregard for macrostructural factors rank among its
‘limitations’ (219) and that ‘the connection between ANT and other theories or methods
[might] benefit mutual development’ (220).
Another misperception has to do with Luo’s apparent scepticism regarding the methodolo­
gical framework of previous ANT-inspired studies in TS, which often involve, to a greater or lesser
degree, the use of ethnographic data collection methods (e.g. interviews, surveys, and partici­
pant observation). Luo’s criticism of the fact that ‘existing applications in general remain, to
a large extent, descriptions or ethnographic records of translation activities, whereas this study
goes beyond mere description’ (53, emphasis added), is problematic on two grounds: firstly,
ethnographic methods are at the core of ANT’s famous motto ‘follow the actors’ and have often
been employed by ANT scholars (see, for instance, Latour and Woolgar 1986, in which Latour
describes the period he spent in a chemistry laboratory doing participant observation); and
secondly, ANT prioritises descriptions, i.e. the careful tracing of associations which comprise
a given network, rather than the establishment of cause–effect relations (Latour 2005). Once
again, as in the ANT–Bourdieu conundrum, Luo goes on to acknowledge that detailed descrip­
tion of a translation project, which the reader may find ‘trivial’, ‘is a necessary and important
method to record [actors’] actions and words which underpin analysis and should be encouraged’
(60, emphasis added). It is the considerable descriptive power of Luo’s study that ultimately
enables the reader to retrace the steps of all those involved with the Monkey project and to
understand how the translation network emerged, evolved, and changed over time and space.
Lastly, Luo’s sound knowledge of ANT and of the current TS literature is unable to resist the
pull of the text-based paradigm, which has invariably characterised translation research and
even the sociological approach (see Wolf's [2007, 28] call for a balance between ‘text compre­
hension’ and ‘a sociologistic reduction to external factors’). While acknowledging that ‘[r]
eaders may raise the concern that this research lacks “text analysis” [. . .] including comparisons
4 BOOK REVIEW

of the original and the translation and of different versions of translation drafts’ (160) and that
this is ‘indeed one of the limitations of the research’, she counteracts this shortcoming with the
idea that ‘[t]ext analysis in ANT does not equal translation text analysis’ (160), but includes
various textual materials like letters, page proofs, and contracts. Luo’s reasoning on ANT is
indeed correct, but the fact that the lack of analysis of the translated text is viewed alternately
as a limitation and as a default feature of ANT-based research is sufficient indication that the
disciplinary dynamic of TS does play a role in the way theories and concepts are incorporated
from other fields of knowledge.
In summary, this book is a welcome contribution to the sociological approach in TS, in
general, and to ANT-based research, in particular. Luo’s case study, in striving to address
a research gap on the process-oriented analysis of English translations of Chinese fiction, is
sure to interest TS scholars working in various subfields, particularly those pertaining to
historical and sociological perspectives. Its systematic, in-depth investigation of how Waley’s
solo translation effort gradually acquired network status shows us that following the actors,
retrospectively or not, is an important strategy for understanding how and why translations
are produced.

References
Buzelin, H. 2005. “Unexpected Allies: How Latour’s Network Theory Could Complement Bourdieusian Analyses in
Translation Studies.” The Translator 11 (2): 193–218. doi:10.1080/13556509.2005.10799198.
Buzelin, H. 2006. “Independent Publisher in the Networks of Translation.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie,
Redaction 19 (1): 135–173. doi:10.7202/016663ar.
Buzelin, H. 2007. “Translations ‘In the Making’.” In Constructing a Sociology of Translation, edited by M. Wolf and
A. Fukari, 135–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Folaron, D., and H. Buzelin. 2007. “Introduction: Connecting Translation and Network Studies.” Meta 52 (4):
605–642. doi:10.7202/017689ar.
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Simeoni, D. 2007. “Translation and Society: The Emergence of a Conceptual Relationship.” In In Translation –
Reflections, Refractions, Transformations, edited by P. St-Pierre and P. C. Kar, 13–26. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Wolf, M. 2007. “The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation.” In Constructing a Sociology of Translation, edited by
M. Wolf and A. Fukari, 1–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gisele Dionísio da Silva

Centre for English, Translation, and Anglo-Portuguese Studies (CETAPS), NOVA University of Lisbon,
Portugal
giseledionisio@gmail.com http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1757-0520
© 2020 Gisele Dionísio da Silva
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2020.1792223