World Literature Studies 3  vol.

16  2024 (108 – 125)

DISKUSIA / DISCUSSION
ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES

Addressing power imbalances in research and

translation studies

IVANA HOSTOVÁ ‒ DANIELE MONTICELLI ‒ OLEKSANDR

KALNYCHENKO ‒ MARTIN DJOVČOŠ
DOI: 10.31577/WLS.2024.16.3.8
© Institute of World Literature
Slovak Academy of Sciences
© Ivana Hostová, Daniele Monticelli,
oleksandr Kalnychenko, Martin Djovčoš 2024
Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies

Translation studies. Power hierarchies. Academic positionality. Ethical
research. Inclusivity.

The upheavals of recent years have underscored the depth of global interconnect-
edness, with events like the COVID-19 pandemic, advancements in AI, and armed
conflicts prompting swift and unpredictable economic and social changes world-
wide. In particular, the discussion delves into the power dynamics within academia,
the unequal positioning of researchers in the global knowledge market, and the
fundamental right of translation within economic relationships. Drawing from
a conference held in Bratislava, Slovakia, in September 2023, this article addresses
issues of translation and interpreting-related power dynamics against the backdrop
of contemporary political, economic, and cultural developments. Speakers from
diverse backgrounds explore how academia can respond to prevailing power hier-
archies and disparities in visibility, and whether such structures can be challenged
or altered. The discussion extends to the subjectivity inherent in research, includ-
ing sources of funding, national affiliations, and personal values. Ethical consider-
ations surrounding researcher positionality and appropriating research topics are
scrutinized, with a focus on inclusivity and participation. The article emphasizes
the importance of considering diverse perspectives and ensuring representation in
research teams, particularly when studying topics related to minority groups. Over-
all, the dialogue offers insights into navigating power dynamics within academia,
advocating for ethical research practices, and promoting inclusivity in scholarly
pursuits.

108
 Ivana Hostová Oleksandr Kalnychenko
Institute of Slovak Literature Department of Slavic Languages
Slovak Academy of Sciences Matej Bel University
Bratislava Banská Bystrica
Slovak Republic Slovak Republic
[email protected] [email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0003-0901-3759 ORCID: 0000-0001-7808-357X

Martin Djovčoš
Daniele Monticelli Department of English and American Studies
School of Humanities Matej Bel University
Tallinn University Banská Bystrica
Estonia Slovak Republic
[email protected] [email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0003-0271-2178 ORCID: 0000-0003-2487-4151

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 109

 IVANA HOSTOVÁ
Events of the past few years have shaken numerous paradigms, highlighting
the extent of global interconnectedness. The swift dissemination of COVID-19,
groundbreaking advancements in AI, and alarming armed conflicts, among other
occurrences, have catalyzed rapid and sometimes unpredictable economic and social
transformations on a global scale. These events have evoked strong emotions, signifi-
cantly influencing political sentiments worldwide.
Current events have also sparked a debate in the humanities regarding the un-
equal recognition of research originating from diverse regions and linguistic back-
grounds. In response to the Russo-Ukrainian war, fields such as Slavic studies, East
European studies, Eurasian studies, and translation studies have shifted their focus
to Ukraine while simultaneously endeavoring to decolonize knowledge production.
By challenging existing infrastructures and fostering internal collaboration, “pe-
ripheral” cultures (Heilbron 1999) can generate research that benefits both local and
international audiences which are notoriously difficult to reach for cultures which
struggle to extricate themselves from relative obscurity. The urgency of cooperation,
hospitality, and ongoing interaction in addressing complex societal issues – within
the realm of translation studies – and outside it is critical.
Surges and dips in positions of languages and literatures in intricate webs of cul-
tural flows and hierarchies and the search for the reasons behind these shifts are
topics frequently discussed when attempting to understand and explain power re-
lations in regions that have experienced pronounced totalitarian regimes and nav-
igating the unequal interactions in knowledge exchange requires actors entangled
in these networks and/or engaging with them to account for their position in these
landscapes – and in the research process.
This multi-perspective article is based on the discussion held at the conference
“Translation, Interpreting & Culture: Virality and Isolation in the Era of Deepening
Divides” held in Bratislava, Slovakia in September 2023, and addresses issues pertain-
ing to translation and interpreting related power dynamics in the light of current po-
litical, economic, and cultural developments, including the issues of (new) isolation,
rewriting, and the effect of virality in the current political, economic, and cultural
situation. The panel wished to tackle the challenges posed by power hierarchies with-
in academia, the unequal positioning of researchers within the globalized knowledge
market, and the notion of translation as a fundamental right within the framework
of economic relationships.
In what follows, three speakers with different geographic, economic, cultural, and
linguistic backgrounds approach the question of how research and academia might
respond to prevailing power hierarchies and disparities in visibility, and whether such
structures can be challenged or altered. This inquiry pertains to disrupting the pre-
vailing order that disproportionately favors powerful entities over weaker ones,
such as dominant languages, economically robust nations, well-developed literary
traditions, historically significant regions, and research originating from prestigious
universities, which may be more accessible (also production-wise) to scholars from
privileged economic backgrounds.

110 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

 Besides these issues, Daniele Monticelli from Tallinn University, Oleksandr Kalny-
chenko from V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University and Matej Bel University, and
Martin Djovčoš from Matej Bel University approach the issue of how the subjectivity
inherent in research (sources of funding, national affiliations, and personal values,
etc.) influences the researcher’s approach. They explore the ethical dimensions of re-
searcher positionality and analyze criteria to define boundaries when appropriating
research topics, aiming for inclusivity and participation. In this respect, topical issues
also concern the question of whether it is appropriate for researchers to investigate
the literature and cultural aspects of minority groups to which they do not belong
and if so, what ethical considerations should be taken into account (e.g. should re-
search teams be composed of members from minority groups when studying topics
related to those groups?).
Finally, discussants also explore the question of when translation to or from
a language with a limited number of (often bilingual) speakers is necessary and
what implications the act of (non)translation has. They approach the issue of trans-
lation in the context of linguistic minorities and economically disadvantaged
groups. These often receive information primarily in the majority language, since
depending on translation in such cases can delay or impede access to crucial in-
formation. On the other hand, the absence of translations into minority languag-
es risks eroding linguistic identity and cultural heritage. While volunteering may
serve as a form of resistance, its long-term viability is tied to individuals’ econom-
ic realities. Balancing the imperative to translate with individual economic needs
over extended periods presents a complex problem that needs to be addressed on
an individual basis.

DANIELE MONTICELLI
Isolation and virality in the digital age
I think that before we start using notions such as “isolation”, “virality”, or “con-
nectedness”, we should reflect on the way in which the new digital condition, that
informs our lives, has changed the sense of these notions and the relations between
them. Even more than in the context of the present wars in Ukraine and Gaza, we
have experienced it in a particularly painful way in the context of another crisis –
the Covid-19 pandemic. During the lockdown we were pushed into an unprecedent-
ed situation of isolation and, at the same time, hyper-connectedness. We spent many
hours a day behind the screens of our computers, participating online in many events
that we probably would never have physically attended, expanding our networks and
connections. But we could not, I think, evade a feeling of isolation and loneliness,
which for many people (particularly young people) has been a rather traumatic ex-
perience with a negative psychological impact. So, what does isolation really mean
in a world where we spend an increasing amount of our time in a digitally mediated
environment? How does this reshape human relations and connections? What does
it mean to break out of isolation in such a context? To have thousands of followers,
views, digital friends on the internet, or maybe rather to shut down our computers
and get out to meet people in the real world?

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 111

 It is interesting to consider what isolation and virality mean also from an academ-
ic perspective. Academic institutions have long ceased to work as isolated ivory tow-
ers. Research has become for the most part a cooperative enterprise also in the hu-
manities and societal impact and knowledge exchange are fundamental criteria for
research funding decisions. However, the present situation of permanent crisis is
quite challenging for scholars, because even if we have broken out of isolation and
feel a responsibility to address these crises, research is by nature a slow enterprise and
it implies distance from the phenomena we study.
I believe that most of us have experienced in this respect as scholars and stu-
dents in the humanities a certain hopelessness when facing the crises of our times.
On the one hand, the attempt to decelerate and create the distance needed for re-
search and understanding is constantly frustrated by the tidal waves of constantly
new crises which we are immediately asked to take a position on, say something
smart, and hastily rethink our research topics in order for them to continue to be
relevant. But clearly a full and committed immersion into the crises makes it difficult
to work, to think and to study. So, a certain degree of isolation and disconnectedness
seems to be a necessary condition for research.

Isolation and decolonization in academia

The war has made the issue of isolation a particularly painful one in another re-
spect too. Namely, while as scholars we have always promoted the values of dialogue
and openness, we have now been called to enforce isolation. After Russia invaded
Ukraine, some Estonian universities made the decision of excluding Russian and Be-
lorussian student candidates from admission. With many other Estonian and inter-
national colleagues, we initially protested against this discrimination, arguing that
many of those prospective students were probably young people fleeing their coun-
try due to opposing Putin’s regime and the war. Why should we isolate them too?
Now, more than two years have gone since this terrible war started, and I am not
so sure about this argument: we have chosen a side in the war and we should do all
in our power to internationally isolate its enemy and diminish its influence not only
in world economics and politics, but also in culture, sports, and academia, focusing
at the same time on supporting Ukrainian students and colleagues.
That’s why I think we should push further in the decolonization of Slavic and East
European Studies. It is not a question of “erasing” Russian culture, but of 1) critically
revisiting its imperialist and aggressive aspects, just as was done for German culture
after World War II, and 2) giving space and voices to the many other cultures, liter-
atures and languages in Eastern Europe that have been until now at best considered
as satellites or “little brothers” of Russia. This is an important opportunity to break
out of isolation for Eastern and Central Europe as a whole and we should not miss it.

Translation: building bridges and affirming difference

Finally, recent crises have become also an occasion to rethink isolation and con-
nectedness from the perspective of translation. In the minds of most of us, transla-
tion is pre-eminently understood as a builder of bridges, which brings cultures and

112 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

people closer to one another. This comes from our commitment with intercultural
dialogue and openness to diversity as universal values. We are at present increasingly
understanding that translation is not only this, as it has historically had different and
also opposing functions. It has been and continues to be also an instrument to affirm
cultural and linguistic identities, not a bridge, but rather a gatekeeper, which main-
tains the distance between the source and the target culture and language. This was
the case for instance with translation from Russian into the Ukrainian in the 1920s
and 1930s. The very fact of translating marked the difference of the Ukrainian lan-
guage from the Russian one and the difference of Ukrainian cultural identity from
Russian cultural identity – here translation both establishes and maintains a distance.
That is why Ukrainian translations of Russian works, Russian-Ukrainian dictionaries
and more generally books in Ukrainian were suspicious to Tsarist as well as Sovi-
et authorities, which aimed to erase differences, making of Ukraine a “little Russia”
in which translation from Russian was superfluous and harmful. Thus we must learn
to notice and appreciate the cases when translation functions as a gatekeeper and
generator of difference and identity (isolation in a sense) as much as we notice and
appreciate the cases in which translation builds bridges, enhance connections, cross-
es differences.

Toward academic equality

I think we should always address the issue of privilege and marginalization in all
the situations in which we are involved as scholars as well as human beings. And
we should commit with equality not in the Soviet and socialist sense, but rath-
er in the perspective of radical democracy, as it has been suggested, for instance,
by the French philosopher Jacques Rancière (1991). For Rancière, equality is a pre-
sumption that we are asked to verify in every social relation (academic relations in-
cluded). This verification always starts from the exposure and dispute of some wrong
and inequality (specific privileges and marginalizations), that must be corrected
in order for the presumption of equality to be confirmed. So equality is never a final
achievement, but rather this infinite process of verification which addresses always
new forms of privilege and marginalization.
As for academia, I think there is no copyright on research topics – we are all free
to choose any topic, even if someone other is already working on it. But of course,
we cannot ignore other work in the field, and the best way to take it into account is
to start a cooperation between scholars working on the same topic. Research is a col-
lective enterprise and we all are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, so it is
bad that we have come to understand ideas as some kind of private property. The fun-
damental issues for me here are stability, inclusivity, and accessibility of research.
First, in order to avoid privileges and marginalization and to secure the sustainability
of research teams and fields, we need much more base funding for research in Eu-
rope, as competitive project-based research is unstable and unequally and unreason-
ably distributed. The majority of money for research projects does not go to the uni-
versities with the best scholars and ideas, but to the ones with the best project writers
and research support structure. Second, we need universal accessibility to all research

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 113

outputs. The present open access system is a scandal as it transfers a huge amount
of research money to academic publishing corporations and it is often a privilege
of the richer universities, which have also the best libraries and access to the most
expensive research databases. For the moment, grassroots and free sharing (includ-
ing “pirate” initiatives like Sci-Hub and Libgen) is a good way of counterbalancing
such inequalities, but for the future we need a new copyright system, which would
grant to all of humanity unlimited and free access to all research publications. This is
the prerequisite for real equality of opportunities in the academia.

The need for translation

Sometimes it makes sense to speak of the necessity of translating some text – think,
for instance, of the necessity of making the laws and regulations of a given country
accessible to linguistic minorities living in that country. But for instance in the case
of literature, it is not so much a matter of necessity as it is of cultural richness. As we
well know, literary translation not only makes a foreign text accessible to people who
do not read in foreign languages, but it has always played an important role in the de-
velopment of target languages and cultures too. In general, as a kind of general princi-
ple, we could say that the more linguistic variations of a certain text we have, the bet-
ter. A translation is always a particular way of interpreting a text, a particular view
of that text, so every new translation in principle enriches also the initial source text.
As for policy makers, I think they have the certain duty to grant translation wher-
ever it is necessary in order to respect linguistic rights and the principle of linguistic
equality. The key issues here are resources and quality – that is, policy makers have
to understand that not every person who knows a foreign language is a translator/
interpreter, they have to set up qualification and quality standards and be ready
to spend enough money for translation and interpreting services. Volunteering is
always good, as it is nice when people directly engage in community activities, and
all are happier. But this cannot replace public services and professional interpreting/
translation. So, when volunteering, we should at the same time commit to the strug-
gle to raise awareness of policy makers on linguistic rights and the need to invest
public money in language services, which includes investing money in the training
of interpreters and translators at universities and other institutions.
As for literature, I think that we also need state policies here, which would coun-
terbalance the mere logic of the market. State funding of culture should include sup-
port for the translation of important texts with a possibly limited readership.

OLEKSANDR KALNYCHENKO
Power hierarchies in academia
In translation studies, addressing existing hierarchies in power and visibility is
crucial for fostering a more equitable and inclusive scholarly landscape. In this con-
nection, we can discuss gender, racial, and ethnic hierarchies, postcolonial transla-
tion… But the issue I want to focus on is that translation studies often grapples with
the tension between global knowledge centers (predominantly concentrated with-
in Western academic institutions) and local knowledge (indigenous practices and

114 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

thinking on translation). Power imbalances are about whose knowledge is privileged.
If we want to challenge Western-centric views of translation, we need to make other
– politically previously non-Western – perspectives distinctly visible.
In the 1920s, researchers in several countries later belonging to the Eastern Bloc
initiated systematic research into translation, while the West’s conceptualization
of translation gained momentum after World War II. However, Europe’s division
into capitalist West and communist East created barriers to scholarly exchange, driv-
en by geopolitical, linguistic, and ideological disparities. Eastern and Central Euro-
pean nations developed their own translation traditions, but unfortunately, many
key texts from this region remain untranslated in Western languages. As a result,
global academic audiences have limited access to these crucial works. Despite oc-
casional contacts, Western knowledge of Eastern and Central European translation
theories remains incomplete (with a focus primarily on the Russian and Czechoslo-
vak schools). Meanwhile, the scholars from the 1950s and 1960s in Eastern and Cen-
tral Europe laid the groundwork for the translation studies of the 1970s, even if their
influence has been overlooked (for details see Kalnychenko and Kolomiyets 2024).
So it is crucial to recognize the impact of Eastern and Central European theoretical
schools on each other and acknowledge their contribution to the field of translation
studies.
According to a 2020 study by Brian James Baer, the standard narrative of the disci-
pline’s history, where TIS (translation and interpreting studies) remains predominant-
ly represented as a Western scholarly tradition originating in the 1970s, constitutes
a ‘mythhistory’. Baer highlights a crucial aspect often overlooked in the dominant
narrative of TIS: the geographical diversity of its origins. For instance, this dominant
discourse disregards the fact that translation studies had already been introduced
as a formal academic subject at the university level in Kyiv and Moscow in the early
1930s (Kalnychenko and Kamovnikova 2020; Kolomiyets 2020).
It is true that recently Central and Eastern European translation scholarship has
been gaining international attention, shedding light on theoretical approaches and
translation traditions that were previously overlooked in Western discourse (see, e.g.,
Schippel and Zwischenberger 2017). In this regard, “Nothing Happened: Translation
Studies before James Holmes”, a conference held at UCL, London, 9–10 November,
2023, and co-organized by the UCL Centre for Translation Studies and School of Sla-
vonic and East European Studies, was symptomatic, as is the anthology Translation
Studies before James Holmes: A Critical Reader, being compiled under the editorship
of Kathryn Batchelor and Iryna Odrekhivska.
A good example of a work that aims to avoid Western and Anglo-American bias
in TIS and to explore non-Western thinking on translation as vital components
of global TIS history is the Routledge Handbook of the History of Translation Studies
(Lange, Monticelli, and Rundle, 2024).
It also has to be stressed that scholarship is practiced at the local, national, and
transnational levels, all worthy of analysis. Knowledge on translation is produced lo-
cally but validated globally. And as long as national systems of higher learning exist,
one should take into account national scholarly traditions.

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 115

 In the early 1970s, there were several programmatic suggestions for a separate
discipline that would study translation. Thus, in 1971, Viktor Koptilov mapped liter-
ary translation studies in his article “Perekladoznavstvo yak okrema haluz filolohii”
[Translation studies as a separate branch of philology], holistically elaborated in his
1972 book. Anton Popovič, in the same year, outlined his conception of the discipline
to study translation, introducing his classification of translation theory as a discipline
(Popovič 1971; expanded in his 1975 book). However, James Holmes’s mapping as
presented in his English article “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” (1972)
became foundational, in no small part due to its visualization by Gideon Toury
(1995). Thus, the presentation of a scholarly work is of paramount importance and
serves as an advantage in spreading ideas (see Djovčoš and Perez 2017).

Trajectories traced by theories

Research ethics in the humanities encompasses considerations of the situated-
ness and geopolitics of knowledge, as well as the complexities surrounding knowl-
edge translation or non-translation and the manner in which knowledge is con-
veyed. The issue of research ethics in TIS covers several aspects. These include
the presumed “Western” identity of translation studies and the dominant “West-
ern” thinking in the theorization of translation (see, e.g., van Doorslaer and Naa-
ijkens 2021), the researcher’s positionality and associated power dynamics, as well
as the awareness that knowledge is formed and adopted differently in different lan-
guages. By the positionality of the researcher, one means the social and political
context that creates their identity in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, and abil-
ity status and describes how their identity influences, and potentially biases, their
understanding of and outlook on the world. It is also desirable to consider different
languages and cultures in translation research. Additionally, ethical considerations
arise when disseminating research findings and sharing research data (see, e. g.,
Mellinger and Baer 2021).
It is not for nothing that one of the functions of the history of translation studies
is to establish historical justice. It so happened that during the 20th century the works
of Ukrainian translation scholars written in Ukrainian were subjected to a double
erasure. On the one hand, since the mid-1930s, when the Bolsheviks adopted the po-
sition of Russian chauvinism, it became politically incorrect to refer to and quote
Ukrainian publications in the USSR, as “Ukrainian nationalism” was proclaimed
by Stalin to be the main enemy of the Soviet power. On the other hand, the Cold War
confrontation did not contribute to the dissemination of information in the West
about the findings of Ukrainian translation scholars. Here is just one example. Pro-
fessor Oleksander Finkel of Kharkiv University, the author of the first monograph
in Eastern Europe on translation theory, Teoriia i praktika perekladu (The theory
and practice of translation, 1929b), was perhaps the first scholar anywhere to treat
the topic of self-translation in a systematic way. In August 1928, as a 29-year-old
researcher, he wrote the article in Ukrainian, “H. F. Kvitka as the Translator of His
Own Works” (13,438 words), which was printed the following year in a scholarly
collection to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Ukrainian writer Hryho-

116 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

rii Kvitka-Osnovyanenko. 33 years later in Leningrad, Finkel published the article
in Russian, “Ob avtoperevode” (Eng. trans. “On Autotranslation. (Based on Material
Relating to Hryhorii Kvitka-Osnovianenko’ s Authorial Translations)”, 2021; 7,184
words), which is, in fact, a self-translation of his own 1929 article (Finkel 1929a).
It is to this 1962 Russian article that Anton Popovič referred both in his seminal
work Teória umeleckého prekladu (Theory of literary translation, 1975) and in his
Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation (1976, 18), containing the entry
on auto-translation, which introduced the concept in English-speaking countries.
However, for some reason, none of the authors of English-language articles on au-
to-translation (later referred to as self-translation) in various encyclopaedias and
handbooks had noticed for more than 30 years that the definition of this concept
in Popovič’s dictionary contains Finkel’s name in parentheses. It was only in the last
decade that references to his writings on auto-translation appeared in The Bibliogra-
phy on Self-translation maintained by Eva Gentes (2023), and an English translation
of Finkel’s 1962 article by Mercedes Bullock was published in the journal Transla-
tion and Interpreting Studies. It would seem that historical justice has been done.
However, this is not entirely true, as the English-speaking readership was introduced
to the translation of the 1962 Russian article. When comparing the Ukrainian article
of 1929 (Finkel 1929a) and the Russian article of 1962, one can see that both texts
describe the same research based on authorial translations by Kvitka-Osnovyanenko,
use the same numerous examples, letters, and nearly the same argumentation, with
several paragraphs self-translated literally. Yet the 1929 version is twice as long and
provides more details on Kvitka’s personal and social motives to translate his own
works; it also pays closer attention to theoretical issues. In his 1962 Russian article,
Finkel quite clearly avoids discussion of any socially provocative issues, such as eth-
nic bilingualism, problems of stylistic differences between the Russian and Ukrainian
languages, and socially distinct readership, as well as issues of censorship. Hence,
although it has a more clearly delineated structure, the 1962 article lacks the young
Finkel’s observations on power relations. We can only hope that the first version will
eventually be translated into major languages, that it will truly enter international cir-
culation as the classic work that it is. Then we can truly say that justice has been done.

“Minor” versus “major”

The influence of languages’ majority or minority status on translation practice
is a fundamental point. Minority-language cultures heavily rely on translation for
their informational demands, their economic, scientific, and cultural life. As Mi-
chael Cronin (2020) has remarked, the concept of minority in TIS is a dynamic and
relational one. This emphasizes the fact that all languages have the potential to be
minority languages. Even major world languages, like Mandarin, can occupy a pe-
ripheral position in specific domains such as science and technology. A language
may be marginalized due to invasion, conquest, or subjugation by a more powerful
group. Ukraine under Russian rule in the 1800s can serve as a quintessential case
of such a suppression in modern culture, especially during the repressions and prohi-
bitions of Ukrainian publications in 1863–1905. Thus, in accordance with the Valuev

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 117

circular of 1863 to the censorship committees, “the authorization of books in Little
Russian with either spiritual content or intended generally for primary mass read-
ing should be ceased” (quoted in Miller 2003, 264). Tsar Alexander II’s Ems Decree
of 1876 completely banned the printing of any translations into Ukrainian as well
as any import of books translated into that language. The only parallel to this lan-
guage ban that I am familiar with is the ban of the Irish language under Oliver Crom-
well in the 17th century. Yet, in 1882, Mykhailo Starytsky published his translation
of Shakespeare’s Hamlet as a separate book in Kyiv. How did he do it? The writer’s
daughter Liudmyla Starytska-Cherniakhivska admitted in a letter to Ivan Franko (16
December 1901) that the Ems ban had been circumvented with the help of a hun-
dred-ruble bribe to the Kyiv censor Leimitz. To increase the likelihood of obtaining
permission to publish in Russia, translators would occasionally send several ver-
sions of their translated texts under different names and pseudonyms to different
censorship committees at the same time. A strategy to circumvent censorship was
the publication of translations of foreign works as original works of Ukrainian liter-
ature. For instance, Borys Hrinchenko had to turn Leo Tolstoy’s novella The Prisoner
in the Caucasus into the story The Black Sea Men in Captivity. One other way to cir-
cumvent the ban on printing translations into Ukrainian was to publish the books
abroad and then smuggle them into the Russian Empire.
All of these ways to bypass censorship barriers mean that we should take into
account the non-systemic aspects of the context and the unpredictable interference
of random events, that we should not ignore the fundamental importance of inter-
personal relations, i.e., net of relations, acquaintances, schoolmates, neighbors, etc.
in which people made favors in exchange for other favors bypassing generally ac-
cepted rules and laws in the intercourse with, e.g., censorial agencies, as Daniele
Monticelli (2020) has demonstrated recently when he described such useful connec-
tions: the person responsible for reading the Estonian translated literature book se-
ries proofs at Glavlit (the Soviet censorship agency) was one of the Editor-in-Chief ’s
university classmates which allowed for the obstacles of Soviet censorship to be less-
ened.
Translation can play an important role in nation-building for subjugated peoples
by establishing boundaries between cultures. Whereas in the early 1920s, the com-
mon view was that translations of Russian belles-lettres into Ukrainian were a point-
less waste of means and effort, as an average Ukrainian reader could read any work
of Russian literature in the original, the late 1920s witnessed abundant Ukrainian
translations of Russian prose, which pointed to the separateness of the Ukrainian
language and culture (see Kalnychenko and Kolomiyets 2022). Recently, Lada Kolo-
miyets and I have been researching Russian-Ukrainian literary translation over
the past hundred years (before 1917 there was practically no fiction translated from
Russian into Ukrainian). This study (Kolomiyets and Kalnychenko 2024) proves
that Russian-Ukrainian translation has both bright and dark sides. On the one hand,
there are translations of Russian poetry by neoclassicists in the mid-1920s, philo-
logically accurate translations of the collected works of Gogol and Chekhov, and
other achievements of the Ukrainian translation school, which emerged in the late

118 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

1920s and early 1930s and was theoretically justified accordingly; on the other hand,
through the Russian language and translations from Russian, the Soviet cultural
space was established, which was deliberately isolated from the world cultural space
and was supposed to replace it, contributing to the Russification of the Ukrainian
language and the provincialization of Ukrainian literature.
When an empire disintegrates and national boundaries are redrawn, it can re-
sult in a shift where a previously dominant language becomes a minority one.
The case of Russian in Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union serves as
an example of this phenomenon. Moreover, after 24 February 2024, Russian ended
up being completely excluded from the public sphere in Ukraine. The overall re-
jection and denunciation of Russian literary products is now, for many in Ukraine,
not just an aesthetic choice in a struggle for cultural identity. It is an existential
necessity.

MARTIN DJOVČOŠ
The topic of this discussion, as suggested by its title, is virality and isolation. Never-
theless, despite the different vocabulary, I believe that once again we are talking about
one of the key issues pertinent to translation studies at least since polysystems theory
in the 1970s – namely the relationships between centers and peripheries. The issue
might not be new, but like many other social phenomena connected with different
distribution of power, it remains topical. The problem of inclusion and exclusion
(of people, ideas, paradigms) has been reframed here to reflect the changing, and
(although I hate to use this buzzword, the reality it names has become ubiquitous)
digitalizing world. It is clear, though, that the central idea – the unequal distribution
of power – remains the same, although mechanisms change. With new information
and knowledge – often, unfortunately, also pseudo-knowledge – reaching global au-
diences literally instantly, it may become very hard to navigate the world and follow
all relevant new developments. In this situation, rationalism can prove useful even
today and indeed may be crucial now more than ever if we are to be able to critically
evaluate rights and wrongs.

On marginalized ideas
One of the key issues here, as suggested in the introductory remarks, certainly
is striving for the empowerment of marginalized groups, as the effort to give voice
to the voiceless (authors, cultures, texts, organizations) has long been one of the main
goals of translation and translation studies. However, I would like to speak about
marginalized ideas. Ideas travel, they are not national, but can be prevented from
spreading or be marginalized by nationalism/imperialism and get rediscovered again
once circumstances change – e.g. when ideological restrictions are removed. One cur-
rent example of this is the rediscovery of (older and current) research of translation
and interpreting that originated in Ukraine and its dissemination in English (such as
the publications by Kalnychenko 2023; Kolomiyets 2023; Shmiher 2014; or Odrekh-
ivska 2021). This shift is not about ideas having existed or not, but about whether or
not they have reached their audiences. Once ideas find a perceptive audience, they

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 119

may even go viral and create a new center which may lead to a revision of canonical
ideas and rewriting of translation history. In the case of translation and interpreting
in Ukraine and other post-totalitarian countries, this would mean freeing the history
of narratives imposed on the territories dominated by the Soviet hegemony, which
colonized memes of translation on this side of the Iron Curtain. I remember a confer-
ence in Kharkiv in 2019, where to my amazement scholars were talking about things
I never heard before. Although most of the presentations were in Ukrainian, I was
able to grasp their main message. From some presentations on translation history, it
was quite clear that through reconstructing historical patterns in translation practice
and agenda during the Soviet Union, one could expect the 2022 invasion to hap-
pen. After the invasion, the international translation studies community has finally
become more perceptive to what they have to say. And here I wonder, does it really
take a war for marginalized groups to be listened to? I also wonder how many inter-
esting ideas there are for us to learn from in other countries that, at the moment, we
do not think of listening to. All knowledge is fragmented, therefore one needs to be
very careful when formulating “generally valid” statements. However, I would like
to make myself very clear: ideas/narratives/stories belong to all, they are not national
and they need to travel or as Vanessa Andreotti (2021) would say, dance with people
in different contexts.

Empirical activism
We are talking here also about drastic and hardly “followable/predictable” chang-
es. I believe that translation studies, particularly the examination of translation his-
tory, has the potential to forecast future developments. Translation serves as a lit-
mus test for societal changes and advancements. It requires constant reinterpretation
of facts based on new information as Karl Popper and Thomas Bayes invite us to do.
The real fun of our research lies therein. Research is not static; it is extremely dy-
namic. As Taras Shmiher mentioned in his recent lecture in Banská Bystrica (2023),
history deals with interpretation of facts. However, identity bias will always influ-
ence the process, which will, despite the effort, never be objective. And yet, I ad-
vocate for data-driven interpretation. In other words, we need to draw a strict line
between activism/wishful thinking and empiricism. In my opinion, activism should
always be based on empirical data. I have been engaged in an ongoing discussion
with Christopher Rundle on what to do once we know or think we know something.
As a brilliant historian of translation (not a historian of translation studies) focusing
on fascism and para-fascism, he has a lot of knowledge about mechanisms which
drive and fuel the system. Indeed, quite clear patterns are visible. What do we do
when we see the same (or very similar) pattern recurring today? To know does not
mean to stay impartial and quiet. Knowledge is responsibility, and translation carries
a lot of knowledge since one of its main goals is to spread it (to whichever purpose
this knowledge may serve).
Breaking out of isolation for translation studies as a discipline also means to aban-
don our comfort zones and internalize power asymmetries which, as I mentioned
before, are very dynamic categories.

120 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

 Deconstructing echo chambers
In other words, Andrew Chesterman’s crucial question (e.g. 2011) still remains
very relevant: so what? What is the ultimate goal of our efforts? Historical justice?
I recall one conversation with a colleague some years ago, when I said I was sick
of looking for who was “the first”. He said that I may be right, but it is about looking
for historical justice. I understand it as doing justice and recognizing those who were
previously silenced. However, it is crucial to remember that achieving historical jus-
tice does not entail rewriting history according to our preferences. That would again
mean we give our wishful thinking a superior role, and that must not happen. People
frequently perceive what aligns with their desires, and scholars are not exempt from
this tendency (e.g., confirmation bias and availability heuristics). Thus, we create
these echo chambers where we feel comfortable. Deconstructing these chambers is
what breaking out of isolation really means to me. Thus, I strongly advocate against
all forms of anti-intellectualism in service of any ideology.
The issues under discussion here are only a fragment of the translation market.
Significant? Probably not. Major? I doubt it. Interesting? Definitely. But let us not
forget about everyday translators and interpreters and their work which, I dare say,
forms the majority of the translation market and habitus and subtly shapes societies
at large. Indeed, the social transformative power of translation is remarkable. For
example, before 1989, literary translation formed the core of the translation market
in Slovakia. Universities also focused mainly on teaching literary translation, as that
was seen as the high art of translation. Certainly, it is important to note that since Slo-
vakia, or rather Czechoslovakia, belonged to the Soviet sphere of influence, publica-
tions primarily focused on “friendly” languages and cultures – i.e. politically aligned
ones. After 1989, the situation changed dramatically. Not only did the translated
languages change (shifting from Russian to English), but also the nature of trans-
lation and social demand underwent dramatic changes. A shift towards “pragmatic
translation” could be observed, and literary translation began to lag behind, mainly
from an economic perspective. Nowadays, as Klaudia Bednárová-Gibová and Mária
Majherová (2021) aptly note, literary translation has become a semi-profession. This
has also been confirmed by research I conducted with Pavol Šveda (2023), showing
that only 1% of translators in our sample (350) make their living solely from trans-
lating literary texts. However, up to 26% of translators and interpreters in our sam-
ple say they sometimes translate books for publishing houses. Oddly enough, based
on the research, it seems that most literary translators are content with their social
status and satisfied with their work. This means that we find ourselves in a rather
paradoxical situation where an abundance of symbolic and cultural capital does not
necessarily lead to higher economic capital. In Slovakia, this is also the case for other
workers in the cultural sector. Thus, literary translation seems to be more about cul-
tural activism than anything else. Up to 90% of translators mainly depend on tech-
nical translation. That being said, it appears that in the future, and even today, a pro-
fessional translator/interpreter will be the individual who can effectively combine
various translatorial activities (such as literary texts, audiovisual translation, techni-
cal translation, post-editing, interpreting, etc.) as effectively as possible.

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 121

 In general, I would say that there is a call for the emancipation of the translation
profession, which subsequently needs to integrate into the wider ecosystem of hu-
manities. I think that we all need to calm down a little bit, take a deep breath, rethink
our priorities, and then act accordingly. Slavoj Žižek (2009) warns that we are fac-
ing pseudo-activity, the urge to “be active,” to “participate”, to mask the Nothingness
of what goes on. He adds that people intervene all the time, “doing something”; aca-
demics participate in meaningless “debates,” etc.; but the truly difficult thing is to step
back, to withdraw from it all. Thus sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing
to do. Therefore, I call for evidence based, data-driven, and possibly rational activism.

CONCLUSION
Against the backdrop of current events, this discussion addresses the issue of un-
equal recognition of research done in areas that are not at the center of international
attention. Research originating in locales which are globally less visible, and knowl-
edge produced in underrepresented languages, struggles to gain the same recogni-
tion as research produced in academic centers. This disparity marginalizes different
perspectives and perpetuates a cycle of invisibility for these cultures within the global
knowledge economy. In order to gain a more accurate understanding of the world
and interactions within it, translation studies, among other disciplines, need to chal-
lenge existing power imbalances. This can be done by employing different strategies,
including the promoting of inclusivity and more intense collaboration.
An important issue that emerged in this article is how to address our time of mul-
tiple crises from an academic as well as an ethical perspective. The most challeng-
ing aspect here is how to maintain the ability to see the complexity of phenomena
in a situation in which we are also called to make inevitable choices that require some
degree of simplification. In this respect it is interesting to observe different academic
reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression toward Ukraine.
During the COVID-19 crisis, academics have, on the one hand, supported public
policies for the containment of the virus, providing in some cases dubious “scientific
evidence” grounded on insufficient data. On the other hand, academics have crit-
icized unnecessary restrictions to the freedom and rights of people, in some cases
involuntarily fueling conspiracy theories about power abuses. Only retrospectively,
we are becoming able to evaluate the truths and shortcomings of these different ap-
proaches. In the same way, the Russian aggression to Ukraine splits the internation-
al academic community between the ones who unconditionally stand with Ukraine
and the ones who instrumentally invoke “complexity” to claim that Russian interests
should also be taken into account in order to end the war.
These differences bring to the fore the situatedness of knowledge and the embed-
dedness of the researcher in the culture and society where she works. Thus, scholars
based in Eastern Europe obviously have a different perspective on the war than, for
instance, scholars based in Slavic studies departments of US universities. Though this
is probably inevitable, we should still maintain the necessary openness for interna-
tional academic dialogue, instead of far too easily dismissing opinions and research
results which diverge from our own. In the case of translation studies, it seems that we

122 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

are positively moving from past simplifications based on binary oppositions (source
vs. target, foreignization vs. domestication, adequacy vs. acceptability) to more com-
plex and historically-based approaches which study translation in specific cultural
contexts.
The discussion also highlighted the interconnectedness of virality and isolation
within translation studies. Analyzing power dynamics between centers and periph-
eries, marginalized ideas and empirical activism may be helpful in deconstructing
echo chambers and fighting anti-intellectualism – a plague sweeping over the West-
ern world. Marginalized groups and ideas must be heard since they are by no means
national, although are often rooted in national contexts and one has to bear in mind
the impact of historical injustices on shaping widely accepted narratives. Therefore,
there is an increased need for evidence-based activism in the field. Translators face
a lot of challenges in balancing cultural, symbolic, and economic capital. Rational ac-
tivism based on empirical data within translation studies seems to be able to navigate
the complexities of our ever-changing digital world.
The interplay of knowledge and power shapes and is shaped by what is trans-
lated, which is possibly most apparent in the translation of texts in social sciences
and the humanities, including translation and interpreting studies. The translation
of scholarly texts is integral to knowledge production, not merely an auxiliary pro-
cess. It profoundly influences the field, emphasizing that translating academic work
is a scholarly endeavor deserving recognition and assessment. Despite the numer-
ous English-language handbooks and anthologies on translation studies published
in the last two decades, Eastern and Central European tradition is still often over-
looked. Taking into consideration the geographical diversity of the discipline’s ori-
gins, even delayed translations can repair historical inaccuracies.
Translation in the humanities should be carried out not only into the languages
of global distribution, but also into the native language, which is perhaps not so wide-
ly used. This is necessary not only for the dissemination of ideas, which is extremely
important in itself, but also for the formation of national terminology.
Ultimately, fostering a more inclusive and diverse academic landscape is essential
for addressing the challenges posed by global crises. By prioritizing ethical consider-
ations and embracing nuanced approaches, we can better navigate the complexities
of our interconnected world, ensuring that all voices contribute meaningfully to our
collective understanding.

REFERENCES

Baer, Brian. 2020. “On Origins: The Mythistory of Translation Studies and the Geopolitics of Knowl-
edge.” The Translator 26, 3: 221–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2020.1843755.
Baer, Brian James. 2020. Queer Theory and Translation Studies: Language, Politics, Desire. London and
New York: Routledge.
Bednárová-Gibová, Klaudia, and Mária Majherová. 2021. “Academic Literary Translators: A Happy
‘Elite’ or Not? Some Insights from Correlational Research.” The Translator 27, 2: 167–189. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2021.1872921.

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 123

Chesterman, Andrew. 2011. “The Significance of Hypotheses/L’Importance des hypotheses
en traductologie.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 24, 2: 65–86. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.7202/1013395ar.
Cronin, Michael. 2020. “Minority.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 3rd Edition, ed.
by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha, 334–338. London: Routledge.
Djovčoš, Martin, and Emília Perez. 2017. “Bridging the Mental Iron Curtain, or, Re-Exploring the ‘Old’
in New Contexts.” World Literature Studies 9, 2: 3–11.
Djovčoš, Martin, and Pavol Šveda. 2023. Premeny prekladu a tlmočenia [Changes in translation and
interpreting]. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave.
Doorslaer, Luc van, and Ton Naaijkens, eds. 2021. The Situatedness of Translation Studies: Temporal and
Geographical Dynamics of Theorization. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Finkel, Oleksander. 1929a. “H. F. Kvitka–perekladach vlasnykh tvoriv” [H. F. Kvitka as the translator
of his own works]. In Kvitka-Osnovyanenko: Zbirka na 150-richchia narodzhennia [Kvitka-
Osnovyanenko: A collection to commemorate the 150th anniversary of his birth], 107–132. Kharkiv:
Ukraiinskyi Robitnyk.
Finkel, Oleksander. 1929b. Teoriya i praktyka perekladu [Theory and practice of translation]. Kharkiv:
DVU.
Finkel, Aleksandr. 1962. “Ob avtoperevode” [On autotranslation]. In Teoriya i kritikaperevoda, ed.
by Boris Larin, 104–125. Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Leningradskogo universiteta.
Finkel, Aleksandr. [1962] 2007. “Ob avtoperevode” [On autotranslation]. In O. M. Finkel – zabutyi
teoretyk ukrayinskoho perekladoznavstva: zbirka vybranych prats [Oleksandr M. Finkel – forgotten
theoretician of Ukrainian translation studies: collection of selected works], ed. by Leonid M.
Chernovatyi, Vyacheslav I. Karaban, Valerii O. Podminohin, Oleksandr A. Kalnychenko, and
Vitalii D. Radchuk, 299–325. Vinnytsya: Nova knyha.
Finkel, Alexander M. 2021. “On Autotranslation. (Based on Material Relating to Hryhorii Kvitka-
Osnovianenko’s Authorial Translations).” Trans. by Mercedes Bullock. Translation and Interpreting
Studies 16, 1: 156–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00050.fin.
Gentes, Eva, ed. 2023. “Bibliography. Autotraduzione/Autotraducción/Self–translation.” Accessed on
February 11, 2024. https://app.box.com/s/52h3hwsqqty5l34j99hmxqlamb4814q0.
Heilbron, Johan. 1999. “Towards a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cultural
World-System.” European Journal of Social Theory 2, 4: 429–444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/
136843199002004002.
Holmes, James S. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Ed. by
Raymond van den Broeck. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kalnychenko, Oleksandr. 2023. “Discovering Erased Discussion on Translation Method in Ukraine
in 1927–1931.” In Translation Studies in Ukraine as an Integral Part of the European Context, ed.
by Martin Djovčoš, Ivana Hostová, Mária Kusá, and Emília Perez, 32–62. Bratislava: VEDA,
vydavateľstvo SAV.
Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Natalia Kamovnikova. 2020. “Navčanňa perekladu: instytutski programy
z perekladoznavstva počatku 1930-ych rokiv [Teaching translation: Academic courses in ‘translation
theory and practice’ of the early 1930s].” Visnik Charkivskoho nacionaľnoho universytetu imeni V. N.
Karazina: serija “Inozemna filolohija. Metodyka vykladannja inozemnych mov” 91: 147–155.
Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Lada Kolomiyets. 2022. “Translation in Ukraine during the Stalinist Period:
Literary Translation Policies and Practices.” In Translation under Communism, ed. by Christopher
Rundle, Anne Lange, and Daniele Monticelli, 141–172. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Lada Kolomiyets. 2024. “The First Comprehensive Treatments
of Translation in Eastern Europe (1950s–60s).” In The Routledge Handbook of the History of Translation
Studies, ed. by Lange, Anne, Daniele Monticelli, and Christopher Rundle. London and New York:
Routledge.
Kolomiyets, Lada. 2020. “A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the First Ukrainian Syllabi on General and
Special Methodology of Translation by Mykhailo Kalynovych and Mykola Zerov.” East European
Journal of Psycholinguistics 7, 2: 135–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2020.7.2.kol.
Kolomiyets, Lada. 2023. “Between Censorship and Nation Building: The First Ukrainian Lecture
Courses on Translation Studies from a Historical Perspective.” In Translation Studies in Ukraine as

124 ıvana hostová ‒ Danıele Montıcellı ‒ oleKsanDr KalnychenKo ‒ Martın Djovčoš

 an Integral Part of the European Context, ed. by Martin Djovčoš, Ivana Hostová, Mária Kusá, and
Emília Perez, 63–89. Bratislava: VEDA, vydavateľstvo SAV.
Kolomiyets, Lada, and Oleksandr Kalnychenko. 2024. “Translating Russian Literature in Soviet and
Post-Soviet Ukraine.” In Translating Russian Literature in the Global Context, ed. by Muireann
Maguire and Cathy McAteer, 281–305. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
Koptilov, Viktor. 1971. “Perekladoznavstvo yak okrema haluz filolohiyi” [Translation studies as
a separate branch of philology]. Movoznavstvo 2: 50–57.
Koptilov, Viktor. 1972. Pershotvir i pereklad: rozdumy i sposterezhennia [Original and translation:
reflections and observations]. Kyiv: Dnipro.
Lange, Anne, Daniele Monticelli, and Christopher Rundle, eds. 2024. The Routledge Handbook
of the History of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Mellinger, Christopher, and Brian Baer. 2021. “Research Ethics in Translation and Interpreting Studies.”
In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, ed. by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike Pokorn, 365–
380. London and New York: Routledge.
Miller, Alexei. 2003. “The Ukrainian Question”: The Russian Empire and Nationalism in the Nineteenth
Century. Trans. by Olga Poato. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Monticelli, Daniele. 2020. “Translating the Soviet Thaw in the Estonian Context: Entangled Perspectives
on the Book Series: Loomingu Raamatukogu.” Journal of Baltic Studies 51, 3: 407–27. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2020.1762685.
Odrekhivska, Iryna. 2021. “Historiosophy of Translation: Reflecting on Ukrainian Translation
Conceptualizations – from Ivan Franko to Maksym Strikha.” In The Situatedness of Translation
Studies, ed. by Luc van Doorslaer and Ton Naaijkens, 34–59. Leiden: Brill.
Popovič, Anton. 1971. Poetika umeleckého prekladu [Poetics of literary translation]. Bratislava: Tatran.
Popovič, Anton. 1975. Teória umeleckého prekladu [Theory of literary translation]. Bratislava: Tatran.
Popovič, Anton. 1976. Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: University
of Alberta.
Rancière, Jacques 1991. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Trans. by Julie Rose. Minneapolis and
London: University of Minnesota Press.
Schippel, Larisa, and Cornelia Zwischenberger, eds. 2017. Going East: Discovering New and Alternative
Traditions in Translation Studies. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Shmiher, Taras. 2015. “Designing a History of Translation Studies: A Case Study for Ukraine.”
In Translation Theories in the Slavic countries, ed. by Andrea Ceccherelli, Lorenzo Costantino, and
Cristiano Diddi, 67–82. Salerno: Europa Orientalis.
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Žizek, Slavoj. 2009. In Defence of Lost Causes. London: Verso.

Addressing power imbalances in research and translation studies 125