Volume 65, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The activist aspect of translation that has illocutionary and perlocutionary dimensions is a sort of speech act that rouses, inspires, bears witness, mobilizes and incites to rebellion, actually participating in social movement and political change. In this way, translators are the producers of new knowledge signifying the assertion of power by choosing deliberately to subvert the traditional allegiance of translation and also interjecting their own world view and politics into their work, and these translators undertake the work they do because they believe the texts they produce will benefit humanity or impact positively upon the receptor culture in ways that are broadly ideological. This paper investigates the issue of an Islamic Marxist translators’ agency applying Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological concepts (habitus, field, capital) in the socio-political context of Iran in the 1960s and 1970s. This study surveys how based on his habitus Ali Shariati, an Islamic Marxist translator and thinker, translated some texts to transfer new knowledge to society as cultural capital which intensified the initiation and facilitation of social reform and political change in Iran in the 1970s. The paper peruses some texts translated by Ali Shariati to show that he wielded his own politics in translation to illuminate Iranians’ thought against the imperial regime to stimulate them to subvert the Pahlavi dynasty.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abrahamian, E.
    1983Iran between Two Revolution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2011: 1390 A.H.A History of Modern Iran. Transl. byPartovi, M. Tehran: Ney.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alvaerz, R.; and Vidal, A. C.
    1996Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A.
    2000Constructing Cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bassnett, S.
    2002Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Behrouz, M.
    2002: 1381 A.H.Rebel with a cause The Failure of the Left in Iran. Tehran: Ghoghnous.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boroujerdi, M.
    2008: 1387 A.H.Iranian Intellectuals and the West. Transl. byShirzadi, J.. Tehran: Farzanrooz.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourdieu, P.
    1988 “The Forms of Capital”. InHandbook of Theory and Research for Sociology of Education, ed. byJ. G. Richardson, 246–258. New York: Green Wood Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 1991Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cronin, M.
    2006Translation and Identity. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203015698
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015698 [Google Scholar]
  11. Foucault, M.
    1977Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Transl. byA. Sheridan. New York: Vintagebook.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1980Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. London: Harvester Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1998The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaventa, J.
    2003Power After Lukes: A review of the Literature. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gentzler, E.
    1993Contemporary Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1996 “Translation, Counter-Culture, and The Fifties in the USA”. InTranslation, Power, Subversion, ed. byR. Alvarez; and C. A. Vidal, 116–137. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2002 “Translation, Post Structuralism and Power”. InTranslation and Power, ed. byM. Tymoczko; and E. Gentzler, 195–218. Amherst and Boston (MA): University of Massachusetts Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mirsepasi, A.
    2010: 1389 A.H. Negotiating Modernity in Iran, Intellectual Discourse and the Politics of Modernization. Transl. byTavakolian, J.Tehran: Tarheno.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nabavi, N.
    2009: 1388 A.H.Intellectuals and the State in Iran: Politics, Discourse, and the Dilemma of Authenhicity. Transl. byFesharaki, H.Tehran: Shirazeh.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Navarro, Z.
    2006 “InSearch of Cultural Interpretation of Power”. IDS Bulletin37 (6): 11–22. 10.1111/j.1759‑5436.2006.tb00319.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00319.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Rainbow, P.
    1991The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tymoczko, M.
    2000 “Translation and Poltical Engagement: Activism, Social Change and The Role of Translation in Geopolitical Shifts”. The Translator6 (1): 23–47. 10.1080/13556509.2000.10799054
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2000.10799054 [Google Scholar]
  23. Tymoczko, M. and Gentzler, E.
    2002Translation and Power. Amherst and Boston (MA): The University of Massachusetts Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tymoczko, M.
    2003 “Translation, Ideology and Creativity”. Linguistica AntverpiensiaVol.2: 7–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2007Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Venuti, L.
    1992Rethinking Translation; Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2000Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203446621
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203446621 [Google Scholar]
  28. Williams, J.; and Chesterman, A.
    2002The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error