Vorderobermeier, Gisella M., ed. (2014): Remapping Habitus in Translation Studies. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 235 p.

Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus has been a fundamental concept in the sociology of translation since the early 2000s. Almost fifteen years later, Remapping Habitus in Translation Studies is a successful attempt at reassessing its role in the examination of translation practices. The book, edited by Gisella M. Vorderobermeier (Assistant Professor in the Department of Translation Studies at Karl-Franzens-Universität, Graz, Austria), stems from reflections presented at an international research symposium held in Graz in 2012, following on the international conference “Translating and Interpreting as a Social Practice” (2005). Collectively, the eleven contributions to this book address the relevance and uses of Bourdieu’s habitus in Translation Studies from the twin perspectives of “what has been achieved to date and what challenges await us” (p. 15). They present an excellent coverage of the topic, embracing a broad range of methodological propositions, theoretical considerations, and critical examinations. Some of the papers presented in this volume follow the well-travelled path of using the habitus as a point of departure for considering individual trajectories while others introduce innovative readings of the concept and less conventional approaches. Students in search of a detailed, yet concise, presentation of the habitus will be delighted to find that the Introduction provides a historical and general overview of the concept accompanied by a brief review of its application in translation studies. In these first pages, Vorderobermeier also positions, with clarity, the publication’s project and objectives. The book is organised in four Parts which tackle, in turn, the theoretical dimension of the habitus, its intradisciplinary connections to other approaches, its methodological aspect, and critical perspectives on the concept. Each paper has its own bibliography—a more efficient arrangement than one lengthy combined bibliography, in our opinion—and there is an index of major themes at the end of the book. The two contributions in Part I, General Theoretical Aspects, discuss very different dimensions of the concept. It opens with Jean-Marc Gouanvic contribution, “Is Habitus as Conceived by Pierre Bourdieu Soluble in Translation Studies?” In it, Gouanvic revisits some of his earlier findings on the habitus of two translators, Marcel Duhamel and Maurice-Edgar Coindreau (Gouanvic 2007). This opening paper relates translation practices to the field of a literary genre, the roman noir. In the second contribution, “Translators’ Identity Work: Introducing Micro-Sociological Theory of Identity to the Discussion of Translators’ Habitus,” Rakefet Sela-Sheffy questions Bourdieu’s lack of concern for identity components, including self-perception, and indicates their importance in understanding translators’ professional choices (p. 52). Part II, Intra-disciplinary Interrelations (Re)visited, comprises four papers. The first, “Remapping Habitus: Norms, Habitus and the Theorisation of Agency in Translation Practice and Translation Scholarship,” by Sameh F. Hanna is remarkable for its direct engagement with the topic of the book. The author suggests four essential elements to be taken into account in (re)mapping habitus: its interdependence with other core Bourdieusian concepts, its relation to other underused Bourdieusian concepts, the empirical grounding of Bourdieu’s theory, and the theory’s historical dimension. Hanna also discusses, in the context of the translation of Shakespeare in Egypt, translatorial agency in dialogue with the concepts of habitus and norm. He proposes two concepts - doxa and hexis - as visible manifestations of the habitus. In the second paper, “Translatorial Hexis and Cultural Honour: Translating Captain Corelli’s Mandolin into Greek,” Kalliopi Pasmatzi also highlights the use of hexis as the translator’s textual stance (p. 74) and points to its relevance in linking textual strategies to the wider social context. Nadja Grbić’s “Interpreters in the Making: Habitus as a Conceptual Enhancement of Boundary Theory?” convincingly demonstrates the worthwhileness of complementing research on boundary work —a dynamic and …