Davydenko, V. A., & Andrianova E. V. (2023). “Simulacra of translation”: reflections on the publication of Jurgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Activity Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research, 9(2), 58–82. https: ...

Òåêñò ñòàòüè íà ñàéòå æóðíàëà URL: https://vestnik.utmn.ru/sociology/vypuski/2023-tom-9/-2-34/1182866/ (äàòà îáðàùåíèÿ 21.11.2023)

Abstract

More than forty years ago, J. Habermas published his two-volume Theory of Communicative Action in German, encapsulating over twenty years of reflection and research. The core concept of his intellectual pursuits was that the indestructible element of semantic rationality is rooted in the social form of communicative action, which served as the foundation for a comprehensive social theory, safeguarded through modern philosophy of language and science. In this book, as in his other works, J. Habermas intertwines an in-depth examination of theoretical traditions with his systematic argumentation, encompassing a wide range of scientific approaches. Reinterpreted theories from G. Mead, M. Weber, E. Durkheim, T. Parsons, and various versions of Marxism provided a system of conceptual coordinates within which J. Habermas recognized new ideas in social theory and tested those using factual arguments. After the book’s publication, it garnered significant attention from the scientific community, which was remarkable considering the challenges it posed to readers. The initial published responses reflected its thematic complexity and ideological richness; the most common criticism, often expressed with the irony of a “hopelessly idealistic enterprise”, was later refuted after deeper discussions. This criticism has persisted and is now supplemented with new arguments, which are countered by other counterarguments. Theory of Communicative Action has been translated into English, and it is hardly an exaggeration to say that it has become the focal point of international discussions about social science theory. Few authors possess the argumentative skill, intellectual history knowledge, thematic breadth, and desire to diagnose the modern world required to address a variety of areas and answer pertinent questions. Those who do not participate in today’s debates or have nothing to say about this influential social theorist effectively exclude themselves from being considered serious connoisseurs. The Russian edition of J. Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, translated by A. K. Sudakov and published by “Ves mir” in 2022, was highly anticipated. However, disappointment soon followed when readers discovered the released version. Although the book’s table of contents appears to align with the English translation by T. McCarthy (praised by both the global sociological community and J. Habermas himself), a closer examination of the Russian text reveals that it primarily consists of “simulacra” (semblances) of the original translation. According to J. Baudrillard’s precise definition of “simulacrum,” this means it is merely an “imitation of the non-existent” and gives the impression of something that isn’t truly there. The primary issue is that translator A. K. Sudakov disrupted the key semantic context by replacing the fundamental term äåéñòâèå (“handeln,” or “action” in the English translation) with the unrelated term äåÿòåëüíîñòü (“tatigkeiten,” “activity”). From a modern sociological theory perspective, using the term êîììóíèêàòèâíàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü (communicative activity) instead of êîììóíèêàòèâíîå äåéñòâèå (communicative action) is a significant violation of the logical progression and development of initial premises. Habermas formulated his concept of “communicative action” based on T. Parsons’ approach to defining “action” as a singular social act, while the category of “activity” is rooted in an extremely broad definition of “human activity”. This article examines numerous glaring errors and distortions in the translations that not only affect the semantic structures of “communicative action” but also the entirety of modern sociology. As a result, the review is titled “Simulacra of Translation” to highlight these issues through various examples of factual “reinterpretations” of the book’s key meanings and concepts.