Censorship as Cultural Blockage: Banned Literature in the Late Habsburg Monarchy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For Stephen Greenblatt, cultures are “inherently unstable, mediatory modes of fashioning experience,” and it is only through the imaginary order of exclusion that a culture can be simulated as a stable entity. Greenblatt calls such an exclusion “blockage,” a phenomenon that occurs constantly, thereby preventing the collapse of cultural identity. What does this mean for translation practice, where such “blockages,” i.e., textual manipulation or re-writing, can be regarded as constitutive elements of the translation process? This paper examines the question in the particular context of translation practice in the late Habsburg Monarchy. The paper will analyse the different agents which underlie the selection mechanisms–or “exclusion procedures”–in translation and will explore the phenomenon of censorship from both a metaphorical and systemic point of view. The agents involved in the selection of texts to be translated as well as in the selection of translation strategies are manifold and are all interwoven. The selection of texts automatically represents a filter for the analysis of a certain period and is, therefore, a key agent in the reception process. Other important agents are patrons, who are often themselves translators and vital representatives of cultural mediation, as well as translators from various backgrounds, involved to varying degrees in contemporary cultural discourse. Finally, the role of editors, publishers and reviewers as main filters of representations of the cultural Other in a particular culture will be considered. Greenblatt’s model of “cultural blockage” will be examined against this background. Its applicability and limits will be discussed in the context of translation where the issue of the representation of the Other is of paramount importance and where “blockage” definitely illustrates the recognition of cultural distance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".