Abstract
Translation is a social activity that empowers individuals engaged in the process, granting them agency through their roles in selecting, producing, and disseminating translated works. However, at specific historical periods, these agents may assume the role of activists. The present study, from the perspective of the sociology of translation, investigates the translation choices made by the editors of Ketab-e Hafteh to determine whether the politically sensitive climate of the early 1960s transformed these individuals from translation agents into activists. Ketab-e Hafteh, regarded as one of the most influential periodicals of the second Pahlavi era, was published in 104 issues from October 1961 to November 1963 under the editorship of Shamlou, Hajseyedjavadi and Beh-Azin. Analysis of 397 translated stories of this periodical indicates a significant preference among its editors for works by Marxist and socialist authors. Findings of the study suggest that the editors of Ketab-e Hafteh used the relative political openness of the early 1960s to promote leftist ideals in Iran. In doing so, they acted as activists, transforming translation into a political tool used to oppose the Pahlavi regime.
Keywords: The second Pahlavi, Ketab-e Hafteh, Shamlou, Beh-Azin, Hajseyedjavadi, activism, translation
 
Introduction
Since the late 20th and the early 21st century, following what was later called the ‘sociological turn’ in the field of translation studies, the attention of researchers has shifted toward the social aspects of translation and the role of translators in society. What contributed most to the sociological turn in translation studies and the expansion of research in this field was the emphasis on the ‘agency’ of individuals involved in translation, especially translators themselves. The concept of ‘agency’ has multiple interpretations within sociology, leading to diverse definitions of ‘translator’s agency’ in translation studies. This article adopts Giddens’ definition of agency, which he describes as the people’s “capacity of doing” things (Giddens, 1984: 9). Defining translator’s agency through Giddens’ lens, it can be argued that translators can be called agents when they have the ability to perform translation. By this ability, we mean their power to make choices at various stages of the translation process. According to this definition, translators inherently possess agency, as they are continually making choices—from selecting a text to deciding on translation strategies. Recently, however, research has begun to shift focus from ‘agency’ to the ‘activism’ of translation agents. Although often conflated, agency is a broader concept that includes activism as a specific manifestation (Marais, 2020: 107). The distinction between agency and activism lies in the ‘intention’ of individuals. Agency, according to Giddens (1984: 10), does not refer “to the intentions people have in doing things”. However, activism denotes intentional actions aimed at achieving specific goals. In this respect, while all translators possess agency, they become activists when engaging in translation with the explicit intent of enacting change. Based on Bandia (2020: 515), activism involves “resistance” and there is no resistance “without oppression, deprivation, or abuse”. Therefore, “the distinction between agency and activism highlights the infinite capacity” of translators to “intervene in the political realm” (Gould & Tahmasebian, 2020: 4). However, agency and activism are not limited to translators. Other individuals who are involved in the process of translation production and publication, including publishers and patrons, also exhibit agency through their role in selecting and publishing translated works. If then, according to the definition of activism, publishers support the translation and publication of certain works with the intention of achieving specific outcomes, they too become activists. Therefore, examining the works that were translated and published during critical historical periods can reveal the activism of translation agents. In this regard, the present research examines the translation choices of the editors of Ketab-e Hafteh to determine whether the politically sensitive climate of the early 1960s transformed these individuals from translation agents into activists.
 
Materials and Methods
In the present research, the 104 issues of Ketab-e Hafteh, published from October 1961 to November 1963, were investigated. Ketab-e Hafteh is regarded as one of the most influential publications of the second Pahlavi era. While the translated content of this periodical covers a wide range of topics, the focus of the current research was on the translated stories. To carry out this research, first a list of translated stories published in 104 issues of Ketab-e Hafteh was compiled. The compiled list included 397 stories translated by 212 authors. Then the stories were classified according to their author and thematic content. In the next step, the authors with the highest number of translated stories were selected and the political background of each one was investigated. In addition, by reviewing the content of translated stories, an effort was made to figure out the dominant theme of these stories. Finally, by considering the political and social landscape of Iran in the early 1960s, along with the political background of the editors of Ketab-e Hafteh, the researchers tried to uncover the intentions and goals behind the publication of these translations.
 
Discussion and Results
As previously mentioned, investigation of the 104 issues of Ketab-e Hafteh resulted in the compilation of a list of 397 translated stories by 212 different authors. Examining the political backgrounds of the writers with the highest number of translated stories in Ketab-e Hafteh, indicated a strong tendency among the editors to publish works by Marxist and socialist writers. Notably, Aziz Nesin, a prominent left-wing writer of that era, drew significant attention from the editors, which appears to be rooted in the shared concerns of intellectuals in both Iran and Turkey following the reforms of Atatürk and Reza Shah. Analysis of the content of the translated stories also revealed a predominant focus on social issues such as racism, poverty, social inequality, and the lives of workers. Additionally, the editors of Ketab-e Hafteh demonstrated a tendency for publication of stories that depicted the suffering of African Americans and highlighted broader problems within the American society.
 
Conclusion
Considering the political backgrounds of the editors of Ketab-e Hafteh, all of whom had a history of membership in the Tudeh party, the publication of stories critical of the American political and economic system can be interpreted as an indirect way of supporting the Soviet Union. The inclusion of non-fictional materials about Soviet developments in various scientific, social, economic, and cultural aspects further supports this argument. Moreover, publication of stories criticizing American society can be seen as a way of expressing discontent with the policies of the Shah and protesting the increasing influence of Americans in Iran. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that the editors of Ketab-e Hafteh used the relative political openness of the early 1960s—created after the oppressive years following the 1953 coup—to promote leftist ideals in Iran once again. In doing so, they acted as activists, transforming translation into a political tool used to oppose the Pahlavi regime.