Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMehtap-Smadi, Salime
dc.contributor.authorYen, Dorothy
dc.contributor.authorHeller, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-12T15:04:12Z
dc.date.available2020-04-12T15:04:12Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.urihttps://brill.com/view/journals/coso/17/6/article-p759_4.xml
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.auk.edu.kw/handle/11675/5763
dc.description.abstractDue to its wide usage in vast fields of study, there is a lack of studies synthesizing the many aspects of national culture theory. The authors argue that given the proliferation of national culture theories in various disciplines, the need to integrate and provide an analytical review is fundamental for further research. As such, they have reviewed 110 empirical and conceptual studies on the concept of national culture and recounted the different national culture theories within. They have also assimilated the varied criticism towards each respective national culture theory and synthesized them under six discernable shortcomings: the ecological fallacy, the concept of nations as units, the complexity of culture, the construct’s conceptualization, the research approach, and the dangers of stereotyping
dc.publisherBrill
dc.relation.journalComparative Sociology
dc.titleThe Many Facets of National Culture: A Critical Appraisal
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.bibliographicCitationAlMutairi, S.M., Yen, D., & Heller, M.C. (2018). The Many Facets of National Culture: A Critical Appraisal.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationAlMutairi, S., Yen, D., & Heller, M. (2018). The Many Facets of National Culture: A Critical Appraisal, Comparative Sociology, 17(6), 759-781. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341478
dc.journal.volume17
dc.journal.issue6
dc.article.pages759–781
dc.article.pagesAbstracts When we discuss the cross-cultural relationships of Euro-American modernists we often fall between the poles of either celebrating the ‘coming together of traditions’ or suspiciously decrying the power play involved. A case in point is the divergent critical understanding most often posited of Ezra Pound’s relationship to the materials he produced from Ernest Fenollosa’s notes – notably Classical Chinese poetry in the form of Cathay (1915). The first position is Hugh Kenner’s who holds that its meaning, its primary function, was as an anti-WWI volume, rather than as any representation of Chinese poetry or an extension of Imagism (1971, 202–204). In seeming opposition to this vision of an ideal aesthetic come at by the application of genius, we have those who highlight the source material of Fenollosa’s notes to discuss various modes of Pound as translator. Interestingly, these critics, who resist the Kennerian celebration of Poundian genius and insist that Pound is engaged here in an act of translation, “essentially [...] appropriative” (Xie 232), or otherwise, also reinforce a reading whereby “the precise nature of the translator’s authorship remains unformulated, and so the notion of authorial originality continues” (Venuti 6). This is the issue I wish to address when we study the disparities between Fenollosa’s notes and the Cathay poems, i.e. Pound’s own choices with regard to those poems’ content, as a key chapter in the study of transnational collaboration.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record