This section begins by examining the Sichuan People's Publishing House, the publisher of this book series. The publisher played a crucial role throughout the process from editing to its eventual publication. The final translation was completed and produced by the publisher, then presented to readers through market circulation, thereafter, generating certain social effects. Sichuan People's Publishing House is the patron of Congshu. Manipulation of translation activities can be conducted by patronage, which consists of the ideological, economic, and status components.

It is worth noting that before the 1980s, because of the CPC's extensive manipulation of publishers, that is, the nationalization of publishers after the implementation of socialist joint state-private ownership of businesses in 1953, publications publishers had to closely abide by the mainstream ideology, neglecting market demands. Under the state control, editorial departments conducted stringent inspections of many areas of operations, including the selection of translated works. Publishing houses looked more closely at works in translation, under the pretext of examining their educational significance, and only allowed publication of those that fit into the centralized ideology, regardless of market demand. Following the end of the Cultural Revolution and the implementation of economic reform, the CPC reformulated an ideological policy for the literary arts. In December 1977, the State Publishing Bureau held a National Publishing Conference, where Wang Kuang, then the person-in-charge, proposed to “break political shackles; break free from the constraints of publishing direction and content” (Fang and Wei, 2008, p. 232). In 1979, the State Publishing Bureau held another National Publishing Conference and promulgated the Publishing Regulations, which mentioned the need for the publishing industry to stand firm on its principle of “letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools contend” (Deng et al., 1984, p. 86).

It is evident that in this new context, subtle changes had taken place in the relationship between publishers and mainstream ideology. The authoritarian manipulation of publishers by “centralized” ideology began to crumble. Although mainstream ideology continued to pursue Marxism and Maoism, the diversification of a national ideology had begun to take shape. With the reform of national political ideology and opening to foreign ideologies, publishers gained more freedom. In 1983, the Central Committee of the CPC abolished the formulation of “class conflicts as a key principle” and replaced the slogan “serving politics” with “serving the people and socialism” (Ding, 2008). These adjustments offered an opportunity for publishers to break free from national control and reorient their operations to meet market demands. In the initial stages of economic reform, as demands for western culture and texts arising from the end of long-term material and spiritual deprivation during the Cultural Revolution increased continuously, it would only be a matter of time before the Sichuan People's Publishing House (SPPH) conducted its large-scale publication of Congshu. Conscious efforts were made to meet large demands for cultural products.

Under the diversification of ideological forces, the atmosphere of Cultural Fever, as well as the marketization of publishers' operations, it seemed necessary that the SPPH translated and introduced Weber's works to cater to its readers' curiosity toward and desire for fresh knowledge from other countries, despite Weberian thought being taboo in the former Chinese target language context.

A strategic approach was employed in the publication of Congshu, where Weber's works were translated based on Marxism as a guiding principle. As SPPH continued to be a state-owned unit in the system, it had to act in accordance with the affirmation and promotion of Marxism by mainstream ideology. While the translation industry enjoyed more independence in the 1980s than in the past 30 years, the state, as the patron of translation activities, continued to retain some degree of control over publishers and translators. Although Deng pointed out in his 1980 speech, “目前的形势与任务” (The Present Situation, and Tasks before Us), “the slogan that literature and art are subordinate to politics… … has done more harm than good,” he also mentioned that “in no way does this mean that literature can be divorced from politics. Every progressive and revolutionary writer or artist must consider the social effects of his works and the interests of the people, the state, and the Party” (Deng, 1994c, p. 255–256). Deng's statement sent a clear message regarding the relationship between literature, art, and politics. The cautionary, supervisory, and manipulative functions of politics on literature and art would remain: “Once political ideology deems literature and art as a form of intervention and a threat to politics, political action will be taken to stifle its development” (Zha, 2003, p. 81). Even as the Publishing Regulations promulgated in 1979 responded to the call for “ideological emancipation,” they also affirmed that “publishers must uphold the four basic principles, serve the people, and serve socialism,” coinciding with Deng's statement.

When Congshu was published in 1984, it found itself in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, it had to promote Marxism. On the other hand, it also sought to mission was to introduce Western texts, including Weber's writings, many of which conflicted with the ideas of Marxism. Interestingly, Congshu benefited from these two contradictory positions. It abided by the mainstream ideology, and thus, avoiding censorship, but concomitantly fulfilled market demands and gained popularity. As the SPPH began its pursuit for profits and marketization in the 1980s, and as its relationship with mainstream ideology started to evolve, it seemed only reasonable that it would translate Weber's works to meet market demands. Yet, even if there were a deliberate effort to break literature and art free from political manipulation, the government would continue to keep an eye on literature, art, and publishers. After the movements such as the Campaign against Bourgeois Liberalization 资产阶级自由化 in 1982 and the Anti- Spiritual Pollution Campaign 反精神污染 in 1983, SPPH, as a patron of translation activities, ensured that the editorial principles of Congshu were politically correct and gained the initiative before the potential interference by the central government. When discussing its editorial strategy, the editor-in-chief Jin said that the project would “dare to innovate and take wild adventures in academics, but never cross the line in politics.” This is no passive strategy, but one that “sets a new line of attack: launching a folk academic cultural movement that would make ideological breakthroughs, to emphasize “Chinese cultural reform” (Qian, 2012, p. 214–215).

It is not a coincidence that this highly influential series, edited byelite intellectuals from Beijing, was not published by Beijing publishing houses or core publishers elsewhere, but by SPPH, a local publishing house. By publishing at SPPH, the series could avoid direct manipulation by Beijing, the center of the nation's political ideology, allowing it to publish a large volume of translated Western texts. Additionally, it is also worth noting that Jin's wife, Liu Qingfeng, is an important contributor to Congshu. Her father, Liu Yangjiao, was formerly a ministerial cadre in the central ministry, while her brother, Liu Maocai, was formerly publicity director of the Sichuan Provincial Committee. The publication process was therefore aided by Liu Yangjiao's former position and the support the series received from political figures in charge of publishing and publicity activities in Sichuan. The latter had played the role of “hidden patron” in the series' translation process.

The close relationship between the editorial board and party cadres meant that the editorial board of Congshu had to promote reflections of Marxism prominently in its Editors' Note. In this way, SPPH ensured that both the publisher and editorial board maintained a stable, politically correct stance while allowing the books in the series to enter the market and influence readers. Later events showed that a crucial component of Weber Fever was the perception that there was, in fact, no contradiction between Weber's thought and Marxism, which arose from readers' reflections on the relationship between the two thinkers since the publication of Weber's book translation in Congshu.

As Liu Dong put it, an important reason that led him to translate Max Weber was to address misinterpretations of Weber's thought in China due to the long-lasting influence of Marxism on the conceptualization of Weber. Liu later recalled:

This implies that there existed “superstitious” worship of Marxism among the public, resulting in the irrational long-term absence of Weber's thought in translation. Thus, Liu's translation objective corresponds with Jin's and the other editors' publishing objective, to “liberate a young generation of students from a linear, formulaic understanding of history and the world” (Ma, 2008).

As André Lefevere points out, a patron is an individual or organization capable of using professionals (including writers and translators) to influence the literary ecosystem for it to act in accordance with certain ideologies (Lefevere, 2004, p. 16). In the case of Congshu and the translation of Weber's book, the Consultant Committee, which was a particularly special group in the Chinese literary scene, played the role of patron.

Congshu was published in 1984. Two of the translated works related to Weber were published in 1986 and 1987, respectively. It is worth noting that literature was independent of politics during this period, the mid-1980s. As noted by Zha, the themes and subjects of literature published after the mid-1980s were “clearly in discordance with politics,” and “literary theorists have proposed a theory of ‘literary subjectivity' to break literature free from political control and subvert firmly entrenched poetic norms” (Zha, 2003, p. 81).

This tendency is also reflected in changes in selection criteria for translated literature. Certain works that were once condemned by the mainstream ideology or considered politically taboo could now be translated in China. After the mid-1980s, as “economic reform” progressed, political authorities gradually shifted their focus to economic construction. This shift in focus, following the determining influence of Chinese society's economic base on its cultural superstructure, resulted in ideological forces loosening their grip on translation. This made it possible for politically independent works, even potentially anti-Marxist ones, such as Weber's, to be translated.

There was a significant reason behind this weakening of political control over the literary arts. During the CPC's promotion of “economic reform” in the 1980s, there arose an ideological controversy within the top political faction (Kou, 2005; Zhao, 2009) which directly influenced the translation activities of Congshu.

In September 1986, the series published Weidlich Haag's 定量社会学 (Concepts, and Models of a Quantitative Sociology), which included a list of consultants and members of the Congshu editorial board. Bao Zunxin, who held the post of editor-in-chief in 1984 and 1985, was listed as a consultant, while former editor Jin Guantao took over the position of editor-in-chief in 1986. The rest of the list consisted of two deputy editors Chen Yueguang and Tang Ruoxi, and 29 other members. This structure continued until the last book of the series 探索非理性的世界 (Exploring the Irrational World) was published in June 1988. Back in 1982, a Congshu editorial board had already been established, consisting of 24 members with Bao Zunxin as the editor-in-chief. An executive editorial board was set up under this editorial board, with Jin as the leader (Wang, 2005, p. 177). If the executive board led by Jin took charge of the material selection and copyediting of the series, then Bao and other consultants, regardless of status, played the role of ideologist for the series, while Jin and his members were the actual editors.

This subsection begins with an analysis of the list of consultants from September 1986 onwards, including Bao Zunxin, Yan Jici, Du Runsheng, Zhang Liqun, Chen Yirong, Chen Hanbo, Zhong Peizhang, Hou Wailu, and Qian Sanqiang. Bao was a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute of History (1981–1989). Yan served as Dean of the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) Graduate School (1978–1985) and was also the President of USTC (1980–1984) and a long-term Vice-Chairperson of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (1983–1993). Du held important posts in rural work as Mao and other top managers of the CPC thought highly of him when the PRC was founded. In 1983, he was made Director of the Rural Policy Research Office of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee and Director of the Rural Development Research Center of the State Council. From 1982 to 1986, he chaired the drafting of the annual “Document No. 1 of the Central Government,” promoting rural reform with other reformist leaders including Hu Yaobang and Wan Li. In the 1957 Anti-Rightist Movement, Zhang was exempted from being associated with the rightists due to Hu's protection. In 1980, Zhang transferred to the Institute of Youth, which was affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the research institute that collaborated with the SPPH and Chinese Academy of Sciences to publish Congshu. In 1983, he was transferred to the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, where he was made Director of the Office for Propaganda and Education, establishing close ties with Hu. Chen Yizi worked at a think-tank that led rural, economic, and systemic reforms in China, and was the main driving force behind rural reforms in the 1980s. In the mid to late 1980s, he was promoted to Director of the Institute for Economic Structural Reform and was highly regarded by Hu and Zhao Ziyang. In 1976, Chen Hanbo headed the Publication Administrative Bureau under the State Council. During his 4 years in office, the Chinese publishing industry stepped out from the shadow of the Cultural Revolution, gradually becoming more open and revitalized. From 1980 onwards, he served successively as the first Chairperson and second Honorary Chairman of the Publishers Association of China. In 1982, Zhong transferred to the Publicity Department of the CPC's Bureau of News, becoming its director. “Following Hu's commitment to the nation's economic reform, Zhong worked furiously throughout his 4 years in office” (Zhong, 2011) until Hou took over the post. Qian was well-known in China's scientific industry for returning from the United States after the founding of the PRC. In 1980, he gave a lecture titled “A Brief Introduction to the Development of Science and Technology” to the leaders of the CPC.

These consultants shared the same ideals and goals. They were either outstanding scholars and thinkers of Chinese society who shared close connections with the high- ranking reformist leaders of the CPC, such as Bao, Yan, Zhang, and Qian, or were high-ranking reformist leaders of the CPC themselves who directly participated in the process of ideological reform, such as Du, Chen, Zhong, and Hou. Although this group of consultants did not have direct involvement in the editing and publishing work of the series, the ideology which they represented had turned them into powerful patrons of the series in its introduction of Western texts. They could utilize professionals such as critics, reviewers, teachers, and translators to manipulate the literary system, provide support for literature and artistic creations or translation activities, or safeguard the social status and political security of other editors, writers, and translators.

To prevent the manipulation of publication and editorial work by mainstream ideology, the organizer of translation activities must subvert the established system of publishing and translation. As all publishers in China then were state-owned, there were plans to establish an editorial group independent from the publisher during the initial stages of planning for Congshu.

When Jin and other editors first discussed publishing the series with the Hunan People's Publishing House (HPPH), HPPH wanted a series about youth knowledge and self-cultivation, but Jin preferred one that encouraged thought enlightenment among adults as well as youth (Han, 2008, p. 57). This raised the question of whether the publisher or the editor had more say in the direction of the series. Jin determined that the first condition for collaboration was for him to hold the right of final review.

With the help of Liu Maocai's networks, Jin established an independent editorial board outside Chengdu during his collaboration with SPPH. Upon realizing that they needed a “body bearing political responsibilities to manage” them, Jin collaborated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute of Youth, which precisely played this role. Through this affiliation, the editorial board rode on the coattails of the Institute of Youth to gain legal status (Ma, 2008). However, “the Institute of Youth had no right to replace the editor-in-chief or editors or intervene in specific and internal operations of the board” (Qian, 2012, p. 214).

Support from patrons sharing the same ideals as the editorial board was needed for the board to gain independent legal status. To that end, the list of consultants consisted of thinkers and officials who were supportive of reform in China and held executive positions in major organizations or who were from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. As their role was to “bear political responsibility,” the translation work would have been impossible without their support.

How would such an editorial ecosystem influence the actual translation of Weber's book? To answer this question, an analysis of the editorial influence on the selection of material to be translated is first required. As mentioned in the Translators' Note of Xinjiao, while Weber was an influential philosopher in Western academia, his the “long-term closure and confinement” of China (Peng and Huang, 1986, p. 1). Thus, Weber's representative work in religious and sociological theory was chosen (Peng and Huang, 1986, p. 1) to “introduce readers to the generative relationship between religious ideas (Protestant ethic) and the psychological drive behind capitalist development (the spirit of capitalism)” (Peng and Huang, 1986, p. 2). The translators' introduction of Weber's “essence of the capitalist spirit” (Peng and Huang, 1986, p. 2) and the advocacy of “ascetic Protestantism” as a “sociocultural foundation” (Peng and Huang, 1986, p. 2) contradicted long-held Marxist ideology that pursued socialism and atheism in the target language context.

Part of the objective of translating this work was to reflect on and even dispel Marxist ideology. The translators put forth “a proposition which called for deep thought:”

This translation includes American sociologist Talcott Parsons' Preface to the new edition of Protestant Ethic, reminding readers of Weber's “rational bourgeois capitalism” (Parsons, 1986, p. 7). This, together with the comments in Translators' Note, showed that the translators and editors had a comprehensive understanding of the influences behind Weber's thought, their reflection on the present situation, and Weber's contradiction of Marxist ideology. Lefevere once claimed that translation is a form of rewriting and that rewriting is manipulation (Lefevere, 2004). In the translation process of Xinjiao, the editors and translators manipulated via deliberately selecting which works to translate, as well as translating extremely specific appraisals of these works. This allowed them to guide readers in their analysis and interpretation of the original work. Once Xinjiao was published, it rapidly provoked reflections on Chinese society, specifically about China's failure to achieve modernization. As Xiao put it, remembering the influence this work had,

This reflection echoes the “proposition” in the Translators' Note.

In 1987, in Liu Dong and Xie Weihe's translation of Frank Parkin's Max Weber, the contrast between Marxism and Weber's thought was discussed directly. As mentioned in the original editors' Preface to the book, “(Weber) was concerned with developing a subject which would have appeared to Marx to be at best a highly partisan “science” of society and at worst a “bourgeois ideology” (Hamilton, 1987, p. 2). “Weber's sociological models […] stress a methodological individualism opposed to both Marxian and Durkheimian constructs of social collectivities, a belief in the value of individual insight” (Hamilton, 1987, p. 2).

Since the mid-1980s, the spread of Weber's thought in Chinese academia rapidly led to a Weber Fever, to the extent that academics “could not open their mouths without citing Weber.” As they were “eager to break free from ideological discourse and establish an independent space on campus for “engaging in academics as a vocation,” Weber's “value neutrality” served as a robust theoretical basis for their pursuit of liberation from political influence” (Xiao, 2010).

Weber's book translation was in line with Jin and the editorial board's mission of thought enlightenment. Through empirical reasoning, Weber guided readers to face the challenging and ever-changing future with a serious attitude and encouraged them to embark on socialist modernization in “yet another great rejuvenation of the nation” [Editorial Board of 走向未来 [Towards the Future], 1984, p. 1–2]. This was precisely the editorial board's fundamental objective of translating Weber's works. It is worth noting that among 25 translated works in the series, those of academics from European and American countries are the majority, with 14 by Americans, seven by British, Italians, Germans, Austrians, and Dutch combined, with only two by academics from Socialist nations such as the Soviet Union and Hungary. Some of the main themes of these works are science, philosophy, and sociology. Among these works, Weber's book translation most clearly reflects on ideology and exposes the flaws of Marxism.

The fact that Weber's thought and works were considered for translation by the editorial board strongly suggests that its organizational structure provided it with greater autonomy.

The influence of this organizational structure on translation strategy will now be analyzed. Co-translation was a customary practice among the 25 translated works: only 6 of them were completely translated, while there were eight hybrid works which included both translations as well as original content, concentrated in the first 3 years of the series. This paper focuses on the case analysis of the translation of Weber's book. Xinjiao was translated from Talcott Parsons' 1958 English translation, which was translated from Weber's 1920 revised edition. It is important to note that notes added to the 1920 edition by Weber were retained in Parson's translation. While pointing out the lengthiness of the notes, Parsons explained that he hoped “these notes could bring clarity to how the issues under discussion surfaced in Weber's mind. Any compromise on this for the sake of artistic perfection would be regrettable.” Therefore, he reminds readers to “read the notes closely, as large masses of vital information are enclosed within” (Parsons, 1986, p. 1–2). However, these notes, crucial to a better understanding of Weber's thought, were omitted in Peng and Huang's translation. Moreover, the notes and index of the original work were also omitted.

It is observable that there was little concern about the equivalence in diction and essay structure as emphasized in conventional translation criticism, while a greater focus was put on the immediate social effect produced through rewriting. On another level, such expeditious methods of rewriting, such as team translation, editing, and abridging catered to readers' pressing need for nutritive western texts after the long cultural drought in Chinese society. The rapidly emerging phenomena of Cultural Fever and Weber Fever, together with the strategy of rewriting, fueled each other's development. Publishers frequently deleted references in scholarly books, a practice that is quite common in Chinese academia then. There was also no standardization for academic publication. For instance, although the translators required to retain the references, publishers often deleted them without seeking the author's agreement due to the consideration of cost (Wang, 2005, p. 187).

This paper has examined material selection and translation strategy to analyze how the unique organizational structure of independence from publishers and owning rights to final review influenced the editorial board's translation activities. While the editorial board's level of freedom was ground-breaking, the extent of this freedom should not be exaggerated. Its organization remains an attempt within the system, and its independence was only relative to what came before. As Gan Yang put it, “Ideological emancipation is limited by disciplinary requirements: Regardless of who, or what ideology, ‘emancipation' has to take place within the existing system and dominant ideological framework.” (Zha, 2006, p. 276). As the publisher of the series, SPPH had to enforce mainstream ideology and influence the editorial board to conform to the system. This explains why the editorial board advocated for Marxism in the Editors' Note, while searching for suitable “patrons” to serve as series consultants on the other. Once the political ideology changed and patrons' political statuses came under attack, this mode of operation was bound to be scrutinized and changed. In 1989, Congshu was ordered to cease all publications. This is exactly the outcome of a changing political ideology intervening in publishing activities.