Negación y consumo en la cultura (translation)

Spanish, always late to the party, has failed to invent the noun that reality cries out for; over the seven decades that the lexical family of détournement has been in circulation, it has diverted —even unintentionally— down the academicist paths of inversion and semantic change, eventually distorting the whole family through more than twenty alternative renderings, stripping it of its subversive charge and turning it into a dictionary ghost. To put it in criollo terms: it is time to step on its sheets, forge it and standardize it in Castillian: deturnamento. deturnante. deturnar. [English? over to you! Here we will retain détournement and refrain from agent and verb]

The controlling source is the French text of <i>La Société du spectacle</i>, read across the 1967 and 1992 editions.
Where Debord quotes, translates or deturns another author, the procedure has four stages:
• identify the source;
• return to its original language;
• examine any pre-1967 French mediation and a philologically relevant Castilian tradition;
• and reconstruct the transformation made by Debord.
The aim is not to restore the quoted author mechanically, but to reproduce Debord's operation in Castilian, including cuts, substitutions, inversions and changes of context.
The evidence includes Debord's <i>Relevé des citations et des détournements</i> sent to Jaap Kloosterman in 1973, Debord's prefaces to other translations, published Castilian versions, and 1971 translation notes by Katz, Alegre and others (Copies in the Stanford and Belloni archives) Each identified author was checked in the original, in relevant French editions available to Debord, and in established Castilian translations. Italics were verified against Debord's first edition from 1967.
The Portuguese and Italian versions approved by Debord, together with German, Dutch and English translations –which he aknowleded possitively–, serve as controls, not as substitute originals. The order of authority is: Debord's French and his source notes; the source text and its mediation; the conceptual system of the book; and the target language's literary and regional logic. External evidence enters the apparatus only when it changes a translation decision; conjectural parallels are identified as such.

Repetitions, parallel structures, chiasms, word families and productive ambiguities are treated as part of the argument. Debord's syntactic strangeness is retained when it thinks; calques that merely reveal French or English mediation are removed. Terminological consistency therefore takes precedence over local stylistic variety.

The target register is formal contemporary River Plate Castilian, centred on Montevideo. This affects past tenses, collocations and the regional force of words such as <b>ligar</b> or <b>reportar. </b>Understanding the outcome as colloquial is mere colonial merengue. Where a quotation or détournement&nbsp;depends on the memory of an established Castilian wording, that memory is retained; elsewhere precision, economy and the book's lexical system prevail.

• The Rioplatense narrative voice generally uses the preterite for completed actions: se desprendió, vinculó, se expresó, perdió, calculó, previó, se volvió and educaron. The present perfect is retained where a quotation or resultative operation requires it: ha envejecido (188) and no ha fundado su causa (208).
• The adverb solo is written without an accent.
• In thesis 204, mas is an adversative conjunction and therefore appears without an accent; it is not the adverb of quantity más.
• Angle quotation marks («») identify quotations and terms placed in question; parenthetical interruptions (—) retain the architecture and argumentative pressure of the French periods.
• Marked forms such as doquiera, De tal suerte, va sola and hace participio are local, source-based decisions. They are not a general distribution of archaism.
• Debord's italics are argumentative rather than ornamental.