This article deals with contemporary interpretations of Slovenian poetry that emerged after the independence of Slovenia. Reference is made to the basic theses of Dusan Pirjevec in his article "Vprasanje poe2ije" (The Issue of Poetry). Pirjevec wrote about the social role of poetry in the preservation of Slovenian national identity and he referred to this type of poetry as the "Preseren structure." In his opinion, this stateless nation exercised its creativity in culture, in which literature in particular - and, within it, poetry - is essential. When Slovenia became part of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, poetry was able to be developed as an autonomous art, representing a rejection of the Preseren structure. According to Peter Kolsek, contemporary interpretations establish two megastructures, those of Preseren and Murn, which represent two types of poetic production: poetry in the service of the nation, a certain idea, or class, and poetry that focuses on language in its autonomous aesthetic function. The poetry of Srecko Kosovel seems to have been the most radical departure from the Preseren structure in the early twentieth century. However, Jane2 Vrecko argues that Kosovel's work contains an active Preseren structure, which established the discursive extent to which this poet could undermine the traditional lyric paradigm. Other researchers, including Denis Poniz, Peter Kolsek, and Matevz Kos, believe that the most radical rejection of the Preseren structure occurred in ultramodernist and neo-avant garde poetry. The visual and concrete poets of the 1960s rejected the national poetic tradition. Given the open socialist Yugoslav society of the time, one could say that neo-avant garde poetry attained its most radical forms in Yugoslavia, especially in Slovenia. There seems to be no agreement on the issue of postmodern poetry and its social function or social indifference. When Slovenia attained independence, culture and especially poetry lost their importance under the new political and economic conditions. In the poetry of the new poets - referring to those born in the 1 960s and 1 970s - radical poetic moves are not possible. It is as though the Preseren structure is still active but concealed under the new circumstances: it is still operating and, as always, setting the discursive boundaries of poetry. PUBLICATION ABSTRACT