The paper is suggesting one possible angle for the re-examination of Foucault’s portrayal of the historical role of German neoliberalism in his 1979 lectures entitled Naissance de la biopolitique. ...This particular season has been the object of the increased interest in recent decades for various reasons. One of the reasons is the broader theme of “biopolitics” developed in them (as well as in the two immediately preceding seasons), which was instrumental in subsequent interpretations and applications even before the 1979 lectures became available integrally. Another reason that has fuelled various interpretations and contentions, that are still ongoing as some recent publications attest, has to do with the general setting and tone of Foucault’s dealings with neoliberalism. Debates that have ensued have mostly been centred on the question of whether or not Foucault embraced certain neoliberal tenets that he was explaining in these lectures. But what is usually overlooked in these debates is the question of the historical accuracy of the impression that emerges from the 1979 lectures about the role that German “ordoliberalism” had after WWII. It is in a way surprising considering that Foucault’s relationship with the “historians’ guild” was strained, interspersed with criticisms and polemics. Some of these critiques are sketchily reproduced here to point at certain repeating weaknesses in Foucault’s dealings with the past. Crucial failing seems to be the concept of the “cut” or discontinuity whose consequence was usually such that Foucault was often forcing great contrasts onto the past. The concluding section proposes, although in a preliminary fashion and through a short comparison, that Foucault might have overstated the role that “ordoliberal” ideas had in Germany during the 1950s and 1960s precisely because he might have accepted the view that some of these ideas were not only the motor of economic and social development, but sort of a “third way” solution.
U radu se sagledavaju Foucaultove analize problema državne i društvene moći iz sredine 1970-ih u kontekstu političkih i društvenih okolnosti u Francuskoj nakon zbivanja u svibnju 1968. Nasuprot ...postavci o isključivo internom metodološkom sazrijevanju, u radu se zagovara teza da su te analize mnogo više produkt svojeg doba nego što se može činiti te da su zapravo izrasle iz postavke o post-revolucionarnoj epohi u kojoj su moguće isključivo partikularne politike identiteta što će u drugoj polovici 1970-ih zagovarati Foucault.
Soočenje temeljnih modelov interpretacije v zgodnjih delih Jacquesa Derridaja je analizirano kot pomembna točka za prihodnje oblikovanje »postmoderne literarne teorije«. Kot pokažejo že francoski ...avtorji s terminom »French Theory«, je razvidna neločljiva povezanost tega koncepta s francoskim posredovanjem evropske humanistične tradicije v okviru recepcije strukturalizma v ZDA.
Soočenje temeljnih modelov interpretacije v zgodnjih delih Jacquesa Derridaja je analizirano kot pomembna točka za prihodnje oblikovanje »postmoderne literarne teorije«. Kot pokažejo že francoski ...avtorji s terminom »French Theory«, je razvidna neločljiva povezanost tega koncepta s francoskim posredovanjem evropske humanistične tradicije v okviru recepcije strukturalizma v ZDA.
The article brings together two different approaches, the orality-literacy problematic as it was developed in the works of Albert Lord, Walter Ong and others on the one hand, and conceptualizing of ...biopolitics as it was worked out in the later works of Michel Foucault, on the other. A combination of these two perspectives forms the general background which enables one to see changes in the understanding of authorship, particularly identification of the author as a part of a much broader process through which Western societies actually became societies of documents, used in various domains, in the eighteenth century, that is in the period which marks the beginnings of the era of biopolitics and statistics. At the same time, such a framing of the authorship helps to explain why anonymity has become so unacceptable in the modern era, while it used to be a much more common phenomenon in the past.
The article gives an overview and critique of one of the approaches in interpretations of the relationship between originality and copyright and its consequences for development and supposed ...emergence of the category of author. Certain interpretations ascribe to Romanticism key-role in development of the notion of originality that countered tradition and which became the basis for the conception of »immaterial« intellectual property. Contrary to these approaches, the article
accedes to an opposed view and tries to draw attention to the weak points in arguments that link Romantic originality with intellectual property. One of the examples which complicates image of the clear-cut historical change is that, as historians of law and copyright have shown, the notion of »immaterial property« has emerged already by the end of the Middle Ages, although not related at once to writing and publishing. In addition, it is shown in the article how inconsistent and not enough defined use of the notion of »originality« causes confusion and paves the way for some doubtful conclusions such as, for example, that copyright laws have codified Romantic concept of originality, while there is really no significant difference between originality as it was understood before Romanticism and originality as it is conceived in contemporary copyright laws. Therefore the article concludes with favouring the view which regards historical change as a slow transformation, unlike some of the presented interpretations which are seeking from the past corroboration for their methodological assumptions about abrupt and frontal departures from tradition
Članak nastoji pokazati u kojoj mjeri problematika ili tematika proučavanja odnosa usmenosti i pismenosti može biti od koristi za razumijevanje književne prošlosti. Glavni oslonac za takav pokušaj ...predstavlja pretpostavka da europske kulture postaju doista pismene kulture tek negdje pred kraj XVIII. i tokom XIX. st. jer tek tada zapravo dolazi do potpunog natapanja kulture pismom, zahvaljujući efektima tipografije. To bi istodobno značilo da znatan dio književnih tekstova prije tog vremenskog praga kruži u uvjetima u kojima se miješaju usmenost i pismenost kao dva temeljna oslonca komunikacije. U kontekstu problematike odnosa usmenosti i pismenosti, za razmatranje kulture ranog novog vijeka, u kojoj njezina dvostruka pismenost - hirografska i tipografska - nije još u XVI. i XVII. st. potpuno istisnula usmenost, osobito se pogodnim čini termin “rezidualna
usmenost”. On podrazumijeva određeno miješanje usmenosti i pismenosti u kulturi koja poznaje pismo, ali u kojoj još dugo traju prakse koje potječu iz usmenosti, odnosno ispod pismenosti proviruje određen udio usmenosti. U završnom dijelu članka navode se primjeri koji ilustriraju primjenjivost takvog načina razmatranja književne povijesti, posebno u vezi sa različitim shvaćanjem nekih od temeljnih poetičkih i estetskih kategorija kao što su autorstvo, odnosno anonimnost autora, te originalnost u odnosu na formulaičnost usmenosti.
Članak nudi usporedbu povijesti čitanja i dosadašnjih modela proučavanja recepcije u književnosti, osobito njemačke „estetike recepcije“. Dok se, naime, u domaćim književnoznanstvenim krugovima o ...njemačkoj „estetici recepcije“ dosta znalo već početkom 1970-ih, to se ne može reći za povijest čitanja koja privlači sve više pažnje posljednjih desetljeća. U radu su zbog toga naznačene određene teme i perspektive karakteristične za povijest čitanja, koje bi mogle biti korisne i u proučavanju književnosti budući da povijest čitanja nadopunjuje teorije recepcije time što u istraživanjima naglasak stavlja na čitanje kao na aktivnost i društvenu praksu.
PDF
