The paper focuses on the intellectual aspects of Bohumil Hrabal’s work and also on the concept of worldview. The starting point is Josef Zumr’s article “The Intellectual Inspiration of Bohumil ...Hrabal” (1989); the approaches of Jan Patočka (1942) and Jan Mukařovský (1947) are also mentioned. In his article Zumr presents Hrabal’s worldview as a mosaic of constitutive and affirmative influences. He formulates a thesis on the post-war continuity of the avant-garde, of which Hrabal’s work is a part. In this paper, Zumr’s interpretation is subjected to partial revision: it is not only about ideological influences, but also about their individual creative transformation. Hrabal has lost the optimism of the avant-garde, his work testifies to the turn of an epoch and combines humour with melancholy and historical scepticism.
The study deals with the confrontation of two texts: Jan Mukařovský’s “Stalin’s ‘Economic Problems of Socialism’ and Literary Theory” and Stefan Żółkiewski’s “Stalin’s Thesis about Language and ...Methodology of Literary Research”. Both texts have the character of a scientific program and represent the Stalinist version of Marxist though (so-called Marxism-Leninism), which was characterized inter alia by the construction of ‘ontological continuity’ between natural and social objects (Dominique Lecourt). Mukařovský’s thesis that literature fulfills its social function by fulfilling its immanent ‘development law’ was never theoretically developer further. On the contrary, Żółkiewski’s Marxist conception of literary romanticism led to an analysis of the relationship between literature and society, specifically between literary style and the socio-cultural context.
Otázka metody Kanda, Roman
Svět literatury,
2020, Letnik:
XXX, Številka:
62
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The study deals with the confrontation of two texts: Jan Mukařovský’s “Stalin’s ‘Economic Problems of Socialism’ and Literary Theory” and Stefan Żółkiewski’s “Stalin’s Thesis about Language and ...Methodology of Literary Research”. Both texts have the character of a scientific program and represent the Stalinist version of Marxist though (so-called Marxism-Leninism), which was characterized inter alia by the construction of ‘ontological continuity’ between natural and social objects (Dominique Lecourt). Mukařovský’s thesis that literature fulfills its social function by fulfilling its immanent ‘development law’ was never theoretically developer further. On the contrary, Żółkiewski’s Marxist conception of literary romanticism led to an analysis of the relationship between literature and society, specifically between literary style and the socio-cultural context.
Po czym poznać marksizm? Kanda, Roman
Studia Litteraria Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis,
2020, 2020-00-00, Letnik:
15, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The title of the study is a paraphrase of Gilles Deleuze’s inspiring work How Do We Recognize Structuralism? (1974). The explanation proceeds in three steps. First, the author – following Wolfgang ...Iser’s conception – defines the relevant differences between ‘discourse’ and ‘theory’ (W. Iser). Second, he presents Marxism as a discoursive ideal type (Max Weber’s Idealtyp) that characterizes several (seven) distinctive features: (i) totality, (ii) dialectics, (iii) base and superstructure, (iv) materialism and historization, (v) subjective and objective, (vi) true and inevitable, (vii) revolutionary practice. In the third chapter of his study, the author briefly formulates a wider sociological context; inspired by the concepts of Shmuel Eisenstadt and Cornelius Castoriadis, he defines Marxism as one of the discourses articulating the cultural project of modernity and as part of a permanent process of ‘social self-production’.
Po czym poznać marksizm? 1 Kanda, Roman
Studia Litteraria Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis,
01/2020, Letnik:
15, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Recenzirano
...the author - following Wolfgang Iser's conception - defines the relevant differences between 'discourse' and 'theory' (W. Iser). ...he presents Marxism as a discoursive ideal type (Max Weber's ...Idealtyp) that characterizes several (seven) distinctive features: (i) totality, (ii) dialectics, (iii) base and superstructure, (iv) materialism and historization, (v) subjective and objective, (vi) true and inevitable, (vii) revolutionary practice. In the third chapter of his study, the author briefly formulates a wider sociological context; inspired by the concepts of Shmuel Eisenstadt and Cornelius Castoriadis, he defines Marxism as one of the discourses articulating the cultural project of modernity and as part of a permanent process of 'social self-production'. Pomimo iż etymologia słowa „teoria" odsyła do postawy w miarę obiektywnego obserwatora (starogreckie theorein oznacza „przyglądać się", „patrzeć", „rozważać"), teorię postkolonialną, teorię krytyczną czy teorię feministyczną Abend uważa explicite 7 G. Abend, The Meaning of „Theory", „Sociological Theory" 2008, nr 2, s. 177-181. za projekty normatywne, które odrzucają dychotomię faktu i wartości oraz wyobrażenie neutralnej nauki (socjologii).
The author of this study deals with the transition made by Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and Felix Vodička (1909–1974) from structuralism to Marxism and the forms of both theorists’ postwar and ...post-1948 thinking. It comes out against those expository stratagems that only perceive this issue to be a result of the post-1948 „ideologization“ of literary studies, or that trivialize the entire issue as an expression of „tactic playing“ at that time. The author of this study counters these expositions with the imperative of the historicization of theory, i.e. in this study Marxism is understoodto be a scholarly standpoint that did not lose its legitimacy (legitimacy is defined in this study as the outcome of a historically conditioned social process, and not as a normative category), while special attention is also paid to the semantics of the term„Marxism-Leninism“. In the case of Jan Mukařovský, the theoretical preconditions for acceptance of Marxism may approximately indicate the mid-1940s (1943–1945 to be precise), when the theorist first begins to deal with the issues surrounding the genesis of the work, the world view and the relationship between the individual and literary development. The assumption that literature is not a prime mover of the „noetic base“ and that in this respect a more crucial element is the production process, opens up the way to a basic reevaluation of the structuralist approach and its abandonment. After 1948 Mukařovský follows the role of an individual based on the example of Božena Němcová, but he did not treat the issue systematically on a Marxist basis. After 1948 the literary historian Felix Vodička abandons the structuralist idea of a creative individual as the bearer of literary trends — and in his post-1948 studies hereflects the „will“ of the individual and the social conditions for creation. This leads to a transformation in his analysis, which primarily takes account of the topical and thematic sphere to the detriment of the structural („formal“ or stylistic) elements in the work. This also leads to a transformation in the understanding of literature: the originally dominant aesthetic function is superseded by the cognitive and social critical function. Vodička’s Marxist reformulation of literary history culminates in what is known as role theory. However, this suffered from rigid teleologism, which manifested itself inter alia in the evaluation of literature from the standpoint of expost fabricated „objectives“ to be „accomplished“. In spite of the theoretical limits ofliterary-studies Marxism as conceived by Mukařovský and Vodička, this is an example of a new formulation of literary-studies knowledge and literature.
Peter Bürger: Teorie avantgardy. / Stárnutí moderny. Stati o výtvarném umění. Přel. Václav Magid, Tomáš Dimter, Martin Pokorný. Praha, AVU 2015. 348 stran.
PDF
