Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 33 items for :

  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All

Abstract  

My contribution draws on the tenuous retrospective assessment of Bakhtin’s theoretical legacy, consistent with a wide array of epistemological agendas, that “interpreted” him in all the possible meanings of this word. It emphasizes Bakhtin’s early concerns for the axiomatic cooperation between aesthetics, theology, ethics and science, from his first important study Art and Answerability (1919) through the early seventies, unveiling the top-down dynamic of his thought which took off from anthropology and ethics towards cultural theory and linguistics rather than the other way around. The very core of his system, the most diversely interpreted and the most frequently misunderstood concept, remains the “dialogue” now almost embodied by him. As defined by Bakhtin, dialogism is a theatrical performance implying three main instances: a speaker, his targeted audience and a transcendental addressee. Bakhtin’s theoretical legacy legitimates a phenomenology of dialogism, apparently rooted in the text, but pointing to much wider horizons.

Restricted access

«Диалогичность» как семантическая и семиотическая динамика литературного текста

Семиотика литературы в контексте лингвистики и языковой коммуникации

Studia Slavica
Author: Каталин Кроо

ARESI F. Bakhtin e Benveniste: convergências e divergências na elaboração de uma feflexão enunciativa / Bakhtin and Benveniste: convergencies and divergencies in the elaboration of an enunciative

Restricted access

Mikhail Bakhtin’s term of “dialogism” is closely connected with the terms of “ambiguity” and “ambivalence”. Describing dialogism, hybridity, and polyphony in his study “Слово в романе” [The word in the novel] he creates a poetics of ambiguity and ambivalence. The current study demonstrates on the examples of four Russian writers of the 20th century how Bakhtin’s theory can be understood this way, forming a parallel with the poetics of contemporary writers such as Daniil Kharms, Yevgeny Zamyatin, and Andrei Platonov as well as writers of the second half of the century such as Andrei Bitov. Whereas in the case of Kharms, the inherent ambiguity of the text dealt with in this article leads to a sort of dialogue among scholars, the cases of Zamyatin and Platonov are closely linked with the problem of dystopia, for which is typical the penetration of dialogism into a monological world. The last case, Andrei Bitov’s novel “Puskinhouse”, is closely linked with postmodernist ambiguity.

Restricted access

This article tries to give a short survay about the reception of Dostoevsky in Hungary between 1920–1944. There is a special group of the Hungarian interpretators of the Russian writer in this period, namely three protestant theologians—Béla Varga, Kálmán Újszászy, László Vatai—whose works show very important interferences of ideas, appearing in existentialism (by Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Jaspers, Berdjajev), in the contemporary protestant theology (Karl Barth, Eduard Thurneysen) and in the Bakhtin’s conception of the dialogue and the „postupok” i.e. act. These spiritual connections take their origin from the common European philosophy: it is interesting to follow, how reflect the new concepts in the different Dostojevskij’ interpretations.

Restricted access

), 7. The Hungarian text reads as follows: De minek ily elégiai hang a tények helyett, melyekre vissza kell gondolnunk. See especially M. M. Bakhtin, "Discourse in the Novel," in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M

Restricted access

Аполлон Григорьев и Бахтин затрагивали достаточно разные вопросы творчества Достоевского, но корреляция между их работами очевидна на уровне их металогики, их философии, их культур-философских оснований. Григорьев, вместе с Достоевским, находился у истоков почвенничества, хотя отзывы Григорьева о творчестве Достоевского эпизодичны и довольно инвективны. Григорьев, в основном, отказывал Достоевскому в том, что его искусство соответствует «правде жизни». Но и первый вариант книги Бахтина о Достоевском не был апологетическим.

Григорьев и Бахтин реализуют свою философию через эстетику (философию искусства). Искус-ство, согласно Григорьеву, имеет истоки в самой жизни, а жизнь через искусство реализует себя и сама себя понимает; поэтому критик – также «художник». Бахтин также исходит из принципа корреляции искусства и жизни, выводя отсюда свое понятие «творческий хронотоп». У Григорьева, Бахтина, Достоевского дело идет об онтологии искусства, как и об искусстве онтологии. Искусство онтологии подразумевает самую широкую эстетизацию жизни: ее вдвижение в горизонт искусства. Данная установка – предмодернистская и модернистская.

В генезисе понятия «органическая критика» отозвались уроки Канта как автора трех философ-ских «Критик». Идеи Канта были значимы также для Достоевского и Бахтина. Григорьева могло за-интересовать философское измерение, приданное Кантом понятию «критика». Поэтому «органиче-ская критика» относится преимущественно к философии, поднимая объемный перечень вопросов, превышающих собственно эстетические.

Согласно Бахтину, полифония Достоевского заключается в том, что автор выступает «медиумом», «пропускающим» через себя различные идеи («голоса» персонажей, различные «точки зрения» и т. п.) Автор-медиум «проводит» «через себя» и «из себя» массу различных идей без сущностного отвержения какой-либо из них. «Автор-медиум» пытается говорить от лица жизни, но также и даже «вместо жизни», что ведет к логической и смысловой подмене «мира» – «картиной мира». Отвер-жение сущностное вовсе не означает отсутствия у автора отвержения формального, т. е. просто констатированного. Однако сущностное неотвержение означает гораздо больше, чем то или иное формальное отвержение. Жизнь, историческое бытие в таком случае оказывается для Достоевского практически «хаосом».

В развитие идей Бахтина следует, что при внедрении в свой художественный мир карнавального начала Достоевский утверждает «связку» чувствительность / физиологизм. Ее истоки – в сентимен-тализме XVIII в. Данная «связка» находит религиозную проекцию в феномене юродства. Поэтому итоговой бахтинской трактовкой Достоевского (1963) движет пафос «оправдания» писателя, полно-та художественного мира которого в главном реализована через религиозно трактованную Досто-евским «картину мира» (все-таки «картину мира», но не сам «мир»).

Apollon Grigoriev and Bakhtin touched upon quite different issues of Dostoevsky’s work but the correlation between their works is obvious at the level of their metalogic, their philosophy, and their cultural-philosophical foundations. Grigoriev, together with Dostoevsky, was at the origins of “pochvennichestvo” (a grassroots movement), although Grigoriev’s comments on Dostoevsky’s work are episodic and rather injective. Grigoriev basically denied Dostoevsky that his art corresponded to the “truth of life”. But even the first version of Bakhtin’s book about Dostoevsky was not apologetic.

Grigoriev and Bakhtin realize their philosophy through aesthetics (philosophy of art). Art, according to Grigoriev, has its origins in life itself, and life through art realizes itself and understands itself; therefore the critic is also an “artist”. Bakhtin also proceeds from the principle of correlation between art and life, deriving from this his concept of “creative chronotope”. Grigoriev, Bakhtin, and Dostoevsky deal with the ontology of art as well as the art of ontology. The art of ontology implies the broadest aestheticization of life: its movement into the horizon of art. This attitude is pre-modern and modern.

In the genesis of the concept of “organic criticism”, the lessons of Kant as the author of three philosophical “Critics” could be echoed. Kant’s ideas were also significant for Dostoevsky and Bakhtin. Grigoriev might have been interested in the philosophical dimension that Kant gave to the concept of “criticism”. Therefore, “organic criticism” refers primarily to philosophy, raising a voluminous list of issues that exceed the aesthetic ones themselves.

According to Bakhtin, Dostoevsky’s polyphony consists in the fact that the author acts as a “medium”, “passing” various ideas through himself (“voices” of characters, different “points of view”, etc.). The author- medium “conducts” “through himself” and “out of myself” a lot of different ideas without the essential rejection of any of them. The “author-medium” tries to speak on behalf of life but also even “instead of life”, which leads to a logical and semantic substitution of “the world” – “an image of the world”. Essential rejection does not at all mean that the author has no formal rejection, i.e. just stated. Essential non-rejection, however, means much more than any formal rejection. Life, historical being in this case turns out to be practically “chaos” for Dostoevsky.

In the development of Bakhtin’s ideas, it follows that, when introducing carnivalization into his artistic world, Dostoevsky affirms a “link” of sensitivity / physiology. The origins of this “link” are in the sentimentalism of the 18th century. This “link” finds a religious projection in the phenomenon of “yurodstvo” (foolishness). Therefore, Bakhtin’s final interpretation of Dostoevsky (1963) is driven by the pathos of the “justification” of the writer, whose integrity of the artistic world is mainly realized through the religious “image of the world” (aft er all, the “image of the world” and not the “world” itself).

Restricted access

Although the 20th-century Slavic literary criticism provided several variants of methods, the most specific and clear-cut principles were established in Vyach. Ivanov’s dissertation Dionysus and Pre-Dionysianism . Ivanov’s four-dimensional hermeneutics developed the traditions of Schleiermacher’s and Boeck’s philological hermeneutics, complemented by the results of phenomenology and the study of mythological and ritual roots of text. It found its followers in Mikhail Bakhtin and to some extent in the school he generated. It was also promoted by Toporov’s influential methodology, which was close to it in principles and reflected both in Russia and outside its borders.

Restricted access

Abstract  

“The same key would not open both, though a 'master key' might” Due to the traditional views on metaphor and narrative, they are usually discussed in different contexts as if they had nothing in common. However, during the last decades the theories of metaphor and narrative underwent a number of changes, and what was taken for granted in traditional literary criticism is no longer evident. In particular, it should be investigated whether metaphor and narrative are wholly unrelated or they have some kind of common structure. In this essay, the possibilities and difficulties of comparing metaphor and narrative theories are illustrated with the example of Max Black's theory of metaphor and Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of the dialogical novel.

Restricted access

–344. Bartók Béla. Essays 1976 Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic

Restricted access

.") Ibid., 318. ("[…] én nem használom: hanem engem használ.") Bakhtin, 293. Dezső Kosztolányi, Pacsirta ("Skylark"). Translated by Richard Aczél. (London: Chatto and Windus, 1993), 39

Restricted access