Эпоха «остранения». Русский формализм и современное гуманитарное знание

Of course, the assumption of the unity of expression and reception in an object endowed with an aesthetic form does not automatically lead to or generate Formalism, despite being its indispensable precondition. Gervinus’ Nationalliteratur as an expression of a nation’s political history, and Gundolf’s and Simmel’s searching for the unity and uniqueness of life expressed in a poet’s oeuvre [Gervinus, 1842; Gundolf, 1916; Simmel, 1916] are just some examples of realizations of the unity of expression and reception, along with the well-acknowledged 19th-century Polish perception of literature that draws on the expression of a given poet’s love to his deplorably lost fatherland. In order for the unity of reception and expression to engender Formalism, it has to interact with other regimes of culture and other presuppositions, with developments in linguistics and other disciplines, say biology [Sériot, 1999; Brzostowska-Tereskiewicz, 2012]. In addition, the individual qualities of geniuses such as Shklovsky, Jakobson or Tynianov harmonize with the construction of the field.

A makeshift conclusion would be that only the transfers and movements of notions within the field elucidate both the construction of the notions and of the field in question. The priem’s travels present a good example of this regularity. Note that the displacement of a notion – be it only its translation into other language – exposes the premises of both the presenting and the receiving culture (subfield).

Two strategies against the loss of reception: anti-phenomenological phenomenalism and the nominalization of Phenomenology

The post-Goethean unity of expression, artifact, and understanding is the dominant of this system of presuppositions that made the rise of Russian and Polish Formalisms possible (although not necessary). From the perspective of Franciszek Siedlecki, Leon Chwistek and, as I presume, Shklovsky, it lays on hand that the specificity of the formalist methodology depends on the correct, by which I mean strictly Goethean, interpretation of the Urphänomen. It mustn’t be contaminated with the Humboldtian inner form of the world, nor platonic metaxis, nor Husserlian noesis. The Urphänomen must be, as in Christiansen, interpreted in a nominalist and empirical way, as a meeting of individuals that takes place both on the sensual and the sensible levels.