Эпоха «остранения». Русский формализм и современное гуманитарное знание

In sum: In Poland, Phenomenology served not only as a foe in relation to which the Formalist may have specified his stance, but also as a means to expound the receptive element in the literary process as understood by formalists, one that had been lost in the translation of “прием” into “chwyt”. Conversely, the very fact that such a gigantic intellectual movement as Phenomenology could be even referenced as a substitute for only one side of the priem stresses the importance of the receptive component inherent in formalist approaches. Both the Polish resolved anti-phenomenologists and Kridl’s middle ground approach to the matter – which is not at all barren – furnish a set of surprisingly obvious solutions to the problems that tore Russian Formalism apart and to which the Russian Formalists themselves remained insensitive, probably because they were never really forced to tackle the problem of reception in the priem, the problem that became apparent in Poland. This is also the reason why so many scholars could not tell apart indispensable phenomenalism from Phenomenology. The difference seemed obvious to the Polish Formalist: Dawid Hopensztand, for instance, projected the Polish contention between conventionalism (phenomenalism) and realism (Phenomenology) onto the very moment of emergence of Russian Formalism, which according to Hopensztand was born twice at the same time. Once as a philosophy of conventionalism (the Chlebnikov-Jakubinsky line which gave rise to the phonological school) and once as a philosophy of expression (the Kruchenykh-Shklovsky line that soon lost touch with linguistics and started research on abstract essences like syuzhet, fabula, etc.) [Hopensztand, 1938]. In less than 30 years, the contamination of phonology with Phenomenology will trigger deconstruction and the deconstruction of both the structuralist and the phenomenological project – for good or for ill [Derrida, 1967]. Against the background of the disturbing obviousness with witch the Polish products of the morphic field tempt us to retrieve them from oblivion, the Russian and European tensions, transfers, and quarrels ought to become more lucid.

References

Betti A. Kazimierz Twardowski // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition). URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/twardowski/.

Brzostowska-Tereszkiewicz T. Ewolucje teorii: Biologizm w modernistycznym literaturoznawstwie rosyjskim. Toruń, 2012.

Brzozowski S. Współczesna powieść polska. Stanisławów, 1906.

Budzyk K. Zarys dziejów stylistyki teoretycznej w Polsce // Stylistyka teoretyczna w Polsce. Łódź, 1946. S. 5–79.

Cavallin J. Content and Object: Husserl, Twardowski and Psychologism. Dordrecht; Boston; London, 1997.

Chwistek L. Wybór pism estetycznych. Kraków, 2004.

Croce B. Estetica come scienza dell’espressione e linguistica generale: Teoria e storia. Bari, 1908.

Dilthey W. Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften. Göttingen, 1979.

Dutka C. P. Formalizm rosyjski – trud recepcji i przyswojenia // Dutka C. P. Mistrzowie i szkoły: Szkice o tradycji literaturoznawstwa. Zielona Góra, 1998. S. 104–118.

Feferman A. B., Feferman S. Alfred Tarski: Life and Logic. Cambridge, 2004.

Gervinus G. G. Handbuch der Geschichte der poetischen National-Literatur der Deutschen. Leipzig, 1842.

Goethe J. W. Der Versuch als Vermittler von Objekt und Subjekt // Goethe J. W. Werke. Hamburger Ausgabe. München, 1981(a). Bd. 13. S. 10–20.

Goethe J. W. Zur Farbenlehre. Didaktischer Teil // Ibid. 1981(b). Bd. 13. S. 314–523.

Goethe J. W. Geschichte der Farbenlehre // Ibid. 1981(c). Bd. 14. S. 7–269.

Gundolf F. Goethe. Berlin, 1916.

Christiansen B. Philosophie der Kunst. Hanau, 1909.

Christiansen B. Das ästhetische Urphänomen // Logos. 1911/1912. Bd. 2. S. 303–315.

Derrida J. La voix et le phénomène: Introduction au problème du signe dans la phénoménologie de Husserl, Paris, 1967.

Hansen-Löve A. A. Der russische Formalismus: Methodologische Rekonstruktion seiner Entwicklung aus dem Prinzip der Verfremdung. Wien, 1978.

Hopensztand J. D. Filozofia literatury formalistów wobec poetyki futuryzmu // Życie Literackie. 1938. Zesz. 5. S. 182–192.

Ingarden R. Jeszcze “Atuli mirohłady” // Wiadomości Literackie. 1934. № 43 (570). S. 4.

Ingarden R. [Rev. of Kridl 1936(a)] // R. Ingarden. Studia z estetyki. Warszawa, 1970. T. 3. S. 405–412.

Jakobson R., Siedlecki F. List badacza polskiego [1941] // Literatura, komparatystyka, folklor. Księga poświęcona Julianowi Krzyżanowskiemu. Warszawa, 1968. S. 664–674.