Эпоха «остранения». Русский формализм и современное гуманитарное знание

A discussion about the relationship between Czech Structuralism and the Russian School of Formalism is impossible to separate from the broader context of other controversies and polemics that took place, often simultaneously, in the thirties not only within the Prague Linguistic Circle, but also between representatives of the Czech Structuralism and their opponents. Some of the topics discussed in the context of polemics about the relationship between Czech Structuralism and Russian Formalism also appear in other contexts of different disputes. Each set of different discussions can be characterized by the relationship between a basic category, which is at the base of the whole set of various polemics, and the form that determines its realization. The summarization simplifies, of course, but each designation of the topic of various polemics, functioning as a kind of label, represents the central question that underlies all debates [Kříž, 2014].

A. A nature of Poetic Language (the category of “dominating factor”/Form: “deformation”);[88]

B. A relation of work of art to subject of “the author” in the process of literary communication (the category of “experience”/Form: “enjoyment”)[89];

C. Basic concepts of Czech Structuralism (function, structure, intention)[90]

D. Structural model of literary development (the category of “Selbstbewegung”/Form: “dual motivation”)[91].

The first set (A) of discussions is associated with the context of various considerations of the written/standard language; the set of polemics represents probably the most extensive context of various disputes in the thirties, in which not only theorist in the field of Linguistics and Literary Criticism (Aesthetics) have been involved, but also journalists, writers and wider public as well. The category of dominant occupies the central location within the set of polemics; the category that was systematically analyzed by Jan Mukařovský was applied to the discussed relationship between the poetic language and the standard/written language. The category of dominant together with the process of deformation, considered as a function of the category, represent the basic structure, which became a central perspective for described set of polemics that also appeared later in different kind of variations. The second set (B) of polemics was conducted mainly in the field of Literary Theory (Aesthetics) and its content gradually built up the structuralist concept of art (literature) as a specific type of communication, which is governed by autonomous rules. Even in that context of polemics we find topics resonated further in the development of Czech Structuralism (for instance the issue of the intentionality of an author). While the third set (C) of controversies is linked to the debate on basic principles and concepts of the Structuralism as the whole, the fourth set (D) of controversies, together with the first one, form most extensive “field of discussions” in the thirties. The structural model of the development originally proposed by Jan Mukařovský and primarily applied to the system of literature provoked a wide discussion on diachrony in the Humanities.

3. Two Levels of the Analysis

Variability in discussions about the relationship between Czech Structuralism and Russian Formalism is well detectable in the perspective of the two models, each of which describes a set of discussions and its relations to other sets of controversies. As indicated in connection with the characterization of the analysis as Archeology, individual arguments contained in various controversies enter into different relationships that can meaningfully be described as a structure of rules that are implemented in different variations. Both models have themselves been the subject of various discussions, but by its form they allow to analyze various conflicts not only on the basis of chronological order of their succession.

3.1 Isolation/Concentration Analysis