Literature and Philosophy
The class discussed the second chapter of
Peter Zima’s The Philosophy of Modern
Literary Theory. The particular chapter deals with the Kantian components
in Anglo-American New Criticism and Russian Formalism.
The historical
conditions which caused the birth of New Criticism and Formalism are traced
out. ‘Text-only’ methodology of New
Criticism proposed by I.A. Richards was seen as an impact of the historical
conditions of the then contemporary society. Poetic analysis was the only
possible way for I.A Richards to establish the methodology of New Criticism in
the overcrowded classrooms. In fact this insight explains the argument that the
socio-political conditions of the society are ingrained in philosophy.
Although the two
literary theories belong to different countries, both primarily placed
‘expression plane’ as more important than ‘content plane.’ It is the Kantian
philosophy which asserts the autonomy of art through ‘expression plane’ and
hence it cannot be reduced to socio-historical content.
The section
titled “Abortive dialogue between Marxists and Formalists” is discussed in
detail. Marxists were interested in the ‘ideological contexts of literary
texts.’ On the other hand, Formalists primarily looked at the question of how
literary texts are made and completely neglected the social set up and
political aims it articulates. Paul Medvedev relates the formalist ‘how’ with the
Marxist ‘why’ and ‘what’ (as qtd. in The
Philosophy of Modern Literary Theory). But the Formalists were prevented
from a further dialogue with Marxists for political reasons in 1920s and 1930s
and the ‘aborted dialogue’ turned to a dialogue in the 1970s.
An introduction
to the third chapter is given in the class. Like the Formalists, Structuralists
were also Kantian and followers of avant garde. They looked primarily at the
‘expression plane’ and defied conceptual definition. Here the class got into
the discussion of ‘monosemy’ and ‘polysemy.’ Polysemy of the expression plane
(signifier) and monosemy of the conceptual plane (signified) are thus
introduced into the class. Different ways to evoke the same concept explain the
monosemy of the ‘conceptual plane.’
The Hegelian
elements in Mukarovsky are discussed in the class. The historical conception of
art and the sociological idea that art can have an impact on a society’s system
of values and norms are incompatible with Kantian stance. This also raises a
challenge to Kantian stance of ‘disinterested pleasure.’ In the class ‘Semantic
gesture’ of Mukarovsky is explained with European music which works purely
through sound.
The six functions
of language which were identified by Roman Jakobson are discussed in detail.
Any literary text can thus be read on an ‘emotive’, ‘conative’ or any other functions
of language. This reveals the fact that literary text contains other functions
which cannot be reduced to the poetic component. This is yet again incompatible
with the Kantian stance.
The class left
with the insight that much of the issues around translation studies owe its
origin from Kantian philosophical stance.
Works Cited:
Pinto, Anil. “Class on Anglo-American New
Criticism and Russian Formalism.” Christ
University. Bangalore
Zima, Peter V. The Philosophy of Modern Literary Theory. New Jersey
Press, 1999. Print.
Prepared by sharon Abraham
No comments:
Post a Comment