It surprised me how frequently we talk about science or scientific approaches when dealing with literary and linguistic studies in the pages we read this week. From Russian Formalists who were initially inspired by philosophers of science like Edmund Husserl (3), to the French Structuralists who were greatly influenced by the studies of Ferdinand de Saussure and his “science of semiology” (60), it seems that these studies of literature and of language have sought to develop a systematic knowledge of the subject. I think we can even recognize an evolution of such effort.
First, the Formalists pointed out that literature should no longer be considered a device that carries out sociological or historical ideas, but it ought to be studied separately and independently, through “the investigation of the specific properties of literary material, of the properties that distinguish such material from material of any other kind” (Eichenbaum, 7). The Formalists intended to, through rigorous examination, determine the nature of “literariness” (Jakobson) that distinguish literature from other subjects. This attempt resembles a lot to a scientific research, whose object of studies is literature and during which the Formalists examined the specificity of poetic language, questioned the traditionally neglected notion of “form” and scrutinized the concept of “defamiliarization” which Shklovsky found to be an important technique and procedure in literary works.
The legacy of these studies later influenced the French Structuralism in that the Structuralists also sought to understand “the internal system or order of linguistic, cultural and literary phenomena” (54). But the greatest inspiration for Structuralist studies was the linguistic work of Ferdinand de Saussure, whose approach was an even more scientific one: he considered language as a homogeneous system of signs (he even compared it to algebra(71)) and tried to develop “a science that studies the life of signs within society”(60), semiology. (Much like what the Formalists did with literature: studying the subject as an independent system but Saussure took it further.) Upon establishing a set of terminology and notions in his studies: sign, signifier, signified and semiology, Saussure had created a scientific module which Structuralists later borrowed to analyze cultural and literary phenomena, for example Roland Barthes. And it’s very interesting to read Barthes’ analysis of various social signs and it seems that he has begun to apply the rules established by Saussure in concrete examples.
Here I stop at The Archaeology of Knowledge, that I’m re-reading for the fourth time and still fail to understand fully or see a connection with previous texts. So I hope our discussions in class will help me with that.
Month: September 2013
It surprised me how frequently we talk about science or scientific approaches when dealing with literary and linguistic studies in the pages we read this week. From Russian Formalists who were initially inspired by philosophers of science like Edmund Husserl (3), to the French Structuralists who were greatly influenced by the studies of Ferdinand de […]
Hola, everyone,
I’m Danyi Cheng from China. About three years ago I finished my B.A. in China, the focus of my university study was just the language, Spanish. After the university I worked for one year as translator and business-girl in a vehicle company. I think one of the key words of dominating a language is “empathy”. Great grammar and pronunciation may produce a good simulation of one unfamiliar language, but to understand those concept or ideas underneath the letters and sounds, and to create at the same the images, the investigate of the culture should be very necessary. Literature may be a good way to access this interlaced cultural system.
I was thinking about why the Formalism got its name as Formalism. Possible it’s because that its supporters pay more attention, or only want to pay attention, to the modes of the operation of language rather than the content and its psychological, sociological or historical reflection. Its’s rational and scientific in order to be literary and to create impact. Trying to defamiliarize the ordinary and habitual, some formalist authors write long passages to describe some common things or conventional scene without naming it. This prolonged process of description wake up our sensory receptor allowing us to re-discovery every detail from the frequent objects.
Here the defamiliarization of Formalism remind me of the Japanese writer Haruki Murakami. In the many works of Haruki Murakami, the double structures of alternating the reality and the fantasm, the detailed descriptions of objects like the name and the singer of a piece of jazz music, the brand of the cigarette, the slogan of the advertisement on TV, etc..Frequently in a novel when there is a pistol that has been mentioned, the sooner or later it will shoot. However, those objects in the works of Haruki Murakami appear like nonsense, but actually catch the readers and bring them into a “like-new” emotional return. Also, the Japanese writer often use first person as the narrator. In most of his novels, the “I” is a character neutral without much personal feeling, the I observe all the events, relationships and other characters’ emotion with almost indifferent attitude, this distance I think is similar to that of the horse of Tolstoy.
The narrative method of Haruki Murakami is quite fresh to some readers and therefore have won their preference (his success certainly attributes to many other reasons). At one moment, there has sprang up many similar works taking example of the style of Murakami. However, just like Don Quijote who was not an usual hero in his age, typical heroes tend to fatigue and be the habitual, there begins again the formalists’ idea of evolution.
At last, I think the Formalist version is possibly a little narrow as it’s not very much interested at the historical or psycological context and reflection of the work….
Categories
Shklovsky’s “Art as Technique”
Shklovsky’s “Art as Technique” presents two very important ideas; the ideas of habituation and defamiliarization.
According to Shklovsky, habituation is the idea of doing something unconsciously all the time. It is a concept that I can relate to as I experience it in my daily life. Indeed, routines become so repetitive that I do things almost subconsciously and forget sometimes whether I completed or did not (not remembering if I locked the door or not when leaving my apartment for example). As Shklovsky says, “the object is in front of us and we know about it, but we do not see it – hence we cannot say anything significant about it”.
Then Shklovsky introduces the concept of defamiliarization, the process which provides one to view things in a new way by presenting a common thing in the most uncommon and unfamiliar way, thus challenging our usual perception. According to Shklovsky, it is the job of good art to make the viewer feel defamiliar with a common object and to release one from a sort of blindness, as the length of perception is increased.
A perfect example of defamiliarization would be Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain”, since it presents an ordinary article of life, a urinal, at the art exhibit, associating it with a fountain and thus, producing new thought for that object. Indeed, we go by urinals so often; it is such a common object you never really think about. However, that familiar object becomes unfamiliar and takes one out of one’s own usual consciousness once the object is placed on a museum pedestal, named “Fountain”. We all know a fountain as being a well-designed structure that spouts water into the center and this image does not come to mind when seeing a urinal. Therefore, the viewer has to erase all conceptions of what it really is by defamiliarizing it and it forces one to take a consciousness by critically analyzing the object taken out of one’s own element and the intention of the artist at making it.
Categories
Hola a todos
Hola.
I am Camilo Castillo, (I am also from Colombia, Liliana!) and I just arrived to Vancouver. I studied Literature Studies long time ago (or no so long?), and I took some literary theory classes. I have to confess (1st confession) that I did not have the best relations with those classes. At that time, I felt that theory was cold and very distant from literature, I did not feel the warm sensation that I felt, and I still feel, reading novels, short stories or poems. Maybe, now that I think it again, at that time I was cold and distant from theory so I could not feel the warm sensation that probably dwells in it. Maybe, if I think again, today I am more curious about theory than at that time… or maybe I am old? Or both?
Nowadays, I want to confess (2nd confession) that I am pretty excited for the theory course, I truly believe that taking a look over some theories can help me clarify my research field, which is related with gerontology and old narrator characters in recent Colombian narrative.
Anyway, I am not sure if I will be able of understanding all theories, or most of them, or some of them, or… however, the fact that I will get confuse and I will have the opportunity of share with you guys my confusion it is unique.
Thanks. Gracias. Merci.
Camilo
As I was reading the formalists and their scientific approach to the object of study, such as the importance given to the literary devices and procedures that make literature an autonomous field, a question came to mind regarding the affective fallacy. If the reactions of readers are irrelevant as the structure is the ultimate recipient of meaning, why Shklovsky emphasizes the ultimate goal of poetry to “disrupt habitual ways of seeing and thinking”. Isn’t the goal of creating a special perception of the object the same thing as making sure that there are reactions to that particular work of art? Moreover, having this goal will mean the author has that intention and this is precisely another fallacy that I think formalists are denouncing.
Is this a contradiction or am I not understanding the readings?
As I was reading the formalists and their scientific approach to the object of study, such as the importance given to the literary devices and procedures that make literature an autonomous field, a question came to mind regarding the affective fallacy. If the reactions of readers are irrelevant as the structure is the ultimate recipient of meaning, why Shklovsky emphasizes the ultimate goal of poetry to “disrupt habitual ways of seeing and thinking”. Isn’t the goal of creating a special perception of the object the same thing as making sure that there are reactions to that particular work of art? Moreover, having this goal will mean the author has that intention and this is precisely another fallacy that I think formalists are denouncing.
Is this a contradiction or am I not understanding the readings?
After having completed the readings, I must say that I was a bit overwhelmed with so much new information. New being the key word…but little by little some topics began to make sense where as some did not. I now understand what Professor Frelick was referring to about trying on new “lenses”.
The most difficult part for me was understanding the complexities and intricacies of the text itself. I suppose one could say I experienced the “shock effect” Shklovsky talked about (even though he was referring to poetry). I did like the examples Shklovsky used from Tolstoy to explain defamiliarization. I have never read any of Tolstoy’s works but was very impressed by his descriptions and different ways of expressing himself within the excerpts (ie – the horses view on property). It’s interesting to see authors express ideas in different ways through the written word.
I also liked Foucault’s take on the role of language as mentioned by Rivkin and Ryan in Introduction: The Implied Order: Structuralism; “Foucault notices that what counts as knowledge changes with time, and with each change, the place of language in knowledge is also modified” (54).
I feel like this holds true to this day and for years to come. Just look at how much we have achieved in such little time. Before moving to Vancouver (as of three weeks ago), I was working in the Advancement department of an international private school that taught students starting from PK3- high school. It was astonishing to see how much children could pick up at such a young age. By the time they entered first grade, they knew the alphabet, they knew how to count, add, subtract, spell, and read in two (2) languages. I don’t know about you but when I was that young…all I did was learn the alphabet and color. What counts as knowledge has indeed changed over time or perhaps it is the act of science/research that has proven that human beings are capable of more than what we once were.
Further into the readings, I was able to see and kind of understand the meaning of signified and signifier but unfortunately, I was a bit confused when it came to Barthes and the term myth. Is it that myth ties everything together…the common thread?
Hopefully one of you guys can clear that up for me. I am optimistic and hope my “lenses” won’t be as foggy in the readings to come.
After having completed the readings, I must say that I was a bit overwhelmed with so much new information. New being the key word…but little by little some topics began to make sense where as some did not. I now understand what Professor Frelick was referring to about trying on new “lenses”.
The most difficult part for me was understanding the complexities and intricacies of the text itself. I suppose one could say I experienced the “shock effect” Shklovsky talked about (even though he was referring to poetry). I did like the examples Shklovsky used from Tolstoy to explain defamiliarization. I have never read any of Tolstoy’s works but was very impressed by his descriptions and different ways of expressing himself within the excerpts (ie – the horses view on property). It’s interesting to see authors express ideas in different ways through the written word.
I also liked Foucault’s take on the role of language as mentioned by Rivkin and Ryan in Introduction: The Implied Order: Structuralism; “Foucault notices that what counts as knowledge changes with time, and with each change, the place of language in knowledge is also modified” (54).
I feel like this holds true to this day and for years to come. Just look at how much we have achieved in such little time. Before moving to Vancouver (as of three weeks ago), I was working in the Advancement department of an international private school that taught students starting from PK3- high school. It was astonishing to see how much children could pick up at such a young age. By the time they entered first grade, they knew the alphabet, they knew how to count, add, subtract, spell, and read in two (2) languages. I don’t know about you but when I was that young…all I did was learn the alphabet and color. What counts as knowledge has indeed changed over time or perhaps it is the act of science/research that has proven that human beings are capable of more than what we once were.
Further into the readings, I was able to see and kind of understand the meaning of signified and signifier but unfortunately, I was a bit confused when it came to Barthes and the term myth. Is it that myth ties everything together…the common thread?
Hopefully one of you guys can clear that up for me. I am optimistic and hope my “lenses” won’t be as foggy in the readings to come.
I was reading the introduction to Formalism and Structuralism, and it stroke me: as useful as it is to summarize and introduce the novelty of those literary theories at the time of their production, it seemed to me that as we intend to do so, we lose the “spirit” of those thinkers who, when they first intoduced those ideas, never thought about it as well defined static concepts, or as a school (what we call “Russian Formalism”, “Structuralism”) or if they did, were still very well aware of the individuality of their own work…
therefore, we think about them as a group of people, and we rationalize their ideas, organize them, make link between them, forgetting that…
1. their “theories” were created based on a real contact with the object of their observation, wether it be the reality of language and its materiality (Saussure, Jakobson), literature (Schlovsky and his love for Tolstoï), society (Barthes’ ambiguous relationship with the “Bourgeoisie” of his times…)…their theories sometimes seem like an epidermic, necessary, intimate reaction with the object of their studies. Behind the production of a theory is an affect that it is necessary to take in account if ourselves want to understand the vitality of those ideas and what was really at stake.
2. as we study them, we select what suits the topic of our studies. In the introduction to structuralism (p.53-55) , the authors mention Barthes “most important books) (p.54)… amongst those books, one would not find Fragments d’un discours amoureux (A Lover’s Discourse: Fragments) , Le Plaisir de lire (The Pleasure of the Text) or La Chambre claire (Camera Lucida), books that actually show how Barthes incorporate structuralism (defined here as the awareness of the fact that communication, including Art such as photography or literature, is a system of signs) in his own intimate relationship with a woman, a text or his past… it makes him look “dry”, it makes his work seem so abstract when it is actually so concrete
…a few years ago (2007) T.Todorov had to write a book (La Littérature en péril/ Literature in danger) to explain exactly this, how he felt that his own work (and the work of his fellows structuralists) had been misunderstood and had led to the exact opposite of his intentions: him who had to choose linguistics as the only way to study literature in a political context that did not allow any intellectual to freely study the history of ideas, did it out of love, passion maybe, for texts and books… and the use of the concepts that he analysed, applied in the French literature classes, seemed to take the students away from the very essence of texts, the emotions that they convey, letting them play, unconvinced, with tropes and narrative concepts they don’t care about.
(“Une conception étriquée de la littérature, qui la coupe du monde dans lequel on vit, s’est imposée dans l’enseignement, dans la critique et même chez nombre d’écrivains. Le lecteur, lui, cherche dans les oeuvres de quoi donner sens à son existence. Et c’est lui qui a raison.” T. Todoriv, La Littérature en péril)
3. we could also analyze Formalism and Structuralism as signs in the intellectual westerner system of culture nowadays. Indeed, haven’t those names (Barthes, Foucault, Lacan, Derrida…) become “signs” , often quoted in scholars speech as ultimate references and signs of an extended personal knowledge?
And we could also, as Barthes invites us to do, question the mythology of the mythologist. for example, what is this “Bourgeoisie” so strongly criticized in Mythologies if not a new mythology in the 60-70s’ system of thoughts (and in Barthes’ too ), that has the function of the antagonist, the Big Evil trying to crush the Youth revolution, the unconventional Truth? a sign in a new system?
