It has been very interesting to read about the Formalist approach to literature as ‘art’. The idea that literature is an art in its own right and merits its very own study I find appealing. I read about the defamiliarizing nature of literature I was reminded of the Dadaist approach to art which I have always found fascinating. In Dadaism reason and logic are evacuated from the scene and the viewer is left to choose whether to interpret the piece in whichever way appeals to them, or to flounder and guard this sense of defamiliarization and remain on the outside of the work.
I actually agree that “literature changes when the world changes” (4), whereas the Formalist approach does not bow to this idea. Literature for the Formalists is independent and free from the influences of the evolving world, it seems to me. According to the Formalist approach, “for literature to be literature, it must constantly defamiliarize the familiar” (5), yet the ‘familiar’ is the world which is evolving and changing around us. It is the stimulus which provokes the reaction, therefore with no provocation to action what is there for literature to ‘defamiliarize’? Again, I refer back to the Dadaist movement which came as a reaction to the horror and needlessness of World War I, yet had there never been a war who is to say whether the movement would have ever been instigated or even endured? I feel that it is the same with literature. For one to react against something there must be a basis from which to start. Similarly the writer must have some concept of what a certain culture’s readers consider familiar in order to defamiliarize them. It seems there is a similarity here with Structuralism, which asserts that “if human actions or productions have a meaning, there must be an underlying system of distinctions and conventions which makes this meaning possible” (56).
I definitely agree with Culler’s notion that language and culture are intricately linked. The meaning that one assigns to actions or words comes about because of the culture that one has grown up in. Sometimes I even experience differences between the North American culture and my own English one, in that some things that are said or done do not have the same significance and therefore the meaning is not reciprocated in one or other of the cultures, and consequently actions or words are inferred differently. I find it fascinating nonetheless.
I’ve never heard of Dadaism before, and I think I need to look more deeply into it because it seems like an approach that would suit me very well – I’m a big fan of the idea that the reader should take independently what they can from literature – that they should fill their brain with whatever it is they happen to interpret or find interesting about the work. It’s the diversity of opinion and views that makes for an interesting conversation!
The idea that “defamiliarization” doesn’t work because our world is in a constant state of change and unfamiliarity is something I hadn’t thought of. Playing devil’s advocate here, I’d suggest that maybe the idea of ‘defamiliarization’ is exactly that – awakening us to the idea that the world does, in fact, change around us, that nothing is set in stone, and that there is always a new way to examine and ponder what we once perceived as ‘familiar’.
But, like you said, it’s all about perception, right? Culture, experience and bias all have a huge effect on the way one single person might read a literary work. I do hope we talk about more of these nuances in language – and I ‘d love to hear about some of your experiences with North American/English culture differences!
Yes, I agree that to defamiliarize the familiar literature needs to have contact with the outside world! The biggest link to this is the author which, in my view is a product of the world around him/her. I do agree with formalist that we do need to pay primarily attention to the text but I think formalist take this a little too far!