Marx laja. Nove perspektive v literarni sociologiji: postmarksizem Ernesta Laclaua in Chantal Mouffe
Ključne besede:
literarna teorija, sociologija literature, postmarksizem, Laclau, Ernesto, Mouffe, ChantalPovzetek
Razprava želi na novo presoditi zapleteno razmerje med literarnim agensom (tj. intencionalno delujočim »subjektom«, bodisi posameznikom, skupino ali razredom) in socialnimi strukturami (tj. teoretičnimi modeli, oblikovanimi za to, da bi prikazali kompleksne in socialno sedimentirane stične točke med delujočimi). V Marxovem poznem delu se ti dve kategoriji pojavljata kot Janusov obraz. Marx na eni strani pokaže, kako so agensi (ali razredi) določeni s svojo umeščenostjo v socialno (ekonomsko) strukturo, po drugi strani pa trdi, da lahko boj med agensi redefinira socialno strukturo. Marx nam je torej zapustil paradoks, kajti ni se mu posrečilo razložiti, kako je prišlo do boja med agensi (razredi), s tem pa je izključil možnost strukturne spremembe. Razprava na podlagi del Köhlerja, Bürgerja, Duboisa in Boudieuja pokaže, kako so se v literarni teoriji razvile dragocene »socialne strukture«, da bi z njimi definirali kompleksne odnose med literarnimi agensi. Avtorja teorije omenjenih raziskovalcev dopolnita s postmarksistično in poststrukturalistično teorijo Ernesta Laclaua in Chantal Mouffe ter trdita, da lahko bolj uravnotežen pristop postavi v ospredje agensa kot vir za inovacijo in strukturno spremembo. Koncepta »dislokacije« in »artikulacije«, ki sta ju razvila Laclau in Chantal Mouffe, omogočata uravnotežen pristop k spremembi literature, ki ne postane žrtev niti strukturnega determinizma niti voluntarizma. S kratko obravnavo italijanskega futurizma avtorja pokažeta, kako je mogoče misliti ne samo spremembe na področju literature, ampak tudi kulturne spremembe, ki izhajajo s tega področja.Literatura
Althusser, L. (1971). “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”. In: L. Althusser (ed.). Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press. 158–83.
– – – (1979). “The Object of Capital”. In: L. Althussser and E. Balibar (eds.). Reading Capital. London: Verso. 71–194.
Applebaum, P. (1979). “Born-Again Functionalism?” The Insurgent Sociologist 9 (1): 18–33.
Archer, M. (1982). “Morphogenesis Versus Structuration: On Combining Structure and Action”. British Journal of Sociology 33: 455–483.
Barrett, M. (1992). “Ideology, Politics, Hegemony: From Gramsci to Laclau and Mouffe”. In: S. Žižek (ed.). Mapping Ideology. London: Verso. 235–264.
Berghaus, G. (ed.) (2000). International Futurism in Arts and Literature. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Bernans, D. (1999). “Historical Materialism and Ordinary Language”. Rethinking Marxism 11 (2): 18–37.
Bertrand, J.-P., J. Dubois and P. Durand (1993). “Approche institutionelle du premier surréalisme (1919–1924)”. Pratiques 38: 27–53.
Best, S. and D. Kellner (1992). Post-Modern Theory. Critical Interrogations. London: Macmillan.
Blum, C. S. (1996). The Other Modernism: F. T. Marinetti’s Futurist Fiction of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1979). La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Pariz: Minuit.
– – – (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. London: Cambridge UP.
– – – (1980/1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, California: Stanford UP.
– – – (1990). In Other Words. Essays Toward a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
– – – (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. and L. Waquant (1992). “The Purpose of Reflexive Sociology (The Chicago Workshop)”. In: P. Bourdieu and L. Waquant (eds.). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Chicago UP.
Bru S. (2002). “Nieuws dat nieuws blijft. Gramsci & Marinetti & Mussolini”. Yang 38 (1): 89–105.
Bürger, P. (1974). Theorie der Avantgarde. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
– – – (1975). Vom Aesthetizismus zum Nouveau Roman. Frankfurt: Athenaion.
– – – (1978). “Institution Kunst als literatursoziologische Kategorie”. In: P. Bürger (ed.). Seminar: Literatur- und Kunstsoziologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
– – – (1978b). “Einleitung”. In: P. Bürger (ed.). Seminar: Literatur- und Kunstsoziologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. 39–54.
– – – (1983). “Institution Literatur und Modernisierungsprozeß”. In: P. Bürger (ed.). Zum Funktionswandel der Literatur. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Carpentier, N. and P. De Vos (2001). “De Discursieve blik. De discourstheorie van Laclau and Mouffe als denkkader en instrumentarium voor sociaal-wetenschappelijke analyse”. Ethiek en Maatschappij 4: 3–30.
Chouliaraki, L. and N. Fairclough (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity. Cambridge: Edinburgh UP.
Cohen, I. (1989). Structuration Theory. London: Macmillan.
Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Craib, I. (1993). Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge.
Daryl Slack, J. (1996). “The Theory and Method of Articulation”. In: D. Morley and K.-H. Chen (eds.). Stuart Hall. Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. 112–130.
Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc. Evanston: Northwestern UP.
Dubois, J. (1978). L’Institution de la littérature. Brussels: Labor.
Dubois, J. and P. Durand (1988). “Literary Field and Classes of Texts”. In: P. Desan (ed.). Literature and Social Practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 137–153.
Dyrberg, T. B. (1997). The Circular Structure of Power: Politics, Identity, Community. London: Verso.
Elster, J. (1985). Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Gane, M. (1983). “On the ISAs Episode”. Economy and Society 12 (4): 431–67.
Gartman, D. (1991). “Bourdieu’s Distinction”. American Journal of Sociology 97: 421–447.
Geldof, K. (1997). “Du champ littéraire. Ambiguités d’une manière de faire sociologique”. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 24 (1).
Gentile, E. (2000). “Political Futurism and the Myth of the Italian Revolution”. In: Berghaus, G. (ed.). International Futurism in Arts and Literature. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. 1–14.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldmann, L. (1964). Pour une sociologie du roman. Pariz: Gallimard.
Habermas, J. (1983). Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Zur Kritik der funktionalistische Vernunft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Hall, Stuart (1980). “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms”. Media, Culture, Society 2 (1): 43–72.
– – – (1985). “Signification, Representation, Ideology: Althusser and the Post-Structuralist Debates”. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2 (2): 91–94.
– – – (1986). “On Postmodernism and Articulation: An Interview with Stuart Hall”. Journal of Communication Inquiry 10 (2): 45–60.
Hirst, P. (1979). “Althusser and the Theory of Ideology”. Economy and Society 5 (4): 385–412.
Howarth, D. (2000). Discourse. London: Open UP.
Howarth, D., A. J. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (eds.) (2000). Discourse Theory and Political Analysis. Idenitities, Hegemonies and Social Change. Manchester amd New York: Manchester UP.
Jameson, F. (1998). The Cultural Turn. Selected Writings on the Postmodern 1983–1998. London and New York: Verso.
Janssen, S. (2001). “The Empirical Study of Careers in Literature and the Arts”. In: Dick Schram and Gerard Steen (eds.). The Psychology and Sociology of Literature. In Honor of Elrud Ibsch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 321–357.
Köhler, E. (1977). “Gattungssystem und Gesellschaftssystem”. Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 1: 7–22.
Laclau, E. (1977). Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory. London: Verso.
– – – (1990). New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
– – – (1993). “Power and Representation”. In: M. Poster (ed.). Politics, Theory and Contemporary Culture. New York: Columbia UP. 277–96.
Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
– – – (1987). “Post-Marxism Without Apologies”. New Left Review 166: 79–106.
Laclau, E. and L. Zac (1994). “Minding the Gap: The Subject of Politics”. In: E. Laclau (ed.). The Making of Political Identities. London: Verso. 11–37.
Lukács, G. (1965). Der Historische Roman. Neuwied and Berlin: Luchterhand.
La cultura italiana del “900 attraverso le riviste. 6 vols. (1960–1963). Turin: Einaudi.
Marx, K. and F. Engels (1971). Werke. Vol. 13, 7. Berlin: Karl Dietz Verlag.
– – – (1983). Werke. Vol. 4. Berlin: Karl Dietz Verlag.
Meštrović, S. G. (1998). Anthony Giddens. The Last Modernist. London: Routledge.
Munnichs, M. and C. J. Van Rees (1986). “De cultuursociologie van Pierre Bourdieu. Enkele kanttekeningen bij La Distinction van Bourdieu”. TTT/Interdisciplinair Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 6 (3). 17–337.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Perloff, M. (1999). “Dada Without Duchamp/Duchamp Without Dada: Avant-Garde Tradition and the Individual Talent”. Stanford Humanities Review 7 (1).
Poggi, C. (1997). “Lacerba: Interventionist Art and Politics in Pre-World War I Italy”. In: V. H. Marquardt (ed.). Art and Political Journals on the Political Front. 1910–1940. Gainesville: UP of Florida. 17–62.
Ritzer, G. (2000, fifth edition). Modern Sociological Theory. Boston: McGray Hill.
Robbins, D. (1991). The Work of Pierre Bourdieu. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Seidman, S. (1989). “Introduction”. In: S. Seidman (ed.). Jürgen Habermas on Society and Politics: A Reader. Boston: Beacon Press. 1–25.
Sim, S. (1998). Post-Marxism. A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
Smith, A.M. (1998). Laclau and Mouffe. London and New York: Routledge.
Sprinker, M. (1987). Imaginary Relations. Aesthetics and Ideology in the Theory of Historical Materialism. London and New York: Verso.
Swingewood, A. (1975). Marx and Modern Social Theory. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Sztompka, P. (ed.) (1994). Agency and Structure: Reorienting Social Theory. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.
Tilly, C., L. Tilly and R. Tilly (1975). The Rebellious Century: 1830–1930. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Torfing, J. (1999). New Theories of Discourse. Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek. Oxford: Blackwell.
Transfaglia, N. (1973). Dallo stato liberale al regime fascista: Problemi e ricerche. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Verdaasdonk, H. and K. Rekvelt (1981). “De kunstsociologie van Pierre Bourdieu”. De Revisor 3: 49–57.
Wilkes, C. (1990). “Bourdieu’s Class”. In: R. Harker, C. Mahar and C. Wilkes. An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan. 109–131.
Zapponi, Niccolò (1981). I miti e le ideologie: Storia della cultura italiana, 1870–1960. Naples: Edizione Scientifiche Italiane.
Žižek, S. (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Routledge.
