Search results

Critically analyzes Mikhail Bakhtin's philosophy, focusing on the theory of dialogue developed in his (1961) writings on Fyodor Dostoevsky & elsewhere. According to Bakhtin, Dostoevsky's fiction makes three interdependent findings: (1) characters are independent of their authors & humans cannot be finalized; (2) ideas are self-developing & revealed in human behavior & outcomes; & (3) dialogue is a specific type of interaction among independent consciousnesses. Bakhtin's reading of the structure of dialogue as a polyphony of autonomous, unfinished voices is contended to be significant for postmodern discussions because it rejects universals & the belief that certain positions are privileged, has implications for interpreting freedom, & posits human lives as events & as ideas. E. Blackwell

Introduces Mikhail Bakhtin's (eg, 1981) concept of "dialogized heteroglossia" to the discussion of multiculturalism & postcolonialism. It is argued that Bakhtin interprets humans as inherently linguistic & dialogical, dialogue as hybrid, &, thus, humans as hybrid. Although Bakhtin fails to fully clarify the human-language relationship & its wider social implications, these shortcomings can be rectified by integrating his ideas into a broader reading of the linguistic community as a polyphonic entity structured by a creative monoglossia-heteroglossia tension. Such a reading, combined with an account of human institutions, generates an inclusionary theory of justice that allows all voices in a multicultural society to be heard without permitting racist & sexist discourses to speak policy. E. Blackwell

Scrutinizes Mikhail Bakhtin's theory of the novel to enrich the late version of Jurgen Habermas's public sphere. Following a detailed articulation of this theory, it is noted that Habermas's recasting of the public sphere removed its responsibility to solve social problems & becomes the point where politics & life histories intersect as social problems that "resonate in life histories" are handled privately. Thus, what can be seen is a proliferation of public spheres that cater to a range of identities that has fostered an expressive spontaneity. Bakhtin's thought on novelistic dialogue is drawn on to demonstrate how Habermas's expressive spontaneity might emerge. In this light, social suffering in liberal capitalist societies is examined in terms of the narrative shape of the stories & the style in which the suffering is expressed & described. A novelistic public sphere can generate connections between everyday suffering & those narratives that determine the suffering. This requires a different style of discourse that reimagines the present, which in turn requires the use of institutionalized resources & a renarration of the past to bring justice to those currently suffering. 30 References. J. Zendejas

Sets some of the core elements of Jurgen Habermas's thought on the public sphere, ethics, & rational dialogue against the ideas of Mikhail M. Bakhtin, which are favored. Focus is on ethics & intersubjectivity, language, & the lifeworld & the everyday to shed light on gaps in Habermas's notions of dialogical democracy. Key points in the discussion are then linked to the debate on publics & counterpublics. His drive to supercede the constraints a "subject-centered reason" leads him to an overly abstract & formalistic account of intersubjectivity. It is asserted that despite Habermas's ostensive emphasis on pragmatics & frequent turn to the notion of lifeworld, he fials to comprehend adequately the relevance of the "embodied, situational, & dialogical" aspects of everyday life. The idea of multiple counterpublics is advocated & finds support in Bakhtin's work, which is argued to demonstrate a more nuanced & realistic account of power, domination, & resistance than does Habermas's. 55 References. J. Zendejas