Any understanding of European literature that does not include immigrant literature results in an incomplete vision of literature created in Europe. As immigrant writers have sought to find a place for themselves and their writing, the labels attached to that writing have been crucial. While such debates certainly have to do with the writers themselves and how they seek to have their writing read, they also reflect an anxiety in Europe about what counts as European literature and, not incidentally, who counts as European. To examine these issues, this article takes the example of the work of Franco-Turkish writer Sema Kılıçkaya. In contrast to the usual French fear of communautarisme, which signals for many the fragmentation of society along ethnic and religious lines, the article argues that Kılıçkaya's writing provides another model for national and European belonging, one that depends, perhaps paradoxically, on sub-national and local belonging – in both the country of origin and the country of settlement.
This summary of literature on SADCC cooperation and development contains, with a few exceptions, literature which has been published from 1984 onwards. It is divided into two parts. The first part comprises a list of about 450 titles which are sub-divided into different categories according to the type of publication. The other part comprises 35 reviews of titles most of them with the character of overall analyses and examinations of the regional cooperation. The summary includes titles in English and the Scandinavian languages. (DÜI-Hff)
The new world literature : literary studies discovers globalization -- The world according to Hegel : culture and power in world history -- The world as market : the materialist inversion of spiritualist models of the world -- Worlding : the phenomenological concept of worldliness and the loss of world in modernity -- The in-between world : anthropologizing the force of worlding -- The arriving world : the inhuman otherness of time as real messianic hope -- Postcolonial openings : how postcolonial literature becomes world literature -- Projecting a future world from the memory of precolonial time -- World heritage preservation and the expropriation of subaltern worlds -- Resisting humanitarianization -- Epilogue without conclusion : Stories without end(s)
Nicht was Literatur sein kann oder sein soll sondern was Literatur bedeutet, was sie ist, soll untersucht werden. Die Schriftlichkeit und damit die Literatur ist ein qualitativer Sprung in der Geschichte der Menschheit, der es ermöglichte, Erfahrungen, Wissen und Geschichte über mehrere Generationen zu tradieren. Mit Hilfe der Schrift schaffte sich die Menschheit ein "kollektives Gedächtnis". Mit dieser Entwicklung ging die Aufzeichnung der Mythen und die Entwicklung der Wissenschaft einher. Um Wissenschaft, die ja überwiegend nicht selbst erfahrenes Wissen speichert, anwendbar zu machen, bedürfen wir der Einbildungskraft. Dadurch wird es dem Menschen im Gegensatz zu fast allen anderen Lebewesen möglich, sich prinzipiell die ganze Welt und die geschichtliche Welt zu vergegenwärtigen. (RO)
Research from a number of China scholars in recent years indicates that protest and "dissent" literatures are much less forces for change, as has been previously assumed, and more examples of the continuing power of the "current system" in the People's Republic of China (PRC). According to the author, such literatures now appear as obstacles to the "forces for change" in this country. He argues that the form and underlying values of much PRC dissent in fact echo the assumptions about public life which support the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. (DÜI-Sen)
Along with the theoretical or traditionally historical question “What is literature?”, the critical and political question “What can literature do?” begs an answer. What value do contemporary society and culture ascribe to literature? What utility? What role? “My confidence in the future of literature”, wrote Italo Calvino, consists in the knowledge that there are things that only literature can give us, by means specific to it”. Is this still relevant to us today?