Suchergebnisse

This article aims at analyzing Henry Louis Gates' theoretical strategies for remapping the African American literary space within the context of both American literature and world literary system. Gates' strategies can be delineated through four stages. Firstly, he excavates a vast array of African American literary texts. In the second stage, he traces the lineage of African American literary theory to its origins within the African interpretation system. During the third stage, he employs African American literary theory to curate the African American literary canon. In the fourth and final stage, within the realm of African American literature, Gates endeavors to rebalance the representation of female and male voices within the literary space. A pivotal aspect of Gates' strategies lies in his willingness to embrace and celebrate the African legacy, setting him apart from other marginalized nations and minority groups who may tend to disregard or belittle their own heritage. Building upon this distinctive characteristic, this article posits that Gates' approach holds the potential to assist marginalized nations and minority groups in several ways: 1) Re-mapping literary space: Gates' strategies can guide these groups in redefining their literary space within the broader contexts of both national and global literature systems. 2) Claiming literary legacy: emulating Gates, these groups can be inspired to embrace and champion their own literary heritage, instead of diminishing its significance. 3) Fostering indigenous literary models: by adopting Gates' model, writers from these communities can craft their literary space grounded in their native or national paradigms, as opposed to adhering solely to Western European or U.S. models. 4) Balancing literary representation: Gates' strategies also facilitate the recalibration of the literary landscape within these nations or groups by accommodating diverse elements such as race, gender, and class, thereby achieving a more inclusive and balanced representation. Overall, Gates' methodology offers a powerful framework for marginalized communities to assert their literary identities, reshape their narratives, remap their literary spaces, and promote diversity within their literary landscapes.

The aim of this article is to argue thatboth"minor literature" and "small literature"should be readdressedas Michel Ragon's "secondary zone literature"from three perspectives. Firstly, it will be argued that "minor and small literature" began to lose its theoretical capacitywith the advent of globalization after the new millennium. Secondly, the problems of "minor literature" and "small literature" will be updated. "Minor literature"mainly has two problems: 1) The first feature of "minor literature"runs the risk of not only dismissing all literature written by minorities in "minor languages", but also diminishing the possible meanings of the term, "minority"; and 2) The second and third characteristics of "minor literature"are unable to explain why only non-European artsareperceived to be political and collective. "Small literature"also has two problems: a) it fails to explain why countries thathardly qualify as 'small', face problems similar to those of "small literature" in the international literary context; and b) it does not have the capacity to explain the literature of minority and marginal groups within a nation or country. Thirdly, "minor and small literature" will be reconsidered as "secondary zone literature", not only in an attempt to emphasizecultural dynamics and power relations based on the visibility of various "minor & small" related literary works, but also to demonstrate that literature may beminor or small, but it always has quantitative implications.

This paper's core concern is Boris Groys' theory of the total art of Stalinism, which is devoted to rewriting Soviet art history and reinterpreting Socialist Realism from the perspective of the equal rights between political and artistic Art Power. The aim of this article is to decode Groys and the total art of Stalinism, based on answering the following three questions: 1) why did Groys want to rewrite Soviet art history? 2) How did Groys re-narrate Soviet art history? 3) What are the pros and cons of his reordering of the total art of Stalinism? Groys offers an effective paradigm that could rethink two theoretical genres: a) other Socialist Realisms inside or outside the Soviet bloc, during or after the Soviet era; b) the aesthetical rights of political artworks before, during and after the Cold War, and the historical debates about art, especially about art for art's sake, or art for political propaganda. However, Groys' total art of Stalinism and its core theory of the Socialist Realism frame hides some dangers of aestheticizing Stalin and Stalinism.