Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction -- I Negativity as a Phenomenon -- II Functions of Negation in Modernism -- III A Subject and Its Name -- IV Art or the Beautiful? -- V Why Art? -- Digression: A Test -- VI Defining Beauty and Art -- VII Negativity in Aesthetics: Recent to Ancient -- VIII The Modernist Theories of Negativity in Art -- IX Varieties of Negation -- 1 System of Negation -- Preface -- I Aesthetic Negation in Itself -- 1 Things That Do Not Exist and Actions That Are Not Carried Out -- 2 The Castration of the Gaze and the Shrouding Effect of the Image -- 3 The Differentiation of the Image and the Self-Negation of Art -- 4 The Figuration and Sublimation of the Symbol -- 5 Negativity and Trance -- II Aesthetic Negation for Itself -- 6 Laughter and Mockery -- 7 The Negative Content of the Image -- 7.1 Tragedy and Catharsis -- 7.2 Evil and Violence beyond Tragedy -- 8 Negativity Enters the Scene: Void and Aggression -- 9 Explicit Negation: Symbols and Operations of Negativity -- 9.1 Modernism and Emphatic Negation -- 9.2 The Inversion of the Image and the Topsy-Turvy World -- 9.3 Contrariness, Contrast, Contradiction -- 10 Coda -- 2 Dostoevsky: Tempted by Negativity -- 1 Negativity in Form and Content -- 2 Negativity and Revolution -- 3 Two Temptations -- 3 Symbolism and Melancholia -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Re-evaluating Symbolism -- 3 Jacek Malczewski's Melancholia -- 4 Lars Von Trier's Melancholia -- 5 Conclusion -- 4 Andrei Platonov's Negative Revolution -- 1 The Problem of the Intellectual Legacy of 1917 -- 2 The Revolution of Modernity -- 3 Revolutionary Toska and Negativity -- 4 What Is Toska Searching For? -- 5 Revolutionary Doubject -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index.

"This thought-provoking work analyzes concrete political events and reinterprets key concepts in modern political science. Building on the works of Kant, Badiou, Adorno, Hegel, and more, it posits that the dynamics of revolution can be encapsulated in the concept of negation, since a revolution essentially negates "what is" by rejecting the power in place. The work argues that revolution is the true ground of Western democracy and that the proof of a true democracy is the activity of protest movements. It discusses how modern philosophy conceives political truth as revolutionary or eventful, and that one aspect of revolution is negativity, which fluctuates between inertia and melancholia. It examines the problem of revolution in the context of modern philosophy, providing a diagnosis of the historical developments since the fall of the Soviet Union to the Arab Spring, setting forth an original theory of revolution while shedding light on the notion of negativity in contemporary thought. This innovative work will appeal to anyone interested in political theory and political philosophy."--

SUMMARY: This essay is a contribution to the discussion forum "Mainstream Narratives of Soviet History and the Laughter of Surprise," framed as responses by literary scholars, historians, and political scientists to Sheila Fitzpatrick's essay "Soviet History as Black Comedy." The essay investigates the mimetic nature of Soviet history and the dialectics of tragedy and comedy in it by referencing the tradition going back to Theodor Adorno and Slavoj Žižek of seeing in laughter a means and ideology of domination. Резюме: Это эссе является частью форума "Мейнстримные нарративы советской истории и смех от удивления," в котором литературоведы, историки и политологи реагируют на эссе Шейлы Фитцпатрик "Советская история как черная комедия". Артемий Магун размышляет о миметическом характере советской истории и диалектике трагедии и комедии в ней. Он обращается к традиции, восходящей к Теодору Адорно и Славою Жижеку, которые видели в смехе форму идеологического доминирования.

The article addresses the notion of communism with a special angle of factuality and negativity, and not in the usual sense of a futurist utopia. After considering the main contemporary theories of communism in left-leaning political thought, the author turns to the Soviet experience of an "actually existing communism." Apart from and against the bureaucratic state, a social reality existed organized around res ius, that is, an unappropriated world that was not a collective property, as in the case of res publica. The alienation from things and from the state resulted not only in the sense of oppression, but in a new culture of a paradoxical "communality" (A. Zinoviev), where the "Other," be it a thing or a person, appears rather as ground, not figure. This culture of a non-thematic gaze led to a formation of a communality as a given, and not as a utopian desideratum. I claim that this is a major difference between the current Western society and a post-Communist society. The former is more solidary and collectivist, but only consciously and deliberately so, operating from an individualist ontology, while the latter is individualist, but with an assumption of the "Other" as a pre-given fact. In this chiasmus, both "communisms" are problematic, so that an alternative model of individuation (Virno), rather than the atomization of an assumed collectivity, would be preferable.

Artemy Magun thinks that Mark Lipovetsky nicely emphasizes the social subject that is the bearer of the hegemonic ideology of the late Soviet period. However, he approaches the ITR discourse as described by Lipovetsky as a reflection of a classical bourgeois consciousness. Magun suggests that Soviet ITRs were the result of the thermidorean embourgeoisement of Soviet society, particularly epitomized in the mass emergence of private apartments in the 1960s and reinforced through the stimulation of consum­erism in the 1970s. This being said, he thinks that the social basis of late Soviet ideology should not be absolutized. Today ITRs are a thing of the past. Their place is taken by the cognitariat : educated wage laborers, mostly specializing in communications and management, who are much less secure and self-assured than the Soviet ITRs. Although their slogans are familiar from the Soviet and perestroika eras (moral opposition to the regime, and the defense of "normalcy" against the irrational corrupt mafiosi), now they no longer correspond to social reality. These values are specters of the past (Marx), an instance of false consciousness. By way of a conclusion, Magun reprimands Lipovetsky for relying on the works of "prominent representa­tives of the Russian liberal right" such as Lev Gudkov and Dina Khapaeva, whose pessimistic assessment of the contemporary Russian society seduces Lipovetsky to exaggerate the continuity with Soviet times. Similarly, his idealized reading of the West is based on the uncritical evocation of the "apologetic pop best seller by Richard Florida." Magun calls for a serious consideration of the ruptures between late Soviet and post-Soviet histories and acceptance of the idea that the Soviet ITRs were "genuinely liberal, liberals of the right."
Артемий Магун считает, что Марку Липовецкому удалось очертить социальную базу технократической и консервативной идеологии, которая парадоксальным образом стала ассоциироваться с позднесо­ветским и постсоветским либерализмом. Магун развивает аргумент Липовецкого в марксистском ключе, предлагая классовый анализ буржуазной природы советского технократического общественного слоя. Он подчеркивает наличие важных различий между советским технократическим классом и когнитариатом постсоветского общества. Протестное движение когнитариата использует старые перестроечные лозунги, но находится в другой, менее безопасной, социальной позиции. Магун тем самым заключает, что это противоречие между социальной позицией и заимствованной идеологией вскоре должно разрешиться. В конце своего эссе автор критикует Липовецкого за использование работ Льва Гудкова и Дины Хапаевой, которые, с его точки зрения, являются выразителями постсоветской консервативной идеологии, или правого либерализма. Таким образом, по мнению Магуна, Липовецкий упускает возможность проанализировать глобальные тенденции к праволиберальному повороту части интеллектуального класса, что характеризует постсоветскую Россию.

Résumé La situation des universités russes est ambigüe : le système hérité du passé est inerte, isolationniste, et corrompu, mais l'alternative existante est très souvent la formalisation et la commercialisation de l'esprit néolibéral. Cette situation exa-cerbe les mêmes contradictions qui affectent le reste du monde : l'ouverture de l'université vers la société ne s'opère que dans une forme néolibérale qui l'instrumentalise ; le souci de la qualité et du niveau culturel de l'éducation mène à l'élitisme et/ou à la répression des étu- diants. Il est nécessaire de chercher une synthèse créative qui échapperait aux modèles existants.