Suchergebnisse

More than anything else, ideology dominates in literatureLunacharskii, 1923Yes, we will stamp intellectuals, we will produce them, as in a factory.Bukharin, 1925The 1920s remain one of the most debated periods of Soviet history. Central to these debates is the issue of continuity between leninism and Stalinism, and the role of ideology under their respective leaderships. Supporters of "continuity" have usually emphasized the role of ideology as an intellectual bridge from the 1920s to the 1930s; conversely, those who question the continuity thesis usually point to major differences between leninism and Stalinism. I shall address this issue in relation to the history of attempts to organize writers in the early post-revolutionary period. My central claim is that Soviet discourse on writers and literature, articulated shortly after the revolution and elaborated during NEP, set a pattern which led to the absorption of writers into a unitary organizational apparatus and which culminated in the formation of the Writer's Union in April 1932. From 1917 to 1928, a clearly-articulated and largely consensual strategy of absorption of Soviet writers into a state-directed stream was spelt out well before Stalin was installed as the privileged speaker of "marxism-leninism."

Recent literary theory has assumed that literary works are reflections of the dominant ideological thought present within culture. This thesis addresses the question of what role the aesthetic nature of a literary work plays in determining its own ideological meaning. Terry Eagleton claims that literature and literary theory have reinforced the dominant political modes of thought, as the aesthetic properties have merely masked this ideological function, and must be disregarded in order to reveal the true ideological nature contained within a work. Deriving his framework from Jaques Lacan, Slavoj Zizek argues that ideology is pervasive through all levels of culture, inseparable from fundamental understanding. He further reveals a divide between the Symbolic order which contains conceptualized understanding in language, and the Real which escapes such definition. Umberto Eco argues that interpretation must remain coherent with the totality of the work in order to avoid overinterpretation, which uses the work as an example of something external to itself. Alan Sinfield argues that literature reveals "faultlines" within a culture, and allows dissident views to engage with dominant ideologies. Mikhail Bakhtin's view of dialogism suggests that any literary expression will contain multiple views or ideologies, including internally persuasive ones which can be contained within aesthetic expression, and external authoritative ones which remain detached from artistic nature. This thesis argues that defining a work of literature as a particular example of an ideological position disregards the aesthetic qualities it possesses and reduces it to an indistinguishable cultural artifact which is used as an example of culture without recognizing the unique experience that it provides as a narrative. Such attempts diminish the continuing possibilities of meaning that a work can generate through its ambiguous nature. Rather, the aesthetic qualities of literature allow it to provide multiple meanings which surpass reduction to a specific ideological position, even as it necessarily possesses ideological content. Final ideological conclusions are deferred, and interpretative freedom is provided for the reader to reach individual conclusions in the aesthetic space beyond Symbolic conceptualized thought which allows a remainder of meaning to escape ideology as a hint of the Real.

"There are many avenues for displaying political agendas, with a prominent one being literature. Through literature, the voices of political parties and ideals can enlighten those in the present, and can even be preserved for centuries to come. [This book] provides a detailed study of how contemporary political messages are portrayed and interpreted via the written word. Featuring relevant coverage on topics such as literary production, women in politics, identity, and travel politics, this publication is an in-depth analysis that is suitable for academicians, students, professionals, and researchers that are interested in discovering more about political messages and their effects on society"--Provided by publisher.

Die ideologiekritische Analyse der israelischen hebräischen Literatur seit 1948 (Palmach-Generation, Generation der 1960er, 1960 bis 1982, seit 1982) bezieht sich vor allem auf die Romane und Erzählungen der progressiven Schriftsteller S. Yizhar, A. B. Yehoshua, Amoz Oz und Amnon Dankner. Zusammenfassend wird festgestellt, daß die Gesellschaftskritik, die in den behandelten Werken zum Ausdruck kommt (insbesondere im Hinblick auf den jüdisch-arabischen Konflikt) fast ausnahmslos systemimmanent bleibt und weder den Zionismus noch den Staat Israel grundsätzlich in Frage stellt. (DÜI-Hns)

Two ideologically divergent schools of thought have emerged in the study of Zambian
literature in English. The first one rooted in imperialist doctrines emerged in the early 1980s
and continues to influence many studies on Zambian literature to this day. The second one
with a clear object of the renaissance of world literatures like that of Zambia is recent.
It begun towards the end of the second decade of the 2000s and challenges the first one.
This paper gives a critical discussion of studies that constitute and mark these two trends.
It is a desktop research that employs the documental analysis informed by the historical
cultural materialism theory. It concludes that the imperialist school of thought overlook
and impoverish our understanding of the wider ideological and political context in which
Zambian literature in English has and is evolving and the world literary scene on which we
encounter it. Then, the renaissance school of thought does not just remedy this ideological
problem but creates an opportunity for us to study Zambian literature in English as a distinct
local realist tradition that is organically developing and in transition.

The L. I. Mandelstam - M. Planck polemics concerning the theory of dispersion (1907-1908) are taken under consideration. Mandelstam attacked Planck's theory published in 1904. Planck reacted by publishing a short reply in 1907. Mandelstam was not satisfied and published a paper where he provided a more detailed calculation (1908). Planck criticized his approach again (1908). Mandelstam published two more papers, but Planck did not react to these publications.From a historical point of view it is interesting that in the Soviet scientific literature, Mandelstam's position was almost unanimously considered to be correct and powerful. The situation changed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russian physicists came to treat Planck's position as the correct one. In this connection, the problem of scientific objectivity arises. The author emphasizes the ideological context of the scientific interpretation of facts. The phenomena of progressivism and introjection are taken under consideration.