Wednesday, 30 June 2021

RUSSIAN FORMALISM

 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We5gheHWB4s&t=18s

          Russian formalism is the critical practice of strict adherence to prescribed forms as in religion and giving attention to arrangement, style and artistic means, free from its background, period and even the author.  So, to the formalists, the literary study should deal not with the author, the reader or the historical context but with the specific text at hand.  It emerged in Russia and Poland in 1910s.  The Moscow linguistic circle and the society for the study of poetic language (opojaz) reacted against the methods of literary theories of, 19th and early 20th century.  Formalists viewed literature as a distinct and separate entity, unconnected to historical or social causes or effects.  They gave greater importance to metaphor and other linguistic devices.  So, they can be said to be the fore runners of structuralists.

          The important formalists are Roman Jacobson, Viktor Shklovsky and Boris Eikhenbaum.  In 1921 Jacobson declared that ‘literariness’ that makes given work, a literary work.  Literature is really ‘foregrounding the utterances’, a feature that distinguishes literature from other human creations, which is made of certain artistic techniques or devices employed in literary works such as metaphor, rhyme and other patterns of sound and repetition.  The sum total of all the stylistic devices employed in it is to be taken into account.  Actually, these devices became the primary object of the formalist analysis.  It is to focus on ‘form’ of literary work and not on the content.  To the formalists the form is device and the content is material.

          Boris Eikhenbaum in his ‘Theory of formal Method’, (1926) surveys formalists’ history and their central theoretical concepts, he emphasizes Viktor Shklovsky’s role as the intellectual leader of the formalist movement and his most influential concept ‘defamiliarization’.  Defamiliarization is one of the important devices of the formalists.  According to Victor Shklovsky (1893-1984) defamiliarization is a typical device of all literature and art that presents a familiar phenomenon in an uncommon fashion for the purpose of renewed and prolonged aesthetic perception.  It is a literary device where ordinary and familiar objects are made to look different.  The Russian formalists believed that how something is said is more important than what is said.  No doubt, this concept has influenced the post modernism and epic theatre later in the 20th century.  Shklovsky illustrates defamiliarization through Tolstoy’s ‘Kholstomer’, where the story is narrated by a horse at its point of view.  Thus the content of the story becomes unfamiliar.  The purpose of defamiliarization is making the reader question their perception of reality and as a result ultimately redefine it.  It helps them to see the strange aspects in the familiar and the unusual in the ordinary things of life.

          However, in 1920s, due to the Stalinist pressure the Russian Formalists had to accept the notions of literary evolution. Literary change and evolution was explained by them that the modifications of literary tradition, the development of art forms are all related to the aspects of culture, which brought gradual shifts in the laws of literary process.  Thus formalists skillfully examined the notion of literary history and pointed out the mechanics of continuity in the development of literature.  But the Russian Formalists were attacked by Russian Marxists, who saw literature as an integral, not a separate part of social forces.  So, by 1930, the formalist in Russia had been silenced. Though the formalists talked about the aesthetic function of poetic language and had a detailed study of sound and its role in poetry, their emphasis on form at the expense of thematic content was not well received after the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Moreover the Russian Formalism could not survive because of its neglecting the social world with which the human beings who wrote and read literature were brought up. So the Russian  formalism had to get absorbed in other systems of thought and lost its identity as a separate literary movement.


----Thulasidharan V

No comments:

Post a Comment