Culturology “In a Draft, Whispered” (To the Anniversary of the “Literary-Centric” Culturology)

Vladimir Martynov
{"title":"Culturology “In a Draft, Whispered” (To the Anniversary of the “Literary-Centric” Culturology)","authors":"Vladimir Martynov","doi":"10.17212/2075-0862-2022-14.3.2-325-350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article reconstructs the framework of S.S. Averintsev’s culturology and outlines the contexts that make this theoretical model especially relevant today. The theory of the three stages of the word state, where, in addition to the poles in the traditional ‘sacred/reflexive (scientific, pluralistic)’ dichotomy is proclaimed an intermediate state, sacral-reflexive, and is interesting not only out of historical curiosity, it has significant heuristic potential. The current relevance of Averintsev’s culturology is ensured by the fact that his model is consistently and fundamentally realistic. A distinctive feature of this variant of culturology is the reliance on literary studies, on the typology of the word of M.M. Bakhtin. But this is culturology, the historical typology of culture, which leads to large-scale generalizations and universal models. In the late 1980s, Averintsev’s typology acquired the status of a historical model of types of rationality. This typology of culture turned out to be a ‘strong’ theory with many not only ontological implications, but also consequences important for epistemology and philosophy of science. Philosophers, art historians, historians and literary critics had reason thirty years ago to consider the challenges of such culturology provocative and nihilistic. It makes revolutionary demands on all humanities disciplines. But at the same time: the whole revolutionary nature of Averintsev’s theory remained precisely in the implications. The theory, which was ‘loud’ by the scale of universal claims, was pronounced in the published texts more than ‘quietly’, almost ‘in a whisper’. Perhaps, this antinomy is fundamental.","PeriodicalId":336825,"journal":{"name":"Ideas and Ideals","volume":" 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ideas and Ideals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17212/2075-0862-2022-14.3.2-325-350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article reconstructs the framework of S.S. Averintsev’s culturology and outlines the contexts that make this theoretical model especially relevant today. The theory of the three stages of the word state, where, in addition to the poles in the traditional ‘sacred/reflexive (scientific, pluralistic)’ dichotomy is proclaimed an intermediate state, sacral-reflexive, and is interesting not only out of historical curiosity, it has significant heuristic potential. The current relevance of Averintsev’s culturology is ensured by the fact that his model is consistently and fundamentally realistic. A distinctive feature of this variant of culturology is the reliance on literary studies, on the typology of the word of M.M. Bakhtin. But this is culturology, the historical typology of culture, which leads to large-scale generalizations and universal models. In the late 1980s, Averintsev’s typology acquired the status of a historical model of types of rationality. This typology of culture turned out to be a ‘strong’ theory with many not only ontological implications, but also consequences important for epistemology and philosophy of science. Philosophers, art historians, historians and literary critics had reason thirty years ago to consider the challenges of such culturology provocative and nihilistic. It makes revolutionary demands on all humanities disciplines. But at the same time: the whole revolutionary nature of Averintsev’s theory remained precisely in the implications. The theory, which was ‘loud’ by the scale of universal claims, was pronounced in the published texts more than ‘quietly’, almost ‘in a whisper’. Perhaps, this antinomy is fundamental.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“草案中,低语”的文化学(致“以文学为中心”的文化学周年纪念)
本文重建了S.S.阿维林采夫的文化学框架,并概述了使这一理论模型在今天特别相关的背景。除了传统的“神圣/反身性(科学的、多元的)”二分法中的两极之外,这个词状态的三个阶段理论被宣布为一个中间状态,神圣-反身性,它不仅出于历史的好奇心而有趣,而且具有重要的启发式潜力。阿维林采夫的文化学之所以具有当前的意义,是因为他的模型始终是基本现实的。这种变体的文化学的一个显著特征是依赖文学研究,依赖巴赫金的词的类型学。但这是文化学,文化的历史类型学,它导致了大规模的概括和普遍模式。在20世纪80年代末,阿维林采夫的类型学获得了理性类型的历史模型的地位。这种文化类型学被证明是一种“强有力的”理论,不仅具有许多本体论含义,而且对认识论和科学哲学也有重要的影响。30年前,哲学家、艺术史学家、历史学家和文学评论家都有理由认为这种文化挑战具有煽动性和虚无主义。它对所有人文学科都提出了革命性的要求。但与此同时,阿维林采夫理论的全部革命性质仍然在其隐含意义中。这个理论被普遍认为是“响亮的”,在出版的文献中,它的发音比“安静”得多,几乎是“耳语”。也许,这种矛盾是根本的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Problems of Innovative Activity Development of the Novosibirsk Region Important Contribution to the Coverage of National Income Statistics and the Economic History of Pre-Revolutionary Russia and the USSR How the Existent and the Deontic Meet Cinema as a “Soft Power” Instrument of the State: Examples of Spanish and U.S. Cinematography Some Problems with Artificial Intelligence Ethics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1