{"title":"Literary theory between contingency and contiguity: Yakov Druskin’s “Law of Heterogeneity”","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11059-024-00728-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>The notion of chance epitomizes the limits and challenges of any theory’s struggle for control over itself as well as over its objects. Although contemporary literary theory has adapted its terminology and conceptual framework in line with the emergence of dynamic, “open forms” (Wölfflin in Principles of art history: The problem of the development of style in later art, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 1986), chance has nevertheless remained a highly problematic category to come to terms with. How can literary theory embrace chance? The paper approaches this question in three steps. First, it reconstructs three basic poetological propositions against whose backdrop contingency gains profile: the proposition of causal connections as a means to transform literature into a realm of necessity, the proposition of form as means to reduce arbitrariness, and the proposition of control as a means to protect the aesthetic object against the risks of external intrusions. The second part of the paper discusses a largely forgotten but highly relevant approach to the problem of contingency by Yakov Druskin. Druskin links the function of contingency in theoretical investigation with concepts of contiguity and proximity, first of all touch. His fragmentary sketch of a “law of heterogeneity” represents a paradoxical attempt to theorize contingent obstruction as a privileged systematic device to establish physical contact. The third part of this paper unpacks the implicit urge to rethink the traditions of theory formation itself through the “law of heterogeneity.” It argues that Druskin’s law introduces a different type of theory, one which is deeply indebted to the tactile, thus challenging the ocularcentrism of <em>theoría</em>.</p>","PeriodicalId":54002,"journal":{"name":"NEOHELICON","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEOHELICON","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-024-00728-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The notion of chance epitomizes the limits and challenges of any theory’s struggle for control over itself as well as over its objects. Although contemporary literary theory has adapted its terminology and conceptual framework in line with the emergence of dynamic, “open forms” (Wölfflin in Principles of art history: The problem of the development of style in later art, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 1986), chance has nevertheless remained a highly problematic category to come to terms with. How can literary theory embrace chance? The paper approaches this question in three steps. First, it reconstructs three basic poetological propositions against whose backdrop contingency gains profile: the proposition of causal connections as a means to transform literature into a realm of necessity, the proposition of form as means to reduce arbitrariness, and the proposition of control as a means to protect the aesthetic object against the risks of external intrusions. The second part of the paper discusses a largely forgotten but highly relevant approach to the problem of contingency by Yakov Druskin. Druskin links the function of contingency in theoretical investigation with concepts of contiguity and proximity, first of all touch. His fragmentary sketch of a “law of heterogeneity” represents a paradoxical attempt to theorize contingent obstruction as a privileged systematic device to establish physical contact. The third part of this paper unpacks the implicit urge to rethink the traditions of theory formation itself through the “law of heterogeneity.” It argues that Druskin’s law introduces a different type of theory, one which is deeply indebted to the tactile, thus challenging the ocularcentrism of theoría.
摘要 偶然性的概念体现了任何理论为控制自身及其对象而斗争的局限性和挑战性。尽管当代文学理论已根据动态 "开放形式 "的出现调整了其术语和概念框架（Wölfflin 在《艺术史原理》中的论述：沃尔夫林在《艺术史原理：后期艺术风格的发展问题》（The Principles of Art History: The problem of the development of style in later art, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 1986）一书中指出，尽管如此，偶然性仍然是一个极具争议的范畴。文学理论如何拥抱偶然性？本文分三步探讨这一问题。首先，本文重构了三个基本的诗学命题，在这些命题的背景下，偶然性得到了凸显：因果联系命题是将文学转化为必然性领域的手段，形式命题是减少随意性的手段，控制命题是保护审美对象免受外部入侵风险的手段。论文的第二部分讨论了雅科夫-德鲁斯金（Yakov Druskin）在偶然性问题上提出的一种虽已被人们遗忘但却极具现实意义的方法。德鲁斯金将或然性在理论研究中的作用与毗连性和邻近性的概念联系起来，首先是触觉。他对 "异质性法则 "的零散勾勒，是一种自相矛盾的尝试，即把偶然性阻碍理论化，作为建立身体接触的特权系统装置。本文第三部分解读了通过 "异质性法则 "重新思考理论形成传统本身的隐含冲动。本文认为，德鲁斯金定律引入了一种不同类型的理论，这种理论深深地依赖于触觉，从而挑战了理论的视觉中心主义。
期刊介绍：
Neohelicon welcomes studies on all aspects of comparative and world literature, critical theory and practice. In the discussion of literary historical topics (including literary movements, epochs, or regions), analytical contributions based on a solidly-anchored methodology are preferred.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
