Celem artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytanie, jak pisać o mistrzach? Innymi słowy, postawione pytanie dotyczy strategii narracyjnych stosowanych przez autorów piszących o mistrzach. Główna część tekstu oparta jest na pięciu przykładach: (1) John A. Hall Ernest Gellner. An Intellectual Biography (2011), (2) Anita Burdman Feferman, Solomon Feferman Alfred Tarski. Życie i logika (2009), (3) Edmund Leach Lévi-Strauss (1998), (4) Andrzej Walicki Idee i ludzie. Próba autobiografii (2010) oraz (5) Dialogues Romana Jakobsona i Krystyny Pomorskiej. Każdy tekst przedstawia inne zestawy narzędzi i technik retorycznych, relacji autora wobec mistrza oraz cel akademicki. Porównanie tych pięciu przykładów (i mniej rozbudowanych przypadków prezentowanych w artykule) stanowi konkluzję artykułu.
EN
The aim of the paper is to answer the question: how should one write about masters? It is a question about the narrative strategies of authors writing about masters. The presented analysis is based on five examples: (1) John A. Hall’s Ernest Gellner: An Intellectual Biography, (2) Anita Burdman Feferman and Solomon Feferman’s Alfred Tarski: Life and Logic, (3) Edmund Leach’s Lévi-Strauss, (4) Andrzej Walicki’s Idee i ludzie. Próba autobiografii [Ideas and People. An Attempt at an Autobiography], and (5) Dialogues by Roman Jakobson and Krystyna Pomorska. Each text presents different rhetorical devices, authorial relations to the master, and academic aims. The paper concludes with a critical comparison of the five examples (with the addition of some other minor cases also discussed in the paper).
The article is based on three pillars – convictions regarding both the strictly academic world and the highlighted position of comparative literature in modern humanities and social studies, and from a wider perspective, rational coexistence in multicultural, globalized societies. The first pillar is connected with the postmodern presumption that the 21st century will be domain of globalized academic research and theories and truly cosmopolitan societies. The author argues that glocalization is a real perspective for this century. The second pillar is a conviction that comparative literature should expand beyond the academic realm to wider social life. The third pillar is located back in academic practice, and the author argues that comparative studies could and should be a critical meta-theory for all the humanities, for not only globalized but rather glocalized times. Glocalization of comparative discourse could be a good chance to, on the one hand, find our own voice in accordance with tradition, but – on the other hand – could allow us to find our own place in global humanities and social sciences. Thus, even if the social and political context is nowadays favourable to comparative studies, success is possible only in a new version of organic work – at schools, on the Internet, in public debates, etc. – on a planetary scale, beyond any centrism. Glocalization respects the local, but without its fetishization, and does so contemporaneously with consciousness of the other traditions and global scale of interactions. It is true not only in the financial world but also in the realms of cultures.
The main aim of the article is to propose a new version of sociology of literature under the name of ANT-ology of literature. In the first part of the text I sketch a map of modern controversies on status and situation of literature and literary studies in contemporary world. I underline the fact that descriptions of this situation proposed by literary and academic establishment is always critical and that in fact this diagnosis are presented from conservative point of view. Afterward I discuss classical approaches of sociology of literature starting in 19th century till present-day and cultural sociology of literature connected with cultural turn in humanities and social sciences. However, I underline that all those approaches are anthropo- and textocentric. Hence, the crucial is the last part of the article. I argue on the necessity of application of Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory into the literary studies and I describe possible advantages of ANT-ology of literature. If we take seriously into consideration the ideas of human and nonhuman actors, collective instead of society, abandon the “context”, focus on empiric and case studies, and if we will follow the actors, etc., presented version of literary studies will be entirely different – redefined and renewed.
The article consists of three complementary parts and concerns the herstory of one Polish university – Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. The starting point is a book called Niewidzia(l)ne. Kobiety i historia Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, ‘The Unseen Women and history of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń’, edited by Aleksandra Derry, Anna Maria Kola and Wojciech Piasek (planned for release at the end of 2019, preceded by workshops, seminars and archival research). The first part of the text sketches the general framework of the project, the second focuses on one particular case – Zofia Abramowiczówna, while the third part refers to the theme of the whole – the issue of mastery.
PL
Artykuł składa się z trzech dopełniających się części i dotyczy herstorii jednej z polskich uczelni – Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu. Punktem wyjścia jest przygotowywana książka pt. Niewidzia(l)ne. Kobiety i historia Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu pod redakcją Aleksandry Derry, Anny Marii Koli oraz Wojciecha Piaska (planowana do wydania na koniec 2019, poprzedzona zaś warsztatami, seminariami oraz badaniami archiwalnymi). Część pierwsza tekstu szkicuje ogólne ramy projektu, druga – skupia uwagę na jednym szczególnym przypadku – Zofii Abramowiczówny, trzecia zaś część odnosi się do tematu przewodniego całości – kwestii mistrzostwa.