Search results

1

Poezie jako hlavolam: Saussure o anagramu

100%

Koblížek T.

Svět literatury – Časopis pro novodobé literatury (World of Literature – Journal for Modern Literatures)

|

2015

|

vol. 52

199-205

EN

The text provides a commentary regarding Ferdinand de Saussure‘s research in anagrammatic poetry. The author first describes three phases of Saussure’s research (1906–1907, 1907–1908, 1908–1909) and explains various changes in his approach. Secondly, the author introduces the main tendencies in reception of Saussure’s “anagrammatic work” (Tel Quel, linguistics, psychoanalysis). Finally, a comparison is drawn between Saussure’s analysis of anagrams and his Course in General Linguistics.

2

Strukturalistická stopa Olgy Srbové

100%

Stehlíková E.

Theatralia: Revue současného myšlení o divadelní kultuře (Theatralia: The revue of contemporary thought on theatre culture)

|

2016

|

vol. 19

|

issue 1

181-200

EN

The name of Olga Srbová (16. 7. 1914–14. 4. 1987) has almost fallen into oblivion, as she stopped to use her maiden surname after she entered into marriage with actor Jaromír Spal, being known as Olga Spalová since then. Therefore, she is mostly known for her later, post-war engagement in radio; but the first stop in her career, and her life’s love, was theatre. Olga Srbová started her university studies in 1933, receiving Ph.D. degree from Czech and French Language and Literature at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in 1937 (dissertation: “The Characteristics of the new Czech historical novel”). Among her teachers were, according to her student’s record book, J. Mukařovský, A. Pražák, F. X. Šalda, M. Weingart, V. Tille and others. Firstly, she thought of devoting herself to theatre theory; while only a few theoretical studies can be found in the scope of her works, they nevertheless testify that Srbová mastered the methods of her teachers with skill and understanding: “The Character in New Drama” (Word and Verbal Art 3 (1937): 4: 221–226) contributes to the changes of the concept of a character in the contemporary theatre; in the “Authorial Stage Directions” (Life 15 (1937): 3–4: 98) she explores the influence of the contemporary stage practice on the nature of stage directions. As many others of her generation she admired the new media – film and radio; to the latter she devoted a booklet Radio and Verbal Art (Praha: Vyšehrad, 1941), even now valued as one of the most important works of the time. Until 1946 she wrote mostly theatre reviews, having started publishing in the renowned Students’ Journal in 1927. There she published her first poems and short stories, and in a short time (from 1930 on) also essays on theatre and theatre reviews. She published in other periodicals too (in more than 30 between 1931 and 1976), the height of her career as a critic being the cooperation with the daily newspaper Práce (after 1945). Being well versed in the whole of the contemporary theatre, both Czech and European one, she could comment with equal expertise on drama, stage speech, verse speaking, character building, direction, set design, actors training, and theatre theory. However, the most interested she was in actors’ work; the indisputable top of her attempts at portraying actor is the Theatre or the Book of Dreams (Praha: Odeon, 1975), the story of the actor’s career of Eduard Kohout.

3

Od strukturalismu k nové naratologii

100%

Sládek O.

Theatralia: Revue současného myšlení o divadelní kultuře (Theatralia: The revue of contemporary thought on theatre culture)

|

2014

|

vol. 17

|

issue 1

279-285

EN

The present study briefly outlines the history of narratology from its beginnings in France in the 1960s to the present. It presents basic theoretical and methodological starting points used in a narratological research of narration, the most important theoretical concepts and directions and their representatives. It is divided into three parts, in which the author deals with three stages of development of this discipline in detail. The first stage represents the "classical narratology" substantially shaped by Structuralism. The second stage corresponds with the development of the "post-classical narratologies" (comparative, applied, ethnic narratologies). The third stage, the "new narratology", strives to return to the Structuralist beginnings of the field, though it focuses more closely on the study of context and analysis of the anthropological sources of narration.

4

Václav Černý a strukturalismus

100%

Pelán J.

Svět literatury – Časopis pro novodobé literatury (World of Literature – Journal for Modern Literatures)

|

2017

|

vol. 55

22-45

EN

The essay mentions Černý’s hostile relationship to Jan Mukařovský, sums up its causes, and recapitulates the texts in which Černý comments on Mukařovský’s works and on structuralism in general. On the basis of these texts, the author concludes that Černý’s contributions on the topic of “structuralism” betray an a-priori polemic bias and show that his reading of structuralist works was slightly superficial. However, these texts should not be interpreted purely as an expression of personal antipathy. Černý’s critique of structuralism points out its resignation on value judgement. According to Černý, this lack leads to the inability of structuralism to turn to criticism or literary history. The author analyzes Černý’s understanding of these two disciplines, and tries to point out the deeper causes of the polemics. The core of the dispute still seems valid today.

5

Od propozic k systému? aneb „Historisovati“ Jiřího Veltruského...

100%

Drozd D.

Theatralia: Revue současného myšlení o divadelní kultuře (Theatralia: The revue of contemporary thought on theatre culture)

|

2016

|

vol. 19

|

issue 1

86-128

EN

Based on careful study of archival materials the study presents the research, newspaper writing and political activities of Jiří Veltruský, covering especially the years of his studies at university and after the WWII. The author pinpoints, for example, Veltruský’s theatre activities with secondary-school students in the Avant-Garde Theatre Group of the Youth, his political engagement, and close relations to Záviš Kalandra and Karel Teige, and the Surrealists. The gist of the study represents an analysis of as yet unpublished introductory paragraphs of the renowned lecture by Veltruský, published as ‘Dramatický text jako součást divadla’ (Dramatic text as a Component of Theatre, 1941), which include a relevant polemic discussion with the previous structural theatre theories (esp. the ones by Honzl and Bogatyrev). The author of the study, therefore, suggests a reinterpretation of the decade between 1930 and 1940 when the interest of Prague Structuralists in theatre theory culminated as a period of negotiating and re-thinking the structuralist ideas over theatre performance. The historical circumstances, especially Veltruský’s emigration to Paris in 1948, then prevented a satisfactory conclusion of the discussions and caused petrification of texts which may not have originally been meant to become a canon.

6

Structuralism in social science : obsolete or promising?

100%

Menšík J.

Teorie vědy (Theory of Science)

|

2018

|

vol. 40

|

issue 2

133-156

EN

Th e approach of structuralism came to philosophy from social science. It was also in social science where, in 1950–1970s, in the form of the French structuralism, the approach gained its widest recognition. Since then, however, the approach fell out of favour in social science. Recently, structuralism is gaining currency in the philosophy of mathematics. Aft er ascertai ning that the two structuralisms indeed share a common core, the question stands whether general structuralism could not fi nd its way back into social science. Th e nature of the major objections raised against French structuralism – concerning its alleged ahistoricism, methodological holism and universalism – are reconsidered. While admittedly grounded as far as French structuralism is concerned, these objections do not aff ect general structuralism as such. Th e fate of French structuralism thus does not seem to preclude the return of general structuralism into social science, rather, it provides some hints where the diffi culties may lie.

CS

Strukturalismus přišel do fi losofi e ze společenských věd. Byly to také společenské vědy kde, v letech 1950–1970 v podobě Francouzského strukturalismu, získal strukturalismus nejširší uznání. Od té doby však jeho popularita ve společenských vědách opadla. V nedávné době však začal strukturalismus nabývat na popularitě ve fi losofi i matematiky. Ukazuje se, že tyto dvě formy strukturalismu mají na obecné úrovni mnoho společného. Otázkou pak je, zda neexistuje možnost, aby se obecně chápaný strukturalismus navrátil do společenských věd. Hlavní námitky proti Francouzskému strukturalismu – jeho ahistorismus, metodologický holismus a universalismus – jsou opětovně uváženy. Ačkoliv jsou námitky relevantní, pokud jde o Francouzský strukturalismus, nejedná se o námitky proti obecnému strukturalismu jako takovému. Osud Francouzského strukturalismu se tak nezdá být překážkou pro případný návrat obecného strukturalismu do společenských věd, spíše poskytuje postřehy, kde by se mohly vyskytnout největší obtíže.

7

Vladislav Vančura mezi Janem Mukařovským a Lubomírem Doleželem

100%

Fořt B.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2021

|

vol. 69

|

issue 5

635-644

EN

The work of Vladislav Vančura has attracted the attention of literary theorists from the very beginning. Among other attempts to get a theoretical grip, those offered by Jan Mukařovský and Lubomír Doležel provide us with two different but methodologically connected approaches to the author’s work. These represent two phases of Czech structuralist thought about literature. This study critically compares both approaches and highlights their similarities and dissimilarities.

8

Ve jménu přátelství: Jan Mukařovský o Vladislavu Vančurovi

100%

Sládek O.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2021

|

vol. 69

|

issue 5

606-621

EN

This study describes the origin and development of the friendship between the literary scholar Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and the writer Vladislav Vančura (1891–1942). Mukařovský’s interpretations of Vančura’s literary works are the main focus of the study. Both Mukařovský’s published works and texts that were never published (e.g. university lectures) are analysed. On the basis of archival research, the author of the study proves that Mukařovský analysed Vančura’s work much earlier than he published his first-ever work on Vančura in 1934. In the course of the 1940s to 1960s, Mukařovský published many texts on Vančura in which he remembered Vančura as a friend, poet, Communist and anti-fascist activist.

9

Naše živá i mrtvá minulost po padesáti letech : (Imprese nad osmi eseji z roku 1967)

80%

Čornej P.

Český časopis historický (The Czech Historical Review)

|

2018

|

vol. 116

|

issue 2

402-425

EN

This study was written for the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Naše živá i mrtvá minulost/Our Living and Dead Past (Praha, Svoboda 1968), which was instigated by then leading historian František Graus, and in which eight key essays on core problems of Czech history were published, mainly written by younger talented researchers. The study combines a reader witness approach and an analysis of the wider context of the book’s publication which in many regards (its criticism of dogmatic Marxism and its erosion of the traditional picture of Czech history) is one of Czech historiography’s milestones. It characterises and assesses all eight papers (with particular focus on Graus’s introductory essay), looks at its reception at the time, which was not wholly positive, and endeavours to answer the question of whether the team of authors’ work fulfilled the tasks it had set itself.

10

Poetika a estetika českého strukturalismu v pojetí Herty Schmidové

80%

Jankovič M.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2012

|

vol. 60

|

issue 5

737-754

EN

3_The final study defends references to the specific nature of the work of art, as found e.g. in Czech structuralism, against levelling tendencies in present-day culturology. Works of art and their interpretation may effectively contend with conventional stereotypes that impoverish man and his culture.

11

Theorie-Kulturen. Ein Erfahrungsbericht

80%

Weinberg M.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

|

2015

|

vol. 12

|

issue 24

15-24

EN

From the biographical perspective of a scholar of German studies with positions formerly at the German universities of Bonn and Constance and now Charles University in Prague, the article describes the discussions about theory and literary studies since the 1980s. It focuses primarily on exchange processes among various (theoretical) cultures and at the end examines the reasons why certain obvious theory transfers had not taken place.

CS

Článek popisuje z životopisného stanoviska germanisty s dřívějším působištěm v Německu (Bonn a Kostnice) a nyní na Karlově univerzitě diskuze o literární vědě a teorii, jež se v germanistice vedly od osmdesátých let. Hlavním tématem jsou směnné procesy mezi různými kulturami (teorie). Na závěr zkoumá důvody, proč k některým nabízejícím se přenosům teorie naopak nedošlo.

12

"Zaměstnání knihovníka se pro vás najde" : korespondenční výměna mezi Ladislavem Štollem a Olegem Susem

80%

Josefovičová M., Andreas P.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2018

|

vol. 66

|

issue 4

527-534

13

O vědě, ideologii a strukturalismu

80%

Hana Š.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

|

2015

|

vol. 12

|

issue 23

105-114

EN

The paper starts from a consideration of two variant critiques of structuralism: in 1935, Marxistoriented historians polemicized with Mukařovský’s concept of the development of literature; in 1951, Mukařovský himself presented a critique based in the ideology of the totalitarian regime. A comparison between the state of the scholarly debate in the 1930s and the latter event allows us to develop some more general characteristics of the ingerence of power ideology into scientific discourse and its paradigm. The focus of our inquiry is the question as to what allowed Mukařovský to perform this radical turn and adopt an ideological doctrine. What we find is that a link between the topics pursued in our argument — i.e. between the structuralist theory, an ideology in the service of power and the deformation of the scholarly paradigm — is provided by the position of the individual in history, in both artistic and social discourse. The gist of the matter is that with the weakening or even elimination of the individual’s role disappears the ethical dimension of the human relating to the world, disappears individual responsibility as an essential, irreducible part of one’s identity.

14

Miroslav Kouřil a jeho cesta ke strukturalismu jako metodě i programu

80%

Havlíčková Kysová Š.

Theatralia: Revue současného myšlení o divadelní kultuře (Theatralia: The revue of contemporary thought on theatre culture)

|

2016

|

vol. 19

|

issue 1

144-158

EN

The study explores theoretical works and managing activities of Czech set-designer Miroslav Kouřil (1911–1984). First part is devoted to two crucial periods in Kouřil’s professional life: his career of a stage designer, and the following involvement in theoretical reception of theatre and practical organization of theatre life in the then Czechoslovakia. In the second part, attention is drawn to Kouřil’s presidency over the Czech Scenographic Institute, and to the project of the Encyclopaedia of the Set Design managed by him. In the third part, the author concerns with Kouřil’s theoretical works, especially the way in which he used structuralist methodology to analyse theatre productions.

15

Dva základní analytické koncepty strukturalistického myšlení

80%

Müller R.

Svět literatury – Časopis pro novodobé literatury (World of Literature – Journal for Modern Literatures)

|

2015

|

vol. 51

146-155

EN

Both texts present a systematic survey of two elementary analytical categories of Structuralist thought — binarity and opposition, especially in their semionarratological implications. In “Binarity”, one structuralist version of binary analysis is described as a decomposition “of the continuum of the observed world along universal relational axes constituting logical oppositions (contradictions). An inventory of elementary binary oppositions is established, which form a paradigmatic matrix of the observed area and structure is as a relational system or network”. Within this method an apriori aspect can be sometimes distinguished when an elementary binary logical structure is assumed as a universal principle underlying the multiplicity of observable phenomena. According to another, yet different conception, used in the context of artificial linguistic simulations and computing, binarity is understood as a principle of reversible de/composition of code based on two elementary signals or elements (formalized, for instance, as +/- or 0/1), which makes further combinatorial descriptions and operations of the system possible. The genesis of binary method, beginning with G. W. Leibniz’s binary code on one hand and Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics on the other, is followed, including Trubetzkoy’s and Jakobson’s phonology, Claude Lévi-Strauss’s ethnology, Greimas’s structural semantics and ending with the fundamental critique of binarism formulated by Jacques Derrida through his notion of différance and his descriptions of temporalization of structure. In “Opposition”, Trubetzkoy’s non-binary oppositions (gradual, equipollent, isolated, ternary, n-ary oppositions) within phonology, Greimas’s semiotic square (two types of binary oppositions: contradiction, contrariety or Mukařovský’s notions of dynamic antinomies within functionalstructuralist aesthetics are further taken into account.

16

Pojetí významu u Ingardena a Mukařovského: Vliv, inspirace, či autonomní cesty?

80%

Bílek P. A.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

|

2019

|

vol. 16

|

issue 32

163-175

EN

Concepts associated with the Structuralism of the Prague School are usually considered to respond to trends in continental philology, philosophy, and aesthetics of the 1920s and 1930s. The phenomenology of Roman Ingarden is thus viewed as a key source of inspiration for the concept of ‘concretization’ coined by Felix Vodička, a concept which would become one of the key terms of literary history. This article focuses on a less explored issue concerning the notion of meaning developed by Ingarden in his Das literarische Kunstwerk and its potential influence on the idea of meaning developed by Jan Mukařovský during the 1930s. The comparison highlights an important difference between the two concepts of meaning. While Ingarden focuses on the heterogeneity of elements involved in the production of meaning, Mukařovský aims rather at developing a universal notion of meaning as a synthetic process that operates the same way on all levels of the literary text. In this case, the author tends to consider the notion of meaning only in vague and general terms, illustrating the production of meaning at the micro level and then claiming that the same processes can be found at all higher levels.

17

První debata o arbitrárnosti jazykového znaku

80%

Krásová E.

Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)

|

2016

|

vol. 77

|

issue 1

23-46

EN

The article examines the debate on the arbitrariness of linguistic sign, which took place between 1939–1949, mostly in Acta linguistica in Copenhagen, and was provoked by Émile Benveniste’s article “The nature of the linguistic sign” (1939). I deal with Benveniste’s three main statements: (1) that the thesis of the arbitrariness of linguistic sign is in contradiction with the formality of language, (2) that the relationship between signifiant and signifié is in fact necessary, and (3) the consequences of the latter for the radical relativity of linguistic values. These three positions are contextualized and examined in the frame of the Copenhagen School’s conception of linguistics and its place among other sciences. I then observe how the problem was formulated by Benveniste’s predecessors E. Pichon and J. Damourette and examine the debate occurring after the publication of Benveniste’s article, which, in addition to the editors of the Course in General Linguistics, included E. Lerch, A. Gardiner. E. Buyssens, N. Ege and A. Martinet. Their positions and criticisms are summarized and evaluated in the scope of the contemporary state of research based on the manuscript sources for the Course.

18

Strukturalisté dělají marxismus

80%

Kanda R.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2019

|

vol. 67

|

issue 5

711-736

EN

The author of this study deals with the transition made by Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and Felix Vodička (1909–1974) from structuralism to Marxism and the forms of both theorists' postwar and post-1948 thinking. It comes out against those expository stratagems that only perceive this issue to be a result of the post-1948 "ideologization" of literary studies, or that trivialize the entire issue as an expression of "tactic-playing" at that time. The author of this study counters these expositions with the imperative of the historicization of theory, i.e. in this study Marxism is understood to be a scholarly standpoint that did not lose its legitimacy (legitimacy is defined in this study as the outcome of a historically conditioned social process, and not as a normative category), while special attention is also paid to the semantics of the term "Marxism-Leninism". In the case of Jan Mukařovský, the theoretical preconditions for acceptance of Marxism may approximately indicate the mid-1940s (1943–1945 to be precise), when the theorist first begins to deal with the issues surrounding the genesis of the work, the world view and the relationship between the individual and literary development. The assumption that literature is not a prime mover of the "noetic base" and that in this respect a more crucial element is the production process, opens up the way to a basic reevaluation of the structuralist approach and its abandonment. After 1948 Mukařovský follows the role of an individual based on the example of Božena Němcová, but he did not treat the issue systematically on a Marxist basis. After 1948 the literary historian Felix Vodička abandons the structuralist idea of a creative individual as the bearer of literary trends – and in his post-1948 studies he reflects the "will" of the individual and the social conditions for creation. This leads to a transformation in his analysis, which primarily takes account of the topical and thematic sphere to the detriment of the structural ("formal" or stylistic) elements in the work. This also leads to a transformation in the understanding of literature: the originally dominant aesthetic function is superseded by the cognitive and social-critical function. Vodička's Marxist reformulation of literary history culminates in what is known as role theory. However, this suffered from rigid teleologism, which manifested itself inter alia in the evaluation of literature from the standpoint of ex post fabricated "objectives" to be "accomplished". In spite of the theoretical limits of literary-studies Marxism as conceived by Mukařovský and Vodička, this is an example of a new formulation of literary-studies knowledge and literature.

CS

Autor studie se zabývá teoretickými předpoklady přechodu Jana Mukařovského (1891–1975) a Felixe Vodičky (1909–1974) od strukturalismu k marxismu a podobami poválečného – i poúnorového – uvažování obou teoretiků. Vymezuje se vůči těm výkladovým strategiím, které sledovanou problematiku vnímají pouze jako důsledek poúnorové „ideologizace“ literární vědy, případně celou problematiku bagatelizují jako výraz dobového „taktizování“. Proti těmto výkladům staví autor studie imperativ historizace teorie. To znamená, že ve studii je marxismus chápán jako vědecký názor, který nepostrádal svou legitimitu (legitimita je ve studii definována jako výsledek historicky podmíněného společenského procesu, nikoli jako normativní kategorie). Zvláštní pozornost je přitom věnována také sémantice pojmu „marxismus-leninismus“. V případě Jana Mukařovského lze teoretické předpoklady přijetí marxismu zaznamenat zhruba v polovině čtyřicátých let (přesně 1943–1945), kdy se teoretik začíná zabývat otázkami geneze díla, světonázoru a vztahu individua a literárního vývoje. Předpoklad, že literatura není prvotním hybatelem „noetické základny“ a že důsažnější je v tomto ohledu výrobní proces, otevírá dveře zásadnímu přehodnocení strukturalistického přístupu, resp. jeho opuštění. Po roce 1948 Mukařovský sleduje úlohu individua na příkladu Boženy Němcové, nicméně problém na marxistickém základě soustavně nepropracoval. Literární historik Felix Vodička po roce 1948 opouští strukturalistickou představu tvůrčího individua jakožto nositele literárních tendencí – ve svých poúnorových studiích zohledňuje „vůli“ individua i společenské podmínky tvorby. To vede k proměně analýzy, která si všímá především námětové a tematické oblasti na úkor strukturních („formálních“ či stylistických) prvků díla. Vede to i k proměně chápání literatury: původně dominantní estetická funkce je nahrazena funkcí poznávací a sociálněkritickou. Vodičkova marxistická reformulace literární historie vrcholí v tzv. teorii úkolů. Ta ovšem trpěla rigidním teleologismem, projevujícím se mj. tím, že docházelo k hodnocení literatury z hlediska ex post konstruovaných „cílů“, které měla „naplnit“. Navzdory teoretickým limitům literárněvědného marxismu v pojetí Mukařovského a Vodičky, jedná se o příklad nové formulace literárněvědného poznání a literatury.

19

Informační moment v literární teorii a české experimentální poezii 60. let

71%

Müller R.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

|

2020

|

vol. 17

|

issue 1

100-127

EN

This study aims to reconstruct the impact of information theory (and cybernetics) on literary theory (semiotics) during the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the directions in which the same paradigm came to inspire 1960s Czech experimental poetry. Given the limitations of information theory vis-à-vis some crucial questions of communication, what was the foundation of this inspiration? The first part of the study concentrates on various important modifications of the paradigm in the context of information aesthetics (Max Bense), information poetics (Umberto Eco) and structuralist literary theory (Miroslav Červenka). The second part explores the position of the ‘information’ current within the context of 1960s Czech experimental poetry, including its avant-garde antecedents. The third part focuses on the experimental texts of Zdeněk Barborka, whose work is notable for being situated at the crossroads of several different tendencies. Finally, the study raises the question concerning the deeper implications of the ‘information moment’, with the suggestion that they might be found in the context of the development of media (communication) technologies as well as the genealogy of the media discourse, which emerges at this ‘moment’ from its prehistory to enter into its actual historical phase.

20

K estetickému myšlení Roberta Kalivody : Kapitola z archeologie českého marxismu

71%

Kanda R.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2014

|

vol. 62

|

issue 4

527-548

EN

Using the method of archeological description and inspired by the ideas of Michel Foucault, the author of this study presents the aestethics thinking of Marxist theorist Robert Kalivoda (1923-1989). This study focuses particularly on an analysis of Kalivoda´s text „Dialektika strukturalismu a dialektika estetiky“ – „The dialectic of structuralism and the dialectic of aesthetics“, which makes up the first part of his book „Moderní duchovní skutečnost a marxismus“ – „Modern intellectual reality and Marxism“ (1968). Together with Karel Kosík and Ivan Sviták, Robert Kalivoda belonged to a generational group of Marxist philosophers who from the latter half of the 1950s endeavoured to open up Marxism to critical stimuli as well as to other non-Marxist methodologies over the course of time. Kalivoda´s aesthetic thinking developer at the crossroads of two discourses: Marxist and structuralist. Using structuralism Kalivoda criticizes the Hegelian foundation of Marxist aesthetics and the principle of „reflective reading“ – while stressing the semiotic nature of the artistic work. On the other hand Kalivoda also uses Marxism as an instrument for criticizing structuralism wherever he believes that Jan Mukařovský diverges from a radically formalistic standpoint and espouses phenomenological inspiration in an undesirable manner. Kalivoda was not attempting a historical reconstruction of the theoretical development of structuralism, but he was presenting his own interpretation of this scholalry view. Kalivoda´s efforts were motivated by the philosophical aim of destroying metaphysics and creating a post-metaphysical dialectical theory. This study attempts to set Kalivoda´s aesthetic thought in context inter alia by means of short comparisons with 1960s structuralist thinking, particularly with the ideas of Květoslav Chvatík and Milan Jankovič.

CS

Autor studie metodou archeologické deskripce, inspirované koncepcí Michela Foucaulta, přibližuje estetické myšlení marxistického teoretika Roberta Kalivody (1923−1989). Studie se soustředí zvláště na analýzu Kalivodova textu „Dialektika strukturalismu a dialektika estetiky“, který tvoří první část jeho knihy Moderní duchovní skutečnost a marxismus (1968). Kalivoda patřil spolu s Karlem Kosíkem či Ivanem Svitákem ke generační skupině marxistických filozofů, kteří od druhé poloviny 50. let usilovali o otevření marxismu kritickým podnětům a postupně také jiným, nemarxistickým metodologiím. Estetické uvažování R. Kalivody se rozvíjelo na křižovatce dvou diskurzů: marxistického a strukturalistického. Prostřednictvím strukturalismu Kalivoda kritizuje hegelovské založení marxistické estetiky a princip „odrazového čtení“ − zdůrazňuje znakovou povahu uměleckého díla. Z druhé strany marxismus slouží Kalivodovi jako nástroj kritiky strukturalismu tam, kde se podle Kalivody koncepce Jana Mukařovského odklání od radikálně formalistického hlediska a přimyká se – nežádoucím směrem − k inspiracím fenomenologickým. Kalivoda neusiloval o historickou rekonstrukci teoretického vývoje strukturalismu, nýbrž předložil vlastní interpretaci tohoto vědeckého názoru. Kalivodovo úsilí bylo neseno filozofickým záměrem destrukce metafyziky a vytvoření postmetafyzické dialektické teorie. Studie se snaží Kalivodovo estetické myšlení zařadit do kontextu mimo jiné pomocí krátkých komparací s dobovým strukturalistickým myšlením 60. let, konkrétně s pojetími Květoslava Chvatíka a Milana Jankoviče.

Refine search results

Poezie jako hlavolam: Saussure o anagramu

Strukturalistická stopa Olgy Srbové

Od strukturalismu k nové naratologii

Václav Černý a strukturalismus

Od propozic k systému? aneb „Historisovati“ Jiřího Veltruského...

Structuralism in social science : obsolete or promising?

Vladislav Vančura mezi Janem Mukařovským a Lubomírem Doleželem

Ve jménu přátelství: Jan Mukařovský o Vladislavu Vančurovi

Naše živá i mrtvá minulost po padesáti letech : (Imprese nad osmi eseji z roku 1967)

Poetika a estetika českého strukturalismu v pojetí Herty Schmidové

Theorie-Kulturen. Ein Erfahrungsbericht

"Zaměstnání knihovníka se pro vás najde" : korespondenční výměna mezi Ladislavem Štollem a Olegem Susem

O vědě, ideologii a strukturalismu

Miroslav Kouřil a jeho cesta ke strukturalismu jako metodě i programu

Dva základní analytické koncepty strukturalistického myšlení

Pojetí významu u Ingardena a Mukařovského: Vliv, inspirace, či autonomní cesty?

První debata o arbitrárnosti jazykového znaku

Strukturalisté dělají marxismus

Informační moment v literární teorii a české experimentální poezii 60. let

K estetickému myšlení Roberta Kalivody : Kapitola z archeologie českého marxismu