

Opposing deconstruction: the value aspect of the theory of artistic wholeness
https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2020-3-126-138
Abstract
The article discusses the legacy of the literary critic M. Girshman, in particular, his book A Work of Literature. The Theory of Artistic Wholeness [Literaturnoe proizvedenie. Teoriya khudozhestvennoy tselostnosti] (2007), which argues the priority of the holistic and value-based approach to literary criticism over Postmodernist deconstruction practices. According to Girshman, the language of a literary work is an embodied and materialized aspect of aesthetic reality and beauty, incorporating the Truth and the Good. The scholar sees it as the ‘existential-semantic assumption’ of literary criticism. O. Minnullin defends Girshman’s method and challenges the ‘instrumental’ approach of ‘deconstructionist’ philologists, which he believes reduces the aesthetic space: significance in place of meaning; the discourse in place of the world; actions or simulation in place of existence; the scribe in place of the author; a construction or deconstruction in place of wholeness, etc. The article is written in response to the polemic reaction of ‘deconstructionists’ to V. Tyupa’s ‘Literary Theory Two’ As a Threat to Humanities, published in Voprosy Literatury in 2019.
About the Author
O. R. MinnullinUkraine
Oleg R. Minnullin – Candidate of Philology
24 Universitetskaya St., Donetsk, 283001, Donetsk People’s Republic
References
1. Compagnon, A. (2001). The demon of theory: Literature, theory, and common sense. Translated by S. Zenkin. Moscow: Izdatelstvo im. Sabashnikovykh. (In Russ.)
2. Dmitriev, V. (2012). The limits of ontology, or Girshman and Derrida. [online] Ontology and poetics: Theoretical and analytical aspects: Proceedings of the International Conference in Donetsk. Available at: dmit.okstate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/доклад-к-75-летию-Гиршмана.pdf [Accessed 12 Jan. 2020]. (In Russ.)
3. Fyodorov, V. (2008). Problems of poetic existence. Donetsk: Nord-Press. (In Russ.)
4. Girshman, M. (2007a). Essays on philosophy and philology of a dialogue. Donetsk: Donetskiy nauchiy universitet. (In Russ.)
5. Girshman, M. (2007b). Literary work: A theory of artistic integrity. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoy Kultury. (In Russ.)
6. Gubaylovsky, V. (2019). Letters to a learned neighbour. Letter 25. Questions of bioethics, Ural, 2, pp. 90-108. (In Russ.)
7. Korablyov, A. (1997). Donetsk philological school: An essay on polyphonic comprehension. Donetsk: Lebed. (In Russ.)
8. Korablyov, A. (2008). The limits of philology. Novosibirsk: Izdatelstvo SO RAN. (In Russ.)
9. Kozlik, I. (2012). Understanding integrity: Some observations on methodology. Literaturovedcheskiy Sbornik, 49-50, pp. 17-30. (In Russ.)
10. Lyotard, J.-F. (1998). The postmodern condition. Translated by N. Shmatko. St. Petersburg: Aleteya. (In Russ.)
11. Pospishil, I. (2010). New dimensions and transcendence of literature and language research and Russian peculiarities. Slavica Slovaca, 2, pp. 171-177. (In Russ.)
12. Shcherbenok, A. (2005). Deconstruction and classical Russian literature: From the rhetoric of fiction to the rhetoric of history. Moscow: NLO. (In Russ.)
13. Sventsitskaya, E., ed. (2016). ‘Harmony is absolute, and disharmony is relative.’ In memory of M. M. Girshman. Kyiv: Izdatelskiy dom Dmitriya Burago. (In Russ.)
14. Tamarchenko, N. (2005). Responsibility of communication (on M. M. Girshman’s book ‘Literary work: A theory of artistic integrity’). Philologicheskiy Zhurnal, 1, pp. 170-174. (In Russ.)
15. Tyupa, V. (2019). ‘Literary Theory Two’ as a threat to humanities. Voprosy Literatury, 1, pp. 52-66. (In Russ.)
16. Urusikov, D. (2006). Deconstruction of integrity: Donetsk philological school in the context of humanitarian knowledge of the second half of the 20th century. Literaturovedcheskiy Sbornik, 28, pp. 112-174. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Minnullin O.R. Opposing deconstruction: the value aspect of the theory of artistic wholeness. Voprosy literatury. 2020;(3):126-138. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2020-3-126-138