Lyginamosios literatūros istorijos atgimimas?

LTLyginamoji literatūros istorija, XX amžiuje išgyvenusi dvigubą krizę, kuri reiškėsi ir kaip lyginamojo metodo, ir kaip literatūros istorijos pasenusio pozityvistinio modelio kritika, šiandien rodo naujus gyvybės ženklus. Ryškiausiu ir konkrečiu tokio atgimimo pavyzdžiu pasirinksime Amerikos mokslo draugijos tarybos (American Council of Learned Societes) ir Toronto universiteto iniciatyva atliktą naujausią Rytų Europos literatūrų tyrimo projektą: History of the Literary Cultures in East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries (ed. Marcel Cornis-Pope, John Neubauer), kuris dabar yra rengiamas spaudai. Tačiau jo platus metodologinis svarstymas knygoje "Rethinking Literary History" ir išplatinti internetiniai variantai jau suteikia galimybę kalbėti apie naujausių literatūros lyginamųjų tyrimų skirtumą nuo iki šiol buvusiųjų. Straipsnyje siekiama išsiaiškinti esminius skirtumus, atsiradusius tarp iki šiol buvusių lyginamųjų literatūros tyrinėjimų ir naujausių lyginamųjų literatūros projektų. [Iš straipsnio, p. 40]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Interpretacinis pasakojimas; Intertekstiniai tyrimai; Lietuvių literatūrologija; Literatūros kultūra; Lyginamasis literatūrų tyrimas; Lyginamoji literatūra; Lyginamosios literatūros istorija; Metodologinis pliuralizmas; Multikultūriniai tyrimai; Rytų ir Vidurio Europa; Tarpdiscipliniškumas; Comparative literary history; Comparative literature; Comparative study of the literature; East-Central Europe; Interdisciplinarity; Interpretive narrative; Intertextual research; Literary culture; Lithuanian literaturology; Methodological pluralism; Multicultural research.

ENOn the basis of the new project Collaborative Historiography: A Comparative Literary History of Latin America (ed. Djadal Kadir) and History of the Literary Cultures in East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20h Centuries (ed. Marcel Comis-Pope, John Neubauer), the author of the article raises a provocative question: don't they show signs of rebirth of comparative literary history? Therefore the article mainly focuses on differences pointed out while, comparing the above mentioned books with the former comparative literary histories which are most typically represented by a series of literary comparative studies published by the International Comparative Associations (ICLA). The article discusses covers four new features of comparative history writing. Firstly, due to the impact of globalism, a principle of comparing national literatures has been rejected by moving towards a wider cultural regional structurization according to its most common tendencies, historical dates, cultural figures and themes with a focus on facts of multiculture. Secondly, disciplinary "purity" of literary historical research has been given up inviting specialists of other disciplines to participate in writing. Thirdly, a transformed concept of literature, expanded in a postmodern sense, is applied in the latest projects; moreover, the object of research is also broadened. A binary opposition of fiction/non-fiction, elite/mass literature is eliminated, as each of them have become equally important for researchers. Fourthly, a comparative principle is accepted as the most significant methodological principle of historical thinking and writing: writing of history is understood as a continuous dialogue of the past and the present (H.G. Gadamer, F. Braudel), as a diataxic discourse (H. White) or as a realistic symbolic style (P. Ricoeur).The analysis of these changes in historical narration enables to draw a simple conclusion: eventually, a new methodology has been applied to comparative histories as well (hermeneutics, the new historical method, schools of Annals, narratological historical methods, methodological attitudes of ideology criticism, feminism etc.). The phenomenon, for many years in the 20th centuiy known as a methodological discussion among different theoreticians who worked on how to update a positivistic narration of literary history, finally resulted in a practical comparative literary research. Furthermore, it becomes more and more evident that the new ideology of globalism and changes in social life necessarily provoke a comparative, multicultural, inter-textual narration of literary history instead of national ones. Could it be called their rebirth? Though only time could most precisely give an answer, one would like to believe that the rebirth has started. [From the publication]