British Bakhtinology: An Overview (1995)

Г О Л А ИЬ 1995 АКР Н А Л № 1 ( 10 ) ПОТОНОРХ Ж у р н ал н ауч н ы х р а з ы с ка н и й о б и о г р а иф , те о р е ти ч е с ко м н а сл ед и и эп о х е М .М .Ба х т и н а В ы х о д и т 4 р а з а в д ог О сн о в а н в с е н т яб р е 1992 .г Р А Е КЦ Д И Я : Н . .А П а н ь ко в (г л а в н ы й р е д а к т о р ) , .В .В аБ б и ч , С. .М о рБ ди ч , .А Н. Д о р о ж е в е ц , .В .В З д о л ь н и ко в , .А Е. Д а л о Р АЕ КДЦ И О Н А Я ЕГЛОКИ:Я .В С . иБ б л е р (Р о с и я) , С. .Г оБч а р о в (Р о с и я) , X. Г ю н те р (Г е р м а н и я) , В чя. .сВ И в а н о в (Р о с и я) , .В .В Ко ж и н о в (Р о с и я) , Д . С. Л и х а ч е в (Р о с и я) , В ади м Л яп у н о в (С Ш А ) . .В .В М ар ты н о в (Бе л а р у с ь ) , .А .А М и х ай л о в (Бе л а р у с ь ), е п и с ко п Н и ка н д р (Р о с и я) Р. Н о й х о й з е р (А в с т р и я) , Н и н а П е р л и н а (С Ш А ) , X. С а с ки (Я п о н и я) , .К Т о м со н (К а н а д а ) , Е. Ф а р и н о (П о л ь ш а ) , Э . Ш у км е н (В е л и к о б р и та н и я) , К. Э м е р с о н (С Ш А ) , Р. Я су и (Я п о н и я) , Dialogue. Carnival. Chronotope, 1995, № 1 16,1 ОБЗОРЫ И РЕЦ ЕН ЗИ И C raig B r a n d is t B r i t i s h b a k h t i n o l o g y : an o v e r v i e w T he works of the Bakhtin school have been received with some enthusiasm by those engaged in various areas of cultural studies in Britain. The influence of the key Bakhtinian concepts such as dialogism and carnival has been channeled through academic disciplines but reception has been coloured by the political agenda of the British left. Just as the Russian intelligentsia adopted the work of western thinkers and adapted it according to their own predilections, so British readers of the Bakhtin school have absorbed elem ents which serve to seal gaps in their theoretical arm oury and have down played other elem ents which are deemed to be peripheral. While this practice was bound to distort the overall assessm ent of a spatially and temporally remote body of writing, it has had the advantage of testing that writing against the dem ands of a new cultural and political climate. In a series of (mainly American) publications beginning with the 1968 translation of Rabelais and His W orld, the works of Bakhtin’s group entered the English-speaking cultural arena in the wake of the American defeat in Vietnam, a western European continent shaken by the revolutionary events of France in 1968 and Portugal in 1974 and a wave of w orkers’ struggle that brought down the Conservative government in Britain in 1974. Initial reception was heavily coloured by these events but many of Bakhtin’s own key works appeared only in the 1980s, a decade marked by confusion and retreat by the left. This confusion reached a new level with the collapse of those east European regimes which claimed Marxism as their official ideology. Bakhtin’s work, therefore, entered an arena dom inated by ideas of ‘Post-M arxism ’, ‘Postm odernism ’ and ‘PostStructuralism ’, all of which were quite alien to the time of their composition. In America, the dom inant trend has been to adopt Bakhtin as a proponent of fo rm alist lite ra ry criticism , the most com prehensive expressions of this being Clark and Holquist’s 1985 biography and Morson and Em erson's Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics ( 1990)1. With the notable exception of Fredric Jameson, American Bakhtinology has tended to draw Bakhtin into the pantheon of western liberal thinkers by casting ‘dialogism’ as a reality underlying all discourse rather than a subversive relation towards an authoritative discourse, and substituting the politically 162 и Да л о г . Карн в ал . Х р о н т о п . 1995, N<_> 1 neutral concept of ‘the everyday’ for the more politically laden term ‘the popular’. W hile the more radical versions of post-structuralism had attacked the central concept of the ‘subject’ on which liberal humanism rested, B akhtin’s ideas, shorn of their own radical and deconstructive elem en ts, w ere em braced by the academ y as m eans to enrich the vocabulary of liberal criticism. While in Britain similar adoptions are present, a more coherent current has developed in opposition to this tendency and this, perhaps, stands as the most distinct and im portant trend in British Bakhtinology. In Britain, Bakhtin’s radical credentials and his kinship with M arxist cultural theory have been consistently stressed. Perhaps the key influence here was the resilience of anti-Stalinist M arxist cultural theory in Britain developed in the period following the 1956 Soviet invasion of H ungary, by, most notably, E.P.Thom pson and Raymond Williams. T hese w riters, moreover, opposed the uncritical absorption of structuralist ideas that had characterised French Marxism under the powerful influence of Louis A lthusser and gave rise to a generation of im portant cultural theorists and historians like T erry Eagleton. Both Williams and Thompson died recently, the form er planning a contribution to a collection of essays called Bakhtin and Cultural Theory shortly before his death, but this was published without his contribution in 1989. N evertheless, Williams made one of the earliest contributions to the reception of B akhtin’s ideas in 1977 when Voloshinov’s recently translated book on the philosophy of language became an im portant element in the form er’s book Marxism and Literature. Shortly before this, an article by the Scottish sociologist C harles Woolfson, which attem pted to incorporate Voloshinov’s work into orthodox Marxism as the basis of a theory of hegem ony, was published. Woolfson, to my knowledge, was the first, in English, to draw on the work of Vygotsky and Luria to locate Voloshinov’s work within the intellectual m atrix of Soviet society and to suggest a very productive (though poorly developed) conceptual link with the the prison writings of the Italian Comm unist leader an d theorist Antonio Gramsci. In the sam e year (1976), however, a translation of V. V.Ivanov’s article which claimed B akhtin’s authorship of the Voloshinov texts and rath er different intellectual kinships appeared in a collection of essays by Soviet structuralists. The debate over authorship thereby came to parallel that over intellectual and political heritage as w riters from d iffe re n t tra d itio n s em p h a sise d elem en ts conducive to th e ir own affiliations. After Williams and Woolfson, attem pts to directly incorporate Bakhtin into M arxist cultural theory were m ade by, most notably, T erry Eagleton (1981), who found instructive parallels with the work of W alter Benjamin, and Allon White whose debate with Robert Young in the mid 1980s did much to illum inate the significance and difficulties of this task. О Б ЗО Р Ы И Р Е Ц Е Н З И И Craig Brandist Dialogue. Carnival. Chronotope, 1995, № 1 163 By this time, B akhtin’s major works, with the exception of the earliest essays, were available in English in high quality translations and so the debate became much better informed. It was not long before the simple recruitm ent of Bakhtin to the cause of Marxism was recognised as deeply problem atic, but the value of Bakhtin’s work in defending the core of M arxism against the attacks of post-structuralists was also noted. In 1981 Eagleton, attacking the American formalist appropriation of Bakhtin, noted that “ It is clear how Bakhtin recapitulates a v a n t la lettre many of the leading motifs of contem porary deconstruction, and does so, scandalously, in a firmly social context. It suffices to say that we have yet to catch up properly with him, and if we continue to detach his ‘deconstructionism ’ from his historical interests then we never will” 2. The call to rigorously historicise Bakhtin studies was often reiterated but was left to a large extent unrealised. This was due, partly, to the separation of Bakhtin’s work from its specifically Soviet context and the incorporation of his ideas into debates around critical theory increasingly dom inated by post-structuralism . While Bakhtin’s work began to be used m e th o d o lo g ica lly to understand Soviet fiction, theoretical reflection was often divorced from the context of composition. This is not to say that Bakhtin’s work was not historically a p p lied : an im portant attem pt to historicize the concept of carnival by applying it to a range of English literature was made by Stallybrass and White in The Politics and Poetics of Transgression ( 1986), although this still rem ained within the sphere of concerns dom inated by the radical pretensions of post-structuralism . T he one area in which a productive interweaving of theory and history was executed was in the consideration of the relation between Marxism and Formalism in B akhtin’s work. The earliest book-length example of this w as T ony B e n n e tt’s 1979 M arxism and Form alism in w hich th e structuralist Marxism of A lthusser was brought into contact with Jakobson, Shklovsky and Bakhtin, provoking a series of interesting articles by, most n o ta b ly , G rah am P echey in the following y ear. P erhaps the most system atic contribution to this debate was made by an Australian lecturer in Comparative Literature, John Frow, in his book Marxism and Literary H istory (1986). Again the post-structuralist dom inated theoretical agenda determ ined the shape of these studies, for while Bakhtin’s relationship with theories em anating from Saussurean linguistics was exhaustively studied, his relationship with H usserlian phenomenology and European humanism in the shape of Humboldt, Croce and Vossler receded from view. T his was partly due to the fact that Bakhtin’s early phenomenological writings appeared in translation only in 1990 but, equally, due to the pervasive politics and poetics of postmodernism which rested on the autonom y of the sign-system . Clearing the way for a more historically based analysis of Bakhtin’s work required a two pronged attack: the first British bakhtinology: an overview 164 и Да л о г . аКрн в ал . Х р о н т о п , 1995, N<_> 1 was to clarify the relationship between Bakhtin’s ideas and m odern-day deconstruction, the goal being to integrate Bakhtin’s observations into the rapidly developing field of w hat came to be called cu ltu r a l m a te ria lism and the second was to more fully develop an understanding of the intellectual currents and cultural problems with which Bakhtin intersected. P ap ers on B ak h tin , M arxism a n d P o st-stru c tu ra lism began to proliferate in the mid 1980s when Pechey (1986), like White (1984) Eagleton (1982) and Callinicos (1985) made effective use of Bakhtin’s w ork in a tte m p ts to c o m b at th e ra d ic a l-s o u n d in g re la tiv ism of deconstructionists. In 1986 the debate took a significant step forward with the publication of three articles by the American lecturer in communication studies at Southam pton University Ken Hirschkop who sought to engage in transatlantic debates over the American appropriation of Bakhtin for liberalism and the Bakhtinian conception of democracy which was related to Marxism and the politics of the aVant-garde. In the sam e year Ann Jefferson, a fellow in French at Oxford, produced an article very much in the sam e spirit which outlined the concept of reference and realism to be found in Bakhtin’s central works, again em phasizing the m aterialist and often blunted radical edge of his ideas. A distinctive trend was emerging and this made its definitive appearance in a collection of essays published in 1989 under the heading Bakhtin and Cultural T heory. The editors noted that the prevailing aim of the collection was to show how Bakhtin’s central concepts ‘insistently require reference toa broad political and institutional context’ and the contributors made some incisive criticisms of Bakhtin’s handling of these factors. Hirschkop argued that the issues raised by B akhtin’s work w ere too significant for an uncritical acceptance of B a k h tin ’s co n c e p ts w hich w ere o ften m ark ed by am b ig u ity an d inconsistencies related to the changing context of composition. The poor state of social theory and the oppressive environm ent of Stalinist Russia all com pelled Bakhtin to discuss the social practices which lay behind discursive effects in purely formal terminology: ‘T he discursive practice which Bakhtin calls novelistic is a complex system of audience, linguistic forms, social conventions, subject positions and so forth, but this does not seem to be recognized in the decision to call this practice “ novelistic” ’3. R ather than seeking to overcome this ‘overloading’ of formal categories, most liberal critics had simply reproduced the am biguity in their attem pts to reinstate the sovereign subject in literary studies. With this development and with the recent publication of Bakhtin’s early works in English, it should now be possible to appreciate the depth of Bakhtin’s immersion in the anti-positivist idealism that swept Europe in the early part of the century. As 1 noted above, very little has been written on the influence of H erm ann Cohen, Cassirer, Croce and Vossler on Bakhtin’s work. The polemical stance taken by Voloshinov against the last О Е З О Р М И Р Е Ц Е Н ЗИ И C ra ig 11r a n d is t Dialogue. Carnival. Chronotope, 1995, № 1 165 two in his study of the philosophy of language has generally been taken at face value. T he effects of these theories have, in part, been noted, but in purely negative term s. Callinicos (1985), for exam ple, evokes Bakhtin in his struggle with post-structuralism but notes the 'Rom antic survivals’ in his thought which create a space ‘in which the subject can be reconstructed as the author heteroglossia’. Thus Bakhtin tends to treat discourse as ‘an endless creative flow’, fails to account for those ‘extra-discursive forces refracted in discourse’ and thus tends to conceive heteroglossia ‘as the creation of a natural man repressed by civilisation’. While one can certainly find plenty of evidence for these charges am ong Bakhtin’s writings, and Callinicos does well to circumvent their negative effects, the particular way these elem ents function within Bakhtin’s m ature writings to produce an account of divergent hegemonic principles wi thin society is less well served in critical literature. C ertainly Bakhtin tends to present folk culture, ‘the social correlate of novelizing tendencies in discourse... simply as the heterogeneous and dynam ic other of monologic and static ruling-class culture’4 but w ithin that sim plified dichotom y is an account of how f r a g m e n ta r y a n d c o n tr a d ic to r y s u b a lte r n c o n c e p tio n s e n g a g e deconstructively with th e m ore system atically articulated dom inant ideology. T he sam e themes were pursued by Antonio Gram sci, from a ra th e r d iffe re n t sta n d p o in t, but inform ed by a sim ilarly profound engagem ent with Croce and Vossler. T he latter’s work in particular yields a wealth of m aterial which both Gramsci and Bakhtin critically absorbed5. In such a way, then, the incorporation of Bakhtin into the politically loaded theoretical debates of the 1980s and 1990s has had the merit of subjecting his ideas to some searching criticism but has delayed scholarly investigation into the sources of his ideas. However, the form er has led, inexorably, to the latter. Since Eagleton’s 1981 book on W alter Benjamin, Bakhtin has been increasingly considered as an unheard participant in the debates about m odernism that also involved Lukacs, Brecht, and Adorno. Into this group the literary observations of Gramsci have recently been assessed in a serious m anner, Bakhtin’s nam e being scattered throughout the study6. Bakhtin was certainly fam iliar with Lukacs’s theory of the novel which, in its later m anifestation, was canonical in Russia in the mid 1930s and as a scholar with a deep knowledge of G erm an aesthetics, may have had some basic knowledge of the other contributors to the Marxism and Modernism debate preceding Lukacs’s move to Russia. Bakhtin certainly shared with both. Benjamin and Adorno a knowledge of Jewish cultural philosophy an d he clearly had a knowledge of Brecht’s work. While direct references in B akhtin’s work are almost completely absent, these can be explained in term s of political necessity more cogently than through complete ignorance. One must therefore welcome Bakhtin’s inclusion in considerations of the debates he was unable to directly engage in as it British bakhtinology: an overview 166 и Да л о г . Кар н в а л . Х р о н о т п , 1995, № 1 shows consideration of B akhtin’s work moving onto more historically reliable ground. B akhtin’s work has also begun to find its place among the literary debates of the 1920s and 1930s in relation to Russian popular culture and literature itself. The first is best shown by the fine study Petrushka: the Russian Carnival Puppet T heatre by C atriona Kelly in which Bakhtin’s ideas are assessed against a concrete exam ple from his own time: the puppet th eatre as it was developed in the early Soviet period7. Such concrete historical research can be of great assistance in understanding the extent to which Bakhtin discussed contem porary problems with reference to the popular culture and literature of the past. Hirschkop has noted how, in the Rabelais study, Bakhtin can be seen ‘imposing the figure of modernity on an image of medieval culture’, while Eagleton, utilizing the messianic discourse of W alter Benjamin, argues that Bakhtin ‘blasts R abelais’s work out of the homogeneous continuum of literary history, creating a lethal constellation between th at redeem ed R enaissance mom ent and the trajectory of the Soviet sta te ’ . E ither way, Bakhtin’s assessm ent of the literature of the past was heavily coloured by the literary debates of the time. In this regard, one of the most curiously neglected areas of British Bakhtinology is the many crossovers with the work of Nikolai Bakhtin who worked for several years at the University of Birmingham. As early as 1963 some of Nikolai Bakhtin’s work was published in book-form in Britain and a sizeable archive rem ains at Birmingham. These works were mainly written in English and includes revealing essays on Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Mayakovsky, the Symbolist movement and the concept of realism in dram a. This last bears close resemblance to Mikhail’s essay on the Chronotope and can only make one wonder what the la tte r’s lost book on realism might have been like. T he other essays provide im portant material to read alongside the notes from M ikhail’s lectures on Russian literature, as yet untranslated into English, and the Dostoyevsky study. In one essay Nikolai discusses the relevance of the image of the classical tradition and the concept of R en aissan c e in E uropean culture which could cast interesting light on the way M ikhail uses the antique square in the C h ro n o to p e e s s a y a n d on B a k h tin ’s in te r p r e ta tio n of R a b e la is respectively. The Classical tradition, argues Nikolai, is ‘an image of glory and wisdom which she [Europe] used to project her deepest desires and aspirations, setting it up before herself as a challenge to her pride, as a model to im itate, to equal, to su rp ass’. Does Mikhail not set the image of the Greek square up in such a way in the face of the claims of Stalinist Culture? The grotesque image Rabelais develops in the Renaissance, referring to antiquity at every moment, is sim ilarly viewed by Mikhail in the spirit of his brother: ‘every image of the past becomes a lesson, an О Б ЗО Р Ы И Р Е Ц Е Н ЗИ И Craig Brandist Dialogue. Carnival. Chronotope, 1995, № 1 167 order, a promise, and all that h a s b een seems to conspire in supporting and justifying what shall b e’. Indeed, the Bakhtinian approach to the literature of the past might be summed up by the final remarks of Nikolai’s essay: ‘It must be a tool and weapon for the struggles that lie ahead for the building of a new and better world. What we have learned from the classics we must carry into the world and transform into action. And conversely, when we return to our studies and our libraries we must bring with us all our experience of the present, which is the only key to the past9. T he only recent consideration of these points is the rath er small space given to it by T erry Eagleton in an interesting article in which Nikolai Bakhtin is noted to have been a considerable influence on Ludwig W ittgenstein in the period between the Tractatus a n d Philosophical Investigations. Eagleton notes how in the essay A ris to tle versus P la to Nikolai cham pions an ‘Aristotelian sense of the particular over Plato’s tyranny of the universal’ and this fits in well with the work of the later W ittgenstein. However, it seems to me that within this dichotomy also lies a parallel to M ikhail’s early hostility to th eo reticism and the em brvo of Mikhail’s opposition of dialogism and monologism 10. Perhaps there is much more to be said about what О .Е .О с о в с ки й called the ‘н е с л ы ш н ы й д и а л о г ’ of the two brothers11. Eagleton does, howev er, note the presence of several parallels in the writings of the brothers, not least of which is the ‘consistently populist strain ’ in such notions as the roots of Russian poetry being in the linguistic energy that imbues the ‘oral practice of the people’. Similarly ideas in Russian literature constitute 'bits of condensed energy to be converted into action... A work that counts is a generator of force, a rule of conduct, an appeal to action, a battle cry, an order, a challenge’ 2. In the last few years too, several studies of the Soviet novel have begun to treat Bakhtin’s work as reflecting upon contemporary literature in indirect ways. As we now know, Bakhtin was keenly aware of the literary scene into which he was inserted, and had personal contact with many im portant figures in the 1920s. F urtherm ore, one particularly self­ reflexive w riter, Konstantin Vaginov, was a regular participant in the group’s discussions. This became well-known with the publication of the Clark and Holquist biography in the mid 1980s, but the authors there treat Vaginov’s novel К о з л и н а я пе с н ь as a rather playful biography of Bakhtin’s group, an approach which Bakhtin himself em phatically d enied1i . Serious consideration of Vaginov’s work only really began to appear with Tony Anemone’s paper C a r n iv a l in T h eo ry a n d Practice: K o n sta n tin V aginov a n d M ix a il B a x tin which was delivered at the 1991 Bakhtin Conference in M anchester. Anemone w arned those who might be tempted to reject the possibility of Vaginov’s influence on Bakhtin as profoundly monologic and called for more work on the complex and many sided dialogue with his age that one can detect in his works. Vaginov’s work then became im portant British bakhtinology: an overview 168 и Да л о г . аКрн в ал . Х р о н т о п , 1995, № 1 elem ents in a w ider study of Soviet m eta fic tio n with a distinctively Bakhtinian approach more than apparent. David Shepherd and G raham Roberts both produced stim ulating doctoral dissertations in this area, drawing on different literary examples but sharing Vaginov as a crucial w riter. T he form er has recently been published in book form entitled Beyond M etafiction, w hile the la tte r T h e M e ta fic tio n o f K o n s ta n tin Vaginov, A le k s a n d r V ve d en sk y a n d D a n iil K h a r m s 14 *2 rem ains unpublished. 8 7 6 5 These works at last began to show the pervasiveness of contemporary literary problem s in B akhtin’s work bu placing Vaginov beside the OBERIU and such w riters as the early Leonov. Bakhtin studies in Britain, then, have become increasingly historicized with a parallel advance in the study of Soviet literature. Recently published valuable studies of Daniil Kharms and Andrei Platonov15, for exam ple, have raised the possibility of further study of the relations between literary theory and practice in the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 1930s. Meanwhile Bakhtinian ideas continue to be utilized in the struggle against the ram pant relativism of postm odernist theory. Callinicos (1989), for example, makes effective use of B akhtin’s ideas in an attem pt to prove that an ‘incredulity towards m etanarratives’ is constitutive of m o d e r n is m itself and so the proliferation of this feature in recent writing is not indicative of a new p o s tm o d e r n era. No doubt this debate has some time to run. It is a debate that shows that B akhtin’s work continues to find the dialogic responses it sought at the time of composition and the stream of these responses have recently turned into a flood. T he quality and tenability of the m aterial published on Bakhtin is, inevitably, variable, but the em ergence of a distinct trend in British Bakhtinology shows that a dialogue of cultures and cultural epochs is certainly underway. 1 Stanford University Press, 1990. 2 T erry Eagleton W alter Benjamin or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism (Verso, London, 1981 p.150). Ken Hirschkop D ia lo g ism as a C ha llen g e to L itera ry C riticism in Kelley, Makin & Shepherd (eds) (1989) p.29. 4 p.94. 5 On this see my article G ram sci, B a k h tin a n d th e S e m io tic s o f H eg em o n y in New Left Review 209, J a n / Feb 1995). 6 Renate Holub Antonio Gramsci: Beyond Marxism and Postmodernism (Routledge, London, 1992). 7 (Cam bridge U niversity Press, Cam bridge 1990) 8 Hirschkop and Shepherd (1989) p.34, Eagleton (1981) p.144-5. О Б ЗО Р Ы И Р Е Ц Е Н ЗИ И Craig Brandist Dialogue. Carnival. Chronotope, 1995, № 1 lp 9 4 Nicholas Bachtin T h e C la s s ic a l T ra d itio n in E n g la n d in Lectures and Essays (Birmingham University, Birmingham) p.122, 127, 132. T erry Eagleton W ittg en ste in ’s F r ie n d s in New Left Review (153, 1982) p.74-6. 1 M.M.Ба х т и н и фи л о с о фс к а я к у л ь т у р а XX в е к а (С а н кт П ет р б у рг , 1991) т .2 С .43. 12 Eagleton (1982) р.75. See Р а з г о в о р ы с Б а х т и н ы м in Че л о в е к 4, 1994, с .182. 14 Oxford University 1992. 15 Cornwell (ed) (1991) and Seifrid (1992). 1 т SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BRITISH BAKHTINOLOGY: Books and Dissertations: B a c h tin , N ., L ectures a n d E ssays U n iv ersity of B irm ingham , Birmingham, 1963. B ak h tin , M.M., T he Diologic Im agination (T ra n s . E m erson & H olquist), University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981. Bakhtin, M.M., Problem s of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics (T rans & ed. Em erson), M anchester U niversity Press, M anchester, 1984. Bakhtin, M.M., Rabelais and his World (Trans. Iswolsky), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1984 (ref. 1984b). Bakhtin, M.M., Speech G en res and O th er Late E ssays (T rans. McGee), University of Texas Press, Austin, 1986. Bakhtin, M.M., Art and Answerability (ed. Holquist & Liapunov), University of Texas Press, Austin, 1990. Baran, (ed.).. Structuralism and Semiotics: Readings From the Soviet Union New York, 1976. B arker, F. (ed ), Literature Politics and Theory: Papers from the Essex Conference. 1976-1984 (contains Pechey Bakhtin, Marxism and Post­ structuralism (1984)) L o n d o n ,1986. * Bennett, T., Marxism and Formalism M ethuen, London, 1979. B randist, C., D ia lec tic s a n d D ialogue: th e P o litic s o f Id eo lo g ica l S tr u g g le in th e w o rk o f th e B a k h tin S c h o o l ( u n p u b lis h e d d o cto ra l d isser ta tio n ) U niversity o f S u s s e x , 1995. C allinicos, A., Against Postm odernism Polity Press, Cam bridge, 1989. C orner, M., The Concept of Dialogue in the Thought of Mikhail B akhtin an d M artin Buber (U npublished M.A. D issertation) Sussex U niversity, 1988. Cornwell, N. (ed), Daniil Kharms and the Poetics of the A bsurd Macmillan, Basingstoke, London, 1991. British bakhtinology: an overview 170 и аД л о г . Кар н в а л . Х р о н т о п , 1995, № 1 Eagleton, Т ., W alter Benjamin, Or Tow ards a Revolut ionary Criticism Verso, London, 1981. Frow, J., M arxism and Literary History Blackwell, Oxford, 1986. Hirschkop, K., Shepherd, D. (eds.), Bakhtin and Cultural Theory M anchester U niversity Press, M anchester, 1989. Kelly, C. M akin, M. Shepherd, D. (ed s.), Discontinuous Discourses in Modern R ussian Literature Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1989. K e lly , C ., P e tru s h k a : T h e R u ssian C arn iv al P uppet T h e a tre Cam bridge U niversity Press, Cam bridge, 1990. R o b erts, G ., T h e M e ta fic tio n o f K o n s ta n tin Vaginov, A le k s a n d r V ve d en sk y a n d D a n iil K h a r m s (unpublished doctoral dissertation) Oxford University, 1992. S e ifrid , T ., A n d re i P la to n o v , C a m b rid g e U n iv e rs ity P re s s, Cam bridge, 1992. Shepherd, D., Beyond Metafiction Clarendon, Oxford, 1992. Shukm an, A .(ed.), Bakhtin School Papers R PT & Holdan, Essex, 1983. Stallybrass, P. & White, A., The Politics and Poetics of Transgression London and Ithaca, NY, 1986. Voloshinov, V.N., Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (Trans. Matejka & T itunik), Harvard University Press, Cam bridge Mass., 1973. Voloshinov, V.N., Freudianism : A M arxist Critique (Trans. Titunik), Academic Press, London, 1976. Vossler, K., T he Spirit of Language in Civilization (Trans. O eser), Kegan Paul, T rench, T rubner & Co., London, 1932. W illiams, R., M arxism and Literature O xford U niversity Press, Oxford, 1977. Periodical Articles: Anemone, A., C a rn iva l in T h eo ry a n d P ractice: K o n s ta n tin Vaginov a n d M ix a il B a x tin . Paper delivered to Bakhtin Conference at M anchester, July 1991. Batkin, L., T w o W ays o f S tu d y in g th e H is to ry o f C ulture. In Soviet Studies in Philosophy, Vol 26, 1988. Bakhtin, M.M., T o w a rd s th e A e sth etic s o f th e W ord . (Trans. Brostrom) in Dispositio 4, 11-12, 1977. Brandist, C., G ra m sci, B a k h tin a n d th e S e m io tic s o f H eg em o n y in New Left Review 209, 1995. Callinicos, A., P o s tm o d e r n is m , P o s t-S tru c tu r a lis m , P o s t-M a r x is m . In Theory, C ulture and Society, Vol.2, No.3, 1985. Eagleton,T., W ittg e n s te in 's F rien d s. In New Left Review No. 135, 1982. О Б ЗО Р Ы И Р Е Ц Е Н З И И Craig Brandist Dialogue. Carnival. Chronotope, 1995, № 1 171 H irschkop, K., B a k h tin , D isc o u rse a n d D em o cra cy. In New Left Review No.160 November 1986. Hirschkop, K., T h e D o m e stic a tio n o f M .M . B a k h tin . In Essays in Poetics Vol. 11, No. 1, April 1986 (Refs. 1986b) Hirschkop, K., T h e A u th o r, T h e N o v e l a n d the E veryd ay. In The H igher. May 1. 1992. Jefferson, A., R e a lis m R e c o n sid e r e d : B a k h tin ’s D iolo gism a n d the “ W ill to R e fe re n c e ”. In A ustrailian Journal of French Studies, Vol xxiii No.2 1986. Patem an, T., D isco u rse in L ife : V.N. V o lo sh in o v’s “M a r x is m a n d the P h ilo s o p h y o f L a n g u a g e” . In UEA Papers in Linguistics, 16-17, 1982. White, A., T h e S tru g g le O ver B a k h tin . In Cultural Critique No.8, 1987-8. Woolfson, C., T h e S e m io tic s o f W o rkin g C la ss S p eech . In Working Papers in Cultural Studies No. 9, 1976. Woolfson, C., C ultu re, L a n g u a g e a n d H u m a n P erso n a lity. In Marxism T o d ay , August 1977. Young, R., B a c k to B a k h tin . In Cultural C ritique, 2, 1985. J a n u a r y 1995. British bakhtinology: an overview