is a highly systematic dialectician, whereas Bakhtin is primarily an analyst and a practitioner of pragmatics.

Jameson expands Bakhtin's basic conception of genre as a mediating entity and turns it into a methodological
construct. As already pointed out, genre, as presented in "Discourse and the Novel" and in other works, is
both a stratifying and diversifying factor in the evolution of literary forms. Jameson extends this position and
articulates a concept of mediation which is only implicit in Bakhtin's work: We must therefore repudiate a
conception of the process of mediation which fails to register its capacity for differentiation and for revealing
structural oppositions and contradictions through some overemphasis on its related vocation to establish
identities. (42) A similarly methodological extension occurs when Jameson appro-priates the concept of
dialogism. The dialogical principle, in Jameson's hands, becomes a methodological procedure: the dialogical
then allows us to reread or rewrite the hegemonic forms themselves; they also can be grasped as a process of
the reappropriation and neutralization, the cooptation and class transformation, the cultural
universalization, of forms which originally expressed the situation of "popular," subordinate, or dominated
groups this operation of rewriting and of the restoration of an essentially dialogical or class horizon will not be
...

complete until we specify the "units" of this larger system. . . This larger class discourse can be said to be
.

organized around minimal "units" which we will call ideologemes. (86-87) Whereas Bakhtin describes how
dialogism works in a wide variety of texts, Jameson expands the concept, and it becomes a tool to be used 10
Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [1984], Art. 4
https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol9/iss1/4 DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1150 Clive Thomson 39 for ideological
analysis in a Marxist perspective. Such an expansion of Bakhtin's basic concepts is in no way a subversion or a
deforma-tion. In the final analysis, Bakhtin would probably agree that generic categories, as Jameson so
eloquently states, are of essentially "strategic value": This final moment of the generic operation, in which the
working categories of genre are themselves historically deconstructed and abandoned, suggests a final axiom,
according to which all generic categories, even the most time-hallowed and traditional, are ultimately to be
understood (or "estranged") as mere ad hoc, experimental constructs, devised for a specific textual occasion
and abandoned like so much scaffolding when the analysis has done its work. (145) In the preceding discussion
of Bakhtin's theory of literary genre, we have tried to show how he is basically opposed to some of his Formalist
contemporaries and to many current genre critics whose typologies are intended to have an absolute status.
For Bakhtin, as for Fredric Jameson, genre is a modelling device that is neither a reflec-tion of reality nor a
reflection of the texts that the generic category supposedly covers or refers to. Bakhtin situates himself firmly
in opposition to those who see genre as an end in itself. His view of parody, which is similar to Tynyanov's view
(as suggested at the beginning of this article), could be expanded to cover all genres. Parody is ever-changing as
it responds to changing historical con-ditions in its unceasing attempt to modify other literary forms which have
become monologically hypostasized. Genre is therefore not something external to individual texts but rather
another form of material that texts are constantly reworking. Ultimately, genre, for Bakhtin, is a constitutive
factor in the production of textuality. WORKS CITEDis a highly systematic dialectician, whereas Bakhtin is
primarily an analyst and a practitioner of pragmatics. Jameson expands Bakhtin's basic conception of
genre as a mediating entity and turns it into a methodological construct. As already pointed out,
genre, as presented in "Discourse and the Novel" and in other works, is both a stratifying and
diversifying factor in the evolution of literary forms. Jameson extends this position and articulates a
concept of mediation which is only implicit in Bakhtin's work: We must therefore repudiate a
conception of the process of mediation which fails to register its capacity for differentiation and for
revealing structural oppositions and contradictions through some overemphasis on its related
vocation to establish identities. (42) A similarly methodological extension occurs when Jameson
appro-priates the concept of dialogism. The dialogical principle, in Jameson's hands, becomes a
methodological procedure: the dialogical then allows us to reread or rewrite the hegemonic forms
themselves; they also can be grasped as a process of the reappropriation and neutralization, the
cooptation and class transformation, the cultural universalization, of forms which originally
expressed the situation of "popular," subordinate, or dominated groups . . . this operation of
rewriting and of the restoration of an essentially dialogical or class horizon will not be complete until
we specify the "units" of this larger system. . . . This larger class discourse can be said to be organized
around minimal "units" which we will call ideologemes. (86-87) Whereas Bakhtin describes how
dialogism works in a wide variety of texts, Jameson expands the concept, and it becomes a tool to be
used 10 Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [1984], Art. 4
https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol9/iss1/4 DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1150 Clive Thomson 39 for
ideological analysis in a Marxist perspective. Such an expansion of Bakhtin's basic concepts is in no
way a subversion or a deforma-tion. In the final analysis, Bakhtin would probably agree that generic
categories, as Jameson so eloquently states, are of essentially "strategic value": This final moment of
the generic operation, in which the working categories of genre are themselves historically
deconstructed and abandoned, suggests a final axiom, according to which all generic categories,
even the most time-hallowed and traditional, are ultimately to be understood (or "estranged") as
mere ad hoc, experimental constructs, devised for a specific textual occasion and abandoned like so
much scaffolding when the analysis has done its work. (145) In the preceding discussion of Bakhtin's
theory of literary genre, we have tried to show how he is basically opposed to some of his Formalist
contemporaries and to many current genre critics whose typologies are intended to have an
absolute status. For Bakhtin, as for Fredric Jameson, genre is a modelling device that is neither a
reflec-tion of reality nor a reflection of the texts that the generic category supposedly covers or
refers to. Bakhtin situates himself firmly in opposition to those who see genre as an end in itself. His
view of parody, which is similar to Tynyanov's view (as suggested at the beginning of this article),
could be expanded to cover all genres. Parody is ever-changing as it responds to changing historical
con-ditions in its unceasing attempt to modify other literary forms which have become
monologically hypostasized. Genre is therefore not something external to individual texts but rather
another form of material that texts are constantly reworking. Ultimately, genre, for Bakhtin, is a
constitutive factor in the production of textuality. WORKS CITEDis a highly systematic dialectician,
whereas Bakhtin is primarily an

analyst and a practitioner of pragmatics. Jameson expands Bakhtin's

basic conception of genre as a mediating entity and turns it into a

methodological construct. As already pointed out, genre, as presented

in "Discourse and the Novel" and in other works, is both a stratifying

and diversifying factor in the evolution of literary forms. Jameson

extends this position and articulates a concept of mediation which is

only implicit in Bakhtin's work:

We must therefore repudiate a conception of the process of

mediation which fails to register its capacity for differentiation

and for revealing structural oppositions and contradictions

through some overemphasis on its related vocation to establish

identities. (42)

A similarly methodological extension occurs when Jameson appropriates

the concept of dialogism. The dialogical principle, in

Jameson's hands, becomes a methodological procedure:

forms themselves; they also can be grasped as a process of the

reappropriation and neutralization, the cooptation and class

transformation, the cultural universalization, of forms which

originally expressed the situation of "popular," subordinate, or

dominated groups . . . this operation of rewriting and of the

restoration of an essentially dialogical or class horizon will not be

complete until we specify the "units" of this larger system. . . .

This larger class discourse can be said to be organized around

minimal "units" which we will call ideologemes. (86-87)

Whereas Bakhtin describes how dialogism works in a wide variety of

texts, Jameson expands the concept, and it becomes a tool to be used

10

Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature, Vol. 9, Iss. 1 [1984], Art. 4

https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol9/iss1/4

DOI: 10.4148/2334-4415.1150

Clive Thomson 39

for ideological analysis in a Marxist perspective. Such an expansion

of Bakhtin's basic concepts is in no way a subversion or a deformation.

In the final analysis, Bakhtin would probably agree that generic

categories, as Jameson so eloquently states, are of essentially

"strategic value":

This final moment of the generic operation, in which the working

categories of genre are themselves historically deconstructed and

abandoned, suggests a final axiom, according to which all

generic categories, even the most time-hallowed and traditional,

are ultimately to be understood (or "estranged") as mere ad hoc,

experimental constructs, devised for a specific textual occasion

and abandoned like so much scaffolding when the analysis has

done its work. (145)

In the preceding discussion of Bakhtin's theory of literary genre,

Formalist contemporaries and to many current genre critics whose

typologies are intended to have an absolute status. For Bakhtin, as for

Fredric Jameson, genre is a modelling device that is neither a reflection

of reality nor a reflection of the texts that the generic category

supposedly covers or refers to. Bakhtin situates himself firmly in

opposition to those who see genre as an end in itself. His view of

parody, which is similar to Tynyanov's view (as suggested at the

beginning of this article), could be expanded to cover all genres.

Parody is ever-changing as it responds to changing historical conditions

in its unceasing attempt to modify other literary forms which

have become monologically hypostasized. Genre is therefore not

something external to individual texts but rather another form of

material that texts are constantly reworking. Ultimately, genre, for

Bakhtin, is a constitutive factor in the production of textuality.

WORKS CITED