“Aesthetic Function, Norm, And Value As Social Facts” by Jan Mukarovsky: Summary and Critique

·  Literary Work’s Dependence on Literary Environment:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin argue that a literary work is inherently part of the “literary environment,” which is the collective body of socially active literary works of a given epoch. They state, “The individual literary work is a dependent and therefore actually inseparable element of the literary environment” (p. 26). This environment directly influences the work, making it inseparable from the socio-cultural and ideological context of its time.

·  Complex System of Interconnections:

• The authors describe a “complex system of interconnections and mutual influences” within literature, where each element is defined within multiple, interrelated unities (p. 27). They assert that literature cannot be understood outside the context of the ideological and socioeconomic environment, as “the ideological environment in its totality and in each of its elements is likewise a dependent element of the socioeconomic environment” (p. 27). This interconnectedness emphasizes the need to study literature as part of a larger socio-cultural system.

·  Dialectical Approach to Literary History:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin advocate for a dialectical approach in literary history, where the study of a literary work must account for its place within the broader ideological and socioeconomic context. They emphasize, “The work cannot be understood outside the unity of literature,” and this unity itself “cannot be studied outside the unified socioeconomic laws of development” (p. 28). This dialectical method is crucial for understanding the dynamic interactions that shape literary works.

·  Literary Individuality within Social Context:

• While literature interacts with various domains of socio-economic life, it does not lose its individuality. The authors argue, “In fact, its individuality can only be completely discovered and defined in this process of interaction” (p. 30). This statement highlights that the unique characteristics of a literary work are best understood when analyzed within its broader social and ideological context.

·  Rejection of Isolated Literary Systems:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin reject the idea of viewing literature as a closed, independent system, asserting that “The notion of closed and independent cultural systems is completely inadmissible” (p. 31). They argue that literature is always in interaction with other cultural and social systems, and studying it in isolation would result in an incomplete understanding of its role and significance.

·  Sociological Poetics and Literary History:

• The authors introduce the concept of sociological poetics as essential for a comprehensive understanding of literary history. They state, “Literary history essentially presupposes the answers sociological poetics provides to the problems which have been set” (p. 32). This approach involves analyzing the structure of literary works—such as genre, style, and theme—in relation to their ideological and social contexts.

·  Critique of Formalism:

• Medvedev and Bakhtin critique the formalist approach to literature, which isolates literary works from their social context. They argue, “For if literature is a social phenomenon, then the formal method, which ignores and denies this, is first of all inadequate to literature itself” (p. 34). They believe that formalism fails to capture the true nature of literature by neglecting its social and ideological dimensions.

·  Marxism and the Formal Method:

• The authors stress the importance of Marxist criticism in countering the formalist approach. They claim that Marxism “cannot leave the work of the formalists without exhaustive critical analysis” (p. 34). This analysis is necessary because formalism’s neglect of the social nature of literature leads to “false interpretations and definitions” (p. 34). Marxist literary scholarship, therefore, seeks to incorporate social and ideological context into the study of literature to provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding.

Aesthetic Function as a Structural Element:

• Mukarovsky argues that the aesthetic function is integral to the structure of art, not just an addition or an attribute. This function elevates the artistic sign beyond simple communication, imbuing it with a deeper, more complex relationship with reality.

Artistic Sign and Indirect Realities:

• The artistic sign does not directly represent reality but acts as a mediator to connect with various indirect realities. This connection is crucial for the audience to engage with art on a personal and social level, enhancing the interpretive richness of the artwork.

Social Construct of Artistic Interpretation:

• Interpretation of art is not purely individualistic but deeply rooted in social constructs. Mukarovsky posits that every artistic interpretation is influenced by the social context, making art a social fact, contrary to the notion of subjective isolation.

Dynamic Relationship Between Art and Reality:

• Art creates a dynamic interaction between its own content and the broader societal values. This interaction is not merely reflective but actively engages with and potentially transforms societal norms and values.

The Role of Aesthetic Values in Social Dynamics:

• Aesthetic values are not static; they participate actively in the social dialogue, challenging and potentially altering societal values. Art’s autonomy allows it to experiment with these values, proposing new configurations and adaptations.

Negation of Concrete Reality in Art:

• Art serves as a dialectical negation of concrete reality, allowing for a more profound exploration of themes and concepts that extend beyond the immediate and tangible. This negation is essential for the transformative power of art.

Form and Content Integration:

• Mukarovsky challenges the traditional separation of form and content in art. He argues that all elements of a work of art are interdependent and contribute to its overall meaning and impact, blurring the lines between form and content.

Extra-Aesthetic Values in Art:

• Art is seen as a repository of extra-aesthetic values. These values transcend the immediate aesthetic experience and engage with broader life values, influencing the viewer’s perception of reality and their position within it.

Transformative Potential of Art:

• The transformative potential of art lies in its ability to reorder and redefine value systems within a society. Art’s engagement with life values facilitates a critical examination and potential transformation of these values, contributing to societal evolution.

Art as a Social Agent:

• Art functions as a significant social agent, capable of influencing and reflecting societal changes and tensions. Its autonomy and aesthetic function enable it to engage deeply with societal dynamics, making it a powerful tool in the social arena.

Overemphasis on Social Determinism

• Mukarovsky’s theory tends to overemphasize the role of social factors in shaping aesthetic experience, potentially neglecting the autonomy of the individual and the power of the artwork itself.
• It risks reducing the complexity of artistic creation and reception to a mere reflection of social structures.

Limited Account of Individual Experience

• While acknowledging the influence of social context, Mukarovsky’s theory may not fully account for the unique and personal experiences of individual readers or viewers.
• It might overlook the subjective and emotional dimensions of aesthetic response.

Difficulty in Defining “Aesthetic Value”

• Despite its centrality to the theory, the concept of “aesthetic value” remains somewhat elusive and difficult to precisely define.
• The relationship between aesthetic value and extra-aesthetic values is not always clearly articulated.

Oversimplification of Form and Content

• Mukarovsky’s rejection of the traditional form-content distinction might be seen as an oversimplification of the complex relationship between these elements in a work of art.
• It could potentially lead to a neglect of the formal qualities of art.

Neglect of Historical and Cultural Variation

• While recognizing the role of social context, Mukarovsky’s theory might not adequately account for the historical and cultural specificity of aesthetic experiences.
• It risks generalizations that may not hold true across different times and places.

Potential for Reductionism

• By focusing on the social determinants of aesthetic experience, there is a risk of reducing art to a mere instrument of social ideology or propaganda.
• This could limit the potential for art to challenge and transform social norms.