Introduction: “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan
“Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan first appeared in Stylistyka XI and examines how the concept of “literariness” is embedded within cultural and social contexts, rather than being an intrinsic quality of texts. Building upon the ideas of literary theorists like Jonathan Culler, Juvan argues that literary theory has moved beyond formalist approaches that isolated literature’s distinct features, instead focusing on how literariness is socially constructed. He references Bourdieu’s sociology of art, suggesting that the identity of literature is shaped within social frameworks that include historical, ideological, and institutional influences. Juvan highlights that literature, as a category, is a construct reflecting the cultural, social, and ideological frameworks that determine what qualifies as literary. By grounding literariness in these external conventions, Juvan’s work challenges traditional definitions and emphasizes the mutable and context-dependent nature of literary texts. This study is crucial as it reshapes literary theory by underscoring that our understanding of “literary” qualities is contingent upon the cultural context, which broadens the scope for interdisciplinary approaches to studying texts.
Summary of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan
- Literariness in the Context of Literary Theory’s Evolution
Juvan highlights how the concept of literariness has evolved alongside literary theory, particularly noting a shift away from the “distinctiveness of literature” as a primary theoretical concern, as stated by Jonathan Culler (2000: 274). The focus has shifted from purely aesthetic or formalist concerns to interdisciplinary issues, integrating concepts such as race, gender, and class. This shift reflects an understanding that the very notion of literariness is deeply embedded in cultural and evaluative frameworks, rather than isolated in the text itself (Juvan, Stylistyka XI). - The Crisis and Transformation of Literary Theory
The development of literary theory was significantly influenced by Eastern and Central European intellectual traditions, particularly post-World War II, in response to the decline of positivism and historicism. The establishment of literary theory as a distinct discipline helped solidify the field, moving beyond the practical norms of poetics and rhetoric to treat literature as an autonomous social system governed by its own internal rules (Tihanov 2001; Bourdieu 1996: 294). This institutionalization and historicity underlie current challenges to the discipline as postmodern critique questions literature’s unique ontological status. - Defining Literariness as an “Objective” Feature
Juvan examines the idea of literariness as an objective feature within texts, proposing two core criteria: unique language use and a distinct perspective on reality (Culler 1989: 34). However, Jan Mukarovsky’s (1948) observations indicate that poetic language is not entirely autonomous; rather, it exists in a spectrum of linguistic styles influenced by conventions. This view challenges the notion of an inherent literary language and suggests that literariness depends on the interplay of textual structure and the reader’s interpretative practices (Mukarovsky 1948: 82-83). - Polyvalence and Referentiality in Literary Texts
Juvan expands on literariness through the lens of polysemy and textual self-referentiality, emphasizing that literary texts invite layered, interconnected readings that transcend straightforward interpretation (Garcia-Berrio 1992: 39-79). Such qualities, termed “depragmatization,” lead to a text’s meaning being tied more to cultural memory than to specific contexts (Culler 1989: 34). The literary text, therefore, generates meaning through intertextual references and requires greater reader engagement for interpretation. - Literariness as Convention and Institutional Influence
Anti-essentialist perspectives, such as those of Eagleton (1983) and Leitch (1992), argue that literariness is not confined to traditionally literary genres but arises from interpretive frameworks and social conventions that can elevate any text, including journalism, to literary status (Leitch 1992: 42). Juvan’s discussion of Tomaz Salamun’s poem exemplifies how literariness is contextually assigned, where a shift in medium or authorial name reconfigures a text’s perceived literariness based on cultural expectations (Danto 1981: 51). - The Literary Canon as a Basis for Literariness
Canonical texts play a vital role in defining literariness by setting paradigms for what is considered exemplary in literary art. These works serve as cultural reference points, embedding norms, genres, and ethical standards that guide the broader understanding of literature (Juvan 1994: 277-289). This canonization process, supported by the social and educational institutions, creates a quasi-religious “belief” in literature’s transcendent qualities, reinforcing the culturally specific effects that define a text as literary (Bourdieu 1996: 170). - Interdependent Factors of Literariness
According to Juvan, literariness results from multiple interdependent factors, including authorial intent, thematic and stylistic organization, and cultural reception (Rusch 1997: 97). These elements collectively shape a text’s literariness, with the “appropriate expectations, frameworks, and conventions” activated through reader interaction and metatextual discourse. - Conclusion: Literariness as a Flexible, Culturally-Based Convention
Juvan concludes that literariness is not a fixed quality but a “historically, socially, and culturally differentiated convention” (Schmidt 1997: 144). Systems theory, as outlined by Bourdieu and Schmidt, offers a nuanced approach to understanding the socio-historical contexts that produce literariness, underscoring that literary theory practitioners are also participants in shaping these conventions within educational and scientific frameworks.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation |
| Literariness | The quality or feature that makes a text literary, often based on distinctive use of language and textual structure. |
| Cultural Construct | The idea that literature’s status and interpretation are shaped by cultural, social, and historical frameworks. |
| Formalism | A literary theory focusing on the form and structure of a text rather than its content or cultural influences. |
| Structuralism | An approach in literary theory that examines underlying structures in a text that determine its meaning and function. |
| Polysemy | The presence of multiple meanings within words or phrases, creating depth and complexity in interpretation. |
| Self-Referentiality | A feature where the text refers to itself or its elements, encouraging readers to focus on the structure over referential content. |
| Canon | A collection of literary works and authors considered exemplary, establishing norms and values within a culture. |
| Depragmatization | The process by which literature removes pragmatic concerns, emphasizing interpretative autonomy within the text. |
| Postmodernism | A movement critiquing absolute narratives and fixed meanings, questioning literature’s unique ontological status. |
| Heteroglossia | The inclusion of multiple voices or perspectives within a text, often reflecting social and historical diversity. |
| Aesthetic Function | The distinct use of language in a text that foregrounds artistic qualities, distinguishing literary from non-literary texts. |
| Intertextuality | The shaping of a text’s meaning through references to other texts, creating interconnected layers of interpretation. |
| Autonomy of Art | The notion that art exists independently of practical and social utility, governed by its own aesthetic principles. |
| Defamiliarization | A technique of presenting familiar elements in unfamiliar ways to enhance reader awareness and perception. |
| Possible Worlds | A theory proposing that fictional narratives can represent “possible worlds,” parallel yet distinct from reality. |
| Institutionalization | The establishment of literary studies as a formal, structured discipline, especially post-World War II. |
| Nomos (Auto-nomy) | A principle where the literary field operates by its own rules, independent of other social or political domains. |
| Ideological Investment | The role of ideological beliefs in shaping what is deemed literary, often reflecting societal power dynamics. |
| Objective Literary Features | Attributes believed to inherently distinguish literary from non-literary texts, such as stylistic or thematic features. |
| Anti-Essentialism | A view opposing fixed definitions of literariness, arguing it is a social convention rather than an intrinsic quality. |
Contribution of “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Contribution to Formalist and Structuralist Theories
- Renewing the Concept of Literariness
Juvan revisits the notion of literariness from a structuralist perspective, as initially outlined by Russian Formalism, which focused on the unique qualities distinguishing literary texts from other forms of writing. Drawing from Jan Mukarovsky’s insights, Juvan emphasizes that “poetic language is characterized only by a thin layer of ‘poeticisms’” yet shares linguistic elements with other styles, suggesting that literariness is shaped by its structural autonomy but remains culturally interconnected (Mukarovsky 1948: 82-83). - Polysemy and Textual Self-Referentiality
Juvan’s analysis reinforces structuralism’s focus on language as a system by highlighting polysemy and self-referentiality as markers of literariness. These traits, he explains, “encourage readers to pay more attention to structural homologies, ambivalent meanings, and patterns of parallelisms” rather than just the referential content, thus creating a layered, self-contained experience (Garcia-Berrio 1992: 39-79).
2. Contribution to Postmodern and Deconstructive Approaches
- Literature as a Social Construct and Anti-Essentialism
Emphasizing the socially constructed nature of literature, Juvan challenges essentialist views of literariness, aligning with postmodern critiques. He draws on Vincent Leitch’s view that “literature turns into a modulated functionalist notion of ‘literatures,’” suggesting that literature should not be treated as a single, ontologically distinct category but as a heterogeneous practice embedded in various social discourses (Leitch 1992: 59). - Heteroglossia and the Polyphonic Nature of Texts
Inspired by Bakhtinian heteroglossia, Juvan illustrates how literature accommodates multiple voices and cultural contexts. He notes that “literature as a heteroglot discourse” reflects social and historical diversity, highlighting how literature engages with a multiplicity of meanings across cultural and historical boundaries (Bakhtin 1981).
3. Contribution to Reception Theory and Reader-Response Criticism
- Interpretive Flexibility and Depragmatization
Juvan’s concept of “depragmatization” contributes to reception theory by showing how a text’s literary quality relies on its reception and the interpretive framework of its readers. He explains that “literariness originates in the interpretive and social interactions of readers,” emphasizing that what is considered “literary” depends on the reader’s background, expectations, and cultural context (Culler 1989: 34). - The Role of Canon in Constructing Literariness
By exploring how canonical status impacts a text’s literariness, Juvan contributes to the understanding of literature as an evolving institution. He asserts that “canonized works function as paradigms” in shaping aesthetic, ethical, and cognitive values, illustrating that literariness itself is a historically contingent effect arising from the collective literary canon (Juvan 1994: 277-289).
4. Contribution to Sociological and Institutional Theories of Literature
- Literariness as an Ideological Construct
Drawing on Bourdieu’s sociological insights, Juvan examines how the status of literature is sustained by ideological and institutional practices. He argues that “the discourse surrounding artworks becomes a ‘literary doxa,’” through which literature gains quasi-religious status within a culture, demonstrating how literariness is reinforced by social power and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1996: 170). - Nomos and the Autonomous Function of Literature
Through his discussion of nomos (the autonomous domain within literature), Juvan reinforces the idea that literature functions within its own socially governed system. This concept aligns with Schmidt’s system theory, which sees literature as a “self-organizing social system” that operates autonomously yet is intertwined with broader socio-historical conditions (Schmidt 1989).
5. Contribution to Theories of Possible Worlds in Fiction
- Fictional Worlds and Cultural Memory
Juvan expands on the theory of possible worlds, emphasizing that literature can create alternative, fictional realities distinct from the empirical world. Citing Lubomir Dolezel, he explains that literature builds “possible worlds that coexist with actual reality, having their own logic and chronology,” reinforcing the idea that literature, through fictional worlds, not only represents reality but reimagines it within culturally specific contexts (Dolezel 1990: 67).
Examples of Critiques Through “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan
| Literary Work | Critique through “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” | Key Concepts |
| James Joyce’s Ulysses | Joyce’s work exemplifies heteroglossia, with multiple voices and linguistic styles reflecting the diversity of urban life, and challenges essentialist views of literariness. | Heteroglossia, Anti-Essentialism |
| Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude | García Márquez creates a “possible world” where magical realism defamiliarizes everyday events, encouraging a deeper interpretation of Latin American cultural history. | Possible Worlds, Defamiliarization |
| Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse | Woolf’s novel uses polysemy and self-referentiality, as Woolf’s language and themes require readers to engage deeply with symbols of time, memory, and perception. | Polysemy, Self-Referentiality, Interpretive Flexibility |
| T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land | The work’s intertextuality and reliance on cultural references construct its literariness; Eliot weaves a complex canon that evokes an atmosphere of Western cultural decay. | Canon, Intertextuality, Ideological Construct |
Criticism Against “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan
- Overemphasis on Cultural Context
Critics may argue that Juvan’s theory places excessive emphasis on cultural, social, and historical contexts, potentially undermining the intrinsic qualities of a text that can contribute to its literariness. This perspective might challenge Juvan’s cultural relativism by asserting that certain formal or aesthetic qualities are universally literary, regardless of cultural framework. - Subjectivity of Literariness
By defining literariness as a culturally contingent concept, Juvan’s approach may lead to overly subjective interpretations of what is “literary.” Some critics may feel that this flexibility erodes any stable criteria for distinguishing literature from other discourses, making it difficult to maintain literary studies as a coherent field. - Neglect of Authorial Intent
Juvan’s emphasis on reception and cultural interpretation might be seen as neglecting the role of authorial intent in constructing literariness. Critics may argue that understanding an author’s intended artistic choices is essential to defining what makes a text literary, as opposed to relying solely on the interpretations of cultural institutions or readers. - Ambiguity in Canon Formation
Critics might question Juvan’s reliance on the literary canon as a determinant of literariness, arguing that canon formation is itself a contested and politically charged process. By aligning literariness with canonical status, Juvan’s theory risks perpetuating existing biases within the canon and marginalizing works from underrepresented cultures or voices. - Potential Reduction to Sociological Analysis
Juvan’s approach could be criticized for reducing literary analysis to a sociological investigation of cultural and institutional practices. Some may argue that this perspective overlooks the aesthetic and imaginative power of literature as art, risking a focus more on cultural frameworks than on the text itself.
Representative Quotations from “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The question of literariness has become surpassed or irrelevant” (p. 9) | Juvan discusses the shift away from traditional literary theory’s focus on “literariness,” reflecting modern cultural influences. |
| “To ask ‘what is literature?’ is a way of arguing about how literature should be studied” (p. 10) | This highlights how questioning literature’s nature influences the methodologies and perspectives adopted in literary studies. |
| “Art is the kind of thing that depends for its existence upon theories” (p. 10) | Juvan reflects on the notion that art is defined by theoretical frameworks, making theory essential for understanding literature. |
| “Literature as art is a special class of phenomena of extraordinary cultural value” (p. 11) | This emphasizes the cultural and societal significance placed on literature, beyond mere aesthetics. |
| “Modern literary theory was actually born… in East-Central Europe” (p. 11) | He notes the origins of modern literary theory, linking it to specific historical and regional developments. |
| “The literary field has become fully developed from Post-romanticism to Modernism” (p. 11) | This outlines how the literary field’s growth reflects broader cultural movements, emphasizing autonomy from external pressures. |
| “The term ‘literary work of art’ is the name of a function-class” (p. 23) | Juvan explains that literariness is seen as a function within specific cultural and social contexts, not merely a textual feature. |
| “The question of literariness… can have considerable implications for policies and the situation concerning the present study of literature” (p. 13) | This suggests that defining literariness affects academic and institutional approaches to literature. |
| “Literariness is a flexible, historically, socially and culturally differentiated convention” (p. 25) | He describes literariness as a dynamic, evolving concept influenced by cultural and historical shifts. |
| “Literariness appears to be a time-, culture-, and milieu-sensitive variable” (p. 25) | Juvan concludes that literariness is a contextual construct, shaped by its environment rather than inherent qualities. |
Suggested Readings: “Literariness as a Culturally Based Feature” by Marko Juvan
- Komaromi, Ann. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes, vol. 51, no. 2/3, 2009, pp. 397–98. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40871447. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.
- Juvan, Marko. “Literariness as a culturally based feature.” Stylistyka 11 (2002): 9-30.
- Taylor, Joanna E., and Ian N. Gregory. “Deep Mapping and the Corpus of Lake District Writing.” Deep Mapping the Literary Lake District: A Geographical Text Analysis, Bucknell University Press, 2022, pp. 1–28. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2v55bsf.6. Accessed 9 Nov. 2024.