Th e approach of structuralism came to philosophy from social science. It was also in social science where, in 1950–1970s, in the form of the French structuralism, the approach gained its widest recognition. Since then, however, the approach fell out of favour in social science. Recently, structuralism is gaining currency in the philosophy of mathematics. Aft er ascertai ning that the two structuralisms indeed share a common core, the question stands whether general structuralism could not fi nd its way back into social science. Th e nature of the major objections raised against French structuralism – concerning its alleged ahistoricism, methodological holism and universalism – are reconsidered. While admittedly grounded as far as French structuralism is concerned, these objections do not aff ect general structuralism as such. Th e fate of French structuralism thus does not seem to preclude the return of general structuralism into social science, rather, it provides some hints where the diffi culties may lie. and Strukturalismus přišel do fi losofi e ze společenských věd. Byly to také společenské vědy kde, v letech 1950–1970 v podobě Francouzského strukturalismu, získal strukturalismus nejširší uznání. Od té doby však jeho popularita ve společenských vědách opadla. V nedávné době však začal strukturalismus nabývat na popularitě ve fi losofi i matematiky. Ukazuje se, že tyto dvě formy strukturalismu mají na obecné úrovni mnoho společného. Otázkou pak je, zda neexistuje možnost, aby se obecně chápaný strukturalismus navrátil do společenských věd. Hlavní námitky proti Francouzskému strukturalismu – jeho ahistorismus, metodologický holismus a universalismus – jsou opětovně uváženy. Ačkoliv jsou námitky relevantní, pokud jde o Francouzský strukturalismus, nejedná se o námitky proti obecnému strukturalismu jako takovému. Osud Francouzského strukturalismu se tak nezdá být překážkou pro případný návrat obecného strukturalismu do společenských věd, spíše poskytuje postřehy, kde by se mohly vyskytnout největší obtíže.
The structuralist thought, which was at its heyday in the mid-1960s, soon became a target of criticism. However, as the article argues, at its inception, structuralism was intended more as a method rather than an all-encompassing mode of thinking. The original inspiration for structuralism came from Russian and Saussurean linguistics and, later, it was explored by Lévi-Strauss as a suitable method for anthropology and related disciplines. In this application, the emphasis is less on the structure conceived as a system of differences and more on its transformative character. Furthermore, not only the internal, but also the external relations of system are highlighted, which implies the use of comparative methods in anthropology. The possibility of studying cultural practices and symbols is enhanced when their similarities and differences are considered in terms of structures and sign-systems. The structuralist thought that denies individual agency thus appears to be a paradoxical misunderstanding of the original purpose of structuralism as a method; a science of cultural facts in their variability remains a contemporary project. and Patrice Maniglier.
This paper maps the reception of Russian formalism in Slovak literary studies in the 20th century. It discusses the historical and cultural context of the 1930s when Slovak literary scholars came into contact with the formal method. The interest of Slovak scholars in formalism was connected with their efforts to explore the foundations of structuralism and to contribute to the development of the new structuralist theory. The political situation in the country in the 1940s and the 1950s was not favourable to the formalist/structuralist approach to literature. Slovak literary studies suffered under ideological constraints. Formalism was officially repudiated by the wartime Slovak State as well as the subsequent communist regime. In the 1960s, Slovak structuralism started to flourish anew and interest in formalism was briefly revived until it was once more suppressed by the political establishment. Structuralism was rehabilitated after the Velvet Revolution of 1989. Nevertheless, at that time, the structuralist initiative had already lost the momentum to stimulate the development of literary theory. and Príspevok mapuje recepciu ruského formalizmu v slovenskej literárnej vede 20. storočia. Rozoberá historický a kultúrny kontext 30. rokov, keď slovenskí literárni vedci prišli do styku s formálnou metódou. Záujem slovenských vedcov o formalizmus súvisel s ich úsilím preskúmať základy štrukturalizmu a prispieť k rozvoju novej štrukturalistickej teórie. Politická situácia v krajine nebola v 40. a 50. rokoch priaznivá pre formalistický/štrukturalistický prístup k literatúre. Slovenská literárna veda trpela ideologickými obmedzeniami. Formalizmus bol oficiálne zapudený vojnovým Slovenským štátom, ako aj následným komunistickým režimom. V 60. rokoch začal slovenský štrukturalizmus znova prekvitať a záujem o formalizmus sa krátko na to oživil, až kým ho opäť nepotlačil politický establishment. Po Nežnej revolúcii v roku 1989 bol štrukturalizmus rehabilitovaný. V tom čase však už štrukturalistický prístup stratil hybnú silu stimulovať rozvoj literárnej teórie.
This study describes the origin and development of the friendship between the literary scholar Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and the writer Vladislav Vančura (1891–1942). Mukařovský’s interpretations of Vančura’s literary works are the main focus of the study. Both Mukařovský’s published works and texts that were never published (e.g. university lectures) are analysed. On the basis of archival research, the author of the study proves that Mukařovský analysed Vančura’s work much earlier than he published his first-ever work on Vančura in 1934. In the course of the 1940s to 1960s, Mukařovský published many texts on Vančura in which he remembered Vančura as a friend, poet, Communist and anti-fascist activist.
The work of Vladislav Vančura has attracted the attention of literary theorists from the very beginning. Among other attempts to get a theoretical grip, those offered by Jan Mukařovský and Lubomír Doležel provide us with two different but methodologically connected approaches to the author’s work. These represent two phases of Czech structuralist thought about literature. This study critically compares both approaches and highlights their similarities and dissimilarities.