|
May. 9th, 2014|08:46 am |
Nu, vai, piemēram, ar tiem nonkonformistiem (LV). Skaļš tāds vārds un labi tirgojas uz āru, bet kaut kā līdz galam tomēr nepārliecina. Tiesa, tā vietā, lai sāktu mērīt, kurš kuram kādu pimpi cik dziļi iekšā ņēmis, un kurš cik liels konformists vai non, tiek piedāvāta cita pieeja/jēdzieni:
Proti, "from “literature’s ballast,” romanticism evolved into a symptom of “social emancipation.” By the 1980s, dismissive descriptions of romanticism as “passive, conservative, and reactionary” had ceded to a vision of it as a “revolution in arts” that privileges dynamism, becoming, and spontaneity. [..]
we propose to view sotsromantizm as an autonomous (and relatively coherent) form of historical imagination. This politico-poetical configuration brought together dispersive impulses, anarchic inclinations, psychological introspection, and metaphorical structuring in order to repudiate the basic Soviet conventions of normative rationality and mimetic sotsrealism. In short, we will approach the romantic imagination in the late Soviet period as a form of critical engagement with “actually existing” socialism.
While many recent studies of late socialism are structured around metaphors of absence and detachment, we want to shift attention to concepts, institutions, spaces, objects, and identities that enabled (rather than prevented) individual and collective involvement with socialism. Sotsromantizm offers a ground from which to challenge the emerging dogma that depicts late Soviet society as a space where pragmatic cynics coexisted with useful idiots of the regime. The romantic sensibility sought to discover new spaces for alternative forms of affective attachment and social experience; it also helped to curtail the self-defeating practices of disengagement and indifference."
tā jau izklausās cerīgāk (kaut kurp vedošāk). |
|