Bakhtin between East and West: Cross-Cultural Transmission by Karine Zbinden (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
344 SEER, 87, 2, APRIL 200g émigré writers and theliterary worldofFrance,themeetings had atleasttwo important results. One is of a moreabstractand conceptualnature.On a number ofoccasions, during heateddebates,Russianand Frenchparticipants discovered fundamental differences in their respective evaluation ofthesame culturalphenomena,fromSymbolism to theverynatureand spiritof the Frenchliterary canon. Thus theRussiansweresurprised to findthattheir impression ofFrenchliterature as beingaestheticist and cerebralwas notat all sharedbytheir Frenchcounterparts. As a result, theyturned a critical eye to theirnativetradition withrespectto thereception of Frenchliterature. Therewerefurther divisions in theaudience,whichat timescutacrossthe basicdistinction betweentheFrenchand Russiancamps.Forexample,there was a clearopposition betweenthemoreconservative writers, setagainstthe younger adherents oftheavant-garde. One ofthehighest dramatic pointsof allthedebateswastheconfrontation between themajority ofRussianémigrés, who held stronganti-Bolshevik convictions, on the one hand, and Ilia Zdanevichand Vladimir Pozner,whowereaccusedofsympathizing withthe Soviets, on theother. The other consequence oftheStudio'swork wasofa morepractical nature, and concernsthedissemination of theworksof Russianémigréauthorsin French.In 1929-30thejournalFrance etmonde publishedFrenchtranslations of the worksof such authorsas Aldanov,Gorodetzkii, Kuznetsova,Teffi, Tsvetaetvaand Zaitsev.Another journal, Cahiers Mil NeufCentVingt Neuf editedby one oftheStudioparticipants, Jean Maxence,offered to publish translations ofworks bysomeyounger émigrés. Moreover, texts byGorodetzkii ,Sazonova,Teffi and Zaitsevwereprinted in theRevue française, againon theinitiative ofMaxence.Although perhapsinsufficient in viewofthehigh density ofRussianwriters concentrated in inter-war France,thesedevelopmentsare nonetheless obvioussignsoftheStudio'scontribution to a certain integration ofémigréintellectuals intotheFrenchartistic milieu,creationof direct contacts, as wellas theelimination ofcertain stereotypes in themutual (mis)interpretation of Frenchand Russian literature. Le Studio Franco-Russe brings all thesepointsintofocusin a clearand balancedway,and promises tobecomean important reference sourceforspecialists in thefields ofSlavic and exilestudies, Franco-Russian cultural relations, and Frenchliterature and thought ofthelate 1920sand early1930s.As theinaugural volumein a new seriesofliterary and cultural studies, TorontoSlavicLibrary, createdbythe Toronto Slavic Quarterly, itsetsa highstandard forpublications to come. UCL SSEES Maria Rubins Zbinden, Karine. Bakhtinbetween East and West: CrossCulturalTransmission . Legenda,Oxford, 2006.xii+ 185pp.Tables.Notes.Bibliography. Index.£45.00:$69.00. With thisbook Bakhtinstudiescomes fullcircleand, like the Uroboros, seizesitsowntail.In thecourseofpreparing itKarineZbindenhas assimilatedan impressive amountofcritical material whichis suretocontainmuch reviews 345 of interest forthoseforwhom the dynamicsof Bakhtinreceptionare, as Zbindenarguestheymustbe, inseparable from theworkofBakhtin himself. Zbindenexhibits considerable theoretical insight and a capacityfornuanced analysisthroughout the work.Nevertheless, a structural flawruns like a fault-line through almosteverychapter, a flawderiving fromtheattempt to synthesize twodifferent, iftangentially related, approachesto thesubject.As she candidlyadmitsin her Introduction, an originalprojectto analysethe impactoftheearlyFrenchreception ofBakhtin, in thepersonsofKristeva and Todorov, on Bakhtinstudiesworldwideis made to dovetailwithan assessment of Bakhtinreceptiongenerally witha focuson the themeof 'sociality' (pp. 2-3). Asa result, though certain sections oftheargument pertaining tobothtasks are strong, itmustbe saidthatneither is carriedoutwholly satisfactorily. For one, the attemptat integration resultsin a ratherdisjointedcomposition, one effect ofwhichis thatTodorov (chapterfour)becomesdivorcedfrom Kristeva(chapterone), and thusalso fromtheFrenchCanadian reception (chapter two).Whilst inZbinden'sreading Todorovishelpful tothethemeof sociality in Bakhtin reception (shecredits himwithreintroducing thisin the wakeofKristeva's fateful suppression), he complicates theoriginal hypothesis thatthetwotogether influenced thegeneralreception ofBakhtin intheWest, sincetheyare notseenbyZbindenas theoretically homogeneous. RegardingtheearlyFrenchreception, thecritiqueof Kristeva'soriginal (mis)appropriation ofdialogism (as intertextuality) withitsstructuralist repressionofthesubjectand exclusion ofthesocial,is effective, as is thedistinction Zbindenelaborates betweenappropriation and distortion (pp.5-18).Chapter threeincludespowerful and revelatory analysis oftheshocking distortions of Bakhtin'sRussiantextat the hands of his earlyFrenchtranslators, which similarly repressed thesocialdimension as conveyed in theterm'heterology', thoughthisis allied to the sociality themeratherthanto FrenchBakhtin reception. (Zbinden'sinsistence on the superiority of Todorov's translation ofraznorechie overthe'heteroglossia' ofBakhtin's Englishtranslators is principled ,butdoes createanotherhurdleforthereaderin an alreadycomplex terminological environment.) Zbindendoes not examinein any depththe consequencesof thesetwo distortions fortheongoingFrenchreception ofBakhtin(she earlierimplies thiswas in factdeath, pp. 10-11),insteadapparently following the trail acrosstheAtlantic to Francophone Canada. Yet thistrailleads to a curious dead-end: Québécois sociocriticism is presentedas something of a lame duck,an ultimately unsuccessful riposteto structuralism/post-structuralism. The trailis then abandoned,along withthe originalconceptionforthe book,at theverypointat whichBakhtinstudiesbecomesan international phenomenon and a boomindustry intheUnitedStates.No argument ismade fortheongoinginfluence ofKristevain theAnglophone reception, or even foranyhistorical moment ofFrancophoneAnglophone transmission: thebook shifts uneasily ontotheterritory ofsociality. In thefinalchapter theFrenchconnection lineofargument is resuscitated in orderto die againwitha whimper in theenvironment ofRussianBakhtin 346 SEER, 87, 2, APRIL 200g studies, withan acknowledgement oftheoutright hostility ofone commentator (Vitalii Makhlin, uponwhoseworkZbindenrelies almost exclusively inher accountoftheRussianresponse to Western reception ofBakhtin - in itself a significant weakness in heranalysis), againsta background ofgeneralindifference (p. 133).Hence Zbindendoes notrealizeherstatedaim ofverifying 'theexistence ofa "Frenchconnection" in Bakhtin studies'(p. 4). Probablythestrongest sustained sectionofthebook is thethirdchapter, whichis devotedentirely to the'sociality' themeand...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».