Sharper Distinctions for Debates over »Realism« in German Literature and Theater
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21818312 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Yvonne Huetter‐Almerigi (0000-0003-1204-6228, Zambon (Italy), corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 170-193 |
| Publication date | 2024-09-30 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Literary Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1862-5290 • E-ISSN: 1862-8990 |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1515/jlt-2024-2008 |
| OpenAlex | W4402757531 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
The concept of »realism« has resurged in contemporary literary debates, driven by calls for literature and theater to engage more deeply with its political responsibilities. Following its prominence in the 1930s and 1960s, the past two decades have seen renewed calls for a more realistic approach in German literature. Authors like Matthias Politycki have advocated for »relevant realism« in novel writing, while Milo Rau has called for »global realism« in theater and Bernd Stegemann has extolled the virtues of realism. But what exactly makes it the case that words and performances can impact or change reality? In these old and new literary debates there is usually no recourse to advanced linguistic theories, no spelling out, at least not in detail, of how the influence of literature or theater on the world and our reality should or is taking place. All these approaches are , of course, based on a certain idea of what language is, can, and should be but it remains, in most cases, implicit. I propose making them explicit and expanding our conceptual repertoire when discussing the relationship between language and reality to better understand how particular authors and theorists believe literature should fulfill its political role. Specifically, I suggest complementing the post-structuralist view of language, which is prevalent in literary theory, with categories from analytic philosophy of language, including the positions of Quine, Davidson, and Rorty. Notably, I introduce the concepts of representationalism, antirepresentationalism, dualism, and holism. These categories, I argue, provide a more effective framework for understanding both post-structural and analytic approaches to the relationship between language and reality. I illustrate my claim by referring to the debate between Searle and Derrida over Derrida’s »Il n’y a pas de hors-texte« and the debate in analytic philosophy of language over dualism vs. holism as prominently exposed by Quine, Davidson, and Rorty. Furthermore, employing these categories reveals significant aspects of past and present literary debates that were previously hidden and are worth understanding. I analyze the implicit assumptions about the intersection of language and reality in Bernd Stegemann’s approach and in the debate over realism between György Lukács and Bertolt Brecht, to which Stegemann refers. Brecht and Lukács differ not only in their interpretations of Marxism and their aesthetic beliefs but also fundamentally in their views on language and its connection to epistemology and political action. Understanding this additional layer of differences offers valuable insights also for contemporary analysis and theory-making. The primary goal of this article is to uncover perspectives that have been previously obscured in literary debates by applying concepts from analytic philosophy. Importantly, I am not suggesting a direct historical influence or connection between these fields. Rather, I am offering a systematic lens claiming that by using my proposed categories, we can enhance our understanding of the nexus between language and reality at large and improve our ability to critically engage with historical and contemporary literary debates
Aesthetics · Art · German · German Literature · Linguistics · Literature · Realism · German Colonialism and Identity Studies · German Literature and Culture Studies · Philosophy · Philosophy and Historical Thought
| Highly cited | No |
|---|