Introduction
Literary discourse studies are mainly oriented at the determination of the results of literary practices and representations. Fulfillment of its objectives implies, as well, contribution of the knowledge obtained by the neighboring disciplines. Sociology of literature excludes interpretation of “Literary Republic” as an autonomous and independent universum, ruled by free mind. In contrast to this, modern literary studies introduce the concept of a “Literary Field”. It is one of the subdivisions of a power field and inevitably undergoes influence of the political conjuncture. Dispositions governing in the power field are reflected on the literary field either positively or negatively. It’s quite natural that a text may fall under the influence of dispositions even without the author’s reflection. It is caused by aspiration of the literary field for homologousness.
While discussing political functions of literature, it is important to determine what place it occupies in the social sphere and how influential is the mechanism. In the 19th century as a result of appearance of the bourgeois class in Georgia, social field undergoes structural transformation. Different branches of art (among them, literature) abandon the limited premises and penetrate into the various layers of the socium. Fundamental changes are caused by economical factors which are in direct connection with the scale of the literature distribution.
Art penetrates into the everyday life. Besides the king’s court parties now it appears in the markets and crowd gathering places where people repeat the phrases from their favorite dramatic or lyrical texts. Literature saturates everyday life on the linguistic and ethos levels. Special attention should be paid to the intense interaction between the two verbal spheres: literature and spoken language. Literary text not only reflects the social texture, but makes its modeling.
Another important cultural challenge, which preconditions the character of literature, is activation of the liberal and national movements in the XVIII-XIX centuries. Romanticism as a revisional vision directed against the imperialistic regimes, gathers national and liberal ideas. Russian Romanticism shares national (Imperial narrative) and liberal doctrine in a specific way. It is developed on the edge between the military and literary practices and therefore is not regulated.
In order to determine the premises of the literary field, we should identify the habituses of the field agents and governing dispositions as the indicators of the practices, creating the homogenous context. For the evaluation of the cultural identity of the field, it is important to study the contradictions between the heterogenic fields, aimed at getting legacy on the cultural market.
Militaristic narrative, being projected on the literary sphere penetrates into different layers: the plot, the theme, the motive, the trope. For their analysis in the investigation have been used semiotic methodologies of the Russian formalist (Shklovsky, Propp), Prague (Jakobson, wellec) and French (Levi-Strauss, Barthes) structuralist schools introduced in literary studies (Barthes) and in Anthropology (Levi-Strauss). The main semantic models are discussed in the light of the literary politics.
Research materials observed in the scientific publication are fiction and documentary sources. Reconstruction of the XIX century Georgian everyday life became possible due to the memoirs, correspondence, diaries, notes and publicity of the writers and public figures, as well as due to the realistic fiction texts, which, thanks to the specificity of their creative methodology, are rather representative and enable us to carry out “archeological” investigations in the social life of the period. The analysis of different layers of the militaristic narratives represent interesting details of the Empire’s cultural politics.
ჩუქება
