Page 246 - Marcello Potocco, Nacionalni imaginariji, literarni imaginariji, Dissertationes 20
P. 246
Nacionalni imaginariji – Literarni imaginariji
ing material and symbolic elements (language, ethnosymbolic tradition,
common mythology, territory, etc.). However, national identifications
can be primarily understood as narrative identifications. Paul Ricœur’s
idea of identification as a narrative identity thus serves as a link for in-
terpreting the junction of national identification and literature as one
of the possible agents of national self-representation. Although sever-
al social and material practices may serve as a basis for (self)representa-
tion – that is, for the production and dissemination of national myths
(e.g., the school system, as Althusserian theories imply) – literature may
become one of the dominant practices in this process because it is it-
self constructed as a narration. However, literature may become such an
agent mainly if the nation is constructed on the basis of common ethnic
and cultural heritage instead of the principle of jus soli, because in such
cases the principle of mythological narration overpowers the principle
of common territory.
In the section “Literature, Ideology and the Imaginary,” the elusive
relation between literature and ideology is analysed. The notion of the
“social imaginary” – as developed by Castoriadis – brings the possibili-
ty to reconsider the relation between the literary structure, its reception,
and ideology. While ideology is seen as a radical expression of the social
imaginary in modern society, it can only manifest itself through the ide-
ological function, which does not necessarily destruct the aesthetic ex-
perience. In a literary structure, elements may exist that enable a strong
identification with the extra-textual world, but this involves primarily
identifications with significations of the social imaginary. In an ideo-
logical text, affective elements play a secondary role, while conceptual-
rational, and subject-material elements provide the basis for the read-
er’s identification. An ideological structure retains a largely convention-
al, “pragmatic” relation between the signifiers and the signified, link-
ing them to the social imaginary and, possibly, a uniform interpreta-
tive code. Nevertheless, the (non-)realization of the ideological function
within a text always depends on the social, extra-textual codes of inter-
pretation, since ideology can only interpellate as a socio-historical force
imposed by the reader on a text.
The second part of the book starts by discussing narratives of the so
called Canadian founding myth. In the Canadian literary history, two
opposing theses may be discerned in regard to space as a basic agent of
Canadian national self-perception – especially as represented in the lit-
erary corpus. Even 30 years after their rise, one cannot ignore the influ-
encing assumptions made by Northrop Frye and Margaret Atwood in
ing material and symbolic elements (language, ethnosymbolic tradition,
common mythology, territory, etc.). However, national identifications
can be primarily understood as narrative identifications. Paul Ricœur’s
idea of identification as a narrative identity thus serves as a link for in-
terpreting the junction of national identification and literature as one
of the possible agents of national self-representation. Although sever-
al social and material practices may serve as a basis for (self)representa-
tion – that is, for the production and dissemination of national myths
(e.g., the school system, as Althusserian theories imply) – literature may
become one of the dominant practices in this process because it is it-
self constructed as a narration. However, literature may become such an
agent mainly if the nation is constructed on the basis of common ethnic
and cultural heritage instead of the principle of jus soli, because in such
cases the principle of mythological narration overpowers the principle
of common territory.
In the section “Literature, Ideology and the Imaginary,” the elusive
relation between literature and ideology is analysed. The notion of the
“social imaginary” – as developed by Castoriadis – brings the possibili-
ty to reconsider the relation between the literary structure, its reception,
and ideology. While ideology is seen as a radical expression of the social
imaginary in modern society, it can only manifest itself through the ide-
ological function, which does not necessarily destruct the aesthetic ex-
perience. In a literary structure, elements may exist that enable a strong
identification with the extra-textual world, but this involves primarily
identifications with significations of the social imaginary. In an ideo-
logical text, affective elements play a secondary role, while conceptual-
rational, and subject-material elements provide the basis for the read-
er’s identification. An ideological structure retains a largely convention-
al, “pragmatic” relation between the signifiers and the signified, link-
ing them to the social imaginary and, possibly, a uniform interpreta-
tive code. Nevertheless, the (non-)realization of the ideological function
within a text always depends on the social, extra-textual codes of inter-
pretation, since ideology can only interpellate as a socio-historical force
imposed by the reader on a text.
The second part of the book starts by discussing narratives of the so
called Canadian founding myth. In the Canadian literary history, two
opposing theses may be discerned in regard to space as a basic agent of
Canadian national self-perception – especially as represented in the lit-
erary corpus. Even 30 years after their rise, one cannot ignore the influ-
encing assumptions made by Northrop Frye and Margaret Atwood in
