Читать книгу Between Lenin and Bandera - Anna Kutkina - Страница 10

When we come to examining decommunization as a multivocal rather than solely uniform phenomenon, Bakhtin’s reading of the single-thought discourse or ‘monologism’ as an integral part of the ‘dialogical principle’ is particularly timely. Homophony, or single-voice, is “the one transcendental perspective or consciousness that integrates all signifying practices, ideologies, values and desires that are deemed significant” (Robinson 2011: 39). According to Bakhtin, in a monological world, the subjects have value only in relation to the dominant, transcendent perspective. They are reduced to the status of objects by means of not having rights as to be recognized as a separate, independent consciousness. Within such a framework, the ‘truth’ is being constructed abstractly and from the dominant perspective that creates a horizon of meaning that excludes the possibility of articulation of autonomous voices. Such a process leads to discursive elimination or ‘death’ of the other who is unheard and exists in a state of non-being. In his examination of the origins of monologism, Bakhtin provides the example of novels where characters exist exclusively to articulate the author’s ideology. The characters are deprived of their distinct voices and are used by the author as a tool for establishment of a single-tone, ‘flat’ narrative. Taken beyond the exclusively literary circles, the scheme of monologism is applicable for a broader socio-political context of hegemonic political meaning-making. According to Bakhtin, “the closure of recognition and public articulation of different voices is that of language that [becomes] associated with nationalism” (Bakhtin 1981: 18). Such tendencies of centralization of the discursive formations and the neglect of multivocality are counterposed to construction of the linguistic or socio-political diversity.

As discursive and ideological contrast, dialogism, further on, countervails the establishment and implementation of monologism. Its primary characteristic, referred to by Bakhtin as ‘double-voiced’ or ‘multi-voiced,’ is the recognition of multiplicity of voices and citizens’ perspectives. In literary terms, dialogism is present in a novel when each character has his or her “final word and relates to and interacts with [that] of the other character” (Robinson 2011: 42). Importantly, the discourse does not simply unfold, but rather interacts, leaving space for articulation of the multiple into a multivocal discursive construction. Within the framework of theories such as ‘discourse analysis,’ dialogism is seen as a mechanism or a scheme for construction of heterogeneous hegemonic formations—the street names, political posters, or multiple modes of toppling/or preservation of monuments that serve as physical and discursive space for articulation of diverse socio-political and cultural stands of both the citizens and the government are but a few examples of such phenomenon. In its nature, the dialogical process transcends both voice and time uniformity. It engages with and is formed by the voices of others; it obtains meanings from both the present and the past, and uses the history to articulate and construct within both the private and public domain. As means of construction of cultural and socio-political strata that is sensitive to diversity, the dialogical discourse requires not only acknowledgement, but also the interaction of ‘differences.’ Following Laclau and Mouffe, it is designed to generate participation and response and has a polemical quality of resisting a ‘closure’—“the temporary interruption in the fluctuation of meanings” (Laclau and Mouffe 1985: 104).

For Bakhtin, all signifying practices, be it the use of language or symbols, have an ultimately dialogical objective. “Human consciousness is not a unified entity, but rather is always conflict-ridden between different consciousnesses” (Robinson 2011: 42). What emerges as a ground claim of Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism is that it does not only provide space for discursive articulation of differences; if being applied within a particular political or cultural framework (such as that of Ukraine, for instance), dialogism implies practical implications of giving a particular voice—the discursive or political space—to the standpoints of many. Therefore, it assumes creation of a society that is fundamentally irreducible to dominance of the one over the many. As Robinson illustrates in his analysis of Bakhtin’s Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, “[dialogism] denies the possibility of transcendence of difference...separateness and simultaneity are permanently with us” (Robinson 2011: 43). Within such a context, meanings are being established within the process of contestation, where engagement into a dialogue is the primary context for construction of a socially inclusive world-view.

In Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, Bakhtin develops the concept of polyphony that informs much of his literary and political work. Literally meaning multiple voices, polyphony develops into a single perspective that acknowledges the existence of different voices that are not subordinated to the voice of the author (be that an author of a literary work or a political leader or entity). In its basic terms, the process of the discursive struggle implies the existence of more than one voice. In The Dialogic Imagination, Bakhtin expands the concept of dialogism into that of heteroglossia. In his essays, the emphasis is made on the conjunction of diverse speech-genres. Each novel is composed in different styles to assemble multiple voices into a single text. The monological view of a novel, or a particular narration of the text is turned into a combination of diverse perspectives because, Bakhtin argues, “the language which is used has been borrowed from others.” The novelistic ‘scale’ of heteroglossia and the discursive struggle is also the feature of the socio-political and cultural space that discloses both history and present.

For Bakhtin, the view of language as a closed system is problematic, since he sees the creation of a unified language, for instance, as a vehicle for centralization of power. By elevating a particular language to the status of ‘national’ or ‘international’ (such as English within the colonial context, for example), there occurs a suppression of heteroglossia of multiple everyday speech types (or socio-political stands) by hegemonization of a particular language (or ideology).

What we can extract from Bakhtin's theory as essentially valuable is the idea of centralizing tendencies being the process that counterposes diversity. It can be applied for examining what I argue to be the construction of the homogeneous hegemonic formation, as well as articulation of heterogeneous hegemonic domain. Articulated by the state, monologism (or homogeneous hegemonic formation) co-exists ‘in line’ with heteroglossia—the multivocal counter-hegemonic construction of the diverse citizens’ voices. For Bakhtin, it is heteroglossia that construes the foundation of socio-political and cultural existence of the state. In broader historical terms, “monoglossic dominance is doomed to be ruptured by the return of heteroglossia, as the dominant discourse is interrupted by multiple voices of the people” (Robinson 2011: 45). As such, for the social ways of expression to occur via peaceful means, though contested and changing, the dialogue is the primary form for articulation of meanings.

In his analysis of history, Bakhtin uses the theory of “monologism versus heteroglossia,” where he argues that “it is the emergence of dialogism at particular points of the state’s course that produces cultural revolutions” (Bakhtin 1981: 15). As I examine further in more detail, the expression of multivocality within a point when the state occupies or imposes the position of monologism, in our case—Russia’s dominance over Ukraine, provokes not only cultural, but also socio-political transformations. Within such a process, old forms of physical or discursive formations are given new meanings, while new social relations produce new forms of speech (or re-construct the old ones). Not necessarily new, the physical objects of daily existence, such as monuments or street names are given new meanings via articulation of particular, at times diverse, discourses into a regional (or national) hegemonic formation. Not necessarily the complementary truths, different perspectives produce new realities and novel ways of seeing. Here, according to Robinson, “it is incommensurability which gives dialogue its power.”