Formalism- an introduction

Formalism is one of those ideas which starts to make your head hurt after too long.

Formalism, in its nascent form, emerged from the stormy place that was early-20^th century Russia. Drawing from some symbolist influences, the school sought a more scientific and objective way to view a text. The early thinkers of the school did not call themselves “Formalists”- the theory is hard to sum up in just one word. Some especially unwieldy names include the “Morphological school” and my favorite, the “system-functional” approach. The beginnings of the school are fractured- and the harsh political climate did the thinkers no favors. A notable early group was called OPOYAZ, or the “Society for the Study of Poetic Language.” Interestingly, the theory has grown much beyond the language we think of as poetic, and is applied (as you will see, by me) to other mediums and genres.

So to the elephant in the room. As the name implies, Formalism stresses the form of a work, and especially only the things that are contained within it. The theory seeks to quiet outside influences of culture and society and focus on just the text itself. It is somewhat of a reaction to romanticism and the almost worship of the author or artist. Instead, what Formalism examines is how that text relies on previous works before it, and the form of the work.

After its formation, the Soviet regime was not too friendly towards the school. Marxist theory dictates how the economic class struggle is the basis of society and affects everything. So when Roman Jakobson strolls along and suggests that nothing should influence the meaning of the text but the text itself, the Muskovians do not take it too lightly.

It is at this point that I should address what “Russian” formalism is and how it differs from traditional formalism. It is a bit of a misnomer, as formalism started in Russia and is mainly associated with that country. Russian formalism is scientific and adopts several unique and distinctive ideas. Those ideas are as follows:

• Creation of an objective science of literature (“Poetics”)
• The use of linguistics as a foundation of that objective science.
•  Literature exists externally from outside influences. As such, literary language is inherently different from regular language, which is mostly concerned with just communication.
• The history of literature is the history of the creation of formal structures. It is not determined by material history.
•   The form of a work is inextricable from its meaning.

 This blog will be concerned with the ideas of Russian Formalism mainly, and the application of that type of literary criticism to selected texts.

Now that we have somewhat of a grasp on the theory of Formalism, more specifically Russian Formalism, we can revisit its history. When the Bolsheviks came into power in 1917, the Formal system came to be at odds with the government. Trotsky wrote a rebuttal to the system after the revolution, rejecting its rejection of outside influences. It should be noted that Formal theory is diametrically opposed to Marxism, which stresses how all text is a part of the class struggle. Finally, in 1929, Formalism was condemned in the Soviet Union but pervaded in the free world.

Of great interest to historians is the treatment of the Formal system in the USSR. Under the Zhdanov Doctrine, all Soviet artists and intellectual elites had to conform to the communist party’s wishes and regulations. Furthermore, a decree on music in 1948 kicked off the “anti-formalism campaign.” Eventually, these critiques subsided, but not before making a permanent dent in the culture and thinking of the Soviet Union.

The Formal Method was arguably the dominant form (heh) of criticism in the US during the 40’s through the 1970’s. New Criticism, which arose around the same time, is not altogether unrelated to formalism, however they arose independently.

Most of the founding fathers, as it were, of Formalism were Russian. OPOYAZ, the group that I mentioned before, which founded “Poetics”, was made up of some of the most influential thinkers in the school—Boris Eichenbaum, Tynyanov, but most notably Viktor Shlovsky, seen by Eichenbaum and others to be the father of Formalism. Another school, the Moscow Linguistic Circle, was made up of thinkers like Roman Jakobson and Boris Tomashevsky. (This group contributed to linguistics in addition to semiotics.) (You may have heard of a few of those things.) (Is anyone actually reading this?)

Looking forward, this blog will evaluate 5 different works and apply the Formal Method to each, with an in-depth discussion and a view that will step back and do a sort of meta-analysis. I hope you will join me this most noble quest.

“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.” Cervantes

Viktor Shklovsky

Sources Cited:

Eikhenbaum, Boris Mikhailovich. The Theory of the “Formal Method”. (1926): n. pag. Web. 31 May 2016. <http://letras.cabaladada.org/letras/theory_fomal_method.pdf>.

"Formalism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 30 May. 2016
<http://www.britannica.com/topic/Formalism-literary-criticism.

Steiner, Peter. Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics. Lausanne: Sdvig, 2014. Print.

Taruskin, Richard, and Richard Taruskin. Music in the Late Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.