|
Abstract Bakhtin is adept at exploring the diverse aspects of multiple theories and touches on the extremes by transcending their boundary. His originality as a great thinker lies in the originality as a great synthesizer who has the talent for the employment of specified discourse from different disciplines, i.e. the concepts in linguistics, artistic history and theology. He can change and expand the field of these concepts while presenting new ones quietly but particularly appealing. It is these concepts that transcend the conceptual limits of their respective disciplines, endow them with a new life and change their previous identity. It is this transformation that makes the term conform to the inner growth. During the process , the concepts expand their coherence scale and even evolve into the metaphor. This transformation can be typical of Bakhtin’s theoretical construction and characteristic of Bakhtin’s writing especially in the 1930s. It is this transformative energy that distinguish Bakhtin from other possible or conspicuous pioneers in such different disciplines as linguistics, sociology, theology and art. In Bakhtin’s application of “dialogue”, we can become aware of its linguistic substratum different from Soviet linguist Lev Jakybinskii who presented the earliest “dialogue” issue and Mykarovskii, Czech literary critic, the writer of Dialogue and Monologue. Bakhtin did not confine himself to the contrast between “dialogue” and “monologue” and his interpretation of “dialogue” is broader. Bakhtin invites us to hear the dialogue inside every discourse uttered, the dialogue expressed among the voices of constrasting world views, and the dialogue fundamental to different cultural typology with multiple and broad aspects. Bakhtin displaces dialogue to “ranges” of different disciplines, applies it to a set of narrative “spectrum” and uses it for the culture as a whole. If we focus only on the linguistic origin of the “dialogue”, we can not acquire the power and the charm of the Bakhtin’s “dialogism”. The reason why Bakhtin can do this is that he’s steeped in the cultural philosophy especially from his earliest writing of ethics and aesthetics to later matured cultural philosophy. In the evolution, his new humanism without subjectivity is not only his own distinguished achievement in the 1930s but also the source of vitality in the intellectual history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
