Forms offers a powerful new answer to one of the most pressing problems facing literary, critical, and cultural studies today--how to connect form to political, social, and historical context. Caroline Levine argues that forms organize not only works of art but also political life--and our attempts to know both art and politics. Inescapable and frequently troubling, forms shape every aspect of our experience. But forms don't impose their order in any simple way. Multiple shapes, patterns, and arrangements, overlapping and colliding, generate complex and unpredictable social landscapes that challenge and unsettle conventional analytic models in literary and cultural studies.
Borrowing the concept of "affordances" from design theory, this book investigates the specific ways that four major forms--wholes, rhythms, hierarchies, and networks--have structured culture, politics, and scholarly knowledge across periods, and it proposes exciting new ways of linking formalism to historicism and literature to politics. Levine rereads both formalist and antiformalist theorists, including Cleanth Brooks, Michel Foucault, Jacques Rancière, Mary Poovey, and Judith Butler, and she offers engaging accounts of a wide range of objects, from medieval convents and modern theme parks to Sophocles's Antigone and the television series The Wire.
The result is a radically new way of thinking about form for the next generation and essential reading for scholars and students across the humanities who must wrestle with the problem of form and context.
1 有用 胡桃夹子 2020-01-31 12:31:10
近年学界诸多为回归"形式"张本的尝试之一。回应了二战后文学界对totality, institution等的paranoid hostility,用跨度很大的例子讨论被视作normative/oppressive的诸概念如何同时可以是productive containment。本书探讨的其实是一个老生常谈的问题,即什么样的概念是有用的。作者对form的推崇主要关注其transferability... 近年学界诸多为回归"形式"张本的尝试之一。回应了二战后文学界对totality, institution等的paranoid hostility,用跨度很大的例子讨论被视作normative/oppressive的诸概念如何同时可以是productive containment。本书探讨的其实是一个老生常谈的问题,即什么样的概念是有用的。作者对form的推崇主要关注其transferability/iterability(奇妙的德里达回音,尽管作者声称要move beyond deconstruction);但讽刺的是,form/formalism同时被扩张到无限大,以致作为概念完全失去作用。远不如North那本。 (展开)
0 有用 Charcoal 2023-02-20 17:20:52 北京
Levine将“形式”这一概念确定化,让作为组织方式的形式成为跨越文学、历史的本体论基础。这种逻辑和新物质主义、ANT很像,认为活力、能动性是可以分散在异质的媒介当中。但是,正如Lehman所说,这就意味着主体的缺席,仅仅关注客观中立的“mere form”而忽略了美学的“phenomenal form”。
2 有用 胖达叔 2018-03-14 22:40:19
没看过火线,所以最后的例子不太熟悉。整体思想感觉非常朗西埃,但是格局也非常狭小,workshop时作者解释了为什么,为了更多的人能加入讨论,这大概也是一种桎梏。workshop看到作者为了捍卫自己的书不停回应博士们的提问,真的感觉压力好大好紧张。北美学生的训练也由此可见一斑了。
0 有用 自深深處 2022-09-23 10:44:35 美国
读完就是 “I agree with everything you said but是不是有一点太不好操作呢levine女士”
0 有用 孤泪君 2022-04-19 05:03:00
很久没有读文化研究作品了,又回到了当时纠结文学和现实的关系的问题。作者的立场(形式主义,形式即政治,政治即美学(?))立足于一个扩展了范畴的形式概念,用affordance(潜力)来定义和讨论形式。可以看到福柯的影响。