Read more
The revisionist approach in this book, based on Mikhail Bakhtin¿s work, traces the search for common and specific grounds of the humanities, beginning with psychologism through hermeneutics and semiotics up to the present state of self-annihilation. As an alternative, the book seeks to define humanities as the examination of relationships, which offers an array of refreshing perspectives on each field discussed.
List of contents
Introduction
Matthias Freise
Internal Dialogism of Russian Postmodern Literature ¿ Polyphony or Schizophrenia?
Maria Andrianova
Between Socrates and the Stranger: How Dialogic Are Plato¿s Dialogues?
Kryštof Bohá¿ek
Dialogic Method in Literary History
Matthias Freise
Towards a Dialogical Sociology
Michä Kaczmarczyk
Discourses in the Design of Cultural Artifacts
Klaus Krippendorff
Attachment Patterns in the Bi-personal Field
Reinhard Plassmann
Voices in Image. A Methodological and Theoretical Approach to the Dialogic Image of the Other with the European Image of China as an Example
Xiaojing Wang
List of Contributors
About the author
Matthias Freise is professor of Slavic Literatures and Cultures at Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany.
Summary
Offers an examination of seven disciplines within the humanities field which underwent a fundamental transformation. In order to apply ‘exact’ scientific methods, these disciplines turned away from their very subjects and took a revisionist approach based on the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, tracing the search for common and specific grounds of the humanities.
Additional text
“This engaging volume offers seven chapters with different
perspectives on the ‘dialogic’ in the humanities, taking Mikhail Bakhtin’s
formulation and testing it from the perspective of seven different disciplines
within the humanities. … This is a thought-provoking read for anyone working in
the humanities now, although it does expect a reasonable degree of familiarity
with Bakhtin, and it creates a strong argument for defining the humanities in
terms of the relational and the dialogic.” —Forum for Modern Language
Studies, Vol. 55, No. 2
