Russian Formalism and “Pluralistic Defamiliarization Theory”

Abstract

This article examines Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky’s theory of prose through a sociological descriptive analysis approach, situating it within the disciplines of the sociology of art, literary theory, cultural studies, and aesthetics. Shklovsky is recognized as one of the most influential figures in twentieth-century literary theory and is particularly known for developing the concept of “defamiliarization/estrangement” (ostranenie) within Russian Formalism. This concept posits that the purpose of art is to free perception from automatization, allowing individuals to see the world from a fresh perspective. The term has influenced various movements, including Dadaism, postmodernism, epic theatre, culture compression, science fiction, and philosophy. The article first explores the theoretical foundations of Shklovsky’s approach within the context of literary theory and the philosophy of art. It then examines the role of defamiliarization in literature and other artistic disciplines, assessing its cultural and social implications. In particular, the relationship between modern literary works and social consciousness is analyzed from a sociological perspective. The primary aim of this research is to reveal how Shklovsky’s aesthetic approach contributes to social transformation. In this regard, it is argued that literature and art function not merely as aesthetic practices but also as tools that reshape social perception. The article’s original contribution lies in extending Shklovsky’s theory of prose beyond literary analysis, evaluating it within a broader sociocultural framework. As a literary theorist, Shklovsky also wrote biographical literary critiques on authors such as Laurence Sterne, Maxim Gorky, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Vladimir Mayakovsky. Additionally, he authored several semi-autobiographical works that, while disguised as fiction, served as experimental applications of his literary theories. In this study, Shklovsky’s works are analyzed from a sociological perspective. He remains one of the most fascinating figures of twentieth-century Russian cultural and intellectual life. Based on the philosopher’s ideas, a new literary theory called “Pluralistic Defamiliarization Theory” has been developed in the article.

Keywords

• Literature Sociology

Files

Only the metadata of this record is published.

References

1. Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment (J. Cumming, Çev.). Stanford University Press.
2. Any, C. (1994). Boris Eikhenbaum: Voices of a Russian formalist. Stanford University Press.
3. Benjamin, W. (1968). Hannah Arendt (Yay. haz.). The work of art in the Age of mechanical reproduction. Illuminations. Fontana.
4. Benjamin, W. (1972). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit. Suhrkamp.
5. Benjamin, W., & Jennings, M. W. (2010). The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility. Grey Room, 39, 11-37.
6. Bennett, T. (2007). Habitus clivé: Aesthetics and politics in the work of Pierre Bourdieu. New Literary History, 38(1), 201-228.
7. Bishop, P. (2019). The Frankfurt School-Adorno and Horkheimer. P. Bishop (Yay. haz.), German political thought and the discourse of Platonism: Finding the way out of the cave içinde (pp. 285–314). Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Brecht, B., & Bentley, E. (1949). A model for epic theater. The Sewanee Review, 57(3), 425-436.
9. Brown, E. J. (1974). The formalist contribution. The Russian Review, 33(3), 243-258.
10. Carducci, V. (2006). Culture jamming: A sociological perspective. Journal of consumer culture, 6(1), 116-138.
11. Dwyer, A. (2016). Standstill as extinction: Viktor Shklovsky’s poetics and politics of movement in the 1920s and 1930s. PMLA, 131(2), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2016.131.2.269
12. Eichenbaum, B. (1924). Vokrug voprosa o formalistah (Russian: “Вокруг Вопроса о Фоpмалистах”, En. Around the question on the Formalists), Pechat’ i revolucija, no. 5 (1924), 2-3.
13. Elliott, B. (2011). Benjamin for Architects. Routledge.
14. Erlich, V. (1954). Russian formalism: In perspective. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 13(2), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.2307/425914
15. Erlich, V. (1973). Russian Formalism. Journal of the History of Ideas. 34(4), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708893
16. Erlich, V. (1993). Russian Formalism. A. Preminger & T. V. F. Brogan (Yay. haz.), The new Princeton encyclopedia of poetry and poetics içinde (ss. 1001-1002). Princeton University Press.
17. Fischer, R. K., & Graham, A. (2014). Postmodernism. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 54(1), 29–33.
18. Flack, P. (2024). The word is not enough: Thinking Russian formalism beyond literary theory. Journal of Studies in Russian Formalism with Translation Notebooks, 1(1), 5-40. https://doi.org/10.14672/rf.v1i1.2440
19. Gökgül, A. N. (2022). Stuart Hall’un kültür kuramına katkıları. 4. Boyut Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Dergisi, 21, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.26650/4boyut.2022.1224733
20. Hansen, M. B. (2008). Benjamin’s aura. Critical Inquiry, 34(2), 336-375. https://doi.org/10.1086/529060
21. Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. T. A. Sebeok (Yay. haz.), Style in Language içinde (ss. 350–377). MIT Press.
22. Kristiansen, D. M. (1968). What Is Dada? Educational Theatre Journal, 20(3), 457–462. https://doi.org/10.2307/3205188
23. Lemon, L. T., & Reis, M. J. (Yay. haz.). (1965). Russian formalist criticism: Four essays. University of Nebraska Press.
24. Lukács, G. & Hale, D. J. (2009). Studies in European realism. The novel: An anthology of criticism and theory, 1900–2000 içinde (ss. 379-393). John Wiley & Sons.
25. Newton, K. M. (1997). Victor Shklovsky: Art as technique. In K. M. Newton (Yay. haz.), Twentieth-century literary theory içinde (ss. 3–5). Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Nomai, A. J. (2008). Culture jamming: Ideological struggle and the possibilities for social change [Doktora Tezi]. The University of Texas at Austin.
27. O’Toole, L. M. (2001). Russian literary theory: from the Formalists to Lotman. N. Cornwell (Yay. haz.), The Routledge companion to Russian literature içinde (ss. 163-173). Routledge.
28. Pötzsch, H. (2017). Playing games with Shklovsky, Brecht, and Boal: Ostranenie, V-Effect, and Spect-Actors as Analytical Tools for Game Studies. Game Studies, 17(2), 1-19.
29. Reid, S. E. (2001). Socialist realism in the Stalinist terror: The industry of socialism art exhibition, 1935-41. The Russian Review, 60(2), 153-184.
30. RGALİ. (2025). Nomer fonda: 562. Nazvaniye fonda: “Shklovskiy Viktor Borisovich (1893-1984)” - Pisatel’, literaturoved, stsenarist, teoretik sovetskoy kinematografii. Krayniye daty dokumentov: 1884 - 1988. Vid fonda: Fond lichnogo proiskhozhdeniya. Kolichestvo opisey: 2. Kolichestvo yedinits khraneniya: 2059. 19.02.2025 tarihinde https://rgali.ru/fund/9351 adresinden erişilmiştir.
31. Shklovsky, V. (1917). Art as technique. Literary theory: An anthology, 3, 8-14.
32. Shklovsky, V. (1929). O Teorii Prozy. Moskva: Izdatel’stv o Federatsıya.
33. Shklovsky, V. (2015). Art, as device. Poetics Today, 36(3), 151-174. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-3160709
34. Steiner, P. (1984). Russian formalism: A metapoetics. Cornell University Press.
35. Steiner, P. (1995). Russian Formalism. R. Seldam (Yay. haz.), The Cambridge history of literary criticism içinde (8. Cilt) (ss. 11-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Şklovski, V. (1988). Bir teknik olarak sanat (N. Aksoy & B. Aksoy, Çev.) Defter Dergisi, 5, 177-194.
37. Şklovski, V. (1992). ZOO Aşktan söz etmeyen mektuplar. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
38. Şklovski, V. (2004). Hayvanat bahçesi: Aşkla hiç ilgisi olmayan mektuplar ya da üçüncü Héloise. Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
39. Şklovski, V. (2017). Modern kurgu tekniğinin icadı/ Don Kişot nasıl yapıldı? Altıkırkbeş Yayın.
40. Şklovski, V. (2022). Düzyazı kuramı. Bilge Kültür Sanat.
41. Thompson, E. M. (1971). Russian formalism and Anglo-American new criticism: A comparative study (No. 8). Walter de Gruyter.
42. Troçki, L. (1923). Literatura i Revolûtiâ. — Moskva: Krasnaâ novʹ.
43. Ungvári, T. (1979). The origins of the theory of Verfremdung. Neohelicon, 7(1), 171-232.
44. Valéry, P. (1928). The conquest of Ubiquity. First published as “La conquête de l’ubiquité.” De La Musique avant toute chose. Editions du Tambourinaire.
45. Van den Oever, A. (2019). Reading Viktor Shklovsky’s Art as Technique in the context of early cinema. S. N. Gratchev & H. Mancing (Yay. haz.), Viktor Shklovsky’s Heritage in Literature, Arts, and Philosophy içinde (ss. 186-204). Lexington Books.
46. Wolny, R. W. (2017). Hyperreality and simulacrum: Jean Baudrillard and European postmodernism. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(3), 75-79. https//doi.org/10.26417/ejis.v3i3.p76-80

Cite this publication

@article{akbas2024russian,
  author = {Akba{\c{s}}, Arif},
  title = {{Russian Formalism and ``Pluralistic Defamiliarization Theory''}},
  journal = {Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters},
  volume = {42},
  number = {2},
  pages = {656--675},
  publisher = {Hacettepe {\"U}niversitesi},
  year = {2024},
  issn = {1301-5737},
  doi = {10.32600/huefd.1647198},
  url = {https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/rus-bicimciligi-ve-cogulcu-yabancilastirma-kurami},
  language = {tr},
  keywords = {Literature Sociology},
  abstract = {This article examines Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky's theory of prose through a sociological descriptive analysis approach, situating it within the disciplines of the sociology of art, literary theory, cultural studies, and aesthetics. Shklovsky is recognized as one of the most influential figures in twentieth-century literary theory and is particularly known for developing the concept of ``defamiliarization/estrangement'' (ostranenie) within Russian Formalism. This concept posits that the purpose of art is to free perception from automatization, allowing individuals to see the world from a fresh perspective. The term has influenced various movements, including Dadaism, postmodernism, epic theatre, culture compression, science fiction, and philosophy. The article first explores the theoretical foundations of Shklovsky's approach within the context of literary theory and the philosophy of art. It then examines the role of defamiliarization in literature and other artistic disciplines, assessing its cultural and social implications. In particular, the relationship between modern literary works and social consciousness is analyzed from a sociological perspective. The primary aim of this research is to reveal how Shklovsky's aesthetic approach contributes to social transformation. In this regard, it is argued that literature and art function not merely as aesthetic practices but also as tools that reshape social perception. The article's original contribution lies in extending Shklovsky's theory of prose beyond literary analysis, evaluating it within a broader sociocultural framework. As a literary theorist, Shklovsky also wrote biographical literary critiques on authors such as Laurence Sterne, Maxim Gorky, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Vladimir Mayakovsky. Additionally, he authored several semi-autobiographical works that, while disguised as fiction, served as experimental applications of his literary theories. In this study, Shklovsky's works are analyzed from a sociological perspective. He remains one of the most fascinating figures of twentieth-century Russian cultural and intellectual life. Based on the philosopher's ideas, a new literary theory called ``Pluralistic Defamiliarization Theory'' has been developed in the article.},
  affiliation = {S{\.I}VAS CUMHUR{\.I}YET {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I}}
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Akbaş, Arif
TI  - Russian Formalism and “Pluralistic Defamiliarization Theory”
T2  - Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Letters
VL  - 42
IS  - 2
PY  - 2024
SP  - 656
EP  - 675
PB  - Hacettepe Üniversitesi
SN  - 1301-5737
DO  - 10.32600/huefd.1647198
UR  - https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/rus-bicimciligi-ve-cogulcu-yabancilastirma-kurami
AB  - This article examines Viktor Borisovich Shklovsky’s theory of prose through a sociological descriptive analysis approach, situating it within the disciplines of the sociology of art, literary theory, cultural studies, and aesthetics. Shklovsky is recognized as one of the most influential figures in twentieth-century literary theory and is particularly known for developing the concept of “defamiliarization/estrangement” (ostranenie) within Russian Formalism. This concept posits that the purpose of art is to free perception from automatization, allowing individuals to see the world from a fresh perspective. The term has influenced various movements, including Dadaism, postmodernism, epic theatre, culture compression, science fiction, and philosophy. The article first explores the theoretical foundations of Shklovsky’s approach within the context of literary theory and the philosophy of art. It then examines the role of defamiliarization in literature and other artistic disciplines, assessing its cultural and social implications. In particular, the relationship between modern literary works and social consciousness is analyzed from a sociological perspective. The primary aim of this research is to reveal how Shklovsky’s aesthetic approach contributes to social transformation. In this regard, it is argued that literature and art function not merely as aesthetic practices but also as tools that reshape social perception. The article’s original contribution lies in extending Shklovsky’s theory of prose beyond literary analysis, evaluating it within a broader sociocultural framework. As a literary theorist, Shklovsky also wrote biographical literary critiques on authors such as Laurence Sterne, Maxim Gorky, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Vladimir Mayakovsky. Additionally, he authored several semi-autobiographical works that, while disguised as fiction, served as experimental applications of his literary theories. In this study, Shklovsky’s works are analyzed from a sociological perspective. He remains one of the most fascinating figures of twentieth-century Russian cultural and intellectual life. Based on the philosopher’s ideas, a new literary theory called “Pluralistic Defamiliarization Theory” has been developed in the article.
KW  - Literature Sociology
LA  - tr
AD  - SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ
ER  -