Article révisé par les pairs
| Résumé : | This paper explores the previously discussed subject of Semiotic Pragmatics of Avant-Garde Behavior VS Life Creation. (Khlebnikov and Mayakovsky). Apart from offering a new overview of the historical reasons for the “final personal conflict” between Mayakovsky and Khlebnikov, this paper explores the differences in “discursive recognition” of the two major Russian Futurist poets. These differences reflect the Soviet reception of prominent Russian Modernists. Our understanding of the posthumous legacy of these poets depends largely on what we can call “collective memory,” using the post-Durkheimian concept developed by Maurice Halbwachs. This concept differs from “individual memory” in that collective memory is shared, transmitted, and at the same time deliberately “constructed” by the people who create modern social habitus. Halbwachs' ideas were taken up by Jan Assmann with the concept of “communicative memory” (a collective memory based on everyday communication) and James E. Young, who introduced the concept of “collective memory”, advocating memory as predominantly fragmented, “selectively assembled” and, above all, specifically individualistic. This article elaborates on the behavioral and publishing strategies of the major Modernist authors in the context of the dominant Soviet social order, analyzing how they were accepted into the ever-changing Soviet “cultural memory”. The paper discusses several significant inconsistencies in each author's strategic maneuvers and dwells on the possible reasons for their achievements and failures. |
