{"title":"Institutional Forme","authors":"Jeffrey Todd Knight","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198830801.013.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores prospects for a reenergized history of the book amid the recent turn to a capacious formalism in literary studies that encompasses the sociopolitical reverberations of “form” in the traditional, aesthetic sense. The chapter argues that a key opening for book historians is the new formalists’ emphasis on the organizing power of institutions, something that book history implicitly engages in the course of its work but that literary criticism too often ignores or treats with hostility. Rereading D. F. McKenzie’s paradigm-setting proposals for a research program in the history of the book and using as a case-study that most literary of institutions, the library, I advocate a turn away from the field’s particularist mantra, “forms effect meaning,” toward McKenzie’s forgotten parallel claim that a sociology of texts “alerts us to the roles of institutions, and their own complex structures, in affecting the forms of social discourse, past and present.”","PeriodicalId":309717,"journal":{"name":"The Unfinished Book","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Unfinished Book","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198830801.013.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This chapter explores prospects for a reenergized history of the book amid the recent turn to a capacious formalism in literary studies that encompasses the sociopolitical reverberations of “form” in the traditional, aesthetic sense. The chapter argues that a key opening for book historians is the new formalists’ emphasis on the organizing power of institutions, something that book history implicitly engages in the course of its work but that literary criticism too often ignores or treats with hostility. Rereading D. F. McKenzie’s paradigm-setting proposals for a research program in the history of the book and using as a case-study that most literary of institutions, the library, I advocate a turn away from the field’s particularist mantra, “forms effect meaning,” toward McKenzie’s forgotten parallel claim that a sociology of texts “alerts us to the roles of institutions, and their own complex structures, in affecting the forms of social discourse, past and present.”
这一章探讨了在最近转向文学研究的一个广阔的形式主义,包括在传统的,美学意义上的“形式”的社会政治反响的书的重新充满活力的历史前景。这一章认为,对于书籍历史学家来说,一个关键的开端是新形式主义者对机构组织力量的强调,这是书籍历史在其工作过程中含蓄地涉及到的,但文学批评往往忽视或敌意对待。重读d·f·麦肯齐(D. F. McKenzie)关于书籍历史研究项目的范式设置建议,并将其作为案例研究,即大多数文学机构,图书馆,我主张从该领域的特殊主义咒语“形式影响意义”转向麦肯齐被遗忘的平行主张,即文本社会学“提醒我们注意机构的角色,以及它们自身复杂的结构,在影响过去和现在的社会话语形式方面。”