Lotman and cultural studies: The case for cross- fertilization.

This paper seeks to evaluate the extent to which Lotman's theoretical works could provide a conceptual articulation to the project of British and American cultural studies (CS). Just as CS, Lotman operates with an extensive concept of culture, albeit one mostly limited to nobility culture and focuse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Sign Systems Studies Vol. 30; no. 2; pp. 429 - 441
Autor principal: Schöle, Andreas
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: University of Tartu 2002
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=9218716&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 9218716
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        14064243
        DSW
      jtl: Sign Systems Studies
      issn: 14064243
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 2002
      vid: 30
      iid: 2
      pid: 25096
      pub: University of Tartu
    artinfo:
      ui:
        9218716
        10.12697/sss.2002.30.2.04
      ppf: 429
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 104KB
      tig:
        atl: Lotman and cultural studies: The case for cross- fertilization.
      aug:
        au: Schöle, Andreas
      su:
        Culture semiotic models
        Lotman, Iu. M. (Iurii Mikhailovich), 1922-1993
      sug:
        subj:
          Culture semiotic models
          Lotman, Iu. M. (Iurii Mikhailovich), 1922-1993
      ab: This paper seeks to evaluate the extent to which Lotman's theoretical works could provide a conceptual articulation to the project of British and American cultural studies (CS). Just as CS, Lotman operates with an extensive concept of culture, albeit one mostly limited to nobility culture and focused on the past. His late works can be seen to articulate a semiotic theory of power: his emphasis on the relationship between center and periphery recalls the infatuation with marginality that underpins CS. Lotman shares the (post) structuralist premise about the primary role of discourse in founding reality. Yet his emphasis on the natural striving of culture toward diversity mitigates the subject's dependence upon discourse. Thus, subjects act on their striving toward autonomy by playing discourses against one another, recoding them in an act of autocommunication that generates novelty in the process. Even though it denies the grand narrative, Cultural Studies emphasizes class, gender, and race differences. Lotman's concept of the semiosphere emphasizes the ad hoc foundation of group identities, their emergence out of an intrinsic recoding of extrinsic codes, and the circulation of texts and values among groups. Lotman doesn't privilege any sort of group identity and therefore offers a flexible framework applicable to a broader range of groups. In that sense he offers an alternative to Gramsci's notion of the rootedness of groups in class realities (which underlies early CS).
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Sign Systems Studies is the property of University of Tartu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Sign Systems Studies
      holder: University of Tartu
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2002
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N