Bakhtin and the Kierkegaardian Revolution

Abstract

(at sergeiys@gmail.com) Abstract. Søren Kierkegaard's influence on the thought of Mikhail Bakhtin has received relatively little attention from Bakhtin scholars (and hardly any attention from Bakhtin scholars in the English-speaking world). Yet, as I argue in this paper, Kierkegaard was among the most important formative influences on Bakhtin's work. This influence is most evident in Bakhtin's early ethical philosophy, but remains highly relevant in later periods. Reading Bakhtin as a follower and developer of Kierkegaard's fundamental philosophical insights provides us with a key to the unity of Bakhtin's thought. One may divide the reception of the work of the Russian thinker Mikhail MikhailovichBakhtin into three waves. At first it was assimilated to familiar paradigms (Marxism, structuralism, poststructuralism, etc.) 1 The second wave emphasized Bakhtin's originality as a thinker, 2 but was also prone to overstate it. The third wave, which extends to the present time, reacted with a more careful scholarly approach, focusing on the sources of influence onBakhtin's thought, 3 but this scholarly precision sometimes came at the expense of understanding what is truly new in Bakhtin's work. However, as Bakhtin himself stressed, a truly original utterance is original by virtue of how it incorporates within it the voices of those who spoke before. The role played by Bakhtin's sources of influence on forming his original thought has often been neglected or deeply misunderstood.In this paper I focus on one particular source of influence on Bakhtin's thought, though, as I shall argue, an especially important one: the Danish philosopher Søren Aabye Kierkegaard. What Is the Kierkegaardian Revolution?Søren Kierkegaard belonged to a generation of European thinkers who had a crucial influence on the development of modern philosophy. I will refer to it as the post-Hegelian generation, not only because it followed Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in time, but also because responding to Hegel's philosophical system, as they interpreted it, was a central project for these thinkers. They were significantly influenced by Hegel's work but ultimately rejected it.(By using the term "post-Hegelian" I am consciously overstating the role played by Hegel himself, as towering a figure as he was; other thinkers made important contributions to the positions post-Hegelianism reacted against, which are also relevant to the aims of the present paper, 9 but a focus on Hegel does make for a clearer exposition of the issues at stake; Hegel's name is used here symbolically, somewhat like Descartes' name is, when speaking broadly of modern philosophy as "Cartesian").Hegel's philosophy is notoriously difficult and a brief exposition cannot possibly do it justice. Nevertheless, I will try to touch on a few central points, as a necessary background for the rest of the discussion.Hegel was a systematic idealist philosopher, i.e. he sought to provide a unified philosophical account of consciousness and, through it, of the world. In the Phenomeno...

The pros and cons of deconstructing Bakhtin: A reflection on Boris Groys

“…if we read this as a crudely autobiographical reference (which we will assume for simplicity's sake), the man here is Pushkin 12 This, in itself, is in fact a common feature of German philosophy from Hegel on. Bakhtin's innovation here is that he does not view this as a step toward the eventual unification of self and other in a collective subject (see Sandler 2012a;Sandler 2015, 180). 13 Though, to be more precise, Groys does not really notice any tension.…”

“…15 This argument closely resembles, and is directly influenced by, a central argument advanced by Søren Kierkegaard (1992). For more on Bakhtin and Kierkegaard, see, e.g., Fryszman (1996) and Schittsova (1999), and, more specifically in this context, see Sandler (2011;2012a;2012b, 229-33). …”

The Pros and Cons of Deconstructing Bakhtin: A Reflection on Boris Groys

“…15 This argument closely resembles, and is directly influenced by, a central argument advanced by Søren Kierkegaard (1992). For more on Bakhtin and Kierkegaard, see, e.g., Fryszman (1996) and Schittsova (1999), and, more specifically in this context, see Sandler (2011;2012a;2012b, 229-33).…”