LITERARY THEORY OF CRITICISM

RUSSIAN FORMALISM
 RUSSIAN FORMALISM

Introduction

Russian Formalism is a movement which arised in the 1890s and it was seen in
the Russian letters throughout the World War I. Afterwards, it became dominant in
the years of Russian Revolution, between 1915 and 1917. It was locally seperated
into two different groups: the first group was established as the Moscow Linguistic
Circle which was led by Roman Jakobson in 1915, on the other hand the second one
which was led by Victor Shklovsky, was the Society for the Study of Poetic
Language (OPOYAZ) in 1916 (Habib 2005, 603). Although the previous theories
which were come out of different thoughts, were adapted to literature, Russian
formalism was consisted as the first literary theory. For instance, despite the fact that
positivism was a theory of science, later it was used for literature. Russian formalism
is a text-oriented theory and it focuses on form and technique in literature. According
to formalists, when literature is examined by based upon form, it becomes more
scientific rather than author-oriented, reader- response and context-driven theories.
The form in literature leaves an impression on readers and this impression is supplied
through especially poetry and novel. Also, formalists aim to break automatized
sensations of readers with alienation technique which is supplied through elements of
poetry and novel. While Formalism leads to New Criticism in America, it leads to
Structuralism in Europe. "While the Russian Formalist movement was scientific and
rational, the other major formalist school - American New Criticism - was anti-
scientific and interested in the nonrational dimension of art." (Rivkin and Ryan 1998,
6). On the other hand, structuralism in Europe was progressed as continuation of
early Russian Formalism. "Pure Formalism gave way to Structuralism, revolving
around the notion of a dynamically integrated whole, which was referred to either as
a "structure" or as a "system"."(Erlich 1955, 159). Russian Formalism can be
analysed in three categories such as the birth and features of formalism, influences
of formalism in poetry and novel, and as continuation of formalism: New Criticism
and Structuralism.
1.The Birth and Features of Formalism

Russian Formalism is a text-oriented theory. According to formalists, the

other theories such as author-oriented, reader response and context-driven
theories are not proper to examine literature scientifically. Literary text should be
handled as a whole otherwise it can not be called well organized literary text.
Therefore, to understand literary text clearly, it is not true that searching the
period or author of it. What satisfies the reader in terms of aesthetic, is the form
in literature. Immanuel Kant said that since people are born, they seek
mathematical order in nature and try to fit everything in this order because the
mind of human being works mathematically. If something is not appropriate for
the mathematical mind, they called it as unaesthetic. By improving the aesthetic
idea of Kant, formalists argued that it is the form which provides this
mathematical aesthetic in literature. By basing on form, formalists aimed to break
the automatic sensation of people, and thanks to this breaking, people consume
literature.

This critical approach examines a literary text or art work through its aesthetic composition
such as form, language, technique and style. Formalists believe that the art-object can be
isolated from social, cultural and historical influences and examined as an autonomous whole
(http://blogs.bcu.ac.uk). 

According to formalists, the important thing is how literary text is narrated rather
than what it is. For instance, due to different styles of narrators, the text can not be
effective because the form of narrative can differ from one to another.

Russian Formalism which became dominant in the years of 1915-17, was divided
into two schools. The first school which was established by Roman Jakobson in
1915, was the Moscow Linguistic Circle and the other members of this school were
Osip Brik and Boris Tomashevsky. The other school was OPOYAZ (The Society For
The Study of Poetic Language), included Victor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum and
Yuri Tynyanov. Apart from these members, Leo Jakubinsky and Vladimir Propp also
adopted these movements (Habib 2005, 603). Roman Jakobson was one of the
pioneer of Moscow Linguistic Circle. However, he left it and founded the Prague
Linguistic Circle which led to the birth of structuralism. According to M.A.R Habib,
Jakobson, as a formalist, was centering upon form so he gave importance to the use
of language .

In his paper “Linguistics and Poetics” (1958) Jakobson argues that, since poetics concerns the
artistic features of a “verbal message,” and linguistics is the “global science of verbal
structure,” poetics is an integral part of linguistics. His point here is that poetic elements
belong to the science of language as a whole; indeed, they belong to the yet broader field of
semiotics or theory of signs since they are not confind to verbal art. ... Jakobson urges that
the poetic function of language must be situated among the other functions of language. ...
The three functions of language so far mentioned by Jakobson – referential, emotive, and
conative – belong, as he notes, to the traditional model of language as formulated by the
German psychologist Karl Buhler. Jakobson suggests that this model can be augmented to
include additional verbal functions (618-619).

Viktor Shklovsky was the pioneer of the OPOYAZ. Viktor and the other members
of this school solely focused on the stratifications of sound in order to explore
linguistic devices to alienate language (Selden 1995, 22). In addition to this,
Shklovsky examined some works of Tolstoy about de-familiarization. As M.A.R.
Habib stated that, like Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum who was member of OPOYAZ,
wrote “The Theory of the ‘Formal Method’ ” and explained the evolution of the
central principles of the formalist method (2005, 604).

To quote Ejxenbaum “the transition to literary history was not simply a matter of widening
the initial field of investigation. It was closely related to the modification of our concept of
form. It became clear that a work of art is never perceived in isolation, that its form is always
seen against the background of other works.” (Erlich 1955, 90)

Eichenbaum states that formalism is “characterized only by the attempt to create

an independent science of literature which studies specifically literary material.” and
according to Eichenbaum, the major feature of the Formalist was the rejection of all
“ready-made aesthetic and general theories” (Habib 2005, 605).

2. Influences of Formalism in Poetry and Novel

Russian Formalists aimed to break authomatic sensations of people by using

rhytm, the use and style of language. These are the necessary things which make a
work literary for them. As mentioned before, Formalists use language to arouse a
feeling of aesthetic and their aim is to amaze by composing deep meanings because
people get used to their ordinary life and after a while, this simplicity of their life
seems normal for them. When the illusion of simplicity is broken by using language,
they become satisfied. In Formalism, this satisfaction comes true with
defamiliarization in two ways: poetry and novel.

The ordinary language which people use for communication, limits them when
they want to share their feelings or ideas. Formalists use language to flourish
aesthetic sensation rather than communication. Therefore, according to them, poetic
language is the most fundamental thing to provide this aesthetic sensation. Since, the
poetic language has infinite freedom to use language, for instance, it seperates the
language from routine usage of daily language, makes changes on the grammar and
the structure of sentences or it can omit some words to create rhytm. The most
significant feature of poetry is to create ambiguousness. Peter Steiner gives the idea
of Roman Jakobson which is that poetry is language in its aesthetic function (1980,
113). On the other hand, Amy Mandelker says what is about poetry and its function
according to formalists as given below;

In their first two publications of 1916 and 1917 (Sborniki po teorii poeticeskogo jazyka), the
Russian Formalists take the position that the phonological structure of poetry has a function
beyond the decorative, and should be an object of study in its own right. Their approach is a
synthesis of strong traditions in both the philosophy of language and in poetics. The notion
that language sounds may be "appropriate" to their referents is at least as old as Plato, and
remains a favorite topic of debate for linguists, while poetics traditionally lists sound
patterns, alliteration, assonance, and rhyme among the functional aspects of poetic language.
Contemporaneous trends in linguistics, notably Sievers' ohrenphilologie, defined poetry as an
auditory and acoustic phenomenon with sound as its organizing principle (1983, 327).

In this quotation, linguists compare the poetic language in the past and
contemporaneous trends.

Writer is completely free to do whatever he wants to provide de-familiarization

between readers and the work. Especially, the writer can give lots of meanings for a
simple word, and it is named metaphor. While formalists try to provide alienation
effect with metaphor in poetry, in novel this effect is provided with metonomy and
perspectives of characters. Metonomy is a narrative technique which is indirectly
given in novel. Thanks to various perspective, people are under the effect of de-
familiarization by seeing different sides of actions or situations. “The technique of art
is to make objects ‘unfamiliar,’ to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and
lenght of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself
and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object: the
object is not important…”(Rivkin and Ryan 1998,18). Viktor Shklovsky who was
one of the most important representative of perspective in Russian Formalist,
handled the novel of Tolstoy to examine idea of perspective. To begin with one of
the Tolstoy’s work, Kholstomer, the readers have a chance to observe that situations
of the story from the horse’s perspective.

The most dominant technique used in Kholstomer is ostranenie, which is commonly

translated as “estrangement” or “defamiliarization”. The story of a horse uses estrangement
to such an extent that it provides the bulk of the evidence for the concept developed by
Viktor Shklovsky in his 1917 essay Art as Technique (Исскуство как приём). “Poetic
imagery is a means of creating the strongest possible impression”, Shklovsky asserts in
opposition to Potebnia’s “Art is thinking in images”. It is the impression which is most
important for Shklovsky, and the greatest possible impression is achieved when “perception
is impeded and the greatest possible effect is produced through the slowness of the
perception. As a result of this lingering, the object is perceived not in its extension in space,
but, so to speak, in its continuity”. Taken in this way, estrangement can be applied to nearly
anything within a text: from content and concept to syntax and word choice. In relation to
Tolstoy, “[he] makes the familiar seem strange by not naming the familiar object”. Moreover,
the use of a horse-as-narrator in Kholstomer is a use of estrangement in itself, “it is the
horse’s point of view (and not a person’s) that makes the content of the story seem
unfamiliar” (Forehand 2014,5).

The other example of perspective is the War and Peace by Tolstoy. In this work,
there is an opera scene and it is told by the perspective of a child. The child has no
information about opera therefore all preparations of people who go to opera like
wearing suits for this presantation are seemed to child meaningless, awkward and
funny. In the work, child begins to define the actions on the stage from her own
perspective. For example, while a man and a woman who were singing that is called
duet, she described it that they were shouting to each other senselessly. Also, she
describes the prompter as if he wishpering to other people on the stage.

The floor of the stage consisted of smooth boards, at the sides was some painted cardboard
representing trees, and at the back was a cloth stretched over boards. In the center of the stage
sat some girls in red bodices and white skirts. One very fat girl in a white silk dress sat apart
on a low bench, to the back of which a piece of green cardboard was glued. They all sang
something. When they had finished their song the girl in white went up to the prompter’s box
and a man with tight silk trousers over his stout legs, and holding a plume and a dagger, went
up to her and began singing, waving his arms about (Tolstoy, 601).

According to Shklovksy, terms and symbols become more meaningful thanks to

cultures of people. They identify themselves with the characters on the stage ,
however here it can be seen from the child’s perspective. She is totally stranger to
culture of opera so her perspective causes defamiliarization for the readers.
3. As Continuation of Formalism: New Criticism and Structuralism

As a continuation of Formalism, New Criticism movement showed up in America

and this movement took its name from the work of John Crowe Ransom which is
called “The New Criticism” and was written in 1941. New critics aimed to answer
these questions such as ‘What is literature? , How can it be truely understood? ,
Which techniques are needed to be scientific for work?’ While New Criticism was
nearly using all of the techniques of Formalism, it also constituded new techniques.
Just as formalists thought, new critics stated that examining a work by basing on the
writer of it or its background is incorrect. They rejected the other theories of 19th
century because these theories which analysed a work by considering writer or
period of it, are non-scientific. This movement is also text-oriented theory.
However, new critics handled not only the form but also the content. At the same
time, this movement is combination of theories of Kant and Hegel.

New critics thought that a literary work is autonomous and a whole. Since the
writer creates his work as a whole, it is not necessary to consider the other things
except from work. Literary work which is whole consists from units and these units
are connected with each other.

The New Criticism's method of getting at the meaning of literary works was so powerful
between the 1930's and the 1950's that it dominated college English classes all across the
United States. And indeed for all its theoretical statements it was less a theory of literature
than a method of interpreting individual literary works. It had little to say about what
characterized literature in general or what relationships existed among literary works either
past or present; it only spoke strongly about how to explicate an individual poem or story
(http://may-on-the-short-story.blogspot.com.tr, 2012).

According to formalists, a unit was not important for the whole and writer could
change the words whatever he wants; however, the content is as significant as the
form, so it is not possible to omit or add the words in terms of new critics. Due to the
wholeness of literary work, it is tideless. It should influence people of each era,
otherwise the work is qualified as unfavourable. Namely, when a literary work is
written for a specific era, it loses its impression on people from another eras.

Since, New critics gave importance to content besides form of work, they came
up with a new technique which is called “Close Reading”, to analyse content of it.
Close Reading technique is a type of reading which ignores external effects such as
writer and period.

When we do a reading of a text, we ought to focus on the text of a work; exclude the author’s
intention, historical and cultural contexts. The text was an object of literature complete in
itself. It is an autonomous entity, and therefore should be treated as one that is not dependent
on its creator or external influences. If the goal of reading a text is to get its meaning, then we
should not look further from the text. Form and meaning are intimately connected and should
not be analyzed separately (https://boxofbrian.wordpress.com, 2013).

There are some features such as ironies, ambiguousness, cavities, polysemy and
contradictories in poetry and novel. These features impact people like language.
Thanks to Close Reading, a work can be understood as a whole by analysing all of
these features.

The other movement which was led by Formalism is Structuralism. This

movement is regarded as the most scientific in the area of literature and its origin
belongs to linguistic. It showed up as a linguistic theory but then, it was used in the
other fields; for instance, in sociology, psychology and anthropology. The basic ideas
which led to this movement collected in the book which was named “General
Linguistics” by students of Ferdinand de Saussure with his new thoughts about
linguistics. This movement is called “Structuralism” because it focuses on structure
of language. Structuralism handles language as a system and how the units connect
with each other in this system. “With its penchant for scientific categorization,
Structuralism .suggests the interrelationship between “units” (surfacephenomena)
and “rules” the ways in which units can be put together.”
(https://literariness.wordpress.com, 2016). These units are words in language and
their rules is supplied with grammar. The previous linguistic studies benefited from
historicism, so these were diachronic but, for the structuralists, it is unnecessary to
know the history of language. The studies about language should be synchronic
because the language should be tackled in its own era to consider it as a system.
What formalists call form, is structure according to structuralists. As Saussure said,
there should be rules among the connections of units, otherwise, the structure can
collapse. There is a structure in everything which was designed by human mind
because it works mathematically. While formalists state that wholeness in form
satisfies people, sturctualists say this satisfaction derives from wholeness in
structure. Structuralists do not give importance to content like formalists, they
consider relation among the units. Every structure has macrocosm and microcosm,
each microcosm is small but whole. Also structuralists defend that they are scientific
and they interest genereal one. Whereas positivists analyse works from specifics one
to general, structuralists analyse the works genereal ones and their relation. While
they are examining common one, they reach general resolutions about the topic.

Conclusion

To sum up, Formalist movement showed up as the first literary theory. It was a
text oriented theory and it focused on only the form in literature. Formalists defended
the idea of Kant which people always seek the wholeness in nature and they thought
that the wholeness could be found with form in literature. Its goal was to
defamiliarize people from their ordinary life. According to formalists, this
defamiliarizition was supplied within literature, especially in poetry and novel. They
concentrated on metaphors in the poetry and perspectives in the novel in order to
defamiliarize. In addition to that, Formalist movement led to New Criticism and
Structuralism. All of them were text oriented theories and they gave importance to
form and language besides, new critics examined the content of a literary work.
Roman Jakobson who was pioneer of Formalist movement established a school
which was called as Prague Linguistic Circle in Prague and he built up the base of
Structuralism movement. Whereas formalists tried to understand a literary work
through the form, new critics focused on the content of a literary work and
structualists analysed it with the relation of units in structure. Although New
Criticism and Structuralism were influenced by Formalist movement, they upgraded
its techniques and tried to organize the new techniques in order to examine the
literary work.
 Works Cited

Erlich, Viktor (1955): Russian Formalism. History – Doctrine. Mouton Publishers,

The Hague.

Forehand, Paul Michael (2014): Poetics of Lev Tolstoy’s Kholstomer (Unpublished

Master Dissertation). The Graduate School of the University of Oregon, Eugene.

“Formalism and New Criticism”. Box of Brain. 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 May 2017.
<https://boxofbrian.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/formalism-and-new-criticism/>.

"Formalism". The Virtual Theorist. Higher Education Academy and Birmingham

City University, 2013. Web. 02 May 2017.
<http://blogs.bcu.ac.uk/virtualtheorist/formalism/>.

Habib, M.A.R. (2005): A History of Literary Criticism. From Plato to the Present.
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Mandelker, Amy (1983): Russian Formalism and the Objective Analysis of Sound in
Poetry. The Slavic and East European Journal, 27(3), American Association of
Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages, Los Angeles, 327-338.

"New Formalism and the Short Story--Part II: New Criticism and Russian
Formalism." Reading The Short Story, 2012. Web. 01 May 2017. <http://may-on-
the-short-story.blogspot.com.tr/2012/07/new-formalism-and-short-story-part-
ii.html>.

Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Michael (1998): Literary Theory. An Anthology. Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford.

Selden, Raman (1995): The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. From

Formalism To Poststructuralism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Steiner, Peter (1980): The Three Metaphors of Russian Formalism. Poetics Today,
2(1), Duke University Press, Durham, 59-116.

“Structuralism”. Literary Theory and Criticism Notes, 2016. Web. 01 May 2017.
<https://literariness.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/structuralism/>.

Tolstoy, Leo (2010): War and Peace. Translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude.
Oxford University Press Inc, New York.