Autonomy, market and ideology in the Belarusian literary field of the first third of the 20th century and at the turn of the millennium

本项目以白俄罗斯文学为例，研究“小”文学的体制和美学-诗学自主性的概况和发展，使用结果，以适应和加强皮埃尔·布迪厄创造的自主性模型。在“小”文献中发生的具体的信息化过程的主导假设，这个模型只能有条件地解释，这是对理论框架进行全面初步研究的结果（布迪厄的场理论）以及对象层次上（白俄罗斯文学）这表明布迪厄对自主性或非自主性的理解在某种程度上描述了许多文学发展所不能描述的“极端情况在这方面，场域模型是研究白俄罗斯文学发展的两个重要阶段的启发式模型：世纪前30年的“宪法和制度化阶段”;以及在千禧年之交作为“重建阶段”的后苏联发展。该项目的目的是确定在白俄罗斯文学领域的特定逻辑中，在体制和美学-诗学层面上表明自主或独立的现象和过程。这些细节（考虑到布迪厄的模型），首先，将仔细审查它们与“权力场”的相关性，与场论中的常见假设相反，“权力场”由意识形态而不是经济参数主导，其次，在此基础上，将根据它们的相互关系进行质疑和系统化。推导出一种反思的方法，可以系统地修改已建立的自主概念，同时我们获得，专注于苏联化的过程，对白俄罗斯文学的新见解，例如从（尚未巩固的）“民族”文学转变为苏联模式（总化和去总化）。最后，该研究首次提供了对白俄罗斯文学市场的客观见解。

The present project examines the profile and development of 'small' literatures' institutional and aesthetic-poetological autonomy on the example of Belarusian literature using the results in order to adapt and sharpen the model for autonomy coined by Pierre Bourdieu. The leading hypothesis that in 'small' literatures specific processes of autonomization take place which this model only conditionally accounts for is a result of comprehensive preliminary studies on the theoretical framework (Bourdieu's field theory) as well as on object level (Belarusian literature) which suggest that Bourdieu's understanding of autonomy or autonomization describes to some extent an 'extreme case' that many literatures' development cannot 'catch up' with.In this respect the field model serves as a heuristic model for the study of two important phases in the development of Belarusian literature: its 'phase of constitution and institutionalization' during the first third of the 20th century; and its postsoviet development as a 'phase of re-constitution' at the turn of the millenium. The project aims at identifying phenomena and processes on both the institutional and the aesthetic-poetological level that indicate autonomy or autonomization within the specific logic of the Belarusian literary field. These specifics (considering Bourdieu's model) will, firstly, be scrutinized with respect to their correlation with a 'field of power' that - in contrast to common assumptions in field theory - is dominated by ideological rather than economical parameters, and secondly, on that basis, will be questioned and systematized according to their mutual interrelations.Thus, on the example of Belarusian literature, a means of reflection is deduced that allows to systematically revise established concepts of autonomy while at the same time we gain, focussing on the process of autonomization, new insights into Belarusian literature, e.g. its transformation from a (not yet consolidated) 'national' literature into and out of the Soviet model (totalizing and de-totalizing). Finally, the study provides first-time objectifiable insights into the literary market of Belarus.