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，考察了“小型”文学的结构和美学-诗歌自治的概况和发展，利用结果来适应和提高皮埃尔·布迪厄创造的自治模型。主要的假设是，在“小”文献中，这种模型只能有条件地解释自治化的具体过程，这是对理论框架（布迪厄的场理论）和对象层面（白俄罗斯文献）进行全面初步研究的结果，这表明布迪厄对自治或自治化的理解在某种程度上描述了许多文献的发展无法“赶上”的“极端情况”。在这方面，场域模型作为一种启发式模型，用于研究白俄罗斯文学发展的两个重要阶段：20世纪前三十年的“宪法和制度化阶段”；它的后苏联发展是千禧年之交的“重建阶段”。该项目旨在确定体制和美学-诗歌层面上的现象和过程，这些现象和过程表明白俄罗斯文学领域特定逻辑中的自治或自主化。首先，这些细节（考虑到布迪厄的模型）将根据它们与“权力场”的相关性进行仔细审查，与场理论中的常见假设相反，“权力场”是由意识形态而不是经济参数主导的，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。因此，在白俄罗斯文学的例子中，一种反思的方式被推断出来，允许系统地修改既定的自治概念，同时我们获得了新的见解，专注于自治的过程，例如，它从一个（尚未巩固的）“民族”文学转变为苏联模式（总体化和去总体化）。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.