Carlos G. Tee (鄭永康)摘要

July, 2010

How “Poly” Should a Polysystem Be?

I.             Introduction

        In the introduction, Itamar Even-Zohar explains the origins and rationale of his theory. While he admits that Polysystem Theory has its foundations in Russian Formalism, he claims that his theory covers a far wider scope than Formalism, which was conceived to deal solely with literary problems.

        Instead, Even-Zohar labels his theory as Dynamic Functionalism (2), and explains that it “strives to account for larger complexes than literature.” However, he contends that there is some overlapping between his theory and the views of Yuri M. Lotman as well as other semiotic concepts.

        Continuing the “traditional” approach of the Formalists to claim a scientific nature for their endeavors, Even-Zohar writes that his Dynamic Functionalism conforms to the idea of “science of literature.” He repeats the same claim in a footnote in the second chapter (33). Yet, Even-Zohar observes that “laws” in literary criticism cannot be taken as “eternal truths” but rather as “temporary hypothesis, to be discarded or modified whenever it becomes necessary to do so” (4). I think that this latter observation helps explain why Comparative Literature is in constant flux, and why the near-obsessive allusions to crises (Wellek and others) and deaths (Spivak and others).

II.           Polysystem Theory

        In the chapter entitled “Polysystem Theory,” Even-Zohar contrasts his theory with the static approach by including the dimension of time to discuss systems. He faults the Geneva School for the static approach.

        To explain the nature and wide applicability of his Polysystem Theory, Even-Zohar plunges into a lengthy discussion of the distinguishing features of his ideas—stratification, relations, stability, etc. In his discussion of stability, Even-Zohar writes that systems “undergoing permanent, steady and well-controlled change” are stable and manage to survive. He further concludes that crises in a polysystem, as long as they are controllable, reflect vitality. This raises the question: Does this apply to crisis in comparative literature?

III.         The Literary System

        In the chapter entitled “The ‘Literary System',” Even-Zohar observes that it is Boris Ejxenbaum's view that the “literary system” consists of a “much larger range of occurrences/factors than is normally accepted in standard literary studies.” He voices agreement that literature is “an aggregate of activities, which in terms of systemic relations behaves as a whole” (30). Does this imply agreement with the multidisciplinary/cultural studies approach in comparative literature?

        Even-Zohar borrows the Jakobsonian scheme of communication, but gives a complex twist to the different elements. While he convincingly advances his theory by claiming a near-universal applicability, I think his open system tends towards ever-increasing complexity, such that the resulting entanglement of issues and ideas makes clear-cut analysis difficult.

        In his discussion of “product” (43) in the context of literature, however, Even-Zohar adopts a quasi-Structuralist approach by speaking of textual fragments (segments) (44) on the basic level, instead of giving a more “complex” twist to explain the subject of “texts.”

Work Cited

Even-Zohar, Itamar. “Polysystem Studies.” Poetics Today 11.1 (1990): 1-44.