Taking a strikingly interdisciplinary and global approach, Postcolonialism Cross-Examined reflect... more Taking a strikingly interdisciplinary and global approach, Postcolonialism Cross-Examined reflects on the current status of postcolonial studies and attempts to break through traditional boundaries, creating a truly comparative and genuinely global phenomenon. Drawing together the field of mainstream postcolonial studies with post-Soviet postcolonial studies and studies of the late Ottoman Empire, the contributors in this volume question many of the concepts and assumptions we have become accustomed to in postcolonial studies, creating a fresh new version of the field. The volume calls the merits of the field into question, investigating how postcolonial studies may have perpetuated and normalized colonialism as an issue exclusive to Western colonial and imperial powers. The volume is the first to open a dialogue between three different areas of postcolonial scholarship that previously developed independently from one another: • the wide field of postcolonial studies working on European colonialism, • the growing field of post-Soviet postcolonial/post-imperial studies, • the still fledgling field of post-Ottoman postcolonial/post-imperial studies, supported by sideways glances at the multidirectional conditions of interaction in East Africa and the East and West Indies. Postcolonialism Cross-Examined looks at topics such as humanism, nationalism, multiculturalism, nostalgia, and the Anthropocene in order to piece together a new, broader vision for postcolonial studies in the twenty-first century. By including territories other than those covered by the postcolonial mainstream, the book strives to reframe the "postcolonial" as a genuinely global phenomenon and develop multidirectional postcolonial perspectives. Monika Albrecht is Professor of literary and cultural studies (apl. Prof.) at
This article endeavors to open a new critical space for Soviet studies and for nationalities stud... more This article endeavors to open a new critical space for Soviet studies and for nationalities studies more generally. Through analyses of recent trends in Soviet studies, the article dismantles the frequently used opposition between subjective and objective approaches to Soviet empire and suggests instead that truths and categories, whether considered “subjective” or “objective,” are constructed discursively, through legitimizing certain interpretive models over the others. The article also argues against disciplinary avoidance of “what is” questions (e.g. “what is a nation?”) and claims that an excessive concern for (re)producing essentialism should not hinder scholarly inquiry. Several new lines of inquiry for the study of the Soviet empire are suggested and also applicable in nationalities studies more generally: research on the role of symbolic violence in manufacturing consent and research concerning the role of affect in producing linkages between the performative life of a singular human being and the pedagogical discourse of a nation or empire. The article also offers an analysis of the Soviet Union as an empire in becoming and it advocates for postcolonial approaches within Soviet studies. The practical dimensions of Soviet rule are exemplified with data from the Baltic borderlands in the postwar years.
"The Affect Theory Reader". Edited by Melissa Cregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (Duke Universtiy Pre... more "The Affect Theory Reader". Edited by Melissa Cregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (Duke Universtiy Press, 2010) Lauren Berleant, "Cruel Optimism" (Duke University Press, 2011) Epp A n nu s Viimastel aastatel on üha rohkem hakatud rääkima afektiivsest pöördest humanitaarteadustes. Jah, küllap võib seda pidada jälle üheks uueks teoreetiliseks moevälgatuseks, aga seekord suunas, mis võiks korda minna ka neile, keda keelelise pöörde ja poststrukturalistliku mõtte suurkujude keerulised mõttekäigud eemale kohutasid. Poststrukturalismi kaanonisse sisenemine oli lugejatele omaette ettevõtmine, vajalike eelteadmiste hulk mõõtmatu, ja tekstid lugejale järeleandmisi ei teinud. Kas pole siis loogiline, et järgmine suurem pööre toimub lihtsuse suunas? 1 Mõnes mõttes küll. Tuleb aga kohe hoiatada neid, kes poststrukturalismi kaanoniga hätta jäid: otsustavat lahkulöömist pole toimunud. Ja ei saagi toimuda, sest iga järgnev mõttesuund rajaneb eelmistel. Afektiivne pööre on (võrreldes poststrukturalismi tugeva strukturalistliku lähenemise eitusega) oma uuenduslikkuse manifesteerimises mõõdukas, poststrukturalismi põhialuseid paigast ära ei kõigutata, küll aga muudetakse rõhuasetusi ja avardatakse uurimisvaldkonda. "Afektiteooria lugemiku" (edaspidi ATR) kokkupanijad paigutavad afektiivse pöörde alguse 1995. aastasse, mil ilmusid Eve Sedwicki ja Adam Franki essee "Shame in the Cybernetic Field" ning Brian Massumi "The Autonomy of Affect". "Afektiivne hetk on möödunud, see tähendab, et enam ei piisa lihtsalt mööndusest, et afekt on oluline," kirjutab Nigel Thrift (ATR, lk 289). Afekti möönmise asemel tegeletakse nüüd afekti spetsiifiliste vormide analüüsiga, et uurida konkreetseid kultuurilisi või poliitilisi olukordasid. 2000. aastad on olnud afektiteooriate disseminatsiooni ajajärk. Huvi mõtteviisi vastu on kiiresti levinud eri valdkondadesse, hõlmates nüüdseks määratut ala filosoofiast täppisteaduseni. Mõjutatud valdkondade hulka kuuluvad peale kirjanduse, kultuuriuuringute, postkolonialismi, psühhoanalüüsi ja filosoofia ka neuroloogia, küberneetika ja tehisintellekti uuringud, teaduskirjutuse metodoloogia, inimgeograafia, antropoloogia jm. Autorite hulk, keda selle suunaga seostatakse, on nagu ikka mõnevõrra ebamäärane ja tõlgendustele avatud. Vahest kõige tuntumad on esseedega esindatud "Afektiteooria lugemikus": Brian Negrit. Eelkäijate ja inspireerijate hulka kuuluvad mitmed 20. sajandi filosoofilise mõtte suurkujud, neist selgemini eristub Gilles Deleuze, aga seltskonda kuuluvad ka Roland Barthes, Maurice Merleau-Ponty ja Martin Heidegger. Afektiteooria raames joonistuvad välja erinevad suundumused ja sümpaatiad, "Afektiteooria lugemiku" autorid osutavad kahele põhivoolule ja koguni kaheksale eri suundumusele. Üks minu meelest huvipakkuvaim on sealjuures traditsioon, mis kulgeb teljel Spinoza-Deleuze-Massumi. Ent iga autor loob endale oma "mõttepesa" oma eelistustega: Highmore (kultuuriuurija Sussexi ülikoolis) imetleb Kathleen Stewartit, toetub korraliku britina marksisti Raymond Williamsi töödele, aga viitab esteetikaküsimustes tagasi Baumgartenini (esteetika rajaja 18. sajandil), kelle kirjutised on kõige lihtsamini kättesaadavad ladina keeles. Highmore'i üks tugipunkte on ka John Dewey, oma argieluesteetika mõtestab ta aga Jacques Rancière'i tööde edasiarendusena. Tänapäeva globaalses akadeemilises külas on tegu sõbraliku perega, kes korduvalt istungilaudade taga kokku saavad. Sest jah, afektiuurijaist on nüüdseks saanud akadeemilised superstaarid. Mida siis õieti uuritakse? Tundub, et afekt ise on mõnevõrra hajus mõiste: mõnes kirjutises näib see olevat sünonüümne tundega, mõnes tajuga, mõnes meeleoluga, sageli mõistetakse selle all defineerimatut sisetunnet või intensiivsust (mis ei pruugi samas olla teab mis intensiivne), ebamäärasemat kui emotsioon, vahel vägagi põgusat virvendust, vahel pikemaajalist seisundit. Mõni uurija püüab valdkonna määratlusest mööda hiilida, rääkides laiemalt nii afektidest kui ka tunnetest. "Afektiteooria lugemiku" eessõnas püütakse afekti mõistet lahti seletada, viidates selle eristumisele mõistuslikust maailmanägemisest -samas ometi kinnitades, et mõistuslik ja afektiivne alge toimivad käsikäes. 2 Gregory Seigworth ja Melissa Gregg määratlevad kogumiku eessõnas afekti kui kehalist, mõistusega lõpuni eritlematut reaktsiooni välismaailmas toimuvale, vahepealsust, mis on nii intiimne kui ka ebaisikuline, mis märgib keha kuulumist kokkusaamiste ja muutumiste ruumi, kus intensiivsused ringlevad kehade vahel. Kehaline maailmasolu tähendab pidevat afektiivset ja poeesia vahelised piirid, tema kirjutised on nagu pikad poeemid, lummavad, isiklikud keelekuulamised, tavaliste ja ebatavaliste hetkede mõtlikud kaardistused. Muidugi, temagi ei ole esimene, stiililiselt leidub siin sarnasust Alphonso Lingise kirjutistega, paralleelsusi leidub feministide kirjutistest ja mujaltki. Rabav pole mitte sellise kirjutusviisi viljelemine, vaid sellele osaks saanud laialdane tunnustus, fakt, et niimoodi saab tänapäeval humanitaarteaduste vallas kirjutada, tippkirjastuses raamatuid avaldada, tippülikoolis töötada, konverentsidel istungeid pidada. Tahaks öelda, et hoidkem silmad lahti poeetilise pöörde osas -aga kuidagi ei näe seda kohta, kuhu poeetiline pööre saaks Eesti normatiivsel teadusmaastikul sobituda.
We see clearly here, in the temporal layers of Tallinn and other old Estonian sites, how “the con... more We see clearly here, in the temporal layers of Tallinn and other old Estonian sites, how “the constitution of temporality” needs “to be apprehended from the standpoint of the emergence of memory elaborated and conserved by the organization of the inorganic” (Stiegler). Time is technical, yes, but not only. From another perspective, the archaeologies of the future also point to the sensual, to human togetherness, to the affectivity of sharing.
This essay works through some of the necessary preliminary questions in thinking about Soviet col... more This essay works through some of the necessary preliminary questions in thinking about Soviet colonialism in the Baltics. It opens by tracing the prehistory of critical thinking about Soviet colonialism in the 1960s and considers why the topic of Soviet colonialism has not (or not yet) become a dominant way to understand Soviet history. The central question posed by the article is whether one can speak about the Soviet invasions of the Baltic States as ‘colonization’. It proposes that, initially, communist Russia did not in fact seek to colonize the Baltic States and instead ‘occupied’ them; however, this initial period of occupation later developed into a period of a colonial rule.
The poetics of the everyday and festive life
This article investigates ways of writing about... more The poetics of the everyday and festive life
This article investigates ways of writing about the everyday in contemporary life. It starts by posing the question of why literature thrives especially on violence and extraordinary events. If literature strives to speak to us through our experience of being in the world, and aims to help us understand our common human experience, then shouldn’t it rather avoid the extraordinary?
Without doubt, a topic needs to captivate its writer no less than its reader—otherwise the writing and the reading would not take place at all. Facing death in literature proposes that a given text is something to be taken seriously; it signifies that here one is dealing with existential matters, not just with the myriad small nothingnesses of the everyday. Nonetheless, the present article analyzes a different way to intensify the quotidian: to turn the everyday into an experience of beauty. A writer can find moments of special importance from inside the everyday, thus relieving the reader from the boredom of „nothing happens“ otherwise than through an encounter with death and the extraordinary.
Through a close reading of several Estonian novels (Indigo by Peeter Sauter and Tõde ja õigus by A.H. Tammsaare), the article suggests that, instead of underlining the burdensome boredom of the everyday, literature has the potential, through the power of its imagery, to aestheticize the everyday, even against the conscious will of the writer. If the routine of the everyday involves the automatization of life and a loss of the intense feeling of being in the world, Heidegger reminds us that the work of art opens up being in the world as a whole—and does so precisely by relying on the everyday, not on moments of extraordinary significance. Thus, art would imply the disappearance of the everyday as a locus of boredom, unfullfilment, obligation and repetition, and the replacement of the everyday with pidulik elu, a life at once festive and solemn. For Heidegger, the everyday is a based on a structure of Care. Care is the existential meaning of the everyday and the basis of human existence. Insofar as literature might aim towards revealing the structure of care, this effort would involve the creation of festive life precisely out of the ordinariness of the everyday. Thus, in addition to the way literature may depart from the everyday with the violent and the extraordinary, literature may also recover the solemn festivity of the everyday as a way to make a piece of fiction readable, create loci of desire and interest in the text.
The Rise of Post-Colonialism in Post-Soviet Studies: Witnessing the Paradigm Change
This artic... more The Rise of Post-Colonialism in Post-Soviet Studies: Witnessing the Paradigm Change
This article analyses the current state of research in studies of Soviet colonialism and considers inner tensions within this emerging field. By now, dozens of monographs and hundreds of articles touch upon the various aspects of Soviet postcolonialism, yet the field is fragmented and full of inner contradictions and unanswered questions: What is the relationship of research in Soviet colonialism to postcolonial studies in general? What is its relationship to traditional Sovietology? Areas of tension are found through historical and geographical perspectives, in the Russian neglect of its own Soviet imperialism, and in the long-distance scholarship dominant in the area. This paper argues that what we are witnessing now is the pains of a paradigm change, further aggravated by special complexities within the field.
The article offers a historical overview of the development of studies of Soviet colonialism and shows that a decisive turn took place in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In 1990s, postcolonial perspectives were more widely employed in analyses of Tsarist-era Russian history. In the 2000s, several important monographs about the Soviet Union were published, yet, interestingly, their main focus was the inter-war period, before the Baltic states were annexed to the Soviet Union. Thus, for research into Baltic Soviet history, these collections and monographs can only provide background information. As for the post-WWII era, most important work from the perspective of Baltic studies – that is, general arguments about the developments in Soviet Union – remain on the level of single articles, the best known of these being David Chioni Moore’s „Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique“ (2001).
The article makes a distinction between the general term „empire-studies“ and the more restricted notion of „studies of colonialism“; it further distuinguishes post colonial studies as a sub-category of studies of colonialism. Empire-studies approaches the Soviet Union as a multinational empire, but not necessarily a colonial one. Studies of colonialism argue that Soviet Union was indeed a colonial enterprise where subordinated nations and ethnicities were exploited in the interests of the central power. Postcolonial Soviet studies would apply a postcolonial critique to the research of the area: this would involve a bricolage analysis of power-relations, mechanisms of desire, the hybridity of the colonial subject, and its traumatic identity; it would shift the focus of research from the politico-historical features to socio-cultural features of the period. Though the notions „colonial“ and „postcolonial“ are widely in use in contemporary Soviet studies, the postcolonial turn is far from complete.
The issues of nation and nationhood are nowadays largely perceived as a social, economical and po... more The issues of nation and nationhood are nowadays largely perceived as a social, economical and political topic—the cultural side of the question is usually left aside. For nation is not something natural and primordial—instead, the birth of a nation is related to ...
Taking a strikingly interdisciplinary and global approach, Postcolonialism Cross-Examined reflect... more Taking a strikingly interdisciplinary and global approach, Postcolonialism Cross-Examined reflects on the current status of postcolonial studies and attempts to break through traditional boundaries, creating a truly comparative and genuinely global phenomenon. Drawing together the field of mainstream postcolonial studies with post-Soviet postcolonial studies and studies of the late Ottoman Empire, the contributors in this volume question many of the concepts and assumptions we have become accustomed to in postcolonial studies, creating a fresh new version of the field. The volume calls the merits of the field into question, investigating how postcolonial studies may have perpetuated and normalized colonialism as an issue exclusive to Western colonial and imperial powers. The volume is the first to open a dialogue between three different areas of postcolonial scholarship that previously developed independently from one another: • the wide field of postcolonial studies working on European colonialism, • the growing field of post-Soviet postcolonial/post-imperial studies, • the still fledgling field of post-Ottoman postcolonial/post-imperial studies, supported by sideways glances at the multidirectional conditions of interaction in East Africa and the East and West Indies. Postcolonialism Cross-Examined looks at topics such as humanism, nationalism, multiculturalism, nostalgia, and the Anthropocene in order to piece together a new, broader vision for postcolonial studies in the twenty-first century. By including territories other than those covered by the postcolonial mainstream, the book strives to reframe the "postcolonial" as a genuinely global phenomenon and develop multidirectional postcolonial perspectives. Monika Albrecht is Professor of literary and cultural studies (apl. Prof.) at
This article endeavors to open a new critical space for Soviet studies and for nationalities stud... more This article endeavors to open a new critical space for Soviet studies and for nationalities studies more generally. Through analyses of recent trends in Soviet studies, the article dismantles the frequently used opposition between subjective and objective approaches to Soviet empire and suggests instead that truths and categories, whether considered “subjective” or “objective,” are constructed discursively, through legitimizing certain interpretive models over the others. The article also argues against disciplinary avoidance of “what is” questions (e.g. “what is a nation?”) and claims that an excessive concern for (re)producing essentialism should not hinder scholarly inquiry. Several new lines of inquiry for the study of the Soviet empire are suggested and also applicable in nationalities studies more generally: research on the role of symbolic violence in manufacturing consent and research concerning the role of affect in producing linkages between the performative life of a singular human being and the pedagogical discourse of a nation or empire. The article also offers an analysis of the Soviet Union as an empire in becoming and it advocates for postcolonial approaches within Soviet studies. The practical dimensions of Soviet rule are exemplified with data from the Baltic borderlands in the postwar years.
"The Affect Theory Reader". Edited by Melissa Cregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (Duke Universtiy Pre... more "The Affect Theory Reader". Edited by Melissa Cregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (Duke Universtiy Press, 2010) Lauren Berleant, "Cruel Optimism" (Duke University Press, 2011) Epp A n nu s Viimastel aastatel on üha rohkem hakatud rääkima afektiivsest pöördest humanitaarteadustes. Jah, küllap võib seda pidada jälle üheks uueks teoreetiliseks moevälgatuseks, aga seekord suunas, mis võiks korda minna ka neile, keda keelelise pöörde ja poststrukturalistliku mõtte suurkujude keerulised mõttekäigud eemale kohutasid. Poststrukturalismi kaanonisse sisenemine oli lugejatele omaette ettevõtmine, vajalike eelteadmiste hulk mõõtmatu, ja tekstid lugejale järeleandmisi ei teinud. Kas pole siis loogiline, et järgmine suurem pööre toimub lihtsuse suunas? 1 Mõnes mõttes küll. Tuleb aga kohe hoiatada neid, kes poststrukturalismi kaanoniga hätta jäid: otsustavat lahkulöömist pole toimunud. Ja ei saagi toimuda, sest iga järgnev mõttesuund rajaneb eelmistel. Afektiivne pööre on (võrreldes poststrukturalismi tugeva strukturalistliku lähenemise eitusega) oma uuenduslikkuse manifesteerimises mõõdukas, poststrukturalismi põhialuseid paigast ära ei kõigutata, küll aga muudetakse rõhuasetusi ja avardatakse uurimisvaldkonda. "Afektiteooria lugemiku" (edaspidi ATR) kokkupanijad paigutavad afektiivse pöörde alguse 1995. aastasse, mil ilmusid Eve Sedwicki ja Adam Franki essee "Shame in the Cybernetic Field" ning Brian Massumi "The Autonomy of Affect". "Afektiivne hetk on möödunud, see tähendab, et enam ei piisa lihtsalt mööndusest, et afekt on oluline," kirjutab Nigel Thrift (ATR, lk 289). Afekti möönmise asemel tegeletakse nüüd afekti spetsiifiliste vormide analüüsiga, et uurida konkreetseid kultuurilisi või poliitilisi olukordasid. 2000. aastad on olnud afektiteooriate disseminatsiooni ajajärk. Huvi mõtteviisi vastu on kiiresti levinud eri valdkondadesse, hõlmates nüüdseks määratut ala filosoofiast täppisteaduseni. Mõjutatud valdkondade hulka kuuluvad peale kirjanduse, kultuuriuuringute, postkolonialismi, psühhoanalüüsi ja filosoofia ka neuroloogia, küberneetika ja tehisintellekti uuringud, teaduskirjutuse metodoloogia, inimgeograafia, antropoloogia jm. Autorite hulk, keda selle suunaga seostatakse, on nagu ikka mõnevõrra ebamäärane ja tõlgendustele avatud. Vahest kõige tuntumad on esseedega esindatud "Afektiteooria lugemikus": Brian Negrit. Eelkäijate ja inspireerijate hulka kuuluvad mitmed 20. sajandi filosoofilise mõtte suurkujud, neist selgemini eristub Gilles Deleuze, aga seltskonda kuuluvad ka Roland Barthes, Maurice Merleau-Ponty ja Martin Heidegger. Afektiteooria raames joonistuvad välja erinevad suundumused ja sümpaatiad, "Afektiteooria lugemiku" autorid osutavad kahele põhivoolule ja koguni kaheksale eri suundumusele. Üks minu meelest huvipakkuvaim on sealjuures traditsioon, mis kulgeb teljel Spinoza-Deleuze-Massumi. Ent iga autor loob endale oma "mõttepesa" oma eelistustega: Highmore (kultuuriuurija Sussexi ülikoolis) imetleb Kathleen Stewartit, toetub korraliku britina marksisti Raymond Williamsi töödele, aga viitab esteetikaküsimustes tagasi Baumgartenini (esteetika rajaja 18. sajandil), kelle kirjutised on kõige lihtsamini kättesaadavad ladina keeles. Highmore'i üks tugipunkte on ka John Dewey, oma argieluesteetika mõtestab ta aga Jacques Rancière'i tööde edasiarendusena. Tänapäeva globaalses akadeemilises külas on tegu sõbraliku perega, kes korduvalt istungilaudade taga kokku saavad. Sest jah, afektiuurijaist on nüüdseks saanud akadeemilised superstaarid. Mida siis õieti uuritakse? Tundub, et afekt ise on mõnevõrra hajus mõiste: mõnes kirjutises näib see olevat sünonüümne tundega, mõnes tajuga, mõnes meeleoluga, sageli mõistetakse selle all defineerimatut sisetunnet või intensiivsust (mis ei pruugi samas olla teab mis intensiivne), ebamäärasemat kui emotsioon, vahel vägagi põgusat virvendust, vahel pikemaajalist seisundit. Mõni uurija püüab valdkonna määratlusest mööda hiilida, rääkides laiemalt nii afektidest kui ka tunnetest. "Afektiteooria lugemiku" eessõnas püütakse afekti mõistet lahti seletada, viidates selle eristumisele mõistuslikust maailmanägemisest -samas ometi kinnitades, et mõistuslik ja afektiivne alge toimivad käsikäes. 2 Gregory Seigworth ja Melissa Gregg määratlevad kogumiku eessõnas afekti kui kehalist, mõistusega lõpuni eritlematut reaktsiooni välismaailmas toimuvale, vahepealsust, mis on nii intiimne kui ka ebaisikuline, mis märgib keha kuulumist kokkusaamiste ja muutumiste ruumi, kus intensiivsused ringlevad kehade vahel. Kehaline maailmasolu tähendab pidevat afektiivset ja poeesia vahelised piirid, tema kirjutised on nagu pikad poeemid, lummavad, isiklikud keelekuulamised, tavaliste ja ebatavaliste hetkede mõtlikud kaardistused. Muidugi, temagi ei ole esimene, stiililiselt leidub siin sarnasust Alphonso Lingise kirjutistega, paralleelsusi leidub feministide kirjutistest ja mujaltki. Rabav pole mitte sellise kirjutusviisi viljelemine, vaid sellele osaks saanud laialdane tunnustus, fakt, et niimoodi saab tänapäeval humanitaarteaduste vallas kirjutada, tippkirjastuses raamatuid avaldada, tippülikoolis töötada, konverentsidel istungeid pidada. Tahaks öelda, et hoidkem silmad lahti poeetilise pöörde osas -aga kuidagi ei näe seda kohta, kuhu poeetiline pööre saaks Eesti normatiivsel teadusmaastikul sobituda.
We see clearly here, in the temporal layers of Tallinn and other old Estonian sites, how “the con... more We see clearly here, in the temporal layers of Tallinn and other old Estonian sites, how “the constitution of temporality” needs “to be apprehended from the standpoint of the emergence of memory elaborated and conserved by the organization of the inorganic” (Stiegler). Time is technical, yes, but not only. From another perspective, the archaeologies of the future also point to the sensual, to human togetherness, to the affectivity of sharing.
This essay works through some of the necessary preliminary questions in thinking about Soviet col... more This essay works through some of the necessary preliminary questions in thinking about Soviet colonialism in the Baltics. It opens by tracing the prehistory of critical thinking about Soviet colonialism in the 1960s and considers why the topic of Soviet colonialism has not (or not yet) become a dominant way to understand Soviet history. The central question posed by the article is whether one can speak about the Soviet invasions of the Baltic States as ‘colonization’. It proposes that, initially, communist Russia did not in fact seek to colonize the Baltic States and instead ‘occupied’ them; however, this initial period of occupation later developed into a period of a colonial rule.
The poetics of the everyday and festive life
This article investigates ways of writing about... more The poetics of the everyday and festive life
This article investigates ways of writing about the everyday in contemporary life. It starts by posing the question of why literature thrives especially on violence and extraordinary events. If literature strives to speak to us through our experience of being in the world, and aims to help us understand our common human experience, then shouldn’t it rather avoid the extraordinary?
Without doubt, a topic needs to captivate its writer no less than its reader—otherwise the writing and the reading would not take place at all. Facing death in literature proposes that a given text is something to be taken seriously; it signifies that here one is dealing with existential matters, not just with the myriad small nothingnesses of the everyday. Nonetheless, the present article analyzes a different way to intensify the quotidian: to turn the everyday into an experience of beauty. A writer can find moments of special importance from inside the everyday, thus relieving the reader from the boredom of „nothing happens“ otherwise than through an encounter with death and the extraordinary.
Through a close reading of several Estonian novels (Indigo by Peeter Sauter and Tõde ja õigus by A.H. Tammsaare), the article suggests that, instead of underlining the burdensome boredom of the everyday, literature has the potential, through the power of its imagery, to aestheticize the everyday, even against the conscious will of the writer. If the routine of the everyday involves the automatization of life and a loss of the intense feeling of being in the world, Heidegger reminds us that the work of art opens up being in the world as a whole—and does so precisely by relying on the everyday, not on moments of extraordinary significance. Thus, art would imply the disappearance of the everyday as a locus of boredom, unfullfilment, obligation and repetition, and the replacement of the everyday with pidulik elu, a life at once festive and solemn. For Heidegger, the everyday is a based on a structure of Care. Care is the existential meaning of the everyday and the basis of human existence. Insofar as literature might aim towards revealing the structure of care, this effort would involve the creation of festive life precisely out of the ordinariness of the everyday. Thus, in addition to the way literature may depart from the everyday with the violent and the extraordinary, literature may also recover the solemn festivity of the everyday as a way to make a piece of fiction readable, create loci of desire and interest in the text.
The Rise of Post-Colonialism in Post-Soviet Studies: Witnessing the Paradigm Change
This artic... more The Rise of Post-Colonialism in Post-Soviet Studies: Witnessing the Paradigm Change
This article analyses the current state of research in studies of Soviet colonialism and considers inner tensions within this emerging field. By now, dozens of monographs and hundreds of articles touch upon the various aspects of Soviet postcolonialism, yet the field is fragmented and full of inner contradictions and unanswered questions: What is the relationship of research in Soviet colonialism to postcolonial studies in general? What is its relationship to traditional Sovietology? Areas of tension are found through historical and geographical perspectives, in the Russian neglect of its own Soviet imperialism, and in the long-distance scholarship dominant in the area. This paper argues that what we are witnessing now is the pains of a paradigm change, further aggravated by special complexities within the field.
The article offers a historical overview of the development of studies of Soviet colonialism and shows that a decisive turn took place in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In 1990s, postcolonial perspectives were more widely employed in analyses of Tsarist-era Russian history. In the 2000s, several important monographs about the Soviet Union were published, yet, interestingly, their main focus was the inter-war period, before the Baltic states were annexed to the Soviet Union. Thus, for research into Baltic Soviet history, these collections and monographs can only provide background information. As for the post-WWII era, most important work from the perspective of Baltic studies – that is, general arguments about the developments in Soviet Union – remain on the level of single articles, the best known of these being David Chioni Moore’s „Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique“ (2001).
The article makes a distinction between the general term „empire-studies“ and the more restricted notion of „studies of colonialism“; it further distuinguishes post colonial studies as a sub-category of studies of colonialism. Empire-studies approaches the Soviet Union as a multinational empire, but not necessarily a colonial one. Studies of colonialism argue that Soviet Union was indeed a colonial enterprise where subordinated nations and ethnicities were exploited in the interests of the central power. Postcolonial Soviet studies would apply a postcolonial critique to the research of the area: this would involve a bricolage analysis of power-relations, mechanisms of desire, the hybridity of the colonial subject, and its traumatic identity; it would shift the focus of research from the politico-historical features to socio-cultural features of the period. Though the notions „colonial“ and „postcolonial“ are widely in use in contemporary Soviet studies, the postcolonial turn is far from complete.
The issues of nation and nationhood are nowadays largely perceived as a social, economical and po... more The issues of nation and nationhood are nowadays largely perceived as a social, economical and political topic—the cultural side of the question is usually left aside. For nation is not something natural and primordial—instead, the birth of a nation is related to ...
It seems perhaps paradoxical to read – and even more so to write – on a topic Experiencing the Ev... more It seems perhaps paradoxical to read – and even more so to write – on a topic Experiencing the Everyday. Aren't experience and rational contemplation located at the opposite ends on the spectrum of modes of behavior? We can experience the everyday or we can write it – but once we start writing it, the experience is diverted from its original temporal flow and is recast as an object of contemplation. A similar paradox is embedded in aesthetic representations of everyday life – the artistic gaze easily renders the most banal and quotidian material into an aesthetically pleasing object of enjoyment, something very different from the neutral and unnoticeable flow of everyday life. In writing about the artistic representation of the everyday, then, the initial experience of the everyday is doubly removed. At the same time, however, writing and thinking about everyday experience, as well as painting, photographing or filming it, may very well be the most quotidian activity for scholars, novelists, painters and filmmakers.
Uploads
Papers by Epp Annus
This article investigates ways of writing about the everyday in contemporary life. It starts by posing the question of why literature thrives especially on violence and extraordinary events. If literature strives to speak to us through our experience of being in the world, and aims to help us understand our common human experience, then shouldn’t it rather avoid the extraordinary?
Without doubt, a topic needs to captivate its writer no less than its reader—otherwise the writing and the reading would not take place at all. Facing death in literature proposes that a given text is something to be taken seriously; it signifies that here one is dealing with existential matters, not just with the myriad small nothingnesses of the everyday. Nonetheless, the present article analyzes a different way to intensify the quotidian: to turn the everyday into an experience of beauty. A writer can find moments of special importance from inside the everyday, thus relieving the reader from the boredom of „nothing happens“ otherwise than through an encounter with death and the extraordinary.
Through a close reading of several Estonian novels (Indigo by Peeter Sauter and Tõde ja õigus by A.H. Tammsaare), the article suggests that, instead of underlining the burdensome boredom of the everyday, literature has the potential, through the power of its imagery, to aestheticize the everyday, even against the conscious will of the writer. If the routine of the everyday involves the automatization of life and a loss of the intense feeling of being in the world, Heidegger reminds us that the work of art opens up being in the world as a whole—and does so precisely by relying on the everyday, not on moments of extraordinary significance. Thus, art would imply the disappearance of the everyday as a locus of boredom, unfullfilment, obligation and repetition, and the replacement of the everyday with pidulik elu, a life at once festive and solemn. For Heidegger, the everyday is a based on a structure of Care. Care is the existential meaning of the everyday and the basis of human existence. Insofar as literature might aim towards revealing the structure of care, this effort would involve the creation of festive life precisely out of the ordinariness of the everyday. Thus, in addition to the way literature may depart from the everyday with the violent and the extraordinary, literature may also recover the solemn festivity of the everyday as a way to make a piece of fiction readable, create loci of desire and interest in the text.
This article analyses the current state of research in studies of Soviet colonialism and considers inner tensions within this emerging field. By now, dozens of monographs and hundreds of articles touch upon the various aspects of Soviet postcolonialism, yet the field is fragmented and full of inner contradictions and unanswered questions: What is the relationship of research in Soviet colonialism to postcolonial studies in general? What is its relationship to traditional Sovietology? Areas of tension are found through historical and geographical perspectives, in the Russian neglect of its own Soviet imperialism, and in the long-distance scholarship dominant in the area. This paper argues that what we are witnessing now is the pains of a paradigm change, further aggravated by special complexities within the field.
The article offers a historical overview of the development of studies of Soviet colonialism and shows that a decisive turn took place in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In 1990s, postcolonial perspectives were more widely employed in analyses of Tsarist-era Russian history. In the 2000s, several important monographs about the Soviet Union were published, yet, interestingly, their main focus was the inter-war period, before the Baltic states were annexed to the Soviet Union. Thus, for research into Baltic Soviet history, these collections and monographs can only provide background information. As for the post-WWII era, most important work from the perspective of Baltic studies – that is, general arguments about the developments in Soviet Union – remain on the level of single articles, the best known of these being David Chioni Moore’s „Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique“ (2001).
The article makes a distinction between the general term „empire-studies“ and the more restricted notion of „studies of colonialism“; it further distuinguishes post colonial studies as a sub-category of studies of colonialism. Empire-studies approaches the Soviet Union as a multinational empire, but not necessarily a colonial one. Studies of colonialism argue that Soviet Union was indeed a colonial enterprise where subordinated nations and ethnicities were exploited in the interests of the central power. Postcolonial Soviet studies would apply a postcolonial critique to the research of the area: this would involve a bricolage analysis of power-relations, mechanisms of desire, the hybridity of the colonial subject, and its traumatic identity; it would shift the focus of research from the politico-historical features to socio-cultural features of the period. Though the notions „colonial“ and „postcolonial“ are widely in use in contemporary Soviet studies, the postcolonial turn is far from complete.
This article investigates ways of writing about the everyday in contemporary life. It starts by posing the question of why literature thrives especially on violence and extraordinary events. If literature strives to speak to us through our experience of being in the world, and aims to help us understand our common human experience, then shouldn’t it rather avoid the extraordinary?
Without doubt, a topic needs to captivate its writer no less than its reader—otherwise the writing and the reading would not take place at all. Facing death in literature proposes that a given text is something to be taken seriously; it signifies that here one is dealing with existential matters, not just with the myriad small nothingnesses of the everyday. Nonetheless, the present article analyzes a different way to intensify the quotidian: to turn the everyday into an experience of beauty. A writer can find moments of special importance from inside the everyday, thus relieving the reader from the boredom of „nothing happens“ otherwise than through an encounter with death and the extraordinary.
Through a close reading of several Estonian novels (Indigo by Peeter Sauter and Tõde ja õigus by A.H. Tammsaare), the article suggests that, instead of underlining the burdensome boredom of the everyday, literature has the potential, through the power of its imagery, to aestheticize the everyday, even against the conscious will of the writer. If the routine of the everyday involves the automatization of life and a loss of the intense feeling of being in the world, Heidegger reminds us that the work of art opens up being in the world as a whole—and does so precisely by relying on the everyday, not on moments of extraordinary significance. Thus, art would imply the disappearance of the everyday as a locus of boredom, unfullfilment, obligation and repetition, and the replacement of the everyday with pidulik elu, a life at once festive and solemn. For Heidegger, the everyday is a based on a structure of Care. Care is the existential meaning of the everyday and the basis of human existence. Insofar as literature might aim towards revealing the structure of care, this effort would involve the creation of festive life precisely out of the ordinariness of the everyday. Thus, in addition to the way literature may depart from the everyday with the violent and the extraordinary, literature may also recover the solemn festivity of the everyday as a way to make a piece of fiction readable, create loci of desire and interest in the text.
This article analyses the current state of research in studies of Soviet colonialism and considers inner tensions within this emerging field. By now, dozens of monographs and hundreds of articles touch upon the various aspects of Soviet postcolonialism, yet the field is fragmented and full of inner contradictions and unanswered questions: What is the relationship of research in Soviet colonialism to postcolonial studies in general? What is its relationship to traditional Sovietology? Areas of tension are found through historical and geographical perspectives, in the Russian neglect of its own Soviet imperialism, and in the long-distance scholarship dominant in the area. This paper argues that what we are witnessing now is the pains of a paradigm change, further aggravated by special complexities within the field.
The article offers a historical overview of the development of studies of Soviet colonialism and shows that a decisive turn took place in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In 1990s, postcolonial perspectives were more widely employed in analyses of Tsarist-era Russian history. In the 2000s, several important monographs about the Soviet Union were published, yet, interestingly, their main focus was the inter-war period, before the Baltic states were annexed to the Soviet Union. Thus, for research into Baltic Soviet history, these collections and monographs can only provide background information. As for the post-WWII era, most important work from the perspective of Baltic studies – that is, general arguments about the developments in Soviet Union – remain on the level of single articles, the best known of these being David Chioni Moore’s „Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique“ (2001).
The article makes a distinction between the general term „empire-studies“ and the more restricted notion of „studies of colonialism“; it further distuinguishes post colonial studies as a sub-category of studies of colonialism. Empire-studies approaches the Soviet Union as a multinational empire, but not necessarily a colonial one. Studies of colonialism argue that Soviet Union was indeed a colonial enterprise where subordinated nations and ethnicities were exploited in the interests of the central power. Postcolonial Soviet studies would apply a postcolonial critique to the research of the area: this would involve a bricolage analysis of power-relations, mechanisms of desire, the hybridity of the colonial subject, and its traumatic identity; it would shift the focus of research from the politico-historical features to socio-cultural features of the period. Though the notions „colonial“ and „postcolonial“ are widely in use in contemporary Soviet studies, the postcolonial turn is far from complete.