Проблема правдивости образа «Другого» в имагологии

Abstract

The article examines the conceptual prerequisites and grounds of the imagological approach to the problem of the truthfulness of the image of the “Another”. It has been proved that the “indifference” of imagologists to this issue, putting it beyond the framework of the imagological research, is due to some basic ideas of post-structuralism: first of all to the idea of non-referential literature. The example of the comparative analysis of the views of two well-known structural scholars Yu.M. Lotman and R. Barthes revealed fundamental differences in their approach to the study of literature, reflecting the watershed between the traditional comparative studies and the imagology. The article shows that the attitude to the issue of truthfulness of the image of the “Another” largely depended on the ideological attitudes of scholars, their aesthetic views, on the way they answered more general questions: what is literature, what are its functions and relationship with reality, is there truth? The philosophical preconditions of ideological and methodological differences between Soviet and French scientists were revealed: Lotman’s orientation to the tradition of Hegelian teleology and dialectic, and Barthes – on the tradition of post-classical philosophy of F. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, E. Husserl, analytical philosophy. The article explains the various concepts of realism in Yu.M. Lotman’s and R. Barthes’: it shows the historicity of Lotman’s interpretation of realism and the latent “ideology” of Barthes’s position. The consequences of the poststructuralist “turn” in the historical perspective, its ideological background are described. The article is concluded with the connection of imagology as a sphere of humanitarian knowledge with post-structuralism discourse, the ideas and rules of which it extrapolates to the study of the “Another”