CC BY
0JURI LOTMAN CENTENARY DEBATES
In METHOD January 2022 started with debates on the content, main approaches and principal outlooks of Juri Lotman jubilee volume of our Yearbook. Fairly pragmatic discussions on editorial priorities immediately turned into a far more essential consideration of what may be called Lotmanean momentum - the driving force that motivated Lotman's work, that now maintains present traditions of fellow semioticians and opens up prospects to future efforts of new generations of scholars.
We publish excerpts from those debates and hope they may serve as a kind of introduction to the current issue of METHOD.
DOI: 10.31249/metodquarterly/02.01.04
The First Centenary Debate of January 19th
For citation: The First Centenary Debate of January 19th. (2022). METHOD: Moscow Quarterly Journal of Social Studies, 2(1), P. 38-44. http://www.doi.org/10.31249/ metodquarterly/02.01.04
Mikhail Ilyin. I have invited you to discuss editorial priorities of our Yearbook and its quarterlies. It is already agreed that this year we add Juri Lotman's name to our traditional pattern of the Yearbook's title "In the footsteps of...". After consulting some of colleagues I suggest the following title "In the footsteps of "In the footsteps of Juri Lotman: searching for meanings".
I also suggest focusing our first electronic quarterly on Lotmanean momentum or on the drive that led to creation of the Tartu - Moscow comprehensive school and subsequent developments.
The second quarterly may target or aim at semiotic universals relevant to the entire semiosphere. The idea was introduced by Lotman, but nether he, nor his followers ever tried to develop systematic nomenclature either of the semiosphere, or of a relevant all-encompassing semiotics. Personally, I would advocate for prioritizing logonomy or more specifically logonomic systems and signs.
The third quarterly may pursue emergence of meanings. Lotman always stressed respective effects in his analysis of texts and contexts but never had a chance to properly develop a corresponding theory. To my mind the current research of languaging very successfully fills the gap.
As for the last quarterly I would advocate for exploring two interrelated topics - semiotics of evolution and evolution of semiotics. They would link Lotmanean problematique with our own priorities.
Bob Hodge: I have a basic question. The Centenary is a fact but what meanings are important for this circle to project around that fact? What do you want to do? What opportunity do you see arising from the Centenary? 32
Suren Zolyan: To answer this question you have to bear in mind that we are just one and fairly small circle. Much broader range of people and for quite a while is already exploring the centenary. At the end of February, we had a great congress in Tartu and Tallinn. Its programme was very vast and huge with a lot of different subjects. So, I think we should concentrate on ideas which remain uncovered. To my mind it may be social semiotics. I suggest we concentrate on that domain but particularly on its methodology. I can recall study of mimics. It was one of the greatest ideas of Yuri Lotman. He developed it in his last works. But till now we have not got the proper understanding of it.
I also have a practical proposal. There are very important and valuable documents and materials that are not published yet. I intend to publish in my journal "Slovo.ru" a transcript of Lotman's seminar of 1981. Probably we in METHOD can find a way to draw attention to this publication of a broader circle of readers.
At the seminar Lotman gave me a very elaborate answer to a very straightforward question. The question was on the possibility of correlating symbolic and iconic, discrete, and holistic research. For Lotman there were two types of semiotics. The first one was discrete and linear, but at the seminar he spoke it was mainly about the other type of semiotics. The topic was left and right hemispheres of the brain. Our linguistics and semiotics at that time was fixated on left hemisphere mechanism. But Lotman mainly centered on another type of semiotics based on the right hemisphere inferring. I asked him about the idea to construct a kind of anti-semiotics. It was a short question, but Lotman gave quite a detailed answer. In fact, his answer was addressing a far more fundamental issue of interaction of heterogenous codes. Each text is a production of two, at least two or more codes. They should be heterogenous, e.g. one should be based on discrete and the second on spatial modalism of semiotic space. I would like to discuss this idea with my colleagues, but at this moment I don't see this idea as the focus of the congress. I suggest we concentrate on his last works, in some respect his unfinished works.
Bob Hodge: I find this very interesting and very productive. But I hope you are not saying that you don't want to include this because I think this is an important theme connected with Lotman's contributions to a problem in semiotics, developing a coherent set of signs, and pivoting around icons and analog signs, versus digital. There is an unresolved battle going on outside semiotics, while semioticians have no rationale for saying what the topology of signs should be. I see Lotman's contribution to typology of signs to be the very necessary connection to engage with contemporary debates on the analogue - digital division.
The last point is something I want to have in mind when we look at topics. How can a given topic connect with big important debates, attracting people from a whole spectrum, to give them a potential interest in, what we say, is Lotman. To me this topic meets all the criteria I think we need to have in mind. If I could just ask - what is this for? Who is it for? Does Lotman need to be sold for Russian audience as a great semiotician? I see that question as a safe choice: he is a great thinker.
I see why the purpose. There is a very large outside world which had some ideas about Lotman which exists at a center of ready connections and I want to see why and how he might be important. What are the big questions on the international scene? Each proposal seems to be connecting analyses of Lotman, discussing the values of Lotman. Probably most of the time our analyses of Lotman will have to acknowledge that he hadn't worked it all out. Rather, he provides a basis for exploring issues. Not a kind of a Nostradamus who wrote it all down in 1600. A living Lotman has got to be drawing on the ideas from his time but also connecting in surprising and important ways to current issues. To sum up, great work Suren, and I hope you will put together a text on this theme.
Ivan Fomin: I believe that there are two main ways, how we can relate to Lotman. One interesting thing to do is to relay the Lotmanean production of semiotics in particular the social semiotics. Another possibility is to consider some topics that were of the margins of Lotman's own interest and were not properly developed by him. In retrospect how Bob put it to make this kind of a living and develop. I think we should keep in mind that Lotman's role was important. He used semiotics to connect people with different interests.
We should focus on this role of Lotman and use it as a platform to speak about other issues that are directly connected with this focal interest of Lotman himself. Take, though, a broader view of this on semiotics and not just on Lotman himself. I think we should keep in mind the question of what is better to say in English and what is better to say in Russian. It is important because the demands for Lotman of the Russian-speaking audience and of the English-speaking one are different. We don't have to sell Lotman to Russian-speaking audience but there is an issue of Lotman that is stable and fixed and people will just prefer Lotman but it may be a less dynamic way to develop an introduction.
The other thing is what we can say and should say about Lotman in English and I think maybe some things are better said in English if we want to build the bridges in the many editions about Lotman. We may have to use some other language too.
Valery Demiankov: I suggest considering the role of Lotman as a commenter on Pushkin other Russian classics. He started working on theory problems in order to better understand how to comment these works and what flaws may be seen in any systems existing so far when we try to explain why these empirical data conform or do not conform to these theories. That is why his role in Russian culture in propagating is big. I would like to stress that his theoretical views do not always conform with the theoretical climate in Russia or the Soviet Union or anywhere in the world. And also with his efforts to explain why the Soviet scholarship was properly or poorly understood under certain circumstances. Like every pathology this point may bring us insights into the theoretical theme itself.
Suren Zolyan: Thank you, Valery. That was a very interesting prospective of Lotman as a scientist. As a historian of Russian science his comment sees all the true interpretation. In his theoretical work he insists on correct interpretation 34
and on the dynamics and value of non-understanding. And that non-understanding provides new interpretation. So, it was very interesting how it's possible to combine Lotman as a historian and Lotman as a theoretician.
Mikhail Ilyin: Let me again discuss the form of our work and how we are going to present it. Once again, what interests me first of all is the entire METHOD - not just the Yearbook but also its four quarterly editions. Of course, they are interconnected. I am interested in the form, how we shape it, make it interesting, attractive, and functional. There are already some interesting ideas being expressed here and I think they are valid and fresh. Of course, it is promising to concentrate on the semiosphere and text studies. It is clearly Lotmanean turn. But we should not overlook social semiotics, logonomic systems, multimodality etc. We also have evolution and languaging there. So, it all looks very well framed already so what I suggest doing is a very simple thing. We will have a series of discussions and we will see how all our bright ideas could be fit in this frame. Just to give an example. Valery has introduced the educational role, or functionality of Juri Lotman. He interpreted classical text as part of a bigger entity, endless entity of semiosphere of national and world cultures. There is a lot we can play around. This whole idea of text and culture could be linked to series of writings by Juri Lotman on Pushkin poetry of the 19th century in this regard and other things.
Social semiotics with multimodality and logonomics easily fit into this design. How to use different modes and different quote-unquote "texts"? Typical of those modes to the whole to the integral result, that's a big issue. And would logonomic systems play any role in this integration? I suggest that we try to use some former things related to the form of our presentation to interrelate our ideas. I don't think we have to plan everything in detail at this stage particularly content wise but I suggest we concentrate on how we should organize it. I suggest we have a couple of discussions on each of the quarterly editions of METHOD. At least to start with those two, on centenary and logonomic systems. I do not think we need to compete with all those people making big conferences. We will not be able to have a panoramic view and full fledge evaluation of what we have done and, particularly, to research into his actual heritage.
It looks like we already have quite a vast agenda. It is the agenda not only for the entire year 2022 but also for our debates now, on the eve of the actual centenary on February 28th 2022. METHOD is to commemorate Juri Lotman during the whole year. We have four quarterlies and the Yearbook itself. So, there are at least 5 publication events that can be coupled with some network events. This alone makes it about a dozen options through the year. So, it's a continuous thing. But I suggest that we quickly go through the agenda in a series of 2-3 debates before the end of February. Let us have our next debate at the very beginning of February.
Bob Hodge: As semioticians shouldn't we focus only on the meanings we can construct on this date, the 28th? I am just channeling Lotman now, he speaks through me and he's saying to me, "Hey guys, you are just dispersing me over the year, aren't I meant to be the centre of this?". Initially I thought we were trying to make this unreasonable deadline. So, I was cautious about that but also
excited. I would like to put a case for thinking how this group could be a part of a commemoration. If it can't that is another matter, but the idea is that it takes place in time and space. It is possible that we think that this is not going to attract anyone. That we are having a celebration of Lotman on our own. I also think he is an important figure, but that importance only becomes a source of living force if people make it come alive by having a debate, which people know about and participate in, at very short notice.... That presentation will flare into life at the designated moment. Obviously, the written format will take longer to get out.
Anyway, the question in my role as the incarnation of Lotman is: "What are you guys doing with me?"
Ivan Fomin: Well, I guess we should do something on the 28th. I agree with Bob that the 28th should be celebrated and focused on but we don't have to make this the only topic of our debates. We have to cover a number of other essential issues.
Mikhail Ilyin: I'd like to support what Ivan has said. By the February 28th we should be more or less clear about what we are doing throughout the entire year. Another important consideration is a very practical one. On February 28th there will be celebrations in Tartu.
Suren Zolyan: Yes, on February 28th in Tartu, we shall have a small meeting at the cemetery. On the previous days there are conferences in Tallinn and Tartu. I'll sent you the program of all those events. Please, take it into consideration.
Mikhail Ilyin: What is important is that the end of February is not the right time for organising a debate, we should do it slightly earlier and publish it, this is possible. Because there will be events and we could publish it. And we could publish it later in the printed form in our additions. Also mentioning that this was somehow related to the date. No problem.
We still need some time that is why I suggested the beginning of February for the first discussion. Probably we will need the second one, say, in the middle of February. Just as an example, we have a first discussion on the 1st or 4th of February then we decide whether we need a continuation, so we have a continuation, say, in 2 weeks' time on the 18th of February and then we have a transcript, we edit it with my support then publish it on the 28th. We may not be able to publish it on the 28th of February. So, we would publish it in a week, two weeks or three weeks after. No big harm.
Bob Hodge: I am not thinking of risking doing a bad job by rushing for this day. What I am talking about is a plan which is of more than one level, with more than one target, so that we can realistically do one more rapid thing and do it properly while planning for something which may take, like, a year. My understanding of the rhythm of written work is that we couldn't realistically have an issue on Lotman from this minute now until we publish the first issue. That is going to take these exhausting 6 months.
Mikhail Ilyin: Yes sure, the whole issue is a later thing, what I was thinking about when I mentioned publishing, I did not mean the issue, I meant the transcript of the debate. So not to publish the transcript of the debate in its raw form but in an edited form. 36
The Second Centenary Debate of February 2nd
Bob Hodge: I personally would like to plan what I would like to say within this framework, bearing in mind what has been said. I think it would be more efficient if I weren't mediated through you or through anyone. For myself, the idea that most excites me is "extensions of a semiosphere". I know it's a big idea and I have been debating with myself, whether we should avoid big ideas because they are so obvious. But I sort of think that if we can't say new and interesting things about the big ideas then we have failed Lotman.
Mikhail Ilyin: Okay, good, good and then I wonder if anybody has second thoughts to suggest something additional to what has already been put on the table. Just send it to me or discuss within this group or whatever method you would prefer.
Ivan Fomin: One thing I want to add now is that there is another topic that is the discussion of logonomic system. Actually, it's a not a separate topic. It can be a part of the same discussion. But it can be a separate discussion as well.
Mikhail Ilyin: We can make a linkage and launch an additional debate and, thus, logonomic system would also be related. There will be one common thing which is semiosphere. But with logonomic systems we all could concentrate on social semiotics and particularly multi-modality which could be a good option as we would have too many topics in one meeting. This could be a bit confusing for the debaters so let us be open for the possibility of two tracks.
Bob Hodge: What are your thoughts on the overall nature of the debate? For instance, how long would you like each person to speak?
Mikhail Ilyin: I don't think we should make a full fledge presentation which are equivalent to an article, something like an extended summary of what you are going to be talking about or you could explore. You have a topic; you have an idea, and you can make an extended summary of your ideas because it's an initial decision.
Valery Demyankov: A couple of raw ideas will do too?
Mikhail Ilyin: Yes, a couple of bright raw ideas, a couple of bright silly questions [laughter]. Personally, I am going to ask silly questions, no doubt. Only one limitation. As Bob suggested, we should not fail Lotman.
