| Abstract [eng] |
Work, based on theoretical insights of the sociologist Pierre’ Bourdieu as well as Dominique Maingueneau’s proposed method, which is closely connected with these insights, analyzes texts and contexts of the novels of Lithuanian writer Jonas Avyžius, a social realist. Context and text are considered as correlating (equivalent). The context implies appearance of certain figures and works, which lead to specific field of literature. Feature of the Soviet era - total power field dominance in the field of literature. This situation was conducive to Avyžius not only to come to the field of culture, but also to become its central figure. Field of literature, impoverished by dominance of the occupation authority, could offer writers a choice of common exposure area, at the same time limiting those positions: in Stalin period, the writer was allowed to freely choose only the genre. \"Thaw\" gives a greater choice, so the writers of socialist realism slowly start to deform the canons. Avyžius, who debuted with essays, short stories and novellas, later chooses the path of a novelist. A novel, which was supposed to be the most social and socially the most significant genre, was the most favorable environment to spread Soviet ideology and therefore it was quoted by the authority. A novel, considering its artistic-ideological (the second component much more important) level, was measured the highest and it assured the writer the economic and social (political) capital. However, according to the literary field’s specificity, presupposing the ambiguous position of the writer (\"between\" paratopia), a writer in the field of literature could obtain the “gravity” only through the symbolic capital, generated by a social reception. Thus, in order to achieve popularity and recognition, a writer had to choose a particular approach or, in other words, to invest. Writer’s investment was his taken on social roles of a Teacher, a Truth witness, a Prophet and others. Their quality of performance, stringency determined the writer’s symbolic capital, which in its turn increased the economical, but decreased the political one. Though the latter act was necessary, but not very feasible, the writer criticized the \"estate\" where he himself resided. The latter, covering up some creative roots and aspirations, consolidated it as \"pioneering\", current, \"rebellious\". This helped to achieve the main goal of the occupation regime – Public Sovietization. |
