author: Oleksii Vasyliev
Urgency of the research. Significant demand for biographical and autobiographical works as fiction and scientific reading in recent decades has been accompanied by the so-called “biographical turn” in humanities, in particular philosophy. In this connection, the relevance of determining the scientific-methodological and practical life-creating potential in the self-reflective practice of creating a biography/autobiography is growing.
Target setting. There is a controversy surrounding the question of whether the biographical approach has sufficient methodological potential. Biographers see an inseparable connection between the biography of an individual and the socio-cultural conditions of his existence. Anti-biographers separate science from the biography of a scientist, and deny the importance of studying the life circumstances of individuals for a better understanding of their scientific and creative achievements.
Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. A significant impetus for understanding and involvement of the scientific potential embedded in the life description practices was given in works of F. Schleiermacher, V. Dilthey, K. Jaspers, J.-P. Sartre, R. Rorty. Ukrainian scientists O. Valevskyi, V. Horskyi, I. Holubovych, A. Tsyapa, V. Menzhulin have especially carefully worked out the biographical discourse within the framework of philosophical science and have derived some thorough, in our opinion, methodological principles
The research objective. This research examines biography and autobiography as a socio-cultural and cultural-anthropological phenomenon by identifying the differences and similarities between them. We will also explore fiction and/or falsified biography as a self-reflective practice and explore its methodological potential in relation to reality. We will also consider autobiographical practices using vivid examples of the pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrialeras
The statement of basic materials. Differences between biography and autobiography at the socio-cultural and cultural-anthropological level can be of fundamental importance in the case when the biography serves as a practice of distinguishing between the “I” of the narrator and the Others. The difference between the two genres becomes fundamental at the level of consideration of the character against the background of his social environment, historical and cultural circumstances. An important question for modern researchers is the border that separates the autobiographical narrative, which strives to be as close as possible to reality, from the imaginary or even deliberately constructed. Perhaps the most important work that reflects the transition from ancient memoirs, epistles and self-reflective lyrics, as well as the genre of medieval hagiography to autobiography itself, is the “Confessions” of Augustine Aurelius, in which many researchers see the first complete work built using psychological introspection. Autobiography as a separate genre in the modern sense took shape at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries, standing out from other works that contained elements of self-reflection, subjectivity, and authorial self-identification. In the post-industrial era, biographical/autobiographical collisions take on the most sophisticated form and vividly express the relationship between the individual and society. The conflict on the boundary of Self/Other deepens, the importance of the connection between the author's life and his work increases in public consciousness, which turns into a kind of reaction of the most sensitive authors to the trends of the era.
Conclusions. Biography/autobiography in a broad sense can be a practice of awareness, rethinking and mutual reflection of socio-cultural, philosophical and cultural-anthropological phenomena through the prism of experience and self-reflection practices of an individual. That is, we can consider biography/autobiography as a kind of bridge between narrative and existential dimensions. From the point of view of the methodological potential, the biographical approach cannot build a methodological justification from itself and needs a justification that refers to a higher level of the humanitarian paradigm.
Key words: autobiography, autofiction, life writing, mystification, falsification, fiction, self-representation, self-reflection
References:
- Bourseiller, Ch 2005, Carlos Castaneda, la vérité du mensonge, Monaco: Du Rocher éditions.
- Dilthey, W 2002, ‘The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences’, Selected Works. Vol. III, Part 2’. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Ketzan, E 2010, Literary Titan Thomas Pynchon Breaks 40-Year Silence – on The Simpsons! Available from : <https://shipwrecklibrary.com/the-modern-word/pynchon/sl-ketzan-simpsons/>. [20 November 2023].
- Lazaro, Rinconete y Don Pablos 1973, Anónimo, Cervantes, Quevedo; selección y edición Andrés B. Couselo, La Habana: Instituto Cubano del Libro, 525 p.
- Lubasch, A 1987, ‘Salinger Biography Is Blocked’, The New York Times, January 30, Section A, Page 1.
- Lutz, N 2002, ‘Biography of J. D. Salinger’, In Bloom, Harold (ed.). J. D. Salinger. “Bloom's BioCritiques”, Philadelphia: Chelsea House, p. 3–44.
- Misch, G 1950, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity, Vol. I, London: Routledge & Paul.
- Vandevoorde, H 2019, ‘3.20 Fictional Autobiography’, Handbook of Autobiography / Autofiction, edited by Martina Wagner-Egelhaaf’, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, p. 603-610.
- Augustin, S 1999, Spovid (Confessions), Kyiv: Osnovy, s. 6-10.
- Yermolenko, V 2017, Gari, abo Khameleon. Daleki blyzki. Esei z filosofii ta literatury (Gary, or Chameleon. Far relatives. Essays on philosophy and literature), Lviv: Vydavnytstvo Staroho Leva, s. 171–204.
- Menjulin, V 2010, Biohrafichnyi pidkhid v istoryko-filosofskomu piznanni (Biographical approach in historical and philosophical knowledge). Monohrafiia’, Kyiv: NaUKMA.
- Tsiapa, A 2006, ‘Terminolohichna paradyhma avtobiohrafichnoho zhanru. (Terminological paradigm of the autobiographical genre)’, Zhytomyr: Visnyk Zhytomyrskoho derzhavnoho universytetu imeni Ivana Franka, Vyp. 26.
- Cherniavska, O 2022, ‘Novitni tendentsii yevropeiskoi avtobiohrafichnoi refleksii. (The latest trends in European autobiographical reflection)’, Vcheni zapysky Tavriiskoho Natsionalnoho Universytetu imeni V. I. Vernadskoho. Spetsvypusk prysviachenyi yevrointehratsiinii tematytsi, Kyiv: Vydavnychii dim “Helvetyka”, s. 164–172.