Artur Hellich

This text reports on the discovery, which was made in Tadeusz Komendant’s apartment, of a significant part of the original manuscripts that were included in his book Lustro i kamień… [The Mirror and the Stone…], and then answers the question of what consequences this find has for the interpretation of the aforementioned book. The author also points out to the correlations between Lustro i kamień… and Władze dyskursu [The Power of Discourse] by Komendant and interprets the crypto-autobiographical parts of the latter. In the last part, he generalizes the observations acquired from theseerpretations and uses them while reflecting on the idea of the archive and the desired form of making Komendant’s heritage accessible.

The aim of the article is to discuss and interpret, from the perspective of sociology of knowledge, a few debates on style and terminology of literary studies which took place in the 20th and 21st century in the circles of the literary studies scholars in Warsaw. In the first part of the article, the author discusses the debates concerning the terminology of verse theory in the pre- and post-war periods in the context of its societal reach. Next, he summarizes the discussions that took place in the 1950s and 1960s, which criticized the use of scientific language in the humanities . The second part of the article is dedicated to two more recent debates: one centered around the reception of Ilustrowany słownik terminów literackich (Illustrated dictionary of literary terms; here again returns the question of the societal reach of humanities research); and the other one focused on the requirement of schematization of writing in the humanities, related to the influence capitalism on the humanities, and the resultant opportunities and dangers. Using the sociology of P. Bourdieu and its newer interpretations (A. Zysiak), as well as S. Ahmed’s approach, the author argues that each standpoint represented in the debates on the language of the humanities (its proper style and preferred terminology) is inevitably political. Starting with this observation, in each case the author points out the political dimension of the argumentation presented by individual scholars: the elitist-conservative one, the liberal identity-based one, and the left egalitarian one.