Pierre Bourdieu’s theory and studies of the Soviet Lithuanian literary field.

Straipsnyje svarstomos prancūzų sociologo Pierreʼo Bourdieu meno sociologijos idėjos, parankios tyrinėti sovietmečio literatūros laukui. Glaustai pristatomi ir aptariami pagrindiniai literatūros lauko funkcionavimą apibrėžiantys konceptai ir jų vartosena, formuluojami šios metodologijos probleminiai aspektai, trumpai apžvelgiama Bourdieu darbų kritinė recepcija užsienyje ir jų (pri)taikymas Lietuvoje.The aim of the article is to briefly discuss the relevance of Bourdieu’s sociology of art to cultural studies of the Soviet period which have been getting increased attention from the researchers who focus on literary field practices. It summarizes the concepts that define the functions of literary field and their usage, and formulates questions that arise in the field of Soviet period using the chosen methodology. It also presents an overview of the critical reception of Bourdieu’s work abroad and the application of his theory in Lithuania. The article proposes to look at the field of Soviet Lithuanian literature as a specific heteronomic variation, where the power of literary legitimation is in the hands of people who dominate the political field, and where field’s anatomy is limited by censorship. The members of such literary field had to play a double game. On the one hand, seeking symbolic capital they had to follow the rules of autonomous literature (“art for art’s sake”). On the other hand, wishing to participate in the “official game” the members had to respect politically determined directives of Social Realism (the early Soviet period defined by the notion of “apparatus” could be one of the radical examples of the game). In other words, a writer seeking after the “prizes” offered by the field was forced to look for strategies allowing him or her to function in it. If that strategy even partially opposed the rules of the political game (writing in Aesopic language or arguing with the government’s decisions), a writer risked being eliminated from the field. However, the risk taken could be hardly measured, as the success was determined by multiple and sometimes random factors