Search

The study proposes an analysis of the representations of “innovation” in the work of the Romanian literary critic E. Lovinescu (1881-1943). The history of ideas noted that his work articulates two figures of change in literature, one of a political nature, of the “revolution”, the other of biological inspiration, of the “mutation”. What seems important to me to emphasize is, on the one hand, the difference in content between the two metaphors, on the other hand, their unequal distribution in relation to the interpretation of the history of Romanian literature. The reflection I propose tries to place the competitive relationship between politics and biology in a sociological context, correlating the metaphors of change with the condition of Romanian culture and with its limited capacities to promote and institutionalize innovation, specific to an emerging culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biopolitics maintains its meaning of politicization of the body. Suspected that it is not politics in a traditional way (due to the lack of discrepancy between reality and discourse), exposed as an exaggerated and excessive model, biopolitics is revealing itself in the evidence which establish that: the biopolitical thinking = simulated scientific thinking; biopolitics = politicization of the social matter, rebiologizing, according to Carl Schmitt's criteria, politics. Accepting biological argument as unassailable foundation of theorising identity, politically convolved (starting point for political rights and obligations), Romanian Transylvanian eugenicists have implemented an inclusive model, biologising national identity. Considering the entropic characteristic of eugenics, translated in a biopolitical fashion, the desiderate had in view the historical mission to reject the past by the appeal to an alternative political order, based on the rebirth/reinvention of the ethnic community. Romanian biopolitics of the '30s and '40s remains focused inwards, articulating only particularising replies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]