Style. Past and Present

One of the hallmarks of liberal democracies is the protection of stylistic diversity on all levels, from ways of life to art. However, one person’s style has always been another’s lack of style. This has, in recent times, led to intensified competition, an accelerating logic of outbidding styles, and the isolation of style communities in echo chambers, culminating in the hypostasization of their own style. Combined with the social and medial, ecological and economic shifts that have been disrupting the global stage for a number of years now, this has also strengthened populism in Germany. Taboos have been broken that were unthinkable for a long time in Germany - especially with regard to its culture of remembrance. The loss of style occasionally apostrophized as ‘brutalization’ has now been followed by actions. When styles lose their typical leeway between flexible normativity and rule-based freedom or selfdestruct through their claims to exclusivity, questions of style become questions of life (and even survival). Against this background, the project explores the long history of style in the arts, sciences and society.

The indestructibility of the concept of style, from the elocutio of ancient rhetoric to our present day ‘lifestyles,’ is directly related to its irritating vagueness and, accordingly, its diverse applications. Because style as a concept is difficult to grasp, it is used primarily where definitions and arguments fail. ‘Style’ embraces unstable phenomena of coherence and consistency that remain unresolved in distinctions between norm and obligation, on the one hand, and freedom and choice on the other or between individuality and sociality. Friedrich Möbius spoke in 1984 of the “synthesizing synopsis of even disparate phenomena,” Robert Musil in 1921 of style as a “prosthesis of truth,” and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, following Flaubert in 1986, called style “a way of seeing things that is detached from objects.” The fact that style as a concept is overdetermined and inaccessible to discursive argumentation does not mean, however, that its phenomena and effects cannot be analyzed in a context-dependent and functional way. The instruments offered by literary stylistics  shall be examined, modified and expanded historically and systematically in an inter- and transdisciplinary perspective. To this end, a reading group on the topic of style has been meeting since the winter semester 2018/2019.


Current Research


Style Pluralism and the Longing for Style around 1900 and in the Present
Since the 19th century (Semper, Flaubert, Nietzsche, Proust), it has been precisely stylistic pluralism, the multiplying of stylistic options, that has fostered a desire for the ‘one’ or ‘true’ style. The “will for style” (Wustmann), prominent around 1900, can also be understood as a reaction to the vast proliferation of (artistic) media. As artists felt the need to orientate their artistic style to the medium—Alfred Döblin proclaimed the ‘cinema style’ for the modern novel as early as 1913—or at least to react to the changing media landscape, raises the question of whether this historical constellation provides a meaningful basis for comparing the significance of style today. Doubtlessly the interactive and collaborative elements of Web 2.0 have influenced the style(s) of contemporary literature. Authors, for instance, publish their work in advance or even exclusively on the Internet, integrate digital writing practices appropriated from social networks into their texts and/or react, reflect and criticize the impact that new writing and communication styles have on the way we perceive the present. Last but not least, readers are endowed with new roles, for example evaluating and sharing (authors’) posts or tweets, thus contributing to the success—and the style—of writers.


Thought Style and Collective Style
Drawing on Ludwik Fleck (but also Thomas S. Kuhn and Bruno Latour), the concept of a thought style has been made productive in the history of science, first for the history of the natural sciences, and more recently also for the history of linguistics. Thus, the heuristic potential of an appropriately sharpened concept of thought style can be mobilized for investigating a ‘school of writing’-style in contemporary literature. Do university courses such as ‘creative’ or ‘scenic’ writing impose what Fleck called a “thought constraint,” resulting in a specific, uniform style? How does this relate to the older tradition of writing as a craft? And how is the contemporary literary tendency of centring the author connected to these issues?


Style and narratology
While literary studies (with the exception of Romance studies) have long neglected style and stylistics, they are currently, following linguistics and in addition to empirical aesthetics, making greater efforts to explore the possibilities of digitally supported and primarily quantitatively organized stylometry. However, such interests often remain secretly tied to narratological parameters, thus obscuring a possible competition between style and narrative procedures, both in the literary tradition itself and its scholarship. It was narratology, methodologically more advanced than style analysis, that in recent decades placed style in the blind spot of scientific reflection.


Rupture of Style
Canonizing in art and literature is dependent on stylistic ruptures, if only because a style can mostly be identified only after its demise. Since the privileging of originality in the last third of the 18th century, literary historiography has been oriented towards what is new in each case, but without recognising the alleged breakthrough as a stylistic break. As a result, stereotypical juxtapositions such as rhetoric vs. style or organic artwork of the classical vs. fragmentary modernism still organize the field today. With the concept of stylistic rupture,  conventional innovation-centric models can be enriched dialectically. However, ever since Susan Sontag’s investigations into Camp and the emergence of pop literature, manner, jargon, attitude can no longer readily be regarded as the ‘other’ of style. Rather, a conformist style can be subversive and, conversely, the rupture of style can solidify into a convention. On the one hand, this makes the potential of the stylistic rupture visible as an analytical historical category, but on the other hand, by including its counter-concepts, it also imports new problems: its relational character turns into relativism.

since 2020
Head researcher(s): Eva Geulen
Associate Researcher(s): Pola Groß, Claude Haas

 

See also

Publications

Eva Geulen

  • Was Stil sagt, in: ZfL Blog. Blog des Leibniz-Zentrums für Literatur- und Kulturforschung, Berlin, 01 Feb 2019
  • “Zur Idee eines ‘innern geistigen Rhythmus’ bei A.W. Schlegel,” in: Matthias Buschmeier, Kai Kauffmann (eds.): August Wilhelm Schlegel und die Philologie, Special issue of Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie (137), Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag 2018, 211–224

Pola Groß

 

In Preparation

Events

Conference
06 May 2021 – 08 May 2021

Style and Rhetoric: A Precarious Couple and its Histories

Leibniz-Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, Aufgang B, 3. Etage, Trajekteraum

read more
Readings and Workshop
19 Nov 2020 – 20 Nov 2020

Neue Nachbarschaften. Stil und Social Media in der Gegenwartsliteratur

Literaturforum im Brecht-Haus, Chausseestr. 125, 10115 Berlin / ZfL, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, Aufgang B, 3. Etage

read more
Reading Workshop
05 Mar 2020 · 11.00 am

Schreibarten – Stil im 18. Jahrhundert

ZfL, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, Aufgang B, 3. Etage, Seminarraum

read more
Workshop
14 Feb 2020 · 10.00 am

Schulen, Gruppen, Stile. Denken, kollektiv betrachtet

ZfL, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, Aufgang B, 3. Etage, Seminarraum

read more
International Conference
16 Jan 2020 – 18 Jan 2020

‘Firsthand Time.’ Documentary Aesthetics in the Long 1960s

ZfL, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, Aufgang B, 3. Etage, Seminarraum

read more
Reading Workshop
09 Jan 2020 · 11.00 am

Denkstil – Denkkollektiv – Sprache bei Ludwik Fleck

ZfL, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, Aufgang B, 3. Etage, Seminarraum

read more
Workshop
14 Jun 2019 – 15 Jun 2019

Assemblage

ZfL, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin, Aufgang B, 3. Et.

read more
Panel and Discussion with Jeff Dolven, Paul Fleming, Eva Geulen, Daniel Tiffany
13 Jul 2018 · 6.00 pm

Style: The Present Situation

Cabinet, Ebersstr. 3, 10827 Berlin

read more

Media Response

23 Feb 2020
Zur (Zwangs-)Aktualisierung von Klassikern. Wie Adorno, Orwell und Co. zu Ratgebern für turbulente Zeiten stilisiert werden

Radio talk with Pola Groß, in: Bayern 2, program: Kulturjournal, 23 Feb 2020, Feature by Marie Schoeß: Zeitalter der Maskierung, 18:05 (Timecode: 42:36–59:38)