The aim of the thesis is to think over the possibilities of the history of literature and some other literature theories in the field of interpretation. The history of literature describes literary texts as historical objects. Although it's a human science, it disregards a human beings and their life-world. It rather categorize technically literary texts into different groups. This approach is purely scientific. The history of literature as many other branches of literary science solves their own abstract problems through the abstract theories which has no aim to interpret the literary text as a specific experience for a reader. The article points out how the scientific approach to the literary text disable to interpret a conrete literary text in the sense for human being. I use phenomenological philosophy as a proposal of another type of approach to the interpretation. Interpretation in the phenomenological sence means that through literary text the interpret seeks to understand our living world. In the other parts I follow the trail of phenomenological philosophy in tradition of Prague structuralism. Especially I focus on specifics of Russian phenomenology, particularly in philosophies of these Russian philosophers which dealed with interpretation of art (namely J. Golosovker, B. Engelgardt, G....

The aim of the thesis is to advert to precarious position of the history of literature and some other literature theories. The history of literature describes literary texts as dead historical objects. Although it's a human science, it disregards a human beings and their life-world. It rather categorize technically literary texts into different groups. This approach is purely scientific. The history of literature as many other branches of literary science solves their own abstract problems through the abstract theories which has no aim to interpret the literary text as a specific experience for a reader. The article points out how the scientific approach to the literary text disable to interpret a conrete literary text in the sense for human being. I use phenomenological philosophy as a proposal of another type of approach to the interpretation. Interpretation in the phenomenological sence means that through literary text the interpret seeks to understand our living world. In the other parts I follow the trail of phenomenological philosophy in tradition of Prague structuralism. Especially I focus on specifics of Russian phenomenology, particularly in philosophies of these Russian philosophers which dealed with interpretation of art (namely J. Golosovker, B. Engelgardt, G. G. Shpet, M. Bakhtin etc.). At the...

Régis par une rhétorique opposant « science » et « politique », les programmes de stations spatiales civiles sont présentés comme projets diplomatiques censés adoucir des tensions géopolitiques, justifiés par les possibilités d’expérimentation en condition de micropesanteur qu’ils octroient à la communauté scientifique et industrielle internationale. Précédée par des collaborations officieuses entre laboratoires européens et soviétiques, l’Europe de l’Ouest entre dans l’exploration spatiale habitée en 1982. Depuis, l’entraînement et le transport des astronautes de l’Agence spatiale européenne (ESA) se partagent entre les États-Unis (NASA) et la Russie (Roscosmos), dont les programmes nationaux pourvoient leur gouvernement en autonomie de lancement et de transport spatial. Au fil des décennies, alors que les agences spatiales détenant un programme habité (à l’exception de la Chine) se rejoignent dans un projet commun à partir de la fin des années 1990 (l’International Space Station), et alors que la Russie devient détentrice d’un monopole d’accès à l’espace à partir de 2011, les mécanismes symboliques et politiques structurant le programme spatial habité européen évoluent en conséquence. L’entraînement des astronautes en Russie, relatif à ce monopole des lancements habités, entraine la reproduction de traditions et rituels qui, hérités du spatial soviétique, en viennent à constituer l’armature symbolique et axiologique d’un corps d’astronautes en charge de représenter « l’unité dans la diversité » propre à l’Europe. Nourrissant des relations plus ou moins institutionnalisées avec d’anciennes républiques socialistes du fait de son autonomie (de plus en plus relative) vis-à-vis de l’Union Européenne, l’ESA devient progressivement une plateforme via laquelle le procès de restructuration des États d’Europe de l’Est entamé à la fin des années 1980 peut être analysé à l’aune des réseaux industriels, des interdépendances techniques et des échanges scientifiques qui y transitent. Afin de saisir ces relations d’interdépendances, une approche par la théorie des champs semble pertinente à deux points de vue. Tout d’abord, s’intéresser à la genèse et à l’organisation du programme spatial habité européen suppose de considérer ce dernier comme le résultat d’une trajectoire institutionnelle empruntant à différents champs : autorité cognitive de la science moderne, rôle de la production industrielle dans la construction étatique, et rapport à la territorialisation dans l’exercice d’un pouvoir politique national contribuent à la morphologie actuelle des affaires spatiales en Europe. Ensuite, une analyse bourdieusienne permet de circonscrire les vols habités comme un espace social structuré, où se convertissent, se maintiennent et se confrontent des capitaux portés par des acteurs de champs de production autonomes. L’économie des relations entre science, industrie et État, esquissée au gré de ce pari théorique, permet d’envisager certaines des conditions sociales par lesquelles les manières de « faire État » en Europe occidentale et le développement de la bureaucratie ont pu être nourris par des développements scientifiques et techniques profondément ancrés dans le temps comme dans l’espace. Mettant particulièrement en lumière la formation des habitus des astronautes de l’ESA, l’esquisse d’une théorie d’un « champ de médiation » est appréhendée, de manière à saisir les conditions de ces relations structurelles entre champs scientifique, industriel et bureaucratique dans le cas d’un secteur spatial en mutation. / Ruled by a rhetoric which opposes “science” and “politics”, civil space stations programmes are often introduced as diplomatic projects supposed to soften geopolitical tensions, then justified by the possibilities of experimentation under microgravity that those stations grant to the international scientific and industrial community. Preceded by informal collaborations between European and Soviet laboratories, Western Europe starts its entry into human spaceflights in 1982. Since then, the training and transport of astronauts from the European Space Agency (ESA) have been shared between United States (NASA) and Russia (Roscosmos), whose national programmes provide autonomous launch and space transport capacities. Over the decades, while space agencies holding a human space programme (except China) join in a common project from late 1990 (the International Space Station), and as Russia becomes the holder of a monopoly regarding access to space from 2011, symbolic and political mechanisms structuring the European human space programme evolve accordingly. The training of astronauts in Russia, relating to this monopoly of crews’ transportation, entails the reproduction of traditions and rituals which, inherited from the Soviet space era, contributes to the symbolic and axiological building of an astronaut corps in charge of representing Europe’s “unity in diversity”. Nourishing more or less institutionalized relations with former Socialist republics because of its (increasingly relative) autonomy towards the European Union, ESA gradually becomes a platform through which the structuration of Eastern European States, started in the late 1980s, can be analyzed through industrial networks, technical interdependencies and scientific exchanges that pass through. In order to grasp these interdependencies, the fruitfulness of an approach by the field theory can be resumed in two arguments. First, taking an interest in the genesis and organization of the European inhabited space programme implies that the latter should be regarded as the result of an institutional trajectory borrowing from different fields: cognitive authority of the occidental modern science, role of industrial production in State construction, and territorialization in the exercise of a national political power contribute to the current morphology of space affairs in Europe. Secondly, a Bourdieusien analysis allows circumscribing human space flights as a structured social space, where are converted, maintained and confronted capitals which are carried by actors of autonomous fields of production. This, without a priori postulating the loss of autonomy of one of these fields. The economy of relations between science, industry and the State, sketched at the whim of this theoretical wager, then allows to envisage some of the social conditions by which scientific and technical developments, deeply rooted in time and space, could contribute to shaping the ways of “making State” and to the development of bureaucracy in western Europe. With particular emphasis on the training of ESA astronauts, the outline of a “mediation field” theory is apprehended, so as to understand conditions of these structural relations between scientific, industrial and bureaucratic fields in the case of a changing space sector. Based on multisite and multilevel ethnography (United Nations, ESA technical centres, control centres), interviews with scientists, space agency officials, operators and crew members of the agencies contributing to the ISS (N = 182), as well as archival work (EU, ESA and Soviet Academy of Sciences), this study shows how “Space Europe” (as the EU and ESA refer to it) “takes shape” and reproduces the symbolic conditions of its internal cohesion (i.e. values and identity binding its member-States) through the daily organization (procedural, mental and carnal) of its crewed space program.