Russian Formalism emerged in early 20th-century Russia as an attempt to put literary analysis on more scientific footing. Instead of asking what a text means in terms of the author's biography or social context, the Formalists asked: what makes a text literary in the first place? That core question drove everything else in the movement.
Historical Context and Key Figures of Russian Formalism
Context of Russian Formalism
Russian Formalism took shape between roughly 1910 and 1930, centered in two groups: the Moscow Linguistic Circle (founded 1915) and OPOYAZ (the Society for the Study of Poetic Language) in St. Petersburg (founded 1916). The movement arose partly as a reaction against Symbolism and Impressionist criticism, both of which treated literature as a vehicle for subjective emotion or mystical experience. The Formalists wanted something more rigorous.
The political backdrop matters too. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the early Soviet period created an atmosphere where traditional cultural values were being questioned across the board. That spirit of radical rethinking extended to how people studied literature. The Formalists proposed that criticism should focus on the intrinsic properties of texts, the actual language and structure on the page, rather than external factors like the author's life or historical circumstances.
Key Figures in Russian Formalism
Victor Shklovsky (1893–1984) is probably the most widely cited Formalist. His landmark essay "Art as Device" (1917) introduced defamiliarization (Russian: ostranenie), the idea that literary art works by making familiar things seem strange, forcing readers to perceive them freshly rather than on autopilot. For Shklovsky, the whole point of literary technique, whether metaphor, unusual imagery, or narrative structure, was to slow down and complicate perception.
Roman Jakobson (1896–1982) bridged Formalism and linguistics. He developed the concept of the dominant, which refers to the primary organizing feature of a literary work, the element that pulls all the other elements into its orbit. In a lyric poem, for instance, the dominant might be sound patterning; in a novel, it might be plot structure. Jakobson later emigrated and became hugely influential in structuralist linguistics, carrying Formalist ideas westward.
Boris Eichenbaum (1886–1959) focused on what he called literariness (literaturnost), the specific qualities that set literary language apart from ordinary communication. He paid close attention to rhythm, sound patterns, and syntax, especially in poetry, arguing that these formal features aren't decoration but are central to how literature produces its effects.
Yuri Tynianov (1894–1943) added a historical dimension to Formalist thinking. His concept of literary evolution described how literary systems change over time, not through smooth progress but through shifts where previously marginal forms or devices move to the center. He also explored how literature interacts with neighboring cultural systems like politics and visual art, examining how those systems shape each other.
Central Tenets and Concepts
Central Tenets of Russian Formalism
The Formalists shared a few core commitments:
- Focus on form over content. The proper object of literary study is the text's structure, language, and devices (plot construction, point of view, sound patterns), not its themes interpreted through biography or sociology.
- Rejection of extrinsic approaches. Biographical, psychological, and sociological readings were considered beside the point. What matters is what's happening in the text.
- Literariness as the central question. The goal wasn't to interpret what a work "means" but to identify what makes it literary, what distinguishes it from a newspaper article or a personal letter.
- Scientific ambition. The Formalists aimed for an objective, systematic method of analysis grounded in close reading, not subjective impressions.
- Autonomy of literary language. Literary language operates differently from everyday language. It draws attention to itself, to its own sounds, rhythms, and structures, in ways that ordinary speech does not.
Defamiliarization in Formalist Thought
Defamiliarization (ostranenie) is the concept most associated with Russian Formalism, and it's worth understanding well. Shklovsky's core argument is simple but powerful: in everyday life, perception becomes automatic. You stop truly seeing the things around you because habit has made them invisible. Literature's job is to break that automation.
By presenting familiar objects, actions, or ideas in strange or unexpected ways, a literary text forces you to slow down and actually perceive what you'd normally gloss over. The effect isn't just aesthetic pleasure; it's a renewal of perception itself.
Defamiliarization can be achieved through a range of literary devices:
- Unusual imagery, such as describing a commonplace object through surreal or exaggerated detail
- Unconventional syntax, like fragmented or rearranged sentence structures that disrupt reading habits
- Unexpected narrative choices, including non-linear timelines or sudden shifts in perspective
Shklovsky's own favorite example comes from Tolstoy. In the story "Kholstomer," Tolstoy narrates from the perspective of a horse, describing human institutions like private property as if they're bizarre and incomprehensible. The concept of ownership hasn't changed, but by filtering it through an unfamiliar viewpoint, Tolstoy makes the reader see it as though for the first time.
Another commonly cited example is the stream-of-consciousness technique in James Joyce's Ulysses, where the fragmented, associative flow of characters' thoughts defamiliarizes ordinary mental experience, making readers attend to the texture of consciousness rather than simply following a plot.
The key takeaway: for the Formalists, literary devices aren't ornaments layered on top of content. They are the content, in the sense that they're what make literature do its distinctive work on the reader's perception.