Nana Trapaidze

PhD in Philology

Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University

Professor

Batumi Georgia

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7079-2754

nana.trapaidze@bsu.edu.ge

Historical Politics and Literary Narrative

The immortal thought of Aristotle about history and poetry (literature) as narrative systems is well-known: history conveys what happened, while poetry conveys what could have happened.

The subject of our research is the recent past of Georgian history and the latest and contemporary Georgian literary tradition. More specifically, we explore literature as a space for interpreting and deconstructing history. We want to ask questions about what prompts literature engagement with history, what traditions exist in this regard, and what the goals of contemporary Georgian literature are in this context today.

Accordingly, we will touch upon the experiences and traditions of writing history that have been passed down as knowledge of the past. Today, this history demands a new reading (which means rewriting). Since history is a narrative, it is important to consider who is telling the story; thus, history is one thing, and historical narrative is another. Although those who recorded history had levers at their disposal that influenced the facts—through distortion, erasure, and obliteration—complete eradication is impossible. This impossibility exists not only in a factual sense but also because consciousness always returns to events that have touched and influenced it organically. Consciousness and reality are interrelated, with the political specificity of history being the clearest and most universal expression of that connection. Behind this specificity lie layers of distorted chronicles, damaged fragments of history that require restoration, and a correct configurational arrangement in which the restoration of reality in its authentic sense is more or less possible.

Literature is an activity that contemplates the power of time and history in a person's destiny, where one person is a whole world rather than a statistical unit. The “humanist dimension” of literature is the fate of one individual, not masses of people. This distinguishes it from political humanism, where the masses are a means and the individual is the outcome in which their possibilities and goals are crystallized.

How did the writing of Georgia’s recent history begin, what were its goals, and what role did literary narratives play in understanding history as we know it today? What knowledge does this provide? What purposes did it serve? What did it bring? The key questions are: what necessity arises for a writer's interest in the past or historical events today? Where is the boundary between literary and historical narratives? Does contemporary literature's intention relate to historical themes, or does it still serve a compensatory function to fill the systematic defects intended or overlooked by the state, ensuring systemic collaboration based on national interests in research and educational policies? Are there such collaborative spaces in Georgia today? Is the writer, in this sense, an active participant?

In the context of this issue, we will address several Soviet-era and contemporary writers. I believe this presented work will contribute to the study of the sociology of Georgian literature, demonstrating the relationship between literature and politics and the effects both political and aesthetic thought have on the formation of public consciousness.

Keywords: Literature, Soviet literature, nationalism, colonialism, identity, contemporary Georgian novel, education policy, globalization.