TYPOLOGY OF “CULTURAL BORDERLINE” WRITERS

Abstract

The dynamic and mobile nature of the modern world has its influence on the cartography of the creative space, within which a special place is occupied by the generation of new writers of the “cultural borderline”. Keeping the cultural codes inherited at birth, they produce a qualitatively new type of creativity which is more open to external circumstances and highly inclusive in terms of ideological orientations. Purpose – to describe the paradigm of the types of writers whose creative space stands at the crossroads of different cultures. It is also worth mentioning that a number of factors, including the affiliation of authors to the post-colonial discourse, the background of their migration, and the writers’ linguistic and cultural selfidentification should be taken into account. Methods. The usage of the cultural-historical method is caused by the necessity to reveal the common factors of formation of multicultural prose in the context of social and historical development. The comparativetypological method is applied in order to study the typology of “cultural borderline” writers. In the process of studying multicultural prose special attention is paid to post-colonial and imagological studies, the theoretical apparatus of which is used while analysing the nature of the creativity of “cultural borderline” writers. The imagological method provides an opportunity to study the national ethno-images, as well as the categories of self/other. Results. The present paper outlines strategies for identification and typology of writers who create their texts at the crossroads of different, and sometimes diametrically-opposed, cultural and literary traditions. According to the fact of their belonging to the post-colonial discourse, the “cultural borderline” writers are divided into: 1) post-colonial writers who in fact come from former imperialist countries; 2) writers with an ambivalent identity, the multiculturalism of their creativity is not connected with the dissolution of colonial systems or its consequences. In turn, according to the focus of attention on one’s “self” or “alien” culture, postcolonial writers are divided into two groups – multicultural and intercultural ones. Meanwhile, the division of ambivalent writers into two categories – hybrid and transcultural ones – is related to the reasons for their migration. Conclusions. The study of creativity of multicultural authors poses challenges to researchers. The modern scientific discourse has witnessed a problem associated with the lack of comprehensive typology of “cultural borderline” writers that would take into account all the factors affecting the nature of their creativity. The criteria developed for the identification of “cultural borderline” writers, as well as the types of intercultural interaction that arise in their texts, will help in the further study of their works, created at the crossroads of cultural and literary traditions.