How is Mozart Possible? On the Electoral Affinity of the Solutions of N. Elias and E. Ilyenkov

Abstract

The author analyzes two approaches to the nature of genius. In the first, Kantian, geniality is linked to the creation of beauty. However, it is innate and remains
incomprehensible. The foundations of the approach that claims to reconstruct the sociogenesis of talent and genius were laid by the logic of Hegel but were de­veloped into a theory only in the 20th century through the efforts of only two inde­pendent lines of research: N. Elias’s “post-philosophical sociology” and the phi­losophy of E.V. Ilyenkov, who collaborated with A.I. Meshcheryakov’s group.
The analysis shows that both Elias and Ilyenkov reveal a special dimension of so­cial history, the consideration of which is decisive to the success of the socio­genetic explanation of genius: the balance of social power of historical subjects. Tracing the dynamics of this balance allows us to assert that the Kantian model ex­presses the functioning of a certain social canon of behavior and feeling – the aris­tocratic one. Under its dominance art cannot rise above the level of craftsmanship. N. Elias shows that high art begins with the overcoming of this canon and the emergence of the canon of a constant deviation from traditional paths. But the vic­tory of the individualizing canon, which gives priority to artists, by no means guar­antees the emergence of geniuses. On the contrary, it turns art into art for profes­sionals, a sophisticated craft technique, and the sociogenesis of a genius apparently comes to a dead end. At this point philosophical sociopsychology, which arose in the collaboration of E.V. Ilyenkov and A.I. Meshcheryakov, as the author shows, provides the missing link in Elias’s considerations, which is capable of restoring the power of Elias's argument and substantiating his discoveries.