AdAptAtion As ConneCtion
33
While a lot of attention has been directed towards the critical analyses
of creative processes at work in a variety of case studies and even more
theoretical thought has been invested in remapping the field itself, 4 adaptation theory has so far paid little attention to the question of what function
adaptations have in the overall “ecosystem” of cultural production and
reception. In this essay, I do not want to repeat the truism that cultural texts
have cultural functions, nor do I want to list possible functions adaptations
can have. Rather, I want to begin one step earlier and show why it can
be helpful for critical adaptation studies to take seriously the notion of
“function” and how it can contribute to and add a historical perspective to
current adaptation discourses that think beyond the long obsolete category of
“fidelity” as well as the problematic binaries of “original” vs. “derivative” and
“author” vs. “audience.” I will deliberately stick to the notion of “adaptation”
for the purpose of this essay, since it is the connotation of adaptation as
temporary and contingent “knowledge” that informs my theoretical argument. In doing so, I do not intend to neglect the editors’ programmatic shift
from traditional notions of “adaptation” towards “convergence.” Quite the
contrary, by turning to an early definition of “adaptation” I wish to liberate
the concept from its constraining value judgments and make it productive
for contemporary discourses on convergence culture.
In cultural and media studies, the term “adaptation” is mostly used in the
context of intermedial transposition processes, of stories and storyworlds
shifted from one medium to another. Broader definitions encompass any
semiotic transposition processes, even within the same medium. What is
rarely mentioned, however, is that “adaptation” is originally a term borrowed
from biology, describing the evolutionary transformation processes according
to which species are fitted to their environment. Although I do not want to
suggest that cultural and biological adaptation are necessarily compatible
concepts, I propose to shed light on some links between Darwin’s theory
of evolution and discourses on creativity and knowledge which emerged
in the context of American Pragmatism in the late 19th/early 20th century.
In reading these texts as relevant for adaptation discourses both in the
natural sciences and philosophy/literary studies, I aim to make productive
insights into biological adaptation for cultural adaptation studies. I thus
want to bring a historical perspective to adaptation discourses in order to
4 Thomas Leitch, Film Adaptation and Its Discontents; Bruhn, Jørgen, Anne Gjelsvik, and Eirik
Frisvold Hanssen, eds. Adaptation Studies: New Challenges, New Directions (London, New York:
Bloomsbury, 2013); Kamilla Elliott, Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate (Cambridge University
Press, 2003).
33
While a lot of attention has been directed towards the critical analyses
of creative processes at work in a variety of case studies and even more
theoretical thought has been invested in remapping the field itself, 4 adaptation theory has so far paid little attention to the question of what function
adaptations have in the overall “ecosystem” of cultural production and
reception. In this essay, I do not want to repeat the truism that cultural texts
have cultural functions, nor do I want to list possible functions adaptations
can have. Rather, I want to begin one step earlier and show why it can
be helpful for critical adaptation studies to take seriously the notion of
“function” and how it can contribute to and add a historical perspective to
current adaptation discourses that think beyond the long obsolete category of
“fidelity” as well as the problematic binaries of “original” vs. “derivative” and
“author” vs. “audience.” I will deliberately stick to the notion of “adaptation”
for the purpose of this essay, since it is the connotation of adaptation as
temporary and contingent “knowledge” that informs my theoretical argument. In doing so, I do not intend to neglect the editors’ programmatic shift
from traditional notions of “adaptation” towards “convergence.” Quite the
contrary, by turning to an early definition of “adaptation” I wish to liberate
the concept from its constraining value judgments and make it productive
for contemporary discourses on convergence culture.
In cultural and media studies, the term “adaptation” is mostly used in the
context of intermedial transposition processes, of stories and storyworlds
shifted from one medium to another. Broader definitions encompass any
semiotic transposition processes, even within the same medium. What is
rarely mentioned, however, is that “adaptation” is originally a term borrowed
from biology, describing the evolutionary transformation processes according
to which species are fitted to their environment. Although I do not want to
suggest that cultural and biological adaptation are necessarily compatible
concepts, I propose to shed light on some links between Darwin’s theory
of evolution and discourses on creativity and knowledge which emerged
in the context of American Pragmatism in the late 19th/early 20th century.
In reading these texts as relevant for adaptation discourses both in the
natural sciences and philosophy/literary studies, I aim to make productive
insights into biological adaptation for cultural adaptation studies. I thus
want to bring a historical perspective to adaptation discourses in order to
4 Thomas Leitch, Film Adaptation and Its Discontents; Bruhn, Jørgen, Anne Gjelsvik, and Eirik
Frisvold Hanssen, eds. Adaptation Studies: New Challenges, New Directions (London, New York:
Bloomsbury, 2013); Kamilla Elliott, Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate (Cambridge University
Press, 2003).