The Formalists sought to explain literary history in terms of processes that take place inside literature rather than assigning the originating function to external (social or other) factors.
According to one of the views dehabitualization is what brings forth literary change, which unfolds in four stages:
- during the first stage, certain devices are used to defamiliarize the familiar;
- during the second, everybody gets used to these devices and, consequently, they are deprived of their defamiliarizing potential;
- during the third, artists (incl. writers) defamiliarize the devices themselves (“bare” them);
- during the fourth, final, stage new defamiliarization devices are invented and the cycle begins all over again.
This simplified scheme thus offers an explanation of the mechanisms underlying the emergence of new trends and movements in art.
Controversial as it is in that it (at least implicitly) denies the role of individual creativity, social and other processes this model does seem attractive on an intuitive level — it echoes the convincing concept of accumulation of critical mass (of knowledge, information, findings, experience, etc.) followed by new trends (inventions, discoveries).
In other words, the development of sciences or art may not be entirely dependent on individual geniuses, the absence or presence of such gifted individuals will not stop the internal processes within the given field — if a discovery, a new technique or trend is pending, it will be made when the critical mass is reached.
Whether it is true or not is one of those eternal questions that can't be answered, but the concept of defamiliarization as a framework for thinking about literary works and identifying their unique value and literariness is undoubtedly a useful tool to be armed with.