Clica una miniatura per anar a Google Books.
|
S'està carregant… The Sense and Non-Sense of Revoltde Julia Kristeva
   Cap No hi ha cap discussió a Converses sobre aquesta obra.  vernaye | May 23, 2020 |  Sense ressenyes | afegeix-hi una ressenya
Linguist, psychoanalyst, and cultural theorist, Julia Kristeva is one of the most influential and prolific thinkers of our time. Her writings have broken new ground in the study of the self, the mind, and the ways in which we communicate through language. Her work is unique in that it skillfully brings together psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice, literature, linguistics, and philosophy. In her latest book on the powers and limits of psychoanalysis, Kristeva focuses on an intriguing new dilemma. Freud and psychoanalysis taught us that rebellion is what guarantees our independence and our creative abilities. But in our contemporary "entertainment" culture, is rebellion still a viable option? Is it still possible to build and embrace a counterculture? For whom--and against what--and under what forms? Kristeva illustrates the advances and impasses of rebel culture through the experiences of three twentieth-century writers: the existentialist John Paul Sartre, the surrealist Louis Aragon, and the theorist Roland Barthes. For Kristeva the rebellions championed by these figures--especially the political and seemingly dogmatic political commitments of Aragon and Sartre--strike the post-Cold War reader with a mixture of fascination and rejection. These theorists, according to Kristeva, are involved in a revolution against accepted notions of identity--of one's relation to others. Kristeva places their accomplishments in the context of other revolutionary movements in art, literature, and politics. The book also offers an illuminating discussion of Freud's groundbreaking work on rebellion, focusing on the symbolic function of patricide in his Totem and Taboo and discussing his often neglected vision of language, and underscoring its complex connection to the revolutionary drive. No s'han trobat descripcions de biblioteca. |
Debats actualsCapCobertes populars
 Google Books — S'està carregant…GèneresClassificació Decimal de Dewey (DDC)840.9Literature French French literature History, descriptionLCC (Clas. Bibl. Congrés EUA)ValoracióMitjana: (2.67)
Ets tu?Fes-te Autor del LibraryThing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1
This method of throwing together ideas and authors that seem like they are vaguely in the same ballpark continues in The Sense and Non-Sense of Revolt, but because "revolt" is such a nebulous topic, there is never any sense of a tangible thread that develops between her different examples and concepts.
Kristeva begins by outlining how the words "revolt" and "revolution" have changed etymologically over time, only taking on their political meanings in more modern times. She then complains about how modern culture has nonetheless made revolt impossible, that we are locked into a world of compliant entertainment. Kristeva asserts that we "need" a new attitude of revolt, but as to what why we would require such a thing, or what its effectiveness might be, she never reveals. Like so many critics before her, she seems to accept uncritically that revolution in itself is an inherently good thing.
The middle chapters of the book are a long meditation on Oedipus as a "rebel" figure, albeit a failed one, and how this fits into the larger picture of psychoanalysis. Kristeva breaks no new ground here, simply restating the same tired parameters of a discourse she has been repeating for decades.
The last three chapters of the book look at three historical "rebels": Aragon, Sartre, and Barthes. The full breadth of Kristeva's erudition is on display on these chapters - she has certainly read and studied a lot, and knows her material well - but none of these examples adequately prove her point. Indeed, Aragon started out as the most rebellious of them all, a key members of the Surrealists, and later became a Stalinist! It's hardly a good case in support of rebellion. As usual, Kristeva simply plonks each chapter on these authors next to each other without any writerly sense as to how they might be connected - that is supposed to be obvious, even though it's not.
I haven't read much of Kristeva's recent work, but this book gives me the sense that she is stuck in a repetitive rut, going over the same tired ideas, stuck in a psychoanalytic orthodoxy, that sadly betrays the potential of her earlier works. (