In "New Forms of Revolt" Julia Kristeva proposes that there is a new species of revoltes that discover "there is no answer to social, historic and political impasses without a radical inner experience...that is demanding, unique, and able to appropriate the complexity of the past in order to approach the present and the future" (Kristeva 2). She says a key to the inner experience is the promise of reform rather than the denunciation of "one's opponent without being able to propose a sensible alternative" (Kristeva 2). Moreover, intrinsic to revolt is the "challenge to pre-established norms" (Kristeva 3).
However, Kristeva argues that classical political revolt has lost its moral weight in the new world order. There is an artfulness in revolt, as with the example of Kristeva's novel Possessions. The subtle form of revolt in Possession is what Kristeva calls "sensible intimacy" (Kristeva 4). She frames it as an alternative to "technical calculation" (Kristeva 4). In order to save classical revolt as a useful means of challenging society, Kristeva says, we must now employ forms of "infinitesimal revolts" (like literature) that "preserve the live of the mind and of the species" (Kristeva 4).
Revolt becomes dangerous when it does away with "retrospective questioning" and instead embraces the "outright rejection of the old, so that new dogmas can take its place" (Kristeva 5). New values fall into the trap of old values if those espousing them fail to treat them with the same level of scrutiny they did the old ones.
Furthermore, Kristeva proposes that psychoanalysis may be a way to understand inherent contradiction of revolt, i.e. the notion that the purpose of revolt is for some unity of ends while its method and technique is entirely "dissolution and dispersion" (Kristeva 6).
This reading seems to expand on the readings we've been discussing in class that frame political philosophy in the context of ontology. Regardless of what type of political ideology or form of revolt one supports, Kristeva, like Butler, proposes that a re-evaluation of revolt requires introspection on the nature of being and the limits and bounds of a political subject. There seems to be a tension between the limits of the law (and the physical world) and the potential for psychical dynamics (the analytic experience) to capture intimate revolt.
However, Kristeva argues that classical political revolt has lost its moral weight in the new world order. There is an artfulness in revolt, as with the example of Kristeva's novel Possessions. The subtle form of revolt in Possession is what Kristeva calls "sensible intimacy" (Kristeva 4). She frames it as an alternative to "technical calculation" (Kristeva 4). In order to save classical revolt as a useful means of challenging society, Kristeva says, we must now employ forms of "infinitesimal revolts" (like literature) that "preserve the live of the mind and of the species" (Kristeva 4).
Revolt becomes dangerous when it does away with "retrospective questioning" and instead embraces the "outright rejection of the old, so that new dogmas can take its place" (Kristeva 5). New values fall into the trap of old values if those espousing them fail to treat them with the same level of scrutiny they did the old ones.
Furthermore, Kristeva proposes that psychoanalysis may be a way to understand inherent contradiction of revolt, i.e. the notion that the purpose of revolt is for some unity of ends while its method and technique is entirely "dissolution and dispersion" (Kristeva 6).
This reading seems to expand on the readings we've been discussing in class that frame political philosophy in the context of ontology. Regardless of what type of political ideology or form of revolt one supports, Kristeva, like Butler, proposes that a re-evaluation of revolt requires introspection on the nature of being and the limits and bounds of a political subject. There seems to be a tension between the limits of the law (and the physical world) and the potential for psychical dynamics (the analytic experience) to capture intimate revolt.
Hi Rupsha! Thank you for your post! I actually thought that the reading was challenging and your post clarified a view points for me. I also loved how you linked Kristeva's article with Butler's through the idea of introspection. I did not see any relationship between the two articles until you mentioned that.
ReplyDelete