Kristeva states that the most common understanding of a revolt
today is an act that goes against societal “norms, values and powers” (3).
Kristeva splits revolt into the categories of new and old. The new type of
revolt is an inner experience. She expresses that this revolt has manifested
due to the fact that the new revoltes have come to the conclusion that there
cannot be “answers to social, historical and political impasses without a
radical inner experience” (2). I think that this beautifully represents the
idea that we have to be what we want to see and that all journeys begin with
ourselves. This inner experience involves recognizing that we are not stagnant
beings. Who we are is constantly changing, which in my opinion means that
revolt should not be a single act, but instead a sustained movement.
Moreover, she represents the idea of “sensible intimacy”
as an example of how the word “revolt” does not have to be associated with
negativity (4). Sensible intimacy represents the idea that women can possess
“their passions and sensibilities (4). According
to the definition of revolt that I stated earlier this inner experience is
definitely classified as a revolt. Society often makes it seem as if the female
body belongs to everything and everyone, but the woman herself. Through
reclaiming our bodies we are going against “norms, values and powers”, we
are revolting (3). I believe that women
who claim this idea of sensible intimacy would fall into the new category of
revoltes.
However, in
the past revolt had more of a political meaning. In the past, revolt was more
focused on external battles rather than internal battles. For example, fighting
oppression in your country would have been seen as revolting. The old type of
revolt is built on trying to change the system, rather than changing internally.
In
conclusion, I think that even though I struggled with some parts of the reading
I appreciated learning about this new type of revolt. I have recently been
contemplating the idea that working on yourself can be a revolutionary act, which
is an idea that I think the reading helped me flesh out.
I like how you eloquently attribute success of Kristeva's revolt piece to her assessment of one's personal relationship to revolt. I too struggled with the piece, however, in my rough and probably inaccurate understanding from class, I think the crux of Kristeva's piece is focusing on the psychoanalytic stages of child development and how this can explain why certain forms of revolt (aggressive, extreme, ineffective) still exist considering the wasted energy expenditure. I found it a well written piece because she examines a very socialized ritual or experience through an extremely focused and individual-based lens in order to redefine the term by replacing the abrasive connotations that accompany revolt with compassion making it an inner revolt of her own.
ReplyDelete