In Julia Kristeva’s
piece, she examines and criticizes the forms of revolt through a political and
psychoanalytic perspective. Politically, Kristeva’s describes modern revolt as “a
challenge to pre-established norms, values and powers” (3). Yet, Kristeva’s
articulates that this idea of political revolt should not be mistaken with the
nihilist’s belief of revolt. For nihilists merely reject old ideas and replace
them with new dogmas. Consequently, this suspends internal thought and creates
a space for totalitarianism and other deadly spaces. As an alternative,
Krsiteva puts great emphasis on the importance of “questioning the self” as a
form of revolt (3). She states it is essential that men and women internally
struggle and develop an inner experience that are “unique, inquisitive and uncompromising”
(2). For this internal questioning allows people to be liberated from social
standards of stability. Moreover, it enables men and women to express innovative ideas and language
(through prayer, art, poetry, etc.) of revolt.
In reading Kristeva’s analysis
of revolt and questioning the self, I see the importance of self-reflection and
inner experience. For the “new rebels” who intersect or stand outside the standards
of political governance, it is important that they construct new language and
ideas in order to rebel against fundamentalism, while re-constructing the
present and the future. However, I am curious in discussing the Freudian ideas
of good and evil that come with this internal self. Though I personally
struggled with the psychoanalytic jargon, Krsiteva focuses a large portion of
her article on the paradoxes of jouissance
and the relationship to “the One.” I look forward to discussing this more in
class.
Avery,
ReplyDeleteYour posts are always great. I enjoy reading them because they are clear and you always make great points!
I too struggled with the psychoanalytic jargon. In fact most of that part of her analysis was completely lost on me. I'm interested in your point about the Freudian concept of a good and evil self. Is this good and evil being done to the self or to others? I hope you will elaborate on this in class. The way I took Kristeva's concept of the introspective revolt, I don't there is an evil part of it. I think that Kristeva is calling for the radical dismantling of subjectivity. Through a heighten self-awareness, I think that all of the "benefits" of being an identifiable subject,of belonging to a group of other subjects cease to exist. I think that this is a case because subjectivity is interlaced with identity and I think that Kristeva is calling for a new type of identification.These new beings that emerge on the other side of this revolt, upset the current system because they are the antithesis of it. Im interested to hear more about your take on this and how Freud plays into it.