In Julia Kristeva's article, "New Forms of Revolt," she focuses on the evolution of different methods of revolt throughout the world. While I found her article somewhat disorganized, the two forms of revolt that stood out to me were the more traditional, physical revolt vs. the newer, more subtle "inner experience" revolt. Kristeva focuses most of the article on these newer forms of revolt, which she defines as an inquisitive form of revolt that rebels against underlying problems through sharing knowledge and experience, rather than collective action against a governance or leader. She claims these rebels have realized "there is no answer to social,
historic and political impasses without a radical inner experience; an inner
experience that is demanding, unique, and able to appropriate the
complexity of the past in order to approach the present and the future" (2). Kristeva uses examples such as poetry, prayer, and art to demonstrate her understanding of an "inner experience" revolt. Essentially, she argues that this form of revolt is a revolution of people's minds rather than their experiences.
Kristeva does not focus much on the traditional understanding of revolt as a people's rebellion, rather, she uses it as the backdrop from which she defines, compares, and critiques other forms of revolt. In the beginning of her article, she cites a few examples of "inner experience" rebels that have acted within large-scale revolutions. While I understand Kristeva's encouragement of this "new species of rebels," I think she discounts the realistic importance of traditional forms of revolt. Yes, the democrats who took part in the "Arab Spring" were important in spreading knowledge of new values, but would their work have mattered at all if not for the popular uprising that overthrew dictators? I think "inner experience" revolts are important- I visited an Ai Weiwei exhibit over winter break that was very powerful and demonstrated the influence of art as a form of revolt. Both forms of revolt are necessary to affect change, and I wish Kristeva had touched on that a bit more.
Talia, you make a valid point about Kristeva’s failure to mention more about traditional revolts. Though she mentions the French Revolution as our modern standard for revolt, she really does not elaborate on what that entails. In terms of the physical vs. the “inner experience” revolt, from my reading, Kristeva wants people to question themselves and their beliefs in preparation for a physical revolt against political governance and fundamentalism. She believes it is essential that one have an inner experience of struggle and questioning so that new language and political ideas can be outwardly shared.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of your actual post, I thought you made some strong observations and points. Your example of the Arab Spring as well as your personal experience strengthened your argument and allowed me to see your point of view. Overall, your post was very clear and concise! I look forward to discussing your points in class on Wednesday!