Lynette Dixon
Kristeva
delineates two types of revolt:
1) Political revolt: This type of
revolt interrogates social norms and external oppression and fights to change
these norms politically. One yearns for the all the rights that come along with
being a subject of a state.
2) Revolt within the subject: This form
of revolt interrogates subjectivity. It calls for an internal revolution that
will reverberate through the collective. This internal revolution should come
by way of an active self-analysis wherein the subject will recognize the ever-moving
and ever-morphing self because this self is in constant motion. What follows is
the annihilation of restricting categories and universal thought.
I think
Kristeva really nails what it means to revolt. I don’t think that complete freedom
can be fostered within the same system that previously oppressed you. While
there may be change, the foundation of the system will always be contingent
upon your oppression. Rather than dismantling the whole system, which would be
nearly impossible, there is a call for one to dismantle the idea of
subjectivity. By doing this, the system can no longer hold you. There is no
place for you in a political system because the system accounts only for
subjects. By not occupying that space, the system cannot touch you. So now you’ve
accomplished something better that eradicating the system. You are existing in
it without being defined and confined by it. This is a far better accomplishment
in my eyes because you serve as a constant point of resistance. You will
definitely still be a target for violence. However, you will be internally free
and you would not depend on the recognition of the system that seeks your oppression
and eradication.
This idea is
also wonderful because it account for a moving self which deconstructs the
ideas of a stable self. I think this
allows for a type of existence that accounts for all the facets of self. I like
this better than the idea of intersecting identities. The concept of intersectionality is bound up
with the negative. The language of the theory poses “intersecting” identities
usually as intersecting oppressions. One is only intersectional if they are
considered to be outside the norm, we wouldn’t consider a white, straight man
as intersectional. Therefore the theory ascribes to the language and logic of
the dominant discourse by othering and negating identities that fall outside of
it. It also creates a hierarchy of identity which I think is harmful. What I
like about a self in perpetual motion, as Pascal states, is that it open more possibilities
for identity. One doesn’t have to choose between their gender identity and
racial identity, as black women often have to do. Rather it can be recognized
that there are multiple selves which exist: all of which she occupies, all of
which equally inform her, all of which are valid and positive, none of which signal her oppression but her capacity for
greater understanding.
I think your post provides a very helpful straightforward definition of Kristeva’s two forms of revolt. I like how you expand her second type of revolt, the ‘new’ inner revolt. Being constantly aware and always questioning who you are would allow for one not to be personally subjected to the oppressive structures of society, at least psychologically and ideologically. I agree that this internal revolt allows for one to mentally separate himself/herself from the political system that controls the society around them, but I still think that one has to use this liberation of thought to participate in the system. If the ‘old’ type of revolt is based on nihilism and many people go through a conversion from ideality to nihilism, it is important for someone conscious of their own internal identity outside of the absolutism of the system to work to change it. I’m not sure how effective this is in practice, but I would hope people who have such strong a sense of self outside the definitions of politics and culture would participate in revealing and confronting the issues plaguing society.
ReplyDelete