The Monstrous Crossroads of Kristeva’s Textual Practice

Dawid Kołoszyc
{"title":"The Monstrous Crossroads of Kristeva’s Textual Practice","authors":"Dawid Kołoszyc","doi":"10.1353/SLI.2014.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"I am a monster of the crossroads,\" declares Julia Kristeva on more than one occasion in her work, (1) referring not only to the complex intersections of her theoretical work, but also to her heterogeneous identity: a Bulgarian-born French linguist, literary theorist, psychoanalyst, cultural critic, and female intellectual determined to bring women's experience to structuralist and poststructuralist theories dominating the (mostly male) Parisian intellectual scene of the 1960s and 70s. Indeed, experience is the guiding post of Kristeva's thought, and her own experience as scholar, critic, and analyst has played a significant role in transforming the way we think about \"feminine\" writing, body, and desire. The aim of this paper is to explore Kristeva's contributions to the theory of the text, particularly in relation to textual practices of two contemporaries, Maurice Blanchot and Jacques Derrida, both of whom have played an integral role in transforming critical responses to literary writing since the 1960s. I will attempt to indicate a few significant points of convergence in their work in order to make Kristeva's concerns resonate more fully within a broader intellectual conversation, and to emphasize what she considers to be the limits of cotemporary literary theory. To be sure, no simple assertion can be made concerning the exact relationship between the immensely complex writings of these three authors. On the one hand, their approaches to reading and writing run parallel to one another, often sharing common terminology: text, difference, alterity, or otherness. Indeed, their central organizing motifs--for instance, Blanchot's \"worklessness\" and \"the neuter,\" Derrida's \"differance\" and \"dissemination,\" or Kristeva's \"negativity\" and \"productivity\"--remain on very intimate terms with one another insofar as all three evoke that which is unthinkable, unknowable, or unspeakable, but without which no language or logic would be possible. On the other hand, each author's work develops a singular language that can never be entirely translated into another, even when it constantly affirms the necessity of precisely such translation. Their textual practices, to borrow Juliana de Nooy's formulation, mark \"the site of rupture-at-a-point-of-absolute-proximity\" (201). Generally speaking, Kristeva's textual practice may be regarded as an attempt to negotiate between Blanchot's exploration of reading/writing as a descent into the silent, bottomless abyss of the text, and Derrida's reading/writing as an endless movement across the textual surface through deferral, dissemination, iterability, and supplementarity. Kristeva accomplishes this by placing emphasis on three problems which, in her view, have been somewhat marginalized in the theory of the text: (1) the relationship between textual practice and the experience of the human body, particularly with respect to questions of suffering and desire; (2) textual practice as political-social engagement, whereby questions of exile, solitude, or estrangement on the one hand, and the affirmation of play on the other, become explicitly linked to ethical concerns and their historical implementation; and (3) textual practice as the practice of intertextuality, in terms of both relationality and difference. In each case, Kristeva's intention is to assume the experience of the crisis of meaning that permeates the works of Blanchot and of Derrida, albeit in a manner that would, beyond the necessary intensification of this crisis at the intersection of sense and nonsense, enable both an individual and a cultural response to it--first and foremost at the level of language. By the same token, her textual practice is a deliberate attempt to negotiate between the kind of anonymity or neutrality Blanchot tends to emphasize in his work and Derrida's attempt to bring the radical dispersal of differance to every text, discourse, and meaning. THE TEXT AS PRODUCTIVITY Kristeva's complex and highly technical theory of the text was charted out in a series of essays written between 1966 and 1973; many of them were originally published in Tel Quel, and some remain untranslated today. …","PeriodicalId":390916,"journal":{"name":"Studies in the Literary Imagination","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in the Literary Imagination","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/SLI.2014.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

"I am a monster of the crossroads," declares Julia Kristeva on more than one occasion in her work, (1) referring not only to the complex intersections of her theoretical work, but also to her heterogeneous identity: a Bulgarian-born French linguist, literary theorist, psychoanalyst, cultural critic, and female intellectual determined to bring women's experience to structuralist and poststructuralist theories dominating the (mostly male) Parisian intellectual scene of the 1960s and 70s. Indeed, experience is the guiding post of Kristeva's thought, and her own experience as scholar, critic, and analyst has played a significant role in transforming the way we think about "feminine" writing, body, and desire. The aim of this paper is to explore Kristeva's contributions to the theory of the text, particularly in relation to textual practices of two contemporaries, Maurice Blanchot and Jacques Derrida, both of whom have played an integral role in transforming critical responses to literary writing since the 1960s. I will attempt to indicate a few significant points of convergence in their work in order to make Kristeva's concerns resonate more fully within a broader intellectual conversation, and to emphasize what she considers to be the limits of cotemporary literary theory. To be sure, no simple assertion can be made concerning the exact relationship between the immensely complex writings of these three authors. On the one hand, their approaches to reading and writing run parallel to one another, often sharing common terminology: text, difference, alterity, or otherness. Indeed, their central organizing motifs--for instance, Blanchot's "worklessness" and "the neuter," Derrida's "differance" and "dissemination," or Kristeva's "negativity" and "productivity"--remain on very intimate terms with one another insofar as all three evoke that which is unthinkable, unknowable, or unspeakable, but without which no language or logic would be possible. On the other hand, each author's work develops a singular language that can never be entirely translated into another, even when it constantly affirms the necessity of precisely such translation. Their textual practices, to borrow Juliana de Nooy's formulation, mark "the site of rupture-at-a-point-of-absolute-proximity" (201). Generally speaking, Kristeva's textual practice may be regarded as an attempt to negotiate between Blanchot's exploration of reading/writing as a descent into the silent, bottomless abyss of the text, and Derrida's reading/writing as an endless movement across the textual surface through deferral, dissemination, iterability, and supplementarity. Kristeva accomplishes this by placing emphasis on three problems which, in her view, have been somewhat marginalized in the theory of the text: (1) the relationship between textual practice and the experience of the human body, particularly with respect to questions of suffering and desire; (2) textual practice as political-social engagement, whereby questions of exile, solitude, or estrangement on the one hand, and the affirmation of play on the other, become explicitly linked to ethical concerns and their historical implementation; and (3) textual practice as the practice of intertextuality, in terms of both relationality and difference. In each case, Kristeva's intention is to assume the experience of the crisis of meaning that permeates the works of Blanchot and of Derrida, albeit in a manner that would, beyond the necessary intensification of this crisis at the intersection of sense and nonsense, enable both an individual and a cultural response to it--first and foremost at the level of language. By the same token, her textual practice is a deliberate attempt to negotiate between the kind of anonymity or neutrality Blanchot tends to emphasize in his work and Derrida's attempt to bring the radical dispersal of differance to every text, discourse, and meaning. THE TEXT AS PRODUCTIVITY Kristeva's complex and highly technical theory of the text was charted out in a series of essays written between 1966 and 1973; many of them were originally published in Tel Quel, and some remain untranslated today. …
克里斯蒂娃文本实践的怪异十字路口
“我是一个十字路口的怪物,”茱莉亚·克里斯蒂娃在她的作品中不止一次宣称,(1)不仅指她理论工作的复杂交叉点,还指她的异质身份:保加利亚出生的法国语言学家、文学理论家、精神分析学家、文化评论家和女性知识分子,她决心将女性的经验引入结构主义和后结构主义理论中,这些理论主导了20世纪60年代和70年代的巴黎知识分子场景(主要是男性)。的确,经验是Kristeva思想的路标,她自己作为学者、评论家和分析家的经历在改变我们对“女性”写作、身体和欲望的思考方式方面发挥了重要作用。本文的目的是探讨克里斯蒂娃对文本理论的贡献,特别是与同时代的莫里斯·布朗肖和雅克·德里达的文本实践有关,他们两人自20世纪60年代以来都在改变文学写作的批评反应方面发挥了不可或缺的作用。我将尝试指出他们作品中的几个重要的交汇点,以便使Kristeva的关注在更广泛的知识对话中更充分地产生共鸣,并强调她认为当代文学理论的局限性。可以肯定的是,对于这三位作者极其复杂的作品之间的确切关系,无法做出简单的断言。一方面,他们的阅读和写作方法彼此平行,经常使用共同的术语:文本、差异、另类或他者。事实上,他们的中心组织主题——例如,布朗肖的“无工作”和“中性”,德里达的“差异”和“传播”,或者克里斯蒂娃的“消极性”和“生产力”——彼此之间保持着非常密切的关系,因为三者都唤起了不可想象、不可知或不可言说的东西,但没有这些东西,语言或逻辑就不可能存在。另一方面,每个作者的作品都发展了一种独特的语言,这种语言永远不可能完全被翻译成另一种语言,即使它不断地肯定这种翻译的必要性。借用朱莉安娜·德·努瓦的表述,他们的文本实践标志着“在绝对接近点的断裂地点”(2011)。总的来说,Kristeva的文本实践可以被看作是一种尝试,在布朗肖对阅读/写作的探索(一种沉入沉默的、无底的文本深渊)和德里达的阅读/写作(一种通过延迟、传播、可迭代和补充在文本表面上的无休止运动)之间进行协商。Kristeva通过强调三个在她看来在文本理论中有些被边缘化的问题来实现这一点:(1)文本实践与人体经验之间的关系,特别是关于痛苦和欲望的问题;(2)作为政治-社会参与的文本实践,一方面是流亡、孤独或疏远的问题,另一方面是对游戏的肯定,它们与伦理问题及其历史实施明确地联系在一起;(3)文本实践作为互文性的实践,在关系和差异两方面都是如此。在每一种情况下,克里斯蒂娃的意图都是假设渗透在布朗肖和德里达作品中的意义危机的经验,尽管以一种方式,超越了在意义和无意义的交叉点上必要的危机加剧,使个人和文化对它的反应——首先是在语言层面上。出于同样的原因,她的文本实践是一种刻意的尝试,在布朗肖倾向于在他的作品中强调的那种匿名性或中立性与德里达试图将差异的激进分散到每个文本,话语和意义之间进行协商。Kristeva关于文本的复杂而高度技术性的理论在1966年至1973年间的一系列文章中被描绘出来;其中许多最初是在Tel Quel出版的,有些至今仍未翻译。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信