Family, Tragedy, Democracy, and Populism: The Exchange between Jessica Benjamin and Christopher Lasch

IF 0.1 4区 社会学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Telos Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3817/0923204123
Gal Gerson
{"title":"Family, Tragedy, Democracy, and Populism: The Exchange between Jessica Benjamin and Christopher Lasch","authors":"Gal Gerson","doi":"10.3817/0923204123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, a series of critical remarks were traded between the historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch and the psychoanalyst and feminist philosopher Jessica Benjamin. Researchers describe that exchange as involving competing perceptions of psychoanalysis, but the debate also covered mismatching approaches to critical theory and, more widely, to the ideals befitting a free polity. Lasch’s appeal to the traditions of the American past faced off against Benjamin’s advocacy of a substantial social change whose fundamental step was challenging the patriarchy.1 The ideas that each of the two authors put forth are often cited for reproaching the worldview associated with the other. Supportive scholars credit Benjamin with working psychoanalysis into a feminist perspective that questions traditional gender roles and the social order based on them, an order to which Lasch seemed committed.2 On the other hand, critics of the psychoanalytic turn to which Benjamin was central echo Lasch when arguing that the resulting relational theory marginalizes personal responsibility and belittles the significance of individual conscience.3","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0923204123","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, a series of critical remarks were traded between the historian and cultural critic Christopher Lasch and the psychoanalyst and feminist philosopher Jessica Benjamin. Researchers describe that exchange as involving competing perceptions of psychoanalysis, but the debate also covered mismatching approaches to critical theory and, more widely, to the ideals befitting a free polity. Lasch’s appeal to the traditions of the American past faced off against Benjamin’s advocacy of a substantial social change whose fundamental step was challenging the patriarchy.1 The ideas that each of the two authors put forth are often cited for reproaching the worldview associated with the other. Supportive scholars credit Benjamin with working psychoanalysis into a feminist perspective that questions traditional gender roles and the social order based on them, an order to which Lasch seemed committed.2 On the other hand, critics of the psychoanalytic turn to which Benjamin was central echo Lasch when arguing that the resulting relational theory marginalizes personal responsibility and belittles the significance of individual conscience.3
家庭、悲剧、民主与民粹主义:杰西卡·本杰明与克里斯托弗·拉希的交流
从20世纪70年代末到90年代中期,历史学家和文化评论家克里斯托弗·拉希(Christopher Lasch)与精神分析学家和女权主义哲学家杰西卡·本杰明(Jessica Benjamin)之间进行了一系列批评性评论。研究人员将这种交流描述为涉及对精神分析的不同看法,但辩论也涵盖了对批判理论的不匹配方法,更广泛地说,是对适合自由政体的理想的不匹配方法。拉希对美国过去传统的呼吁与本雅明主张的重大社会变革形成了对立,后者的根本步骤是挑战父权制两位作者各自提出的观点经常被引用来指责与对方相关的世界观。支持本雅明的学者认为,本雅明将精神分析纳入了女权主义的视角,质疑传统的性别角色和基于此的社会秩序,而拉希似乎也致力于此另一方面,以本雅明为中心的精神分析学派的批评者认为,由此产生的关系理论将个人责任边缘化,并贬低了个人良知的重要性,这与拉希的观点相呼应
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
Telos
Telos Multiple-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信