Žižek’s “Frankenstein”: Modernity, Anti-Enlightenment Critique and Debates on the Left

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
Jamil Khader
{"title":"Žižek’s “Frankenstein”: Modernity, Anti-Enlightenment Critique and Debates on the Left","authors":"Jamil Khader","doi":"10.5565/rev/enrahonar.1407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I examine Slavoj Žižek’s Freudian-Hegelian interpretation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus (1818), and argue that Žižek’s critique of Shelley’s ambiguous and contradictory attitude toward the French Revolution and its regime of terror remains central to the debates about the revolutionary and Enlightenment ideals today. For Žižek, Shelley employs the family myth not only to obfuscate the social reality of the French Revolution, but also to subvert the bourgeois family from within, through its transgressive sexual politics. Although Shelley manages not simply to dismantle modernity, she expresses a radical commitment to a “pure Enlightenment subjectivity”. Nonetheless, Shelley fails to articulate the speculative identity of the Enlightenment and revolutionary terror. Žižek’s analysis of Shelley’s ambiguous position on emancipatory politics has major implications for his critique of Leftist debates about Muslim refugees in Europe and transgender sexuality. It is still urgent, Žižek correctly insists, to interrogate the ways in which identity politics and the human rights regime can be readily appropriated and commodified in late capitalism.","PeriodicalId":53829,"journal":{"name":"Enrahonar-Quaderns de Filosofia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enrahonar-Quaderns de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/enrahonar.1407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, I examine Slavoj Žižek’s Freudian-Hegelian interpretation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus (1818), and argue that Žižek’s critique of Shelley’s ambiguous and contradictory attitude toward the French Revolution and its regime of terror remains central to the debates about the revolutionary and Enlightenment ideals today. For Žižek, Shelley employs the family myth not only to obfuscate the social reality of the French Revolution, but also to subvert the bourgeois family from within, through its transgressive sexual politics. Although Shelley manages not simply to dismantle modernity, she expresses a radical commitment to a “pure Enlightenment subjectivity”. Nonetheless, Shelley fails to articulate the speculative identity of the Enlightenment and revolutionary terror. Žižek’s analysis of Shelley’s ambiguous position on emancipatory politics has major implications for his critique of Leftist debates about Muslim refugees in Europe and transgender sexuality. It is still urgent, Žižek correctly insists, to interrogate the ways in which identity politics and the human rights regime can be readily appropriated and commodified in late capitalism.
Žižek的《弗兰肯斯坦》:现代性、反启蒙批判与左翼辩论
在本文中,我考察了斯拉沃伊Žižek对玛丽·雪莱的《弗兰肯斯坦:或现代普罗米修斯》(1818)的弗洛伊德-黑格尔式解释,并认为Žižek对雪莱对法国大革命及其恐怖政权的模棱两可和矛盾态度的批评仍然是今天关于革命和启蒙理想的辩论的核心。对于Žižek,雪莱运用家庭神话不仅模糊了法国大革命的社会现实,而且通过其越界的性政治从内部颠覆了资产阶级家庭。虽然雪莱并没有简单地拆除现代性,但她表达了对“纯粹启蒙主体性”的激进承诺。尽管如此,雪莱未能清晰地表达启蒙运动和革命恐怖的思辨身份。Žižek对雪莱在解放政治上模棱两可的立场的分析,对他对左翼关于欧洲穆斯林难民和变性性行为的辩论的批判具有重要意义。Žižek正确地坚持认为,在资本主义晚期,身份政治和人权制度如何被轻易地挪用和商品化,这仍然是当务之急。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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