LLM Notes: "Kristeva: Herethics" Noelle McAfee
i'll talk to you somewhere 'round 10 \ and then you're gone and i'm alone
Tl;dr
Kristeva questions power-focused feminist ideologies and contrasts American and French feminist interpretations. Kristeva, along with other French feminists, critiques a movement in France that she sees as perpetuating oppressive tactics. Her relationship with feminism is complex, aiming to liberate women from restrictive thinking without imitating male norms. She advocates a unique "third way" that integrates motherhood, culture, and nature. Her ethical framework challenges Western individualism, drawing from her experiences of pregnancy and motherhood, promoting interconnectedness. French feminists like Kristeva focus on metaphysical assumptions rather than societal oppression, exploring sexual differentiation. They debate whether a core "woman" essence exists or is symbolic. Critics raise concerns about essentialism and biological reductionism. English-speaking feminist critics scrutinize Kristeva's ideas, associating them with fixed female essence. Critics worry her work reinforces passive female identity and male-centric frameworks. Some accuse her of adopting historical and universalist perspectives. Kristeva's linguistic theory links the semiotic to the maternal body, raising concerns of essentialism. She explores motherhood's complex dimensions, advocating redefining its portrayal. Her "herethics" ethical paradigm bridges the semiotic and symbolic, challenging traditional dualisms. She seeks transformative community-building, inspired by process philosophy. Kristeva integrates language, culture, and biology in psychoanalysis, opposing Cartesian separation. Her approach values the evolving self, resisting essentialism. In her work, feminism values dynamic aspects of existence and challenges traditional classifications.
Notes
Julia Kristeva, a prominent figure among the "French feminists," offers complex insights into feminism, occasionally expressing reservations about certain aspects. She critiques specific feminist ideologies for their pursuit of power and highlights disparities between American and French interpretations of feminism, as delineated by Kelly Oliver. Kristeva, along with other French feminists, critiques a French movement that she perceives as perpetuating oppressive strategies, showcasing her intricate relationship with feminism that isn't necessarily adversarial to its overarching objectives. Kristeva strives to enhance women's circumstances, aiming to liberate them from confining thought patterns without merely imitating male norms. She advocates for a unique "third way" in feminism, one that harmonizes motherhood, culture, and nature. Her ethical framework challenges the Western model centered on individuals, drawing inspiration from her experiences of pregnancy and motherhood. This concept of ethical interconnectedness stems from the bond with an "other" during pregnancy. The chapter delves into Kristeva's perspectives on feminism, motherhood, and ethics within the context of maternal relationships. While English and American feminist theories concentrate on societal oppression, French feminist philosophers like Kristeva target underlying metaphysical presumptions. Metaphysics, a philosophical domain exploring reality beyond empirical data, serves as the focus of inquiry for French feminists. Kristeva and her peers ponder profound questions, including those concerning sexual differentiation. They suggest a fundamental divergence between the sexes in terms of their constitution. Kristeva examines whether a core "woman" essence exists or if it's symbolic. Detractors caution against essentialism, associating it with historical gender-based classifications. "French feminists," including Kristeva, contend with allegations of biological and substantial essentialism. Influential English-speaking feminist critics like Fraser, Butler, Grosz, and Moi scrutinize Kristeva's ideas, challenging her notions of chora, motherhood, and the semiotic as perpetuating a fixed female essence. Critics connect chora and motherhood to a passive female identity that reinforces a male-dominated symbolic framework. Concerns emerge that Kristeva's philosophy potentially binds women to the maternal realm, perpetuating a male-centric symbolic order. Some feminist critics accuse Kristeva of adopting ahistorical, biologically reductionist, and universalist perspectives. Tina Chanter highlights allegations of essentialism leveled against Kristeva. Critics underscore her utilization of psychoanalytic models, which seemingly endorse gender roles as recognized in psychoanalytic theory. Philosopher Chris Weedon critiques Kristeva for embracing Freudian and Lacanian paradigms, implying an adherence to patriarchal psychosexual principles. However, this criticism hinges on assumptions that Kristeva completely endorses psychoanalytic theory, upholds universal gender roles, and solely fixates on sexual or biological influences. Another critique directed at Kristeva pertains to her linguistic theory, asserting that the semiotic facet aligns with the maternal body but lacks potency compared to the symbolic dimension. Literary critic Jacqueline Rose finds Kristeva's work compelling for its exploration of psychosexual identities, yet notes that attempts to escape symbolic constructs often result in problematic forms of essentialism linked to the semiotic. Nancy Fraser faults Kristeva for quasi-biologistic essentialism that connects women's femininity to motherhood, detached from socio-political contexts. Fraser also highlights Kristeva's paradoxical stance, oscillating between denying the existence of "women" and feminine identity, displaying both essentialist and anti-essentialist tendencies.
Fraser's attempt to apply the sex/gender distinction to decipher Kristeva's work aligns with Kristeva's own semiotic/symbolic differentiation. Tina Chanter underscores an implied feminist dedication to the sex and gender ideology, with gender assuming a pivotal role in feminist narratives. Recognizing femininity as a culturally shaped concept, feminism's focus lies in reshaping gender constructs and cultural influences. Gender, culture, society, and history take precedence in feminist discourse, while the significance of sex, nature, biology, and bodies is downplayed. The differentiation between biological sex and cultural gender aids in comprehending the construction of masculinity and femininity, revealing their malleability and potential attachment to varying biological sexes, thereby challenging stereotypes. Critics extend the sex/gender distinction to Kristeva's semiotic/symbolic divide, correlating the semiotic with biology and the symbolic with culture. Yet, Kristeva's theory complicates this separation, as the semiotic and symbolic elements are intricately interwoven in human communication. Detractors argue that Kristeva's semiotic inadvertently naturalizes femininity as a biological truth, potentially leading to essentialism. However, proponents counter that her theory doesn't elevate biology over culture, noting that the semiotic operates within the realms of language and culture, thereby rendering the body a cultural construct as well. Skeptics remain unconvinced by this defense, averse to engaging with female biology due to the historical influence of Cartesian dualism. Cartesian dualism, which separates mind and body, historically favored the mind as the true self, marginalizing bodily aspects. Women have long been associated with their bodies within this framework, resulting in their perceived lack of inherent essence. Metaphysics has been largely evaded by feminists due to its unfavorable implications within the Cartesian framework. Kristeva's emphasis on bodily experiences such as maternity triggers concerns within feminist circles. Her essay "Hérethique de l’amour," published in Tel Quel in 1977, explores maternity from both personal and representative perspectives. The title "Stabat Mater" draws from a hymn depicting the Virgin Mary's sorrow during Christ's crucifixion. In the essay, Kristeva employs parallel columns, one conveying her thoughts poetically and the other analytically. She shares her own pregnancy experience, blurring the lines between self and other. Giving birth transforms what was once a part of oneself into an other, though never fully detached. Acting for the other is motivated not by altruism, selfishness, or duty, but rather by a complex interplay. Kristeva portrays the mother-child relationship as encompassing protection, nourishment, and unity. This bond forms prior to language acquisition, but subjectivity demands language acquisition and adherence to "the Law." Kristeva delves into depictions of maternity and their psychological functions. Representations of maternal love, she asserts, serve as psychological responses to grapple with mortality, as seen in the works of composer Giovanni Battista Pergolesi. The prevailing representation of motherhood often leads to women sublimating their desires and embracing masochism. Psychoanalytic paradigms, including Freud's, fall short in providing an avenue beyond this representation. Freud's perspective on motherhood seeks comprehension of the existing trope without endeavoring to transform it. Kristeva highlights the intricate layers of maternal experience and underscores the significance of listening to the contemporary voices of mothers.
Delving into the obscured realm of motherhood necessitates an attentive ear to the narratives of mothers amidst their economic struggles and personal emotions. Within this context, Julia Kristeva seeks a resolution to the modern dilemma faced by women, torn between their roles as mothers and their personal desires. Her objective is to redefine the portrayal of motherhood, avoiding a narrative that forces women to relinquish their aspirations. Amidst the challenges of pregnancy and labor, which often blur one's sense of self, there exists a simultaneous sense of fulfillment. Pregnancy might disrupt the conventional symbolic status of women, yet it fulfills society's imperative for reproduction and domestic stability. Kristeva recognizes the complexity of representing motherhood as fulfilling without inadvertently fostering masochistic ideals. She alludes to the necessity for an analysis that acknowledges the inherent disparities between genders and the pursuit of a meaningful sense of fulfillment. While some may interpret Kristeva's emphasis on motherhood as a form of essentialism, essentially equating women with their bodies and biological functions, a closer examination reveals her intent to challenge established norms. She suggests that culture and nature can coalesce through the maternal body, reshaping the boundaries of conventional understanding. The realm of symbolic language strives for clear meaning, but the experiences of pregnancy and motherhood introduce disruption into this endeavor. Pregnancy compels women to acknowledge their biology, thereby challenging their preexisting individualism. Ethical dynamics shift when a woman becomes a mother, entailing a relationship that transcends the conventional duality of self and other. Maternal love plays a pivotal role, contributing to a novel ethical paradigm termed "herethics." This framework revolves around making bonds, thoughts, and thoughts of mortality bearable through the conduit of love, effectively bridging the domains of the semiotic and the symbolic. Kelly Oliver defines "herethics" as a radical ethics that challenges the notion of independent ethical agents, binding subjects to others through the force of love instead of abiding by conventional laws. Kristeva's utilization of "herethics" calls for an ethics that extends beyond the realm of mother-child love, seeking to establish connections between the semiotic and symbolic dimensions. Alison Ainley proposes that ethical practice should transcend rule-based reconfiguration, focusing instead on the transformation of the individual and the creation of a sense of community. Ainley underscores how Kristeva views motherhood as harboring subversive potential at the threshold of nature and culture. Within Kristeva's philosophy, value is attributed to both the semiotic/transgressive and the symbolic/law-abiding aspects of subjectivity. Her ethical framework seeks a comprehensive subjectivity that encompasses the realms of law, symbolism, and the semiotic, effectively dismantling the traditional dualisms of mind/body, culture/nature, and word/flesh. The bond between mother and child serves as a paradigm for unraveling these dualities, involving a love that spans the boundaries of the self, the other, the species, and the universal. Kristeva's philosophy, rooted in a process-oriented perspective, underscores motherhood's revolutionary role as a nexus encompassing diverse facets of existence. Her focus lies in redefining the representation of motherhood, rather than advocating for "compulsory maternity." Drawing inspiration from process philosophy, which challenges the substance-based ontology of Cartesian metaphysics, Kristeva aligns herself with a philosophy that prioritizes events over static substances. This viewpoint, shared by thinkers such as Whitehead, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Deleuze, emphasizes the ever-changing nature of reality rather than its fixity. Though Kristeva doesn't explicitly label herself as a proponent of process metaphysics, her philosophy resonates with its principles. She draws insights from psychoanalytic models, showing a preference for Lacan's over Freud's ego psychology due to its orientation toward evolving subjectivity.
Kristeva posits language as a dynamic force that emerges from both biological and cultural processes, exerting its influence on history and society. Subjectivity, in her perspective, springs from drives and psychoanalytic mechanisms, maintaining an open-ended nature rather than a fixed entity. She introduces the concept of the "chora," denoting a provisional expression through movements that precedes formal representation and evidence. Kristeva's exploration delves into the intricate interplay between culture and the corporeal, frequently bridging the realms of gender and sex. Her focus rests on the speaking individual, entering the world entangled within relationships, language, legal structures, and a consciousness of mortality. Her goal is to not only analyze but to also identify and navigate the transitions and folds within these intricate dynamics. In her psychoanalytic practice, she underscores the simultaneous presence of sexuality and thought, diverging from cognitivist viewpoints and pre-Lacanian psychoanalysis. Kristeva's psychoanalytical approach involves attentive listening to both the currents of thought and sexuality, exposing their intertwinement within the realm of language. She contests efforts to segregate language, culture, and biology, as these elements are inseparable in the context of psychoanalysis. Within psychoanalysis, the language of the self intricately merges biology and culture, subverting the dichotomy of Cartesian mind-body separation. Language, operating as a process, dismantles notions of an essentialist self existing apart from the body. Kristeva's explorations of bodies, the semiotic, and sexuality resist reduction to essentialist categories. Her work confronts traditional classifications by embracing a process-oriented conception of biology and the self as an adaptable, evolving entity. This perspective challenges accusations of essentialism and instead embraces a metaphysical stance that prioritizes process over substance. Within Kristeva's philosophical framework, feminism opposes essentialism by valuing the fluid and dynamic facets of existence. She refrains from equating womanhood with the semiotic "chora," opting instead for a strategic application that employs it to symbolize sexual difference within the contexts of history and transformation.