Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:06:30.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Speaking Abject in Kristeva's Powers of Horror

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Thea Harrington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay analyzes the implications of the performative aspects of Julia Kristeva's Powers of Horror by situating this work in the context of similar aspects of her previous work. This construction and its relationship to abjection are integral components of Kristeva's notion of practice and as such are fundamental to her critique of Hegel and Freud.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 1998 , pp. 138 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of “sex.” New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fletcher, John, and Benjamin, Andrew. 1990. Abjection, melancholia and love in the works of Julia Kristeva. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. 1925. Standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Trans. Strachey, James. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. 1989. Negation. In The Freud reader, ed. Gay, Peter. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gay, Peter, eds. 1989. The Freud reader. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Garner, Shirley Nelson, Kahane, Claire and Sprengnether, Madelon. 1985. The (M)other tongue: Essays in feminist psychoanalytic interpretation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1987. Philosophy, subjectivity, and the social body: Kristeva and Irigaray. In Feminist challenges: Social and political theory, eds. Gross, Elizabeth and Pateman, Carole. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, Elizabeth, and Pateman, Carole, eds. 1987. Feminist challenges: Social and political theory. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, Thea. 1996. Mobile paradigms and the possibility of the postmodern subject. Paper delivered at the International Association for Philosophy and Literature, Fairfax, VA, May.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of spirit. Trans. Miller, A. V.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hypplite, Jean. 1970. The Structure of philosophic language according to the preface to Hegel's Phenomenology ofthe mind. In The structuralist controversy: The languuges of criticism and the sciences of man, ed. Macksey, Richard and Donato, Eugenio. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hypplite, Jean. 1974. Genesis and structure in Hegel's “Phenomenology of spirit.” Trans. Cherniak, Samuel and Heckman, John. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Pouvoirs de l'hurreur: Essai sur l'abjection. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1982. Pavers ofhurrur: An essay on abjection. Trans. Roudiez, Leon S.New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1984a. Julia Kristeva in conversation with Rosalind Coward. In Desire, London: ICA Documents.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1984b. Revolution in poetic hguuge. Trans. Waller, Margaret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1986. “Stabat Mater” In The Kristeva reader, ed. Moi, Toril. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 1977. Écrits: A selection. Trans. Sheridan, Alan. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Lechte, John. 1990a. “Art, love, and melancholy in the work of Julia Kristeva.” In Abjection, melancholia and love in the works of Julia Kristeva, eds. Fletcher, John and Benjamin, Andrew. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lechte, John. 1990b. Julia Kristeva. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lyotard, Jean‐François 1984. The posrmakm condition: A report on knowledge. Trans. Bennington, Geoff and Massumi, Brian. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mallarmé, Stéphane. 1945. The Music and the Letters. In Oeuwes Completès. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
McCance, Dawne. 1996. L'ecriture limite: Kristeva's postmodern feminist ethics. Hypatia 11(2): 141–60.Google Scholar
Moi, Toril, ed. 1986. The Kristeva reader. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, Kelly. 1993a. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the double bind. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Moi, Toril, ed.1993b. Ethics, politics, and difference in Julia Kristeva's writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rose, Jacqueline. 1986. Sexuality in the fild of vision. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Rose, Jacqueline. 1993. Julia Kristeva‐Take two. In Ethics, politics, and difference in Julia Kristeva's writing. See Oliver 1993b.Google Scholar
Roudiez, Leon. 1974. Twelve points form Tel Quel. Esprit Createur 14(4): 291–303.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1975. Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziarek, Ewa. 1992. At the limits of discourse: Heterogeneity, alterity, and the maternal body in Kristeva's thought. Hypatiu 7(1): 90–109.Google Scholar
Ziarek, Ewa. 1993. Kristeva and Levinas: Mourning, ethics, and the feminine. In Ethics, politics, and difference in Julia Kristeva's writing. See Oliver 1993b.Google Scholar