Banned Bodies, Spurned Speech: Butler, Kristeva and the location of a 'maternal language'

Cet article propose de revenir sur la critique que fait Butler de Kristeva, notamment sur la thiorie du langage poitique.Butler misinterpr2te la thiorie de Kristeva et, ce faisant, mine son propre argument selon lequel le genre est perjormatiJ: En (re)venant ir Butler et en me penchant sur Kristeva, j'abom'e ensuite le discours fiministe qui se demande comment traduire la thiorie en pratique: comment le langage poitique de Kristeva peut-il fonctionner dans le sens d'un#minisme d'avenir?Relue du point de vue de Kristeva, la thiorie de la perjormativiti du genre de Butlerpeut-elle &ire re'habilite'e?Comment un lien entre le langage poitique de Kristeva et la perjormance de butler part-il dicentrer de faqon productive la structure du pouvoir partriarcal hitirosexualise'?Judith Butler has suggested that gender is a "cultural configuration" (Gender Trouble 190).She posits that gender categories are predicated on the grounds of exclusion, and what is at stake is the power of identity.I refer, here, to Butler's preceding remarks wherein she states that "the foundationalist reasoning of identity politics tends to assume that an identity must first be in place in order for political interests to be elaborated and, subsequently, political action to be taken" (181).She maintains, throughout her text, that in the present socio-cultural "configuration" a subject must be read as such-be culturally identifiable-in order to begin to enact political change.The thrust of Butler's argument is, in short, that gender is culturally prescribed to a subject (in order to render that subject identifiable), however, Butler takes great pains to demonstrate that gender is an arbitrary construction and that, as there are only two "culturally identifiable" genders, this process is inherently exclusionary.She maintains, moreover, that systematically categorizing gender works to undermine the subversive potential of individualistic identity.I will speak to this last point throughout the course of the paper.If power-moreover heterosexualized patriarchal power-is structured to exclude a majority of the population, then it follows that at the very least there should exist, within the excluded majority, a desire to subvert that power.It is curious, then, that Butler's critique of Julia Kristeva's "body politics" hinge on what Butler sees as an impossible and inadequate politics of subversion (102).Kristeva, in her work on subject-formation, relies on the multiple meanings available in language (what she calls poetic language) as a means by which to subvert the patriarchal law of power.Poetic language, for Kristeva, offers a way to reconnect with the 'maternal body'-a 'body' that psychoanalysis maintains every subject must turn from in order to enter into the socio-symbolic order.One could make the argument that 'figure' or 'specter' could work interchangeably

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.