Julia Kristeva's 'Culture of Revolt' and (Post) Modern Religious Subjectivity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study offers a close reading of Julia Kristeva’s theories of ‘intimate revolt’ and ‘revolt culture’ and applies them to discussions of religious subjectivity. Decidedly non-militaristic, intimate revolt is reconceived in psychoanalytic and literary terms to mean an ongoing process of introspection and interrogation. The notion is derived from a multi-faceted and dynamic view of the mind, which, I submit, can broaden our conceptualization of religious subjectivity in popular discourse and vis-à-vis other psychoanalytic interpretations of religion. Indeed, Kristeva’s seemingly ambiguous treatment of Christianity is better understood in light of her theory of intimate revolt, which accepts and encourages working through competing ideas. Taking seriously the socio-political implications of intimate revolt, the overarching questions of this project are whether or not religion can fit into Kristeva’s vision of revolt culture, and, if so, what it might look like. I argue that, while she privileges aesthetic and psychoanalytic forms of revolt, Kristeva leaves open the possibility of intimate revolt in religion, particularly through her discussions of ‘the sacred’ and Christian mysticism. Finally, I survey progressive Christianity and John Caputo’s postmodern religion to identify potential examples of religious subjects who contribute to a culture of revolt. I conclude that – to the degree that it may be possible – intimate revolt should be promoted in religion today.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it