克里斯蒂娃 The "semiotic"

The "semiotic"[edit]

One of Kristeva's most important contributions is that signification is composed of two elements, the symbolic and thesemiotic, the latter being distinct from the discipline ofsemioticsfounded byFerdinand de Saussure. As explained inThe History of Women in Philosophyby Augustine Perumalil, Kristeva's "semiotic is closely related to the infantilepre-Oedipalreferred to in the works of Freud,Otto Rank,Melanie Klein, BritishObject Relationpsychoanalysis, and Lacan's pre-mirror stage. It is an emotional field, tied to theinstincts, which dwells in the fissures andprosodyof language rather than in thedenotative meaningsof words." Furthermore, according to Birgit Schippers' 2011 bookJulia Kristeva and Feminist Thought, the semiotic is a realm associated with the musical, the poetic, the rhythmic, and that which lacks structure and meaning. It is closely tied to the "feminine", and represents the undifferentiated state of the pre-Mirror Stage infant.

Upon entering the Mirror Stage, the child learns to distinguish between self and other, and enters the realm of shared cultural meaning, known asthe symbolic. InDesire in Language(1980), Kristeva describes the symbolic as the space in which the development of language allows the child to become a "speaking subject," and to develop a sense of identity separate from the mother. This process of separation is known as abjection, whereby the child must reject and move away from the mother in order to enter into the world of language, culture, meaning, and the social. This realm of language is called the symbolic and is contrasted with the semiotic in that it is associated with the masculine, the law, and structure. Kristeva departs from Lacan in the idea that even after entering the symbolic, the subject continues to oscillate between the semiotic and the symbolic. Therefore, rather than arriving at a fixed identity, the subject is permanently "in process". Because female children continue to identify to some degree with the mother figure, they are especially likely to retain a close connection to the semiotic. This continued identification with the mother may result in what Kristeva refers to inBlack Sun(1989) asmelancholia(depression), given that female children simultaneously reject and identify with the mother figure.

It has also been suggested (e.g., Creed, 1993) that the degradation of women and women's bodies in popular culture (and particularly, for example, inslasher films) emerges because of the threat to identity that the mother's body poses: it is a reminder of time spent in the undifferentiated state of the semiotic, where one has no concept of self or identity. After abjecting the mother, subjects retain anunconsciousfascination with the semiotic, desiring to reunite with the mother, while at the same time fearing the loss of identity that accompanies it.Slasher filmthus provide a way for audience members to safely reenact the process of abjection by vicariously expelling and destroying the mother figure.

Kristeva is also known for her adoption ofPlato’s idea of thechora, meaning “a nourishing maternal space” (Schippers, 2011). Kristeva’s idea of the chora has been interpreted in several ways: as a reference to the uterus, as a metaphor for the relationship between the mother and child, and as the temporal period preceding the Mirror Stage. In her essayMotherhood According toGiovanni BellinifromDesire in Language(1980), Kristeva refers to the chora as a “non-expressive totality formed by drives and their stases in a motility that is full of movement as it is regulated.” She goes on to suggest that it is the mother's body that mediates between the chora and the symbolic realm: the mother has access to culture and meaning, yet also forms a totalizing bond with the child.

Kristeva is also noted for her work on the concept ofintertextuality.

Abjection

The term abjection literally means "the state of being cast off." While in common usage it has connotations of degradation, baseness and meanness of spirit, the term has been explored inpost-structuralismas that which inherently disturbs conventional identity and cultural concepts.[1]Among the most popular interpretations of abjection isJulia Kristeva’s (pursued particularly in her workPowers of Horror), which describes the subjective horror one, and therefore one’s body, experiences when one is confronted with what she terms one’s “corporeal reality,” or a breakdown in the distinction between what isselfand what isother.[2]The concept of abjection is best described as the process by which one separates their sense of self – be that physical and biological, social or cultural – from that which they consider intolerable and infringes upon their ‘self’, otherwise known as the abject. The abject is, as such, the “me that is not me.”[citation needed]

Kristeva’s concept of abjection is utilized commonly and effectively to explain popular cultural narratives of horror and misogyny, and builds on the traditional psychoanalytic theories ofSigmund FreudandJacques Lacan.[3]

Drawing on the French tradition of interest in the monstrous (e.g., novelistLouis-Ferdinand Céline),[4]and of thesubjectas grounded in filth (e.g., psychoanalystJacques Lacan),[5]Julia Kristevadeveloped the idea of the abject as that which is rejected by/disturbs social reason — the communal consensus that underpins a social order.[6]The "abject" exists accordingly somewhere between the concept of anobjectand the concept of the subject, representingtabooelements of the self barely separated off in aliminalspace.[7]Kristeva claims that within the boundaries of what one defines as subject – a part of oneself – and object – something that exists independently of oneself – there resides pieces that were once categorized as a part of oneself or one’s identity that has since been rejected – the abject.

It is important to note, however, that Kristeva created a distinction in the true meaning of abjection: it is not the lack of “cleanliness or health” that causes abjection, but that which disturbs identity, system, and order.[8]Since the abject is situated outside thesymbolic order, being forced to face it is an inherently traumatic experience, as with the repulsion presented by confrontation with filth, waste, or a corpse — an object which is violently cast out of the cultural world, having once been a subject.[9]Thus the sense of the abject complements the existence of thesuperego- the representative of culture, of the symbolic order:[10]in Kristeva's aphorism, "To each ego its object, to each superego its abject".[11]

From Kristeva's psychoanalytic perspective, abjection is done to the part of ourselves that we exclude: the mother. We must abject the maternal, the object which has created us, in order to construct an identity.[9]Abjection occurs on the micro level of the speaking being, through their subjective dynamics, as well as on the macro level of society, through "language as a common and universal law". We userituals, specifically those of defilement, to attempt to maintain clear boundaries between nature and society, the semiotic and the symbolic, paradoxically both excluding and renewing contact with the abject in the ritual act.[12]

The concept of abjection is often coupled (and sometimes confused) with the idea ofthe uncanny, the concept of something being "un-home-like", or foreign, yet familiar.[13]The abject can be uncanny in the sense that we can recognize aspects in it, despite its being "foreign": a corpse, having fallen out of the symbolic order, creates abjection through its uncanniness[14]— creates acognitive dissonance.