Posted by Rainer Ganahl on December 04, 1996 at 19:27:24:
In Reply to: the reading revolting gap posted by mai-thu a. perret on November 25, 1996 at 09:05:51:
: I see what you mean here Rainer but I really wonder why she does not spend more time defining how to make reading be more than another form (active, but then
: your eyes are open when you go to a musee de l'homme, eg) of relics worshiping. i can sit in my room and read about many revolts, catalogue them analyse them
: and musealise them. in fact i believe that this is what most academic work (speaking from the inside of the whale) is about. last week i was reading nietszche's
: 'on the uses and disadvantages of history for life' from his untimely meditations and trying to think about the uses of forgetting for political struggle and action.
: remember, the historical man is often a bit shrivelled. when you read too much you get option paralysis. no matter how flawed and biased nietzsche can be, this early
: essay outlines a contemporary problem with enough distance that fruitful misreadings are possible for now. he urges one not to remember too much. and reading is akin
: to remembering in many ways. kristeva doesn't seem to be very aware of this in the passage you quote. revolts are written where? in dusty library books, in traumatised
: memories or in some abstract way on the skin of the world? but this overlooks the fact that rather than looking at old revolts, one should do new ones or simply forget
: about it. if you write a family tree of revolt, you might kill its power to be nomadic and constantly renewing itself, even if you think to do good.
thre problem here is that Julia Kristeva isn't even intereested
in a history of "revolts".... she is only interested
in personal psychological revolts...
I might ask her naively: what the hell does that mean
I feel being confronted with such an a-political position
my soul gets "malade", sick...
Post a Followup