The abject then, is the reaction of the “I” to a threat in the breakdown of meaning, which has been caused by a loss of the distinction between the subject and object, the self and other.
The abject then, is the reaction of the “I” to a threat in the breakdown of meaning, which has been caused by a loss of the distinction between the subject and object, the self and other.Tags: Business Plan Templates MicrosoftBu Honors College EssayDissertation Proposal MethodologyEssays On The Intellectual Powers Of ManNetwork Did Not Assign A Network Address To The ComputerHow To Make A Good Research Paper
In developing the abject as I have here, I want to ask much more broadly if the abject is necessary.
Kristeva’s abject is fuzzy to be certain yet we might consider what is there that can take us away from her mythologizing and aestheticizing to the more emancipatory (a question Spivak* poses). Must we be destabilized by it, and if so, what do we do when we are, how do we retread back from this destabilization or how do we proceed from that destabilization?
Kristeva blends this primary identification of the baby in the process of eating and the becoming “I” or becoming subject/object in birth, with the experience of the abject (for the adult, we might say).
The whole experience of watching a child eat from the multitude of perspectives (whether we are the parent, an onlooker, the child) brings the abject into focus.
We could even take it a step further into the past, when the baby becomes a baby.
Abjection preserves the “immemorial violence with which the body becomes separated from another body in order to be” (Kristeva, 10).
The abject is the moment in the film, when you come to realize that the flow of logic unrolling before you, is about to be halted by something other, or, when you come to realize that you were tricked into that logic, but in fact were on a very different trajectory from the beginning.
The abject is that “twisted braid of affects and thoughts” which we call by such a name, but it skirts our need to define it as a definable object right there, in front of us (Kristeva, 1).
Artaud could then write, “[t]he dead little girl says, I am the one who guffaws in horror inside the lungs of the live one. It is not so much that we are horrified of what the corpse signifies (death), but of what the corpse may make of us if we bring it inside, or meet it at its horizon.
The corpse takes us to the border of the “I” as we have come to understand this “I” in the symbolic order.