The abject is thus not to be confused with the object in the mirror stage which, as Jacques Lacan said, is based in identification and is formative of the ‘I’ (subject). Least of all, then, can the abject be contained in a representation in as far as every representation is based on an object-ification. ![]() Nor is it an ob-jest, an objet petit “a” ceaselessly fleeing in the systematic quest of desire’ (Kristeva, 1982: 1, trans. As Kristeva makes clear in a passage which has not received the attention which it deserves – perhaps not even from Kristeva herself 1 – we note that: ‘The abject is not an ob-ject facing me, which I name or imagine. ![]() ![]() While it may be true that subjectivity is in part constituted by an effort of expulsion of the abject ‘thing’ and that this can have echoes throughout the life of the individual, it is not a matter of an object with a negative sign (abject) opposed to one with a positive sign (object of desire). Since the publication in 1980 of Julia Kristeva’s innovative work (Kristeva, 1980), we know that, psychoanalytically, the subject is put in question by abjection – or, better: that there is no fully formed subject in abjection because there is no object before which subjectivity (including an ego) could emerge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |