LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

of literary texts, the contribution of this book to the field lies in giving an overview of what effects the “fallen” identity has on the interactions between social individuals. Perhaps this will bring it to the attention of those who wish to have more to talk about than formalist concerns, as a new (and old) type of literary analysis that can stir the inquisitive mind to think differently about the world. The connections that I make between the three types of fall have not been addressed in quite the same way until now. My purpose is to show why it is important to make these connections, especially as many times the changes that take place in our world are seen as radical, when in actuality they only shift the superficial stakes. What remains the same is that fallenness continues to justify human conflicts and deflect any relevant criticism of the causes for the tensions within different historical ages.

      Improvements have certainly been made in the way people interact and define themselves, but the fallenness that obstructs communication and sets individuals on failed quests still remains in some fashion. I will spell out the reasons why identity is seen as fallen, and why different falls perpetuate the same problem. In the last chapters of the book, I address possible ways to see identity as other than fallen. In other words, I urge criticism to shift from definitions of identity toward coping with the effects of identity. This is one viable way in which we can relate to others within language and not in an abstract space outside of it.

      Moreover, this new approach can be of tremendous use to literary criticism, in that it sheds light on problems that certain authors have identified within the search for identity, problems with terrible and sometimes terminal consequences. Such problems have often not been entirely understood by criticism of particular literary texts. What is at stake in bringing this new tool to literary criticism and to the way we perceive identity is learning from the wisdom of impressive literary works in order to find new ways to see ourselves and others. Every new effort counts toward forging identities that do not lead us in such extreme ways to violence, racism, war, destructive competitiveness, and games of power in which only a few have a chance of playing the role they aspire to play.

      FREQUENTLY USED TERMS

      Authenticity = The state of individuality before an assumed corruption. Corruption comes from an interaction with the social forces that alienate human beings from themselves. Existentialism in particular perceives alienation as a move away from identity, whereas authenticity is considered to be in strict correlation with identity. Following Lacan, I argue that authenticity is misunderstood as something that can be retrieved. Identity is defined through language, so that authenticity (as identity) cannot be retrieved because nobody can go back to the before-language.

      Fall = I employ this concept using as a starting point the Judeo-Christian concept of the fall: the initial transgression of mankind that made all human beings sinners (i.e. not innocent). Through faith, individuals can be redeemed. The fall, however, has to be understood far beyond this religious framework. If one defines the fall as a loss of wholeness (based on Lacan’s theory), one can extend the concept to include any other loss that participates in the formation of identity and determines individuals to strive to achieve a lost wholeness.

      Identity = Following Lacan’s concept of the “I” that recognizes itself as an entity, I explain identity as the sum total of the steps taken toward reaching a desired image of the self. These steps begin in childhood and continue throughout one’s life, without reaching the perfect image that would redeem one from the fall. Identity is conditioned by language, in the sense that it is within language that the perfect image is created and that the desire for identity operates.

      Innocence = The state of human beings before the fall, as understood in Judeo-Christianity. On a more general level, innocence can be any state that is seen as prior to a transgression, a loss, or a fall. It is a state that is supposed to have been lost especially in the mythical fall and it is supposed to be the ideal identity to be retrieved by eliminating all transgressions from the social world. Such an understanding of innocence also underlies most utopian or essentialist conceptions of society.

      Language = I am using Lacan’s and Derrida’s understanding of this concept. Language is not merely the totality of all words (or signifiers) that we use to communicate. It is also the network of relations resulting from individuals’ identification with signifiers that are believed to possess meaning. From birth, language conditions us to identify with the cultural signs surrounding us (based on how the family and all other institutions define these signs).

      Meaning = In linguistic terms, it is the signified behind the signifier, something that is generally believed to be fully contained in language, fully defined, and having absolute presence. Deconstruction attacks the concept of meaning because it sees it as essentialist, founded on a belief that there is an ultimate truth behind the shifting signifiers of language.

      The Other = As Lacan explains, the Other is an entity perceived as a primordial rival at the onset of desire and of identity formation. The Other is basically an illusion of alterity perceived as desired wholeness and as what the self has been alienated from in the fall from the real. This Other is projected either on real people or on signifiers in language, toward which the individual turns in order to find the lost wholeness. The Other is also the primordial rival and the source of self-aggression, which turns into violence toward those identified with Otherness.

      The Real = In Lacan’s terminology, the real is the imagined place of wholeness. In my interpretation, it is also the space from which the individual “falls” in the formative alienation by which the individual enters language. The real is “recognized” only in retrospect, through language, so that it cannot be retrieved as something outside of language because it is conditioned by language.

      The Social Space/Social System = The language-conditioned framework for the development of individuals and for the interactions between them. The social space is the effect and the cause of interactions between flawed identities, but assumes to possess the key to becoming exempt from these flaws. The social space is also the place where language operates by creating signifiers of individuality and by conditioning the interactions between individuals who take hold of signifiers in order to achieve a role in the social fabric.

      The Subject (the social subject) = Lacan explains that the social world (thus language) contains individuals in such a way that they cannot identify themselves (recognize themselves as potentially possessing an identity) outside of language and the social space. Even the most authentic individuals still define their authenticity within a framework that offers them the signifiers for their identities.

      Territory = I use this term to designate both a physical territory to which identities are attached, and territories that have become abstract but are still territories because identities are attached to them. What this means is that violence and conflict arise in the name of an identity (national, racial, ideological, material, and so on). People defend a territory because they identify with it: they believe that it will help them retrieve the space of wholeness from which they have fallen.

      CHAPTER ONE

      The Fall from Territory

      Human interactions—whether interactions between individuals, or cultural and social groups—have a strong tendency to suffer from an essential problem: identity, or the “I,” matters more than how we live together and how we share the world’s resources. Human beings appear unable to do away with the conflictual nature of relationality, no matter what the grounds of their interaction. Even now, in an age of democratic liberalism assumed as the peak of civilization, the early 21st century has already been witnessing several waves of intolerance and bloodshed that are largely attributable to cultural, religious, political, and economical tensions.

      The emphasis on difference and acceptance in the global context has been the mainstream discourse of the West for a long time—until recently, that is. Phrases such as “affirmative action,” “global community,” and “minority support” were quite commonplace at the end of the 20th Century. Though they never went away in the early 21st Century, the September 11 events ushered us into the new millennium and, with them, a reluctance to embrace difference developed, as I will explain bellow; the first black presidency also triggered a counter-reaction of rejecting diversity, which gave

Скачать книгу