페이지 정보
본문
Chanter is not concerned to exhibit the invalidity of Irigaray’s or Butler’s readings of the Sophoclean text, but to indicate how these readings are however complicit with one other kind of oppression - and stay blind to issues of slavery and of race. Chanter convincingly shows that the language of slavery - doulos (a household slave) and douleuma (a ‘slave thing’) - is there in Sophocles’ text, despite its notable absence from many trendy translations, adaptations and commentaries. On condition that these themes have been translated out of most contemporary variations and adaptations of the play, Irigaray and Butler can hardly be blamed for this failure of their interpretations.
Chapters three and four embody interpretations of two essential current African plays that take up and rework Sophocles’ Antigone: Fémi Òsófisan’s Tègònni: An African Antigone (1999), blowjob which relocates the mythology of Antigone to colonial Nigeria, and The Island (1974), collectively authored and staged by Athol Fugard, John Kani and Winston Ntshona. If Chanter just isn't the primary to take up these two ‘African Antigones’, what's distinctive about her approach is the way wherein she sets the two plays in dialog with these traditions of Hegelian, continental and feminist philosophy which have so much contemporary purchase.
Mandela talks about how important it was to him to take on the a part of Creon, for whom ‘obligations to the folks take precedence over loyalty to an individual’. A lot of Chanter’s argument in the primary chapters (and prolonged footnotes throughout the text) is anxious with establishing that when Antigone insists on performing the correct burial rites for the physique of Polynices (son of Oedipus and brother to Antigone), in defiance of the orders of Creon (the king, and brother to her useless mom, Jocasta), part of what is at stake is the slave/citizen dichotomy.
She additionally reveals how the origins of Oedipus - uncovered as a child on the hills close to Corinth, and introduced up by a shepherd exterior blowjob the city walls of Thebes, the place the whole action of the play is set - would have been rendered problematic for an Athenian audience, given the circumstances surrounding the primary performance of Sophocles’ play (roughly ten years after endogamy was made a requirement for citizenship, go to hell motherfucker and exogamous marriages outlawed by Pericles’ law). The Tragic Marginalization of Slavery has relevance also for actors and dramatists contemplating how best to stage, interpret, modernize or utterly rework Sophocles’ drama and, certainly, the entire Oedipus cycle of plays.
Chanter argues that Hegel unduly narrows the notion of the political - and, indeed, that of the tragic - by ignoring the thematics of slavery which are current in Sophocles’ play. Arguing that chattel slavery supplies one of many linchpins of the historical Greek polis, and hence also for the ideals of freedom, the household and the state that Hegel himself advocates, Chanter suggests that Hegel’s emphasis on the grasp-slave dialectic within the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) ‘domesticates and tames the ugliness of slavery’, and needs to be understood within the context of the slave revolt in Haiti of 1803-05. A critique of Luce Irigaray, Judith Butler and ebony sex other feminist theorists who learn Antigone in counter-Hegelian methods - but who nevertheless nonetheless neglect the thematics of race and slavery - is also key to the argument of the book as a whole.
On this framework it appears completely pure that freedom, as a objective of political motion, is privileged above equality, even when equality is understood, in Rancièrean phrases, as a presupposition and never as an objective and quantifiable aim to be achieved. Once again, plurality should itself, as a concept, be split between the different, however equal standing positions in an egalitarian political scene (i.e., different positions that depart from a standard presupposition of the equal capability of all) and a pluralism that's merely transitive to the hierarchical order of various pursuits - interests that essentially persist after that occasion which inaugurates an emancipatory political sequence.
Such resistance is rooted in Breaugh’s unconditional defence of pluralism and his mistrust of any form of unity as a horizon for politics. In historic situations the place the goal of political unity comes into conflict with the existence of political plurality, as for example within the French Revolution, the risk to plebeian politics comes, for Breaugh, from the try and type a united subject who then constitutes a menace to the required recognition of the divided character of the social. The lump sum of five thousand dollars was one factor, a miserable little twenty or twenty-5 a month was fairly one other; after which someone else had the cash.
However that problem solely arises when we consider the likelihood of adjusting from a social order resting on rising inequalities and oppression, to a different hopefully more just one. Lefort’s thought looms large right here, since for him the division of the social is an authentic ontological condition, whose acceptance is essentially constitutive of every democratic politics, and never merely a sociological counting of the components. The problem here may be that Breaugh takes the plurality of pursuits at face value, disregarding the way in which such a plurality of political positions could in itself be grounded in the unjust division of the social.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.