The 2500-year-old teachings of the Buddha Dharma penetrated Europe during the nineteenth century. These teachings came to the Lands of the Czech Crown in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, and subsequently Czechoslovakia, mainly due to the Theosophical Society as Neobuddhism, which had an esoteric character. In 1891, Gustav Meyrink, a world-famous writer of Austrian origin, became the first practitioner. In addition, original Buddhism in the Czech Republic became an object of academic study. Other influences were attributed to personalities such as Helena Petrovna (...) Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott, Karl Eugen Neumann, Hermann Oldenberg, Anton Gueth-Nyanatiloka, Lama Anagarik Govinda, as well as organizations such as the Maha Bodhi Society. The first translation of Buddhist text into Czech dates back to 1392. In addition to academic studies primarily based on Theravada, practical Buddhism had foundations in Hermeticism, Yoga, and esoteric Vajrayana. Vajrayana has long been considered a part of the so-called Neobuddhism, but there are indications that some of the first Czechoslovak Buddhists officially converted to it. The first Czech and Slovak Buddhists came from both the study and the practice of these religious foundations. (shrink)

Buddhism, now a 2,500-year-old religion, very quickly became associated with the study of texts, of which it contained a considerable number. During the development of Buddhism on the territory of Czechoslovakia, since the days of Austria-Hungary, there have been attempts to find, translate, or write a fundamental book of Buddhism, which would help one to orient oneself in the vast and varied material of Buddhist texts. However, none of the books achieved this significance. In 1914–1915, 1917, and 1925, Dharma – (...) Buddhist Catechism by Henry S. Olcott was published in three different editions with an introduction by O. Pertold. The book was very popular then but did not reach world fame. The situation changed after 1935 when Nyanatiloka’s The Word of the Buddha was published in Dvůr Králové nad Labem. After the Velvet Revolution, it was published several times by Mirko Frýba (Áyakusala Thera) in his translations (1993 with commentary by Květoslav Minařík, 1998, 2006, 2010, and 2013, it is republished with a commentary by Květoslav Minařík with a modified translation from 1935). The book was used by František Drtikol (known as the Patriarch of Czech or Czechoslovak Buddhism) and his disciples and future Buddhists (like Frýba) from 1936 to the present. Thanks to frequent copying and distribution during and after the period of communist unfreedom, as well as its connection to the Czechoslovak Buddhist tradition, this book became, at least for the linguistic region of Bohemia (Czech Republic) and Slovakia, the “fundamental book of Buddhism.” One of the primary sources for this article was the oral tradition handed down by Czech masters. (shrink)

The responses to this discovery, in the press and elsewhere, seem to focus on the act of passing judgment, a judgment that reopens with some urgency the question of the ethical implications of de Man’s work and, by extension, of the whole school of critical approach known as “deconstruction.”The discourse of moral judgment takes as its target three distinct domains of apparent ethical misconduct:1. the collaborationist political activities themselves;2. de Man’s apparent erasure of their memory—his radical “forgetting” of his early (...) past;3. the silence that de Man chose to keep about his past: the absence of public confession and public declaration of remorse.The question of ethics thus seems to be linked to the separate questions of the nature of political activities, of the nature of memory, and of the nature of silence. It is judged unethical, of course, to engage in acts that lent support to Germany’s wartime position; but it is also judged unethical to forget; and unethical, furthermore, to keep silent in relation to the war and to the Holocaust. The silence is interpreted as a deliberate concealment, a suppression of accountability that can only mean a denial of responsibility on de Man’s part. Shoshana Felman, the Thomas E. Donnelley Professor of French and Comparative Literature at Yale University, is the author of The Literary Speech Act: Don Juan with Austin, or Seduction in Two Languages , Writing and Madness: Literature/Philosophy/Psychoanalysis , and Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture: Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight . She is also the editor of Literature and Psychoanalysis: The Question of Reading—Otherwise . She is currently working on a book entitled Testimony in History, Literature and Psychoanalysis. (shrink)

This paper explores the Eichmann trial in its dimension as a living, powerful event, whose impact is defined and measured by the fact that it is "not the same for all." I examine this legal event from two perspectives: Hannah Arendt's and my own. I pledge my reading against Arendt's, in espousing the State's vision of the trial, but in interpreting the legal meaning of this vision us one that exceeds its own deliberateness and distinct from the State's ideology. I (...) use Nietzsche's terms to contrast "critical history" with "monumental history." Whereas the official State vision of the trial is, I propose, precisely one of "monumental history, " Arendt's vision offers a substitutive "critical history." I analyze, one against the other, what I call the monumental legal vision of the Eichmann trial and the critical vision offered by Arendt. Exploring thus the monumental versus the critical as two opposed but non-exclusive and, in fact, profoundly complementary perspectives, I examine, side by side, the Eichmann trials' monumental focus on the victims and Arendt's critical objections to this focus: her objections, I show, are based in a jurisprudential conservatism coexisting with a historiographical radicalism. The Eichmann trial, in my view, is on the contrary and diametrically, historiographically conservative, but jurisprudentially revolutionary. I argue that Arendt failed to see the way in which the trial in effect did not simply repeat the victim's story, but historically created it for the first time. I submit, in other words, that the Eichmann trial legally created a radically original and new event: not a rehearsal of a given story, but a groundbreaking narrative event that is itself historically and legally unprecedented. Examining the trial's transformation of victims into prosecution witnesses, I analyze the victim-oriented focus of the trial as s legal process of translation of private traumas into public ones and as a public scene of the recovery of language and legal subjecthood by victims who were formerly defined by the oppressor's language and who were, therefore, not just injured, but essentially robbed of a language in which to articulate their injury and name their victimization. I argue that the Eichmann trial expanded the space available for moral deliberation in creating a new legal language: the trial was the victim's trial only insofar as it was now the victims who, against all odds, were precisely writing their own history. To enable such a writing, the Eichmann trial had to enact not simply memory, but memory as change. It had to dramatize upon its legal stage before the audience nothing less than a conceptual revolution in the victim. And this, in fact, is what the trial did This historically unprecedented revolution in the victim that was operated in and by the Eichmann trial is, I suggest, the trial's major contribution not only to Jews, but to history, to law, to culture - to humanity at large. I further argue that as a singular legal event, the Eichmann trial calls for a rethinking - and sets in motion a transvaluation - of the structures and the values of conventional criminal law. I submit that the quintessence of the Eichmann trial is the acquisition of semantic authority by victims. It was the newly acquired semantic and historical authority of this revolutionary story that, for the first time, created what we know today as the Holocaust: a theme of international discussion and world conversation designating the experience of the victims and referring to the crime against the Jewish people independently from the political and military story of the Second World War. (shrink)

The pandemic motivated nutrition and healthy living to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The objective is to analyze and describe the perspectives of post-pandemic lifestyles of university students, using the quantitative cross-sectional method with non-probabilistic sampling and survey that measures the nutritional level and level of physical activities, 1033 university students participated. The results showed that the measurement instrument in the Peruvian context is acceptable and that the level of lifestyle is moderate. In conclusion, nutritional policies and physical activities should be (...) considered in universities so that university students practice a healthy lifestyle and take care of their health. (shrink)

This response contributes to Feldman and Turner's interesting discussion in two ways: firstly, it provides some clarity on the definition of the term ‘NIMBY’; and, secondly, it incorporates some of...

Ang kolektibong sanaysay na ito ay nagtatasa sa kalagayan at estado ng edukasyong pansining biswal sa mga piling pamantasan sa Pilipinas. Sakop ng papel ang mga sumusunod na paaralan: Politeknikong Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, De La Salle-Lipa, Mindanao State UniversityIligan Institute of Technology, at Notre Dame of Marbel University. Dalawang tanong ang tinangkang sagutin ng papel: Una, ano ang estado ng edukasyong pansining biswal sa mga piling pamantasan sa Pilipinas? Pangalawa, ano-ano ang mga posibleng solusyon sa mga suliranin na nakahahadlang (...) sa patuloy na pag-unlad ng edukasyong pansining biswal? Isinagawa ang panunuring dokumentaryo at pakikipanayam sa mga tagapangasiwa ng sining kultural at pangakademiko. Upang masagot at matalakay nang lubos ang katanungan, ang mga may-akda ay nagkaroon ng tuon sa dalawang parametro: panloob (pamamahalang pang-akademiko tulad ng pagtatalaga ng guro, paghahanda sa mga kagamitan at kasanayan,at kawalan ng tuon sa edukasyong pansining) at panlabas (suporta mula sa mga institusyong nasa labas ng pamantasan). Sa dulo ng papel, natuklasan ang mga karaniwang suliranin na kinahaharap ng mga pamantasang sakop ng papel-pananaliksik na ito; may mga payak na rekomendasyon ding pinanukala ang papel. (shrink)

In 1956 Jacques Lacan proposed as interpretation of Edgar Allan Poe's "Purloined Letter" that at once challenged literary theorists and revealed a radically new conception of psychoanalysis. Lacan's far-reaching claims about language and truth provoked a vigorous critique by Jacques Derrida, whose essay in turn has spawned further responses from Barbara Johnson, Jane Gallop, Irene Harvey, Norman Holland, and others. The Purloined Poe brings Poe's story together with these readings to provide, in the words of the editors, "a structured exercuse (...) in the elaboration of textual interpretation. The Purloined Poe reprints the full text of Poe's story, followed by Lacan's "Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter,'" along with extensive commentary by the editors. Marie Bonaparte's and Shoshana Felman's discussions of traditional and contemporary approaches to "psychoanalysing" texts precede Alan Bass's new translation of Derrida's "Purveyor of Truth." The subsequent essays join the Lacan-Derrida debate and offer alternative readings by literary theorists, philosophers, psychologists, and psychoanalysts. The Purloined Poe convenes much of the most important current scholarship on "The Purloined Letter" and presents a rich sampling of poststructuralist discourse. (shrink)

The present paper is an attempt at examining the value configuration and the socio-demographical profiles of the local political elites in four countries of East-Central Europe: Romania, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Poland. The treatment is a comparative one, predominantly descriptive and exploratory, and employs, as a research method, the case-study, being a quite circumscribed endeavor. The cases focus on the members of the Municipal/Local Council in four towns similar in terms of demography and developmental strategies (i.e. small-to-medium sized communities (...) of around 35,000 inhabitants, with economies largely based on food industry and commercial activities): Tecuci (Galați county, Romania), Česká Lípa (Liberec region, Czech Republic), Targovishte (Targovishte province, Bulgaria), and Oleśnica (Lower Silesia province, Poland). Hypothesizing that the local elites of the former Sovietized Erurope tend to differ in outlook, priorities, and value attainment, as compared to their Western counterparts, the paper considers the former’s attitudes and perspectives in regard to seven values: a series of values customarily connected with the concept of ‘democracy’ (i.e. citizen participation, political conflict, gradual change, economic equality), state intervention in economy, decentralization and increased local autonomy, cultural-geographical self-identification. The study uses, as well, five models of value attainment in what concerns the ‘ideal portrait’ of the local councilor (Putnam 1976): ethical, pragmatic, technocratic, political, and gender. According to the results of a study applying a standard written questionnaire among the local councilors of the three communities in the period December 2010-February 2013, the paper distinguishes among three corresponding types of local elites: (1) ‘predominantly elitistic,’ (2) ‘democratic elitist,’ and (3) ‘predominantly democratic,’ following two types of explanation accounting for the differences among the four cases: the legacy of the defunct regime and the degree of administrative decentralization. (shrink)

During the 20th century, witnessing outgrew its original affiliations with legal evidence and religious belief and became a social vocation in its own right. This essay explores the ethical expertise with which witnessing has been infused as the witness became the deferred result of a process of subjective transformation by probing some of the meta-testimonial discourses that emerged in response to the Great War, the Holocaust, and Third World emergencies. Against the ethical redefinition of witnessing advanced by Jean-François Lyotard, Shoshana (...) Felman, and Giorgio Agamben, it analyses ethical witnessing as a practice of self that binds individual autonomy to institutional platforms, technological innovations, and reflective procedures that tackle the pitfalls of witnessing, maximize its potential, and trace its most adequate and resonant forms. (shrink)

It has become nearly a truism for contemporary theorists of democracy to understand the democratic space as agonistic and contested. The shadow that haunts thinkers of democracy today, and out of which this assumption emerges, is the specter of totalitarianism with its claims to a totalizing knowledge in the form of ideology and a totalizing power of a sovereign will that claims to be the embodiment of the law. Caught up in these totalizing claims, the citizenry becomes elated. The only (...) remedy to totalitarianism is a democratic space wherein no one can claim to know the truth, no one can claim to occupy the space of power, and no one can claim to embody the law. The problem with this remedy is that it fails entirely to take account of what Arendt understands to be the fundamental condition of totalitarianism, namely, the institution of a "lying world order" whereby reality is replaced with a lie. For Arendt therefore the remedy for totalitarianism and its elated citizenry depends first and foremost upon the existence of factual truth. Following Arendt as well as Shoshana Felman's work on testimony, I argue that bearing witness to factual reality is the ground of the democratic public space and the remedy to an elated citizenry caught up in a lying world order. (shrink)

In this essay I explore problems of pedagogy related to Hans Krása’s Brundibár by drawing heavily upon the thinking of two divergent theoretical perspectives regarding Holocaust testimony as advanced by Giorgio Agamben (2002) and Shoshana Felman (1992). I theorize that lodged within a space of difficult knowledge coalesced through violence, trauma, complicity, memory, and music lies a rupture at the heart of the Brundibár experience. This space is created yet not altogether embraced by contemporary musical experiences of Brundibár in (...) the most extensive and all-encompassing comprehension of its musicking: experiencing the operetta allows its participants to hear those whom it is impossible to hear. I claim that the musical experience as inhered within and enabled by the operetta serves a testimonial and therefore pedagogical function. This function, figuratively hearing and being present to Brundibár’s present absences, implies an empathic walking-beside-in-solidarity and is a position that I suggest allows participants to engage with the operetta more fully. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Literature 26.2 (2002) 415-431 [Access article in PDF] The Humanities at Home with Themselves Mark Bauerlein The Crafty Reader, by Robert Scholes; 272 pp. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002, $24.95. WHEN I STARTED GRADUATE SCHOOL in English in the early Eight ies, a typical thing happened. Those few students with a background in philosophy drifted together, shared influences, and developed a hierarchy of critical works. A (...) few pushed analytic philosophy and pragmatism, but overall Continental theory took first place, especially Derrida. "Structure, Sign, and Play" and "White Mythology," de Man's "Rhetoric of Temporality," Shoshana Felman's "Turning the Screw of Interpretation," and other weighty essays had the status of cutting-edge wisdom, and the hostility deconstruction drew from traditionalists and Marxists in the department only sharpened our commitment. Having no other professional standing, we savored the stigma, the roguishness. It complemented our poverty, and eased our transition from hot-shot undergraduates to first-year, prequalifying Ph.D aspirants. In the evenings, after instructing freshmen in comma splices, we gathered to trade Nietszchean epigrams and mock professors who looked befuddled at the mention of a priori and aporia.Other students found us insufferable, and doubtless we were, but not in a partisan way. We panned each other just as hard as we did the uninformed. This was UCLA, not Yale or Johns Hopkins, and personalities mattered less than arguments. If in discussion I backed a point with [End Page 415] "As Derrida says...," someone always answered, "So what?" We frowned on arguments from authority. Popularizations such as Jonathan Culler's On Deconstruction earned our scorn. They were one step up from Cliff's Notes, packed with servile observations like "Jean Baudrillard wants to take us further, into a world where everything is so textualized that there is no space left for the real." We preferred to understand deconstruction through laborious readings of Being and Time and Beyond Good and Evil, not in watery effusions about textuality or the mechanical pairing of binary oppositions. The latter we placed among the scribes, those well-intentioned professionals canny enough to recognize the broad import of deconstruction, but not acute enough to discern the real meaning of différance or the radical disclosure of the ontic-ontological difference. The genius of philosophy, we thought, lay in plumbing the fundamental habits of cognition, like Hegel breaking down sense certainty and Heidegger questioning the determination of Being as substance. Exegesis of other texts was a lesser activity, though we acknowledged exceptions such as Starobinski's book on Rousseau and Kojève's lectures on The Phenomenology of Spirit.Lower in our rankings were the quasi-Leftist attacks just emerging, such as Frank Lentricchia's Criticism and Social Change, which cast theorists as mandarin functionaries treating interpretation as an apolitical game. They filled the page with spiteful terms like "the mask of pure reason" and righteous declarations like "it is wrong to claim that you are above politics," spurning argument for the rhetoric of the reformer. We diagnosed them as puny reactions to the Reagan Revolution, carried out on the irrelevant ground of literary theory. Philosophically, Lentricchia was a hack, and we rejected the imputation that theory nullified activism and justified the status quo. Not that we thought theory bred activism. We just considered them separate activities, and saw no determinate connection between hermeneutical stance and party affiliation. However, we accepted the elitist charge. How could ambitious academics avoid elitism? It wasn't hard for graduate students struggling on $900 a month to see that populist attitudes didn't suit the tenured Ivy Leaguer. Professors were paid by exclusive institutions to teach poetry, to write letters for the best and brightest, to run recondite journals and jet to prestigious symposia. We wanted to join them, but not with phony expressions of social injustice that targeted theory as the problem.Allied with the political attacks on theory, and esteemed even lower, were critiques of the humanities as a bastion of high culture. Polemics [End Page 416] such as Andrew Ross's No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture treated... (shrink)

La performatividad es un concepto relativamente reciente. J. L. Austin lo introdujo en la filosofía del lenguaje en la década de los cincuenta para designar aquellas expresiones que, en las circunstancias apropiadas, hacen justo aquello que dicen que hacen (como cuando alguien exclama «te lo prometo»). Desde entonces ha sido sometido a intensos procesos de discusión, crítica y resignificación que lo han conducido a terrenos de reflexión teórica, filosófica y política progresivamente alejados de su contexto originario. Este libro explora, entre (...) todos los trayectos posibles en el interior de estos debates, el modo en que la preocupación de Austin por comprender cómo hacemos cosas con palabras llegó a derivar en lo que Judith Butler, como feminista, como filósofa y como teórica queer, hace con la performatividad. Con este fin se atiende, en primer lugar, a un contexto genealógico en el que confluyen trabajos y discusiones explícitas sobre la performatividad lingüística (como los de Jacques Derrida, Jonathan Culler o Shoshana Felman) junto a la obra de otros autores que, si bien no la tratan explícitamente, ha-cen posible su particular recepción por parte de Butler, como Michel Foucault. En segundo lugar, se trata de entender la reformulación de la performatividad en el ámbito de las identidades sexuales y genéricas, con la que Butler desplaza género y sexo del conjunto de las cosas que somos al orden de las cosas que hacemos. Las relaciones entre cuerpo y lenguaje, materia y textualidad, sexo y género sufren así una transformación con efectos de largo alcance sobre la filosofía, los estudios de género y las políticas identitarias. El intercambio de críticas entre Butler y autores como Seyla Benhabib, Nancy Fraser o Pierre Bourdieu contribuye a entender parte de esos efectos, y también a profundizar en algunas de las prioridades políticas de nuestra autora: la resistencia a los efectos excluyentes de la normatividad genérica y, en particular, del sistema «dos sexos, dos géneros», en dirección a una versión más abierta, inclusiva y proliferante de la identidad. (shrink)

‘Small Experimental Action’ is a title derived from Freud's account of thinking. The piece draws attention to the psychoanalytic conception of thinking as an experimental action, and seeks to draw attention to writing as an experimental action, and because it is concerned with reading literary and psychoanalytic texts it draws attention to reading as an experimental action too. It explores agency and risk in ways directly inspired by Shoshana Felman's account of reading, and by the voyage of the coracle (...) in Stevenson's Treasure Island. (shrink)

Other of my intellectual debts remain fully outstanding, that to Freud ’s work before all. A beholdenness to Sigmund Freud ’s intervention in Western culture is hardly something for concealment, but I have until now left my commitment to it fairly implicit. This has been not merely out of intellectual terror at Freud ’s achievement but in service of an idea and in compensation for a dissatisfaction I might formulate as follows: psychoanalytic interpretations of the arts in American culture have, (...) until quite recently, on the whole been content to permit the texts under analysis not to challenge the concepts of analysis being applied to them, and this seemed to me to do injustice both to psychoanalysis and to literature. My response was to make a virtue of this defect by trying, in my readings of film as well as of literature and of philosophy, to recapitulate what I understood by Freud ’s saying that he had been preceded in his insights by the creative writes of his tradition; that is, I tried to arrive at a sense for each text I encountered that psychoanalysis had become called for, as if called for in the history of knowledge, as if each psychoanalytic reading were charged with rediscovering the reality of psychoanalysis. This still does not seem to me an irrelevant ambition, but it is also no longer a sufficient response in our altered environment. Some of the most interesting and useful criticism and literary theory currently being produced is decisively psychoanalytic in inspiration, an alteration initiated for us most prominently by the past two or so decades of work in Paris and represented in this country by—to pick examples from which I have profited in recent months—Neil Hertz on the Dora case, Shoshana Felman on Henry James’ “The Turn of the Screw,” and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick on homophobia in Our Mutual Friend.1 And now my problem has become that I am unsure whether I understand the constitution of the discourses in which this material is presented in relation to what I take philosophy to be, a constitution to which, such as it is, I am also committed. So some siting of this relation is no longer mine to postpone. 1. See Neil Hertz, “Dora’s Secrets, Freud ’s Techniques,” in In Dora’s Case: Freud — Hysteria —Feminism, ed. Charles Bernheimer and Claire Kahane, pp. 221-42; Shoshana Felman, “Turning the Screw of Interpretation,” Yale French Studies 55/56 : 94-207; and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Homophobia, Misogyny, and Capital: The Example of Our Mutual Friend,” Raritan 2 : 126-51. Stanley Cavell, professor of philosophy at Harvard University, is the author of many works, including Must We Mean What We Say?, The Senses of “Walden,” The Claim of Reason, and, most recently, Themes Out of School. He spent last spring at Hebrew University in Jerusalem as a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies. His most recent contributions to Critical Inquiry are “Politics as Opposed to What?” and “The Division of Talent”. (shrink)

Since its establishment in 1979, the Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies at Yale University has given rise to numerous studies on history, memory and trauma in the wake of the Holocaust. While acknowledging its audiovisual nature, previous accounts have nevertheless failed to consider the significance of this novel archival formation and how it shapes the production and reception of survivors’ testimonies. This article occasions an unlikely encounter between the trauma and testimony discourse as developed by Dori Laub, Shoshana Felman, (...) Lawrence Langer in the context of the Yale archive, and the theory of “technical media” as developed by German media theorist, Friedrich Kittler. It argues that the trauma and testimony discourse has a technological unconscious in the form of videotape technology, which crucially conditions the way trauma is conceived in this discourse. It is only with an audiovisual medium capable of capturing and reproducing evidence of the fleeting unconscious that a discourse concerned with the unarticulated past becomes intelligible. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Sine Fine: Vergil’s MasterplotRobin N. Mitchell-BoyaskKent: Is this the promised end? Edgar: Or image of that horror?—King Lear, Act 5 scene 3... the raging and incredulous recounting (which enables man to bear with living)...—Faulkner, Absalom, Absalom! 161Psychoanalysis has not been brought to the bear on the study of Roman culture as thoroughly as it has engaged Hellenic studies, and to date most work has consisted of the psychoanalytic literary (...) study of symbolism or character, as witnessed recently by the Vergilian studies of Gillis (Eros), Putnam (“Possessiveness”), and Mitchell (“Violence”). 1 These studies have often yielded important insights into the Aeneid, and while they provide a foundation for the present examination, I believe that we can now further develop this line of thought by engaging such approaches as the psychoanalytic dynamics of reading, or the function of language in the unconscious, areas outlined in the important collection edited by Felman (Literature and Psychoanalysis) which presents Peter Brooks’ preliminary version of a Freudian practice of reading narrative. 2 In this paper I shall investigate Vergil’s narrative project in the light of [End Page 289] the model proposed more completely by Brooks in Reading for the Plot, whose focus on issues central to reading the Aeneid, such as the desire for the end and the function of repetition, could further our understanding of how the Aeneid works and why, in particular, its ending is so disturbing. 3 I intend this study as a contribution to the larger discussion of closure in classical texts that Don Fowler initiated recently in a more general survey of the prospects for such endeavors. 4 The Aeneid, I submit, problematizes the idea of an end through its deployment of the word finis, and then frustrates the reader’s desire for diegetic closure by merely stopping, not ending, the narrative, despite clear signals of its completion. 5 This inquiry thus engages the techniques of traditional literary formalism in the service of a text-centered psychoanalytic theory of narrative in the belief that the older forms of literary formalism and psychoanalysis are occasionally deficient in their rigidity, their reductiveness, their lack of concern with the relationship between text and reader, and simply because the older forms of psychoanalytic literary theory have been at times, in Brooks’ words (Psychoanalysis and Storytelling 20), “something of an embarrassment.”Far from the idea that a plot is a static self-sufficient entity, Brooks sees narrative emplotment as “a form of desire that carries us forward, onward through the text” (Reading for the Plot 37) in pursuit of meaning, a pursuit that gives pleasure. Stemming from the Freudian Eros of Beyond the Pleasure Principle, this desire seeks, as Brooks quotes Freud (37), “to combine organic substances into ever greater unities.” Our need for coherence, for knowledge, drives us continually toward discovering the “Masterplot” of the origins, unfoldings and ends of the plots of our lives and our stories. A plot’s beginning arouses certain desires and expectations that carry the reader to the end. “The sense of a beginning” [End Page 290] is “determined by the sense of an ending,” and present moments have “narrative meaning only because we read them in anticipation of the structuring power of those endings that will retrospectively give them the order and significance of plot” (94). Repetition, one of the most powerful narrative tools for the pleasurable ordering of the plot, can also be a disruptive, painful force; Brooks recalls Freud’s account of the child’s game of throwing and returning a toy, an activity designed to master the unpleasant, regular disappearance of the mother. Similarly, neurotic patients, in narrating dreams, repeat distressing trauma, attempting to move from passivity to mastery. The pleasure principle thus conflicts with, and often yields to, the repetition compulsion. Narrative repetition both advances the plot and returns it to its origins, or it is a return of some repressed material. Repetition functions as a “binding of textual energies that allows them to be mastered by putting them into serviceable form” (94). Plot, like organic life, striving to “restore an earlier state of things” (Brooks quoting Freud, 102), thus aims at quiescence—the plot’s end... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:IntroductionEthics and Interdisciplinarity in Philosophy and Literary TheoryMark Sanders (bio)Two questions—the first calls for information, the second for justification. What points of contact, if any, are there between the current investment in ethics in literary theory, and the elaboration of ethics in contemporary philosophy? In other words, does an interdisciplinarity exist? Second, what reasons might literary theorists have, or have they had, to be aware and take stock of (...) developments in philosophical ethics? That is to say, what might be gained from interdisciplinary work? A third question emanates from the first two: where a cross-disciplinary engagement with philosophy has taken place, has there occurred any transformation of literary theory? I hope to show in what follows that, when we consider ethics in literary theory, no less than in philosophy, it is necessary to attend both to method within each discipline and to the nature of relations between them.The first of my questions begs the question of what contemporary philosophy is. Literary theorists entering into ethics have tended to draw on the work of Emmanuel Lévinas, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Luce Irigaray, and more recently that of Giorgio Agamben and Alain Badiou. If the last has, in a spirit of polemic, professed to displace the "other" in the name of the "Same,"1 the dominant paradigm, when it [End Page 3] comes to ethics, remains one of alterity and difference. There are fundamental reasons why this should be the case: operating in figural language, literature, or the literary, differs from itself in response to an other. To borrow, translate, and adapt an Afrikaans term from the South African poet Breyten Breytenbach,2 literature engages in a process of andersmaak, of other-making or making-other: in making-other and, in so doing, inventing others, it makes itself other. Literature is an other-maker. It is to this activity that literary theory must attend. That is why it is natural for it to turn to ethics—not only the nexus Lévinas-Derrida and the other thinkers mentioned above, but also, for instance, to psychoanalysis: what may have begun as the teasing out of hidden meanings (the received idea is that this is what psychoanalysis and literary criticism share) has, following Lacan's "return to Freud," evolved into a consideration of the ethics of psychoanalysis in the context of reading and listening [see, for example, Felman and Laub].Literature may be an other-maker, and reading may be exemplary in the topoi of current theory for responsibility before the other,3 but it is not clear that literary theorists have been equal to setting this responsibility to work fully when it comes to responding to philosophy. There has been relatively little attention among literary theorists to developments in disciplinary philosophy—where, in recent decades, in North America and the Anglophone world generally, the tendency in ethics has been to bring moral reflection to bear on questions in political theory. The pólis in question is, however, no longer only the nation-state; the politics that engages political thought is transnational and global. Whether or not a given thinker subscribes to the idea of world citizenship, the horizon for thought is cosmopolitan.PhilosophyAlthough thinkers have continued to enter into basic questions in ethics,4 the writings of Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka, Iris Young, Seyla Benhabib, and others attest to a shift from ethics to politics powerfully influenced by John Rawls (1921-2002)—notably in A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993)—and the ensuing criticisms of these works. As the weight of the North American debate has moved from liberal multiculturalism and minority rights [see Taylor et al.; Ackerman; Kymlicka; Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference] toward transnationality and globalization, Rawls's more recent critics have come to view his assumption of the nation-state as the basic context of analysis—even in The Law of Peoples (1999), which is devoted to international relations—as a limitation to his thinking of justice.5 These changes in emphasis are a clear sign of how the effects of globalization have begun to draw a response from political theorists.Links between ethics and political... (shrink)

Reflecting on the debts collected by Shoshana Felman's work, within the theoretical contexts of the time in which the 1977 Yale French Studies issue of ‘Psychoanalysis and Literature’ first appeared, this article takes as its point of departure Lacan's analysis of Hamlet's father as the barred Other, focusing on Hamlet's ‘complaint’. The nature of the complaint is then explored in relation to various writers and thinkers — Rilke, Benjamin, Nietzsche, Heidegger, among others — and more specifically via a reading (...) of François Roustang's La Fin de la plainte, and his own interpretations of Freudian narcissism. Scanning the wreckage for which the little narcissists are responsible, the article aims to give more insight into the structuring principles of those who whine incessantly. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Post-Traumatic Hermeneutics: Melancholia in the Wake of TraumaAngelika Rauch (bio)1Classical Analysis: Problems for Trauma TherapyAccording to the Journal of the American Psychoanalytical Association, American ego psychology has taken a leading role in debunking what it considers antiquated Freudian approaches to the study of trauma. As neutral observers and students of the facts, ego psychologists have purportedly reclaimed the study of trauma as the search for an objectifiable traumatic event (...) in the past, one that can be accessed as recovered memory, as a specimen of pathogenic development, or as cognitive and behavioral effects that point to an inaccessible implied memory buried in the psyche. Central to this revision of psychoanalytical trauma therapy is the dismissal of Nachträglichkeit as an antiquated and irrelevant concept. Harold P. Blum, for instance, writes in a recent article of JAPA that “‘deferred action’ is an ambiguous concept, a dubious, antiquated, theoretical legacy.” According to Blum, “deferred action overlooks the immediate and potentially powerful effects of preoedipal trauma and is dissociated from considerations of cumulative trauma and developmental disturbance.” [1155]. With respect to Freud’s case of the Wolf-Man, Blum states that “[d]eferred action emphasized traumatic events and memory rather than cumulative developmental effects of shock and strain trauma, and pathogenic object relationships.” Key to Blum’s view, then, is the assertion that “the concept of deferred action deterred consideration of real infantile experience and the complex overdetermination of pathogenesis through development” [1156]. Blum apparently takes the side of those who like to argue that trauma is more real than imagined. Whereas oedipal trauma is an imaginary or illusory trauma, preoedipal trauma is comprehensible as real shock and, as such, is empirically true. This is an idea that is very compatible with “recovered memory” therapy, a subject that has become controversial in recent debates about child abuse and recovered memory syndrome.In contrast, Arnold H. Modell in Other Times, Other Realities points out that “[t]he concept of Nachträglichkeit is virtually unknown among American psychoanalysts. This may be due in part to Strachey’s faulty translation; but this idea is also inconsistent with the belief in an orderly hierarchical psychic development such as that envisioned by ego psychologists.” [3]. In other words, Freudian Nachträglichkeit violates the principles of space and time assumed by empirical scientists whose conceptions are founded on the causality of such principles as stimulus/response. It is here, of course, that ego psychology’s treatment of trauma would come into conflict not only with Freudian analysis, including its French Freudian variants, but with the kind of trauma studies being conducted by the contributors to Cathy Caruth’s Trauma: Explorations in Memory. They include Bessel [End Page 111] van der Kolk, Onno van der Hart, Shoshana Felman, Dori Laub, Robert Lifton, and, of course, Cathy Caruth herself.Emphasis on the reality of traumatic shock (as abuse, stress, accident, and so on), however important it may be, loses sight of a hermeneutical dimension of psychoanalytic therapy that Caruth and her contributors emphasize: the question of how meanings are associated or bound to the understanding of life’s events. My own clinical approach to psychoanalysis favors the introduction of an even stronger hermeneutical perspective that is sensitive to the kinds of issues raised by philosophers like Dilthey, Heidegger, Benjamin, and Gadamer, for whom the question of experience is not reducible to restricted understandings of stimulus/response, nor—as in the case of Caruth (for example, in Unclaimed Experience)—to the privileging of language as a formal (that is, literary) construct. Rather, I am interested in emphasizing a hermeneutics of the therapeutic encounter within which questions of language, culture, history, and behavior are situated. With respect to trauma therapy, I will introduce a number of well-known analytical contributions even as I take the following statement of Arnold Modell’s as my point of departure:The analyst or therapist becomes an unwitting collaborator in the recreation of the past, while still retaining a proximity to present time. The therapist becomes the person with whom one can reexperience trauma within a new context or experience for the first time what has been absent in the past. Affects belonging to... (shrink)

Gedankenübertragung. Gegenübertragung. Thought-transference and counter-transference have rarely been considered together. One is a key instrument in much contemporary psychoanalytic practice and the other simply occultism. This essay traces the striking parallels in Sigmund Freud's interests in both. Its tale is the uncanny narrative of his essay ‘Psychoanalysis and Telepathy’. The story starts from Freud's engagements with Sándor Ferenczi and Carl Jung to speculate that his unpublished paper may be the article on counter-transference he promised but never wrote. The repressed returns (...) in the history and practice of psychoanalysis — and in Shoshana Felman's uncanny reading effect. (shrink)

This article discusses the current ‘popularity’ of trauma research in the Humanities and examines the ethics and politics of trauma theory, as exemplified in the writings of Caruth and Felman and Laub.Written from a position informed by Laplanchian and object relations psychoanalytic theory, it begins by examining and offering a critique of trauma theory's model of subjectivity, and its relations with theories of referentiality and representation, history and testimony. Next, it proposes that although trauma theory's subject matter—the sufferings of (...) others—makes critique difficult, the theory's politics, its exclusions and inclusions, and its unconscious drives and desires are as deserving of attention as those of any other theory. Arguing that the political and cultural contexts within which this theory has risen to prominence have remained largely unexamined, the article concludes by proposing that trauma theory needs to act as a brake against rather than as a vehicle for cultural and political Manicheanism. (shrink)

This article takes as its focus the question, raised by Shoshana Felman and Dori Laub in their 1995 book Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History, of what it means for an event to be constituted by the collapse of its witness. The discussion centres on a reading of the moment Yehiel Dinoor, a writer also known as K-Zetnik and one of the few eyewitnesses at the 1961 Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, falls out of the stand and (...) into a coma while attempting to provide his testimony. By rethinking this historical trauma as a ‘collapse of witnessing’, I suggest Felman and Laub shift the focus from a purely cognitive or epistemological question — a problem of knowing and not-knowing — to a question of communicating to others: a problem of address. It is the circumstance of having ‘no one to whom one could say Thou’, as Laub puts it, that constitutes the Holocaust, for the victims, as what the authors call an ‘event without a witness’. (shrink)