“Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler

“Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler first appeared in 2009 in Feminist Theory (Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 77–98), critiques the expansion of Julia Kristeva’s influential concept of abjection. Tyler examines how Kristeva’s theory has been adopted and adapted within feminist literature, particularly in Anglo-American and Australian contexts, to analyze the portrayal of maternal bodies and identities. While acknowledging the productivity of the concept for feminist theory, Tyler critiques the risk of reinforcing historical patterns of disgust and dehumanization toward the maternal body through Kristeva’s abject paradigm. She proposes a shift from Kristeva’s psychoanalytic framework, which often reiterates a matricidal logic, toward a more politically and socially grounded understanding of abjection. This approach challenges the cultural scripts that render maternal bodies abject, emphasizing the lived realities and social locations of those subjected to abjection. Tyler’s work is significant for its interrogation of the limits of Kristeva’s framework and for its call to rethink maternal subjectivity beyond its traditional abject associations, offering a vital contribution to feminist theory and cultural critique.

Summary of “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler

---

---

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler

Term/Concept	Definition	Context in the Article
Abjection	A psychoanalytic concept describing the process of expulsion of what is deemed impure or threatening to identity.	Central to Kristeva’s theory; associated with the maternal body and bodily processes such as birth, fluids, and decay (Kristeva, 1982).
Maternal Abjection	The specific designation of the maternal body as abject, embodying cultural disgust and monstrosity.	Tyler critiques Kristeva’s framing of the maternal as a primary site of abjection, arguing it reinforces patriarchal disgust towards maternal bodies (Tyler, 2009: 79).
Matricide	The symbolic or psychic “killing” of the mother as a necessary condition for individuation and subjectivity.	Kristeva posits matricide as essential to individuation, but Tyler challenges this as a patriarchal construction of subjectivity (Kristeva, 1989; Tyler, 2009: 86).
Kristevan Paradigm	Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic framework, which positions abjection as central to subjectivity and culture.	Tyler critiques feminist theorists for uncritically adopting this paradigm, which perpetuates the abjection of maternal bodies (Tyler, 2009: 83).
Transgressive Potential	The idea that encounters with the abject can disrupt or subvert cultural norms.	Tyler critiques this focus in feminist theory, arguing it neglects the lived consequences of being abject (Tyler, 2009: 83–85).
Affirmative Abjection	A feminist strategy of embracing abjection to reclaim marginalized identities or challenge norms.	Tyler warns that this risks reaffirming rather than challenging misogynistic representations, especially of maternal bodies (Covino, 2000; Tyler, 2009: 85).
Cultural Abject	Representations of abjection in cultural texts, such as literature, art, and film.	Feminist theorists often map how cultural texts depict women and maternal bodies as abject, but Tyler argues this focus overlooks the lived effects of abjection (Creed, 1993; Tyler, 2009: 83).
Abject Criticism	A feminist method of analyzing cultural texts to identify and challenge abjection.	Tyler critiques the focus on cultural representation for failing to address real-world violence and marginalization of women (Tyler, 2009: 83–84).
Monstrous-Feminine	A concept describing the maternal body as grotesque and horrifying, especially in cultural texts.	Borrowed from Creed’s analysis of horror cinema, it aligns maternal bodies with fear and revulsion (Creed, 1993; Tyler, 2009: 83).
Social Abjection	A broader view of abjection as structural violence and exclusion that dehumanizes individuals or groups.	Tyler advocates for a shift from psychoanalytic to social-political accounts of abjection, focusing on lived experiences of marginalization and violence (Tyler, 2009: 94).
Lived Abjection	The experience of being reduced to an “abject thing” through societal or interpersonal dehumanization.	Explored through testimonies of battered pregnant women, Tyler highlights how maternal abjection manifests in real-world violence and abuse (Tyler, 2009: 87).
Constitutive Outside	Judith Butler’s term for elements excluded from the symbolic order that define and reinforce social boundaries.	Tyler references Butler to critique how maternal abjection operates as a “constitutive outside” in both psychoanalytic theory and cultural norms (Butler, 1993: 188; Tyler, 2009: 86).
Communities of the Abject	Networks or groups formed around shared experiences of abjection, offering solidarity and resistance.	Tyler discusses online spaces like chat rooms where battered women form communities to reclaim agency and visibility (Tyler, 2009: 92).
Psychosocial Mechanisms	Processes that combine psychological and social factors to produce abjection.	Tyler emphasizes the need for theories that address the psychosocial dynamics of abjection, especially in lived experiences of marginalization (Tyler, 2009: 89).

Contribution of “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critique of Psychoanalytic Literary Theory
   • Challenges Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic framework of abjection, especially its reliance on the concept of matricide as foundational to subjectivity (Tyler, 2009: 79).
   • Questions the universalist premises of Kristeva’s theory, arguing that it reinforces patriarchal structures rather than dismantling them (Tyler, 2009: 86).
2. Feminist Literary Theory
   • Critiques feminist adaptations of Kristeva’s abject paradigm, warning against its uncritical adoption as a feminist methodology (Tyler, 2009: 83–84).
   • Highlights the risk of reproducing misogynistic representations of women and maternal bodies through “affirmative abjection” strategies (Tyler, 2009: 85).
   • Advocates for a re-centering of “lived bodily experience” within feminist theory, as proposed by Toril Moi and Iris Marion Young, to move beyond abstract conceptualizations of the maternal (Tyler, 2009: 79, 94).
3. Cultural Studies and Film Theory
   • Expands the critique of abjection in feminist cultural studies, specifically through analyses of the maternal body in horror cinema (e.g., Creed’s “monstrous-feminine”) (Tyler, 2009: 83).
   • Calls for a shift in focus from symbolic representations of the abject maternal to the real-world social and political consequences of such representations (Tyler, 2009: 83–85).
4. Poststructuralism and Deconstruction
   • Engages with Judith Butler’s theories of the “constitutive outside” to critique how abjection is used to reinforce boundaries of social order and intelligibility (Butler, 1993; Tyler, 2009: 86).
   • Emphasizes the contingent and constructed nature of maternal abjection, arguing that it is not an essentialist condition but a reiterative socio-historical phenomenon (Tyler, 2009: 94).
5. Sociological and Political Literary Theory
   • Introduces the concept of “social abjection,” expanding the term to encompass structural violence and marginalization beyond psychoanalytic contexts (Tyler, 2009: 94).
   • Advocates for a political reimagining of abjection to address lived experiences of exclusion and violence, particularly toward women and maternal bodies (Tyler, 2009: 94).
6. Aesthetic and Art Theory
   • Critiques the use of abjection in avant-garde and feminist art criticism, which often frames abject representations as inherently transgressive or liberatory (Tyler, 2009: 83).
   • Warns against aestheticizing or fetishizing the maternal abject, arguing that such approaches risk reaffirming the cultural disgust they aim to critique (Tyler, 2009: 85).
7. Intersection of Theory and Practice
   • Proposes an interdisciplinary approach that connects literary and cultural theories of abjection with sociological data on violence against maternal bodies (Tyler, 2009: 87).
   • Highlights the importance of integrating theory with lived accounts of marginalization to develop more effective critiques of systemic violence (Tyler, 2009: 94).

Examples of Critiques Through “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler

Literary Work	Type of Critique Through “Against Abjection”	Explanation Using Tyler’s Framework
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley	Critique of the “Monstrous Maternal”	Explores how the absent maternal and the monstrous creation reflect cultural abjection of the maternal body. Tyler’s argument on the “maternal as abject” reveals the implicit matricidal anxiety in the narrative.
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Deconstruction of Maternal Abjection	Uses Tyler’s critique to analyze how the maternal body is subjected to abjection through systemic violence, while also showcasing resilience and reclamation of maternal subjectivity.
The Bloody Chamber by Angela Carter	Critique of Affirmative Abjection in Feminist Literature	Examines how Carter’s use of grotesque and abject imagery risks perpetuating negative cultural constructions of femininity and maternity, aligning with Tyler’s warnings against “affirmative abjection.”
Dracula by Bram Stoker	Critique of the “Monstrous-Feminine” in Gothic Literature	Highlights the portrayal of female vampires as abject maternal figures, aligning with Tyler’s critique of how horror narratives construct female bodies as sites of horror and cultural disgust.

Criticism Against “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler

• Over-reliance on Kristeva’s Framework
  Critics argue that Tyler’s critique depends heavily on Julia Kristeva’s foundational theory of abjection, potentially limiting the originality of her intervention and tethering her analysis to Kristeva’s psychoanalytic underpinnings.
• Neglect of Broader Intersectional Dimensions
  While Tyler addresses social and political abjection, her analysis does not extensively explore intersectional factors such as race, class, and sexuality in shaping experiences of maternal abjection, which could have enriched her critique.
• Ambiguity in “Social and Political Account of Abjection”
  Tyler calls for a shift to a more social and political account of abjection but does not always provide concrete or systematic ways to implement this in feminist theory or praxis.
• Risk of Universalizing Maternal Experiences
  By critiquing Kristeva’s universalism, Tyler risks replicating similar universal tendencies by not sufficiently acknowledging the diversity and specificity of maternal experiences across cultures and contexts.
• Limited Engagement with Non-Western Perspectives
  The article primarily critiques Anglo-American and Australian feminist theory, without significant engagement with non-Western feminist discourses, potentially narrowing the scope of her critique.
• Ambivalence Toward Affirmative Abjection
  Tyler critiques the use of “affirmative abjection” in feminist cultural criticism but offers limited alternatives for feminist theorists aiming to reclaim or reinterpret abject representations in empowering ways.
• Focus on Maternal Abjection at the Expense of Other Forms
  The article’s primary focus on maternal abjection could be seen as narrowing the broader applicability of the concept, potentially sidelining other significant forms of abjection such as racial, queer, or disabled bodies.
• Insufficient Practical Application
  While theoretically robust, some critics may find Tyler’s work less actionable in addressing real-world instances of violence and marginalization beyond academic feminist debates.

Representative Quotations from “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“This article is about the theoretical life of ‘the abject’.”	Tyler outlines the purpose of her work, which is to critically analyze the use and implications of Julia Kristeva’s theory of abjection in feminist theory, particularly regarding maternal bodies and identities.
“Employing Kristeva’s abject paradigm risks reproducing histories of violent disgust towards maternal bodies.”	Tyler critiques the reliance on Kristeva’s concept of abjection in feminist theory, arguing that it perpetuates rather than challenges societal disgust and marginalization of maternal bodies.
“In place of the Kristevan model of the abject, it argues for a more thoroughly social and political account of abjection.”	Tyler proposes an alternative approach to abjection that focuses on its social and political dimensions rather than psychoanalytic roots, to better address the lived experiences of marginalized groups.
“Matricide is our vital necessity, the sine qua non condition of our individuation.”	Quoting Kristeva, Tyler critiques the universal assumption that subjectivity requires the violent rejection of the maternal, suggesting it reflects and reinforces patriarchal norms.
“Feminist theory needs to ascertain what the structural and conceptual limits of the Kristevan abject are.”	Tyler emphasizes the importance of critically examining the limitations of Kristeva’s abjection theory, especially its utility in theorizing maternal subjectivity and its potential complicity in harmful cultural scripts.
“What is completely absent from her account is any discussion of what it might mean to be that maternal abject.”	Tyler highlights a gap in Kristeva’s theory, pointing out that it fails to consider the lived realities and experiences of individuals positioned as abject, particularly mothers.
“Abjection is not just a psychic process but a social experience.”	Tyler broadens the scope of abjection to include its tangible social and political implications, such as dehumanization and exclusion, beyond Kristeva’s psychoanalytic focus.
“The maternal can only be produced as a site of horror through representational practices which figure ‘her’ as in excess of a singular body/identity.”	Tyler argues that cultural representations of the maternal as abject rely on violent dismemberment and fragmentation of maternal bodies, reinforcing their dehumanization.
“The myopic focus within feminist abject criticism on the transformative potential of excavating ‘the cultural abject’… risks marginalizing lived experiences.”	Tyler critiques the tendency in feminist theory to celebrate the subversive potential of abjection while neglecting the real-world consequences for those who are socially constructed as abject.
“Abjection has effects on real bodies; abjection hurts.”	Tyler underscores the physical and emotional harm caused by the social and cultural processes of abjection, particularly through violence against women and maternal bodies.

Suggested Readings: “Against Abjection” by Imogen Tyler

1. Lipschitz, Ruth. “Abjection.” The Edinburgh Companion to Animal Studies, edited by Lynn Turner et al., vol. 1, Edinburgh University Press, 2018, pp. 13–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv2f4vjzx.6. Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.
2. Tyler, Imogen. “Against abjection.” Feminist theory 10.1 (2009): 77-98.
3. Lowe, Cassie. “The Abject in Education.” The Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 54, no. 3, 2020, pp. 17–30. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5406/jaesteduc.54.3.0017. Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.