Introduction: “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva
“Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva first appeared in her 1980 collection Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez in 1982. This influential essay explores the concept of abjection—the state of being cast off or expelled—and its profound impact on the subject’s sense of self and identity. Kristeva delves into the psychological and social dimensions of abjection, examining how it manifests in various aspects of human experience, from bodily fluids and waste to social outcasts and marginalized groups. The essay’s significance lies in its interdisciplinary approach, drawing on psychoanalysis, anthropology, and literary theory to illuminate the complex relationship between the self and the abject other. “Approaching Abjection” has been widely recognized for its contribution to literary theory and cultural studies, particularly in its exploration of the abject body and its impact on representations of gender, sexuality, and power dynamics in literature and other cultural forms.
Summary of “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva
Understanding Abjection: Kristeva’s Conceptual Framework
- Julia Kristeva in “Approaching Abjection” discusses abjection as a profound and destabilizing human experience that challenges the boundaries between subject and object. She describes it as a necessary part of the human condition, revealing the limits of our capacity to integrate with the symbolic order.
Abjection and the Limits of the Self
- Abjection arises when what is familiar becomes unfamiliar, evoking a reaction that is both repulsive and fascinating. This reaction, Kristeva argues, is fundamental to forming the self, occurring at the edges of what language and society can represent. Abjection confronts us with our primal fears and desires, illustrating the fragile borders that define the self.
Physical Manifestations of Abjection
- Kristeva provides examples such as reactions to spoiled food or bodily wastes that symbolically represent a threat to one’s own cleanliness and bodily integrity. These reactions are visceral and rooted in the deepest layers of our psyche, challenging the purity and stability of the self and evoking a profound sense of disgust.
Psychological and Societal Impacts
- The essay highlights how abjection can manifest in various cultural and social contexts, influencing norms and behaviors. Kristeva uses literature and art to discuss how societies express and handle abjection, with cultural taboos and artistic expressions often negotiating these primal human responses.
The Role of the Mother and the Corporeal
- Central to Kristeva’s theory is the role of the mother’s body as an abject figure. The maternal figure embodies both the origin and the threat of abjection, representing the ultimate challenge to symbolic order and identity. This theme is explored through the dynamics of horror and desire that surround the maternal figure.
Abjection in Literature and Art
- Kristeva explores how abjection influences literature and art, where it becomes a critical tool for challenging the audience’s comfort and understanding. Literature, with its capacity to present the unspeakable and confront the grotesque, serves as a potent medium for exploring abjection’s disturbing yet vital role in human experience.
Challenging the Symbolic Order
- The essay delves into the implications of abjection for language and the symbolic order. Kristeva argues that abjection exposes the limitations of the symbolic order—our cultural, linguistic, and social systems—by confronting it with what it cannot assimilate or represent.
Ethical and Philosophical Implications
- Kristeva uses abjection to question traditional ethical and philosophical categories, suggesting that understanding abjection is crucial for any comprehensive theory of the subject. This challenges conventional moral and philosophical judgments and redefines our understanding of purity, corruption, and the human psyche.
Conclusion: The Necessity of Abjection
- In concluding, Kristeva emphasizes the necessity of confronting abjection to fully understand human psychology and culture. It compels us to continuously redefine our boundaries and norms, and to reconsider what we consider as the core of our identity and community. Abjection, thus, is not just a psychological concept but a dynamic part of human life that both threatens and sustains the social order.
Literary Terms in “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva
| Literary Term/Concept | Short Definition |
| Abjection | The state of being cast off; the feeling of horror and disgust experienced when confronted with something that threatens the boundaries of the self. |
| The Subject | The individual or self; the one who experiences and is defined by their relationship to the abject. |
| The Object | That which is cast off or expelled; the abject other that threatens the subject’s sense of self. |
| The Semiotic | The pre-linguistic realm of drives, rhythms, and bodily experiences; associated with the maternal and the abject. |
| The Symbolic | The realm of language, law, and social order; associated with the paternal and the subject’s entry into culture. |
| The Border | The boundary between the self and the other; constantly threatened and redefined by the abject. |
| The Corpse | The ultimate abject object; the dead body that reminds us of our own mortality and the fragility of the self. |
| The Maternal | The pre-Oedipal relationship with the mother; associated with the semiotic and the abject. |
| The Paternal | The Oedipal relationship with the father; associated with the symbolic and the subject’s entry into culture. |
| Catharsis | The purging of emotions, particularly fear and pity, through art or other forms of expression. |
| Jouissance | Intense pleasure or enjoyment, often associated with transgression and the breaking of boundaries. |
| The Uncanny | The feeling of unease or strangeness when something familiar becomes unfamiliar or disturbing. |
Contribution of “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva in Literary Theory
Expanding the Concept of the Literary Subject
- Kristeva’s “Approaching Abjection” redefines the literary subject by focusing on the abject, which challenges the clean and traditional boundaries of identity. She posits that literature serves not only to express but also to transgress and reshape what constitutes the self within narrative structures.
Challenging the Symbolic Order through Literature
- The essay argues that literature is a powerful medium for exploring the limits of the symbolic order—the socially and culturally constructed systems of meaning. By incorporating themes of abjection, writers reveal the porousness of these systems, exposing what is systematically excluded or repressed within cultural narratives.
The Role of the Abject in Narrative Dynamics
- Kristeva discusses how the abject influences narrative dynamics by introducing elements that are deeply unsettling and cannot be assimilated into conventional story arcs. This introduction disrupts the reader’s comfort and expectations, leading to a deeper, often more disturbing engagement with the text.
Revising Psychoanalytic Approaches to Literature
- By integrating psychoanalytic concepts of abjection, Kristeva offers a new lens for literary analysis that goes beyond traditional Freudian interpretations. This approach considers not just the overt content but the underlying emotional and psychological processes that shape literary creation and reception.
The Interplay of Horror and Desire in Literature
- The essay explores how literature employs abjection to articulate the complex interplay between horror and desire. This thematic exploration helps readers confront their own fears and desires, reflecting on how these feelings are culturally and psychologically constructed.
Literature as a Space for the Unrepresentable
- Kristeva argues that literature provides a unique space to explore and express the unrepresentable aspects of human experience, those that are often excluded from public discourse. This makes literature a crucial site for dealing with themes of horror, taboo, and the limits of human understanding and tolerance.
Impact on Feminist Literary Analysis
- “Approaching Abjection” has had a significant impact on feminist literary analysis by highlighting how the abject relates to the female body and maternal figures. This focus has opened up new avenues for discussing the representation of women in literature and the cultural scripts surrounding femininity and motherhood.
Influencing the Structure of Literary Criticism
- Kristeva’s work encourages a more fluid and dynamic approach to literary criticism, one that embraces the complexities and ambiguities of language and human experience. Her theories challenge critics to look beyond clear-cut interpretations and consider the deeper emotional and psychological impacts of literature.
Conclusion: Enriching Literary Theory
- Kristeva’s exploration of abjection enriches literary theory by providing tools to analyze how texts confront the deepest and often most disturbing elements of human nature. This contribution has broadened the scope of literary criticism, making it more inclusive of diverse and complex human experiences.
Examples of Critique Through “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva
| Literary Work & Author | Description of Abject Elements | Kristeva’s Influence on Critique |
| “Beloved” by Toni Morrison | The haunting of Sethe by her dead daughter, Beloved, embodies abjection through the breakdown of the distinction between the self and the other, the living and the dead. The novel explores the traumatic past of slavery and its lingering, unresolved ghosts. | Kristeva’s concept of abjection helps to analyze the text’s exploration of repressed memories and the manifestation of trauma through the ghostly presence of Beloved, representing the return of the repressed in a palpable, unsettling form. |
| “Dracula” by Bram Stoker | The figure of the vampire embodies the abject by transgressing the boundaries between life and death, human and monster. Dracula’s penetration of boundaries (physical, geographical, and moral) symbolizes the ultimate threat to identity and order. | Kristeva’s framework provides a platform to critique the novel’s portrayal of vampirism as an abject horror that challenges the Victorian societal norms and the fear of the foreign and the unknown, destabilizing identity and cultural integrity. |
| “The Metamorphosis” by Franz Kafka | Gregor Samsa’s transformation into a grotesque insect serves as a stark depiction of abjection. His new, monstrous form becomes a source of revulsion and rejection by his family, blurring the lines between human and non-human. | Using Kristeva’s ideas, the critique can delve into how Gregor’s abject state questions the stability of human identity and societal acceptance, highlighting the fragility of personal and familial relationships when faced with the abject. |
| “Wuthering Heights” by Emily Brontë | The character of Heathcliff, with his mysterious origins and violent passions, acts as an abject figure. His presence disrupts the social and moral order of the Earnshaw and Linton families, bringing to light the darkest human emotions and behaviors. | Through Kristeva’s lens, Heathcliff can be analyzed as an embodiment of abjection that challenges the established norms and values of the society, creating a narrative driven by desire, revenge, and the breakdown of social hierarchies. |
Criticism Against “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva
- Dense and Obscure Language: Kristeva’s writing style is often criticized for being convoluted and difficult to understand, making her ideas inaccessible to a wider audience.
- Overreliance on Psychoanalysis: Some critics argue that Kristeva’s theory of abjection relies too heavily on Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, neglecting other potential perspectives and limiting its applicability.
- Universalizing the Experience of Abjection: Kristeva’s concept of abjection has been criticized for generalizing the experience of disgust and horror, potentially overlooking cultural and individual differences.
- Lack of Empirical Evidence: The theory of abjection has been criticized for lacking a strong foundation in empirical research, making it difficult to test or validate.
- Potential for Essentialism: Some critics argue that Kristeva’s focus on the body and its fluids could lead to essentialist assumptions about gender and identity.
- Neglect of Social and Political Factors: Critics suggest that the theory of abjection could benefit from a more nuanced understanding of social and political power structures and their role in creating and maintaining abject states.
Suggested Readings: “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva
Books:
- Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Columbia University Press, 1982.
- Oliver, Kelly. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the Double-bind. Indiana University Press, 1993.
- Creed, Barbara. The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis. Routledge, 1993.
- Moi, Toril. Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. Routledge, 1985.
Academic Articles:
- Kristeva, Julia, and John Lechte. “Approaching Abjection.” Oxford Literary Review, vol. 5, no. 1/2, 1982, pp. 125–49. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43973647. Accessed 9 Aug. 2024.
- Kristeva, Julia. “APPROACHING ABJECTION.” The Monster Theory Reader, edited by Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock, University of Minnesota Press, 2020, pp. 95–107. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvtv937f.8. Accessed 9 Aug. 2024.
- KRISTEVA, JULIA. “‘APPROACHING ABJECTION,’ FROM POWERS OF HORROR: AN ESSAY ON ABJECTION.” Classic Readings on Monster Theory: Demonstrare, Volume One, edited by ASA SIMON MITTMAN and MARCUS HENSEL, Arc Humanities Press, 2018, pp. 67–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvfxvc3p.12. Accessed 9 Aug. 2024.
- KRISTEVA, JULIA, and Leon S. Roudiez. “APPROACHING ABJECTION.” Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, Columbia University Press, 2024, pp. 1–32. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/kris21457.4. Accessed 9 Aug. 2024.
Representative Quotations with Explanation from “Approaching Abjection” by Julia Kristeva
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Abjection is above all ambiguity.” | This quote captures the essence of abjection as a concept that is inherently uncertain and fluid. It exists in the spaces between known categories, challenging clear distinctions and disrupting traditional boundaries. This ambiguity is central to understanding how abjection operates in both literature and psychology. |
| “It is something rejected from which one does not part, from which one does not protect oneself as from an object.” | Kristeva describes abjection as something intimately connected to the self, yet profoundly disturbing and rejected. Unlike simple disgust or rejection, abjection remains deeply tied to one’s identity, making it a complex and persistent source of turmoil. |
| “The abject is not my correlative, which, providing me with someone or something else as support, would allow me to be more or less detached and autonomous.” | Here, Kristeva emphasizes that the abject does not simply oppose the self but challenges the very notion of a stable, autonomous identity. It undermines the security of a self that is defined in opposition to an “other,” suggesting that abjection exposes deeper vulnerabilities within the self. |
| “I endure it, for I imagine that such is the desire of the other.” | This quotation highlights the relational aspect of abjection, where the experience of abjection is tied to an imagined or projected desire of another. This suggests a dynamic where the self perceives abjection as connected to the expectations or judgments of others, complicating how one navigates social and personal boundaries. |
| “The corpse, seen without God and outside of science, is the utmost of abjection.” | Kristeva uses the image of the corpse to illustrate the ultimate form of abjection, one that is completely devoid of any symbolic or cultural mediation (like religion or science). This represents a pure encounter with the abject, confronting the subject with the raw realities of death and decay that are typically obscured or sanitized in society. |
| “Not me. Not that. But not nothing, either.” | This quote reflects the paradoxical nature of abjection. The abject is simultaneously part of the self and utterly alien. It is neither fully the self (“Not me”) nor entirely other (“Not that”), yet it is not simply nonexistent (“But not nothing, either”). This encapsulates the liminal state that abjection occupies, existing in a tense boundary space that is difficult to define or resolve. |