Introduction: “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
“From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva was first published in 1980 as part of her seminal work, Desire in Language. Initially written in French, the essay was later translated into English, solidifying its impact on international intellectual circles. This groundbreaking piece significantly contributed to literary theory and criticism by exploring the complex interplay between the subject and language. Kristeva delves deep into the formation of identity, challenging traditional notions of subjectivity and offering a profound understanding of the psychological and linguistic processes that shape the self
Summary of “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
The Subject and Language
- Language as a Foundation for the Subject: Kristeva posits that “every language theory is predicated upon a conception of the subject” (Kristeva, p. 125). This fundamental interrelation between language and the subject underscores the essay’s exploration.
- Evolution of the Subject in Linguistic Theory: Kristeva traces the evolution of the subject’s position in linguistic theory, from the historical subject in philology to the transcendental ego in phenomenology (Kristeva, p. 126).
- Transcendence and the Subject: The essay highlights how conceptions of meaning and the subject often lead to a notion of transcendence, frequently linked to religious or ideological constructs (Kristeva, p. 125).
Poetic Language and the Subject
- Destabilization of the Subject: Kristeva argues that poetic language “is an unsettling process-when not an outright destruction-of the identity of meaning and speaking subject” (Kristeva, p. 125).
- Poetic Language as a Catalyst for Social Change: She connects poetic language to moments of social and institutional crisis, suggesting its role in societal transformation (Kristeva, p. 125).
- The Subject in Extremis: The essay explores the extreme positions the subject can occupy within poetic language, ranging from psychosis to complicity with totalitarianism (Kristeva, p. 125).
Linguistic Theory and the Subject
- Crisis at the Core of Language: Kristeva proposes that a comprehensive linguistic theory must account for the inherent crises of meaning and the subject within the signifying function (Kristeva, p. 125).
- Beyond Phenomenological Limitations: She critiques phenomenological approaches for their inability to fully capture the complexities of language and the subject, advocating for a more nuanced understanding (Kristeva, p. 132).
- Heterogeneity as a Theoretical Imperative: The essay introduces the concept of heterogeneity, arguing that a theory of language must acknowledge the coexistence of diverse and often contradictory elements within the signifying process (Kristeva, p. 133).
The Semiotic and Symbolic
- Semiotic as Pre-linguistic: Kristeva distinguishes between the semiotic, a pre-linguistic domain of rhythms and intonations, and the symbolic, the realm of meaning and signification (Kristeva, p. 133).
- Poetic Language as a Semiotic-Symbolic Hybrid: She characterizes poetic language as a dynamic interplay between the semiotic and the symbolic, with the semiotic often taking precedence (Kristeva, p. 134).
- The Questionable Subject: The subject within poetic language is described as a “questionable subject-in-process,” shaped by the complex interaction between the semiotic and the symbolic (Kristeva, p. 135).
Conclusion
- The Undecidability of Language: Kristeva emphasizes the undecidable nature of language, challenging traditional notions of meaning and the subject (Kristeva, p. 135).
- Beyond Phenomenological Constraints: She calls for a theoretical framework that transcends phenomenological limitations to account for the complexities of language and the subject (Kristeva, p. 132).
- The Subject in Flux: The essay concludes by positioning the subject as a dynamic and multifaceted entity, shaped by the interplay of various linguistic and psychological forces (Kristeva, p. 136).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
| Literary Term | Definition |
| Subject | The position of the speaker or knower within a language system. |
| Signifying Function | The process by which meaning is generated through language. |
| Transcendence | The act of surpassing the ordinary or physical and entering a higher spiritual state. |
| Poetic Language | Language that uses figurative language, sound devices, and other creative elements to evoke emotions and ideas. |
| Semiotic | A pre-linguistic system of communication based on signs and symbols. |
| Symbolic | The realm of meaning and signification within language. |
| Heterogeneity | The coexistence of diverse and often contradictory elements within a system. |
| Undecidability | The lack of a single, fixed meaning for a word or concept. |
Contribution of “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva to Literary Theory/Theories
- Subjectivity and Language: Kristeva’s work emphasizes the inseparability of subjectivity and language in literary theory. She argues that every language theory is grounded in a conception of the subject, either acknowledging, implying, or denying it. This concept is crucial in understanding how language constructs and deconstructs identity within literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
- Poetic Language and the Semiotic: Kristeva introduces the idea of the semiotic as a dimension of language that operates beneath and alongside the symbolic. The semiotic is associated with pre-linguistic drives, rhythms, and maternal connections, which challenge and disrupt traditional signification and meaning in literature. This concept has been influential in feminist and psychoanalytic literary theories (Kristeva, 1975).
- Interrelation of Language, Meaning, and the Subject: Kristeva’s essay contributes to the understanding of the dynamic interplay between language, meaning, and the subject in literary texts. She argues that poetic language, by destabilizing meaning and subjectivity, reveals the inherent crises and contradictions within linguistic structures, offering a new lens for analyzing literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
- Linguistic Revolution and Structuralism: By critiquing structural linguistics and its tendency to eliminate the subject, Kristeva contributes to post-structuralist literary theory. She asserts that the subject of enunciation remains crucial even in structuralist frameworks, challenging the reduction of language to mere structures and encouraging a more nuanced analysis of literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
- Critique of Philological and Historical Subjectivity: Kristeva’s work critiques the philological and historical approaches to language that dominate traditional literary theory. She argues that these approaches, while useful, fail to account for the complexities of signification and subjectivity, particularly in the context of modern and postmodern literature (Kristeva, 1975).
- Transcendence and Literary Meaning: Kristeva explores the idea that literary meaning often seeks a form of transcendence, whether through religious or ideological frameworks. Her analysis highlights how literature can both uphold and subvert these frameworks, contributing to discussions on the role of ideology and theology in literary interpretation (Kristeva, 1975).
- The Subject-in-Process: Kristeva’s concept of the “subject-in-process” has been influential in literary theory, particularly in psychoanalytic and feminist circles. This concept challenges the notion of a stable, coherent subject in literature, instead proposing a subject constantly in flux, shaped by language, desire, and social structures (Kristeva, 1975).
- Psychosis, Fetishism, and Literature: By linking psychosis and fetishism with the extremes of poetic language, Kristeva provides a framework for understanding how literature can both reflect and resist social and symbolic constraints. This contribution is significant in the analysis of avant-garde and experimental literature, where these themes are prevalent (Kristeva, 1975).
- Heterogeneity in Language: Kristeva’s identification of heterogeneity within language—where multiple, often conflicting forces operate simultaneously—has had a profound impact on deconstructive and postmodern literary theories. Her work encourages the exploration of the multiplicity and fragmentation inherent in literary texts (Kristeva, 1975).
Examples of Critiques Through “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
· James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake
- Kristeva’s Lens: Kristeva’s concept of the “subject-in-process” and the semiotic aspects of language can be used to critique Finnegans Wake. The novel’s linguistic experimentation, characterized by puns, portmanteau words, and fractured syntax, exemplifies the semiotic disruption of traditional meaning and the fluid, unstable nature of subjectivity. Joyce’s text defies the symbolic order of language, creating a text that is as much about the breakdown of meaning as it is about its construction. This aligns with Kristeva’s view that poetic language destabilizes the identity of both meaning and the speaking subject, revealing the crises within the linguistic and social structures (Kristeva, 1975).
· Antonin Artaud’s Theater of Cruelty
- Kristeva’s Lens: Artaud’s Theater of Cruelty can be critiqued through Kristeva’s exploration of the semiotic and the role of poetic language in unsettling the symbolic order. Artaud’s theater seeks to bypass the constraints of traditional language and reach a pre-linguistic, visceral form of communication that resonates with Kristeva’s semiotic. The emphasis on physicality, screams, and non-verbal expression in Artaud’s work reflects the semiotic drives that Kristeva discusses—those that precede and disrupt structured meaning, challenging the stability of the speaking subject and social conventions (Kristeva, 1975).
· Samuel Beckett’s Not I
- Kristeva’s Lens: Not I can be analyzed through the lens of Kristeva’s theories on the instability of the subject and the fragmentation of language. The monologue in Not I, delivered at a rapid pace by a disembodied mouth, reflects a subjectivity in crisis, echoing Kristeva’s notion of the subject-in-process. The play’s fragmented, elliptical language destabilizes meaning, aligning with Kristeva’s view of poetic language as a site where the symbolic is both affirmed and disrupted. The character’s struggle with articulation and identity mirrors Kristeva’s ideas about the tension between the semiotic (instinctual, pre-linguistic drives) and the symbolic (structured language and meaning) (Kristeva, 1975).
· Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s Journey to the End of the Night
- Kristeva’s Lens: Céline’s use of a colloquial, fragmented narrative style in Journey to the End of the Night can be critiqued through Kristeva’s ideas about the semiotic and the breakdown of the symbolic order. Céline’s narrative is marked by an intense emotional rhythm and frequent use of ellipses, which Kristeva might interpret as the intrusion of semiotic drives into the symbolic order of the text. This disruption reflects the instability of the speaking subject and challenges the traditional coherence of narrative and meaning. Céline’s exploration of themes like war, suffering, and existential despair resonates with Kristeva’s analysis of how poetic language can expose the crises of meaning and subjectivity (Kristeva, 1975).
Criticism Against “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
- Complexity and Accessibility: Kristeva’s writing in “From One Identity to Another” is often criticized for being highly abstract and difficult to understand. The dense theoretical language and complex concepts make the essay less accessible to a broader audience, limiting its impact outside of academic circles.
- Overemphasis on the Semiotic: Some critics argue that Kristeva places too much emphasis on the semiotic aspect of language, potentially neglecting the importance of the symbolic in maintaining social and linguistic coherence. This focus may lead to an underestimation of the stability and functionality that the symbolic order provides in communication and society.
- Lack of Empirical Support: Kristeva’s arguments are often seen as more philosophical and speculative rather than empirically grounded. Critics point out that her theories, while intellectually stimulating, lack concrete evidence or examples to support the claims made about language, subjectivity, and the semiotic.
- Potential Neglect of Historical Context: Kristeva’s theoretical approach has been criticized for not adequately considering the historical and cultural contexts of the texts she discusses. By focusing on abstract linguistic and psychoanalytic theories, Kristeva may overlook the specific social and political conditions that influence literary production and interpretation.
- Ambiguity in Defining the Subject: Kristeva’s concept of the “subject-in-process” is seen by some as too ambiguous and fluid, making it challenging to apply consistently in literary analysis. The idea that the subject is always in flux can lead to interpretative challenges and potentially undermine the stability needed for coherent critical discourse.
- Criticism from Structuralists and Post-Structuralists: Structuralists may criticize Kristeva for moving away from the focus on structures and systems in language, while post-structuralists might find her retention of certain structural elements, like the transcendental ego, as inconsistent with a fully deconstructive approach.
- Feminist Critiques: While Kristeva is often associated with feminist theory, some feminist critics argue that her work, including “From One Identity to Another,” does not adequately address issues of gender and power. Her focus on linguistic theory and psychoanalysis might be seen as abstracting from the material realities of women’s lives and struggles.
- Tension Between Theory and Practice: There is a critique that Kristeva’s work, including this essay, creates a tension between theory and practical literary analysis. The highly theoretical nature of her ideas can make it difficult to apply them directly to literary texts in a way that yields clear, practical insights.
Suggested Readings: “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva
- Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Columbia University Press, 1982.
- Moi, Toril, editor. The Kristeva Reader. Columbia University Press, 1986.
- Oliver, Kelly. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the Double Bind. Indiana University Press, 1993.
- Smith, Anna, editor. Julia Kristeva: Readings of Exile and Estrangement. St. Martin’s Press, 1996.
- Grosz, Elizabeth. Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists. Allen & Unwin, 1989.
- Lechte, John. Julia Kristeva. Routledge, 1990.
- McAfee, Noëlle. Julia Kristeva. Routledge, 2003.
- Butler, Judith. “The Body Politics of Julia Kristeva.” Hypatia, vol. 3, no. 3, 1989, pp. 104-118.
- Young, Iris Marion. “The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 12, no. 1, 1986, pp. 1-26.
- Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Translated by Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez, Columbia University Press, 1980.
Representative Quotations from “From One Identity to an Other” by Julia Kristeva with Explanation
- “Every language theory is predicated upon a conception of the subject that it explicitly posits, implies, or tries to deny.”
- Explanation: This quotation encapsulates Kristeva’s central thesis that language and subjectivity are deeply intertwined. She argues that any theory of language inevitably involves a notion of the subject, whether acknowledged or not. This idea challenges traditional linguistic theories that might seek to detach language from its human, subjective origins.
- “Poetic language… is an unsettling process—when not an outright destruction—of the identity of meaning and speaking subject.”
- Explanation: Here, Kristeva highlights the disruptive power of poetic language. She suggests that poetic language challenges and even destroys the stable identities of meaning and the speaking subject, leading to a fluid, dynamic interaction between language and subjectivity. This idea is central to her analysis of how literature operates on the fringes of linguistic and social norms.
- “Meaning, identified either within the unity or the multiplicity of subject, structure, or theory, necessarily guarantees a certain transcendence, if not a theology.”
- Explanation: Kristeva critiques the tendency in linguistic and philosophical theories to treat meaning as a transcendent, almost theological concept. She argues that this approach imposes limitations on our understanding of language and subjectivity, as it often ignores the complex, material processes through which meaning is actually produced.
- “The subject is henceforth the operating thetic consciousness positing correlatively the transcendental Being and ego.”
- Explanation: This quotation reflects Kristeva’s engagement with phenomenology, particularly the work of Husserl. She discusses how the subject, in linguistic terms, is constituted through acts of consciousness that position both the self and the objects of meaning. This insight is crucial for understanding how Kristeva rethinks the relationship between language, meaning, and the subject.
- “Poetic language, the only language that uses up transcendence and theology to sustain itself; poetic language, knowingly the enemy of religion…”
- Explanation: Kristeva emphasizes the subversive potential of poetic language, suggesting that it operates in opposition to religious or transcendent concepts. By doing so, poetic language exposes and challenges the ideological underpinnings of traditional meaning structures, making it a powerful tool for critique and transformation.
- “Consequently, it is a means of overriding this constraint. And if in so doing it sometimes falls in with deeds brought about by the same rationality… poetic language is also there to forestall such translations into action.”
- Explanation: Kristeva acknowledges the potential dangers of poetic language, such as its alignment with irrational or destructive impulses. However, she also argues that poetic language can serve as a safeguard against the extremes of rationality by offering a space for reflection and resistance before these impulses manifest in harmful ways.
- “This kind of heterogeneous economy and its questionable subject-in-process thus calls for a linguistics other than the one descended from the phenomenological heavens…”
- Explanation: In this quotation, Kristeva critiques traditional linguistics, which she sees as overly influenced by phenomenological and transcendental ideas. She calls for a new approach to linguistics that can account for the complex, dynamic processes of subjectivity and language, particularly as they are expressed in poetic and experimental forms of writing.