“The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington

“The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington first appeared in Hypatia in Winter 1998, as part of Volume 13, No. 1. Published by Wiley on behalf of Hypatia, Inc., this essay examines the performative elements of Julia Kristeva’s Powers of Horror, situating them within the broader context of her earlier works. Harrington emphasizes the interplay between abjection and Kristeva’s theoretical practice, arguing that this dynamic is central to Kristeva’s critique of Hegelian and Freudian traditions. The essay delves into the “speaking abject,” exploring the complex ways Kristeva’s text performs the rupture and disintegration central to its critique of identity and subjectivity. This work is significant in literature and literary theory for its innovative articulation of the intersections between ethics, aesthetics, and the performative nature of theoretical discourse, offering profound insights into the limits of language, identity, and cultural practices.

Summary of “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Context/Significance
Abjection	The state of being cast off, representing what is rejected from the self but remains intimately connected.	Central to Kristeva’s theory; reveals the breakdown of subjectivity and the borders between self and other, highlighting the primal loss of the maternal body (Powers of Horror, p. 5).
Performative Structure	A textual strategy where the text enacts the theory it articulates.	Kristeva’s texts (e.g., Powers of Horror) perform the abject through a blending of voices, disrupting traditional narrative forms and mirroring the fragmented nature of the subject.
Subject-in-Process/On-Trial	A dynamic view of the subject as constantly in flux and negotiation with the symbolic and semiotic.	Challenges static notions of subjectivity; shows the subject’s existence as a process tied to linguistic and social structures (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 33).
Semiotic and Symbolic	The interplay between primal drives and structured language systems.	The semiotic disrupts the symbolic order, and the abject emerges in the gaps between these systems, exposing the instability of meaning (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 25).
Manque (Lack)	The foundational loss that structures desire and subjectivity.	Central to the experience of abjection, as the subject encounters the void within itself and misrecognizes its relationship with the maternal (Powers of Horror, p. 12).
Phobia as Metaphor	Phobia represents the subject’s attempt to manage fear tied to the abject.	Phobia manifests as a displacement of fear onto external objects, illustrating the subject’s struggle with primal loss and the unnameable (Powers of Horror, p. 35).
Countertransference	The analyst’s identification with the patient’s unconscious dynamics.	In Kristeva’s writing, this process allows for an empathetic engagement with the abject and the possibility of giving voice to the unspeakable (Stabat Mater, p. 162).
Catharsis	The purgation or release of emotions, traditionally associated with artistic or psychoanalytic processes.	Kristeva critiques traditional catharsis, proposing instead a process of confronting and integrating the abject without resolution (Powers of Horror, p. 27).
Borderline Subjectivity	A fragmented form of subjectivity marked by the collapse of clear distinctions between self and other.	The borderline subject exemplifies the abject’s destabilizing effects on identity, illustrating the tensions between internal drives and external structures (Powers of Horror, p. 8).
Ethical Practice	An engagement with the abject that resists fixed boundaries and embraces heterogeneity.	Kristeva connects ethics and aesthetics through the performative structure of her texts, advocating for openness to ambiguity and contradiction (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 233).
Sublimation	The process of transforming primal drives into culturally and socially acceptable expressions.	Writing becomes a form of sublimation, where the abject is indirectly confronted and transformed through language (Powers of Horror, p. 18).
Heterogeneity	The coexistence of diverse, often contradictory elements within the subject or text.	Central to Kristeva’s critique of totalizing systems, heterogeneity allows for the articulation of the semiotic within the symbolic (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 131).
Pas de Deux	A “dance” between dual voices or perspectives within the text.	Reflects Kristeva’s performative blending of the autobiographical (“I”) and theoretical (“one”) to mirror the abject’s disruptive nature (Powers of Horror, p. 139).
Negativity	The precondition for signification, linked to the semiotic disruption of the symbolic.	Negativity precedes negation and is foundational to the Kristevan subject’s engagement with language and desire (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 119).
Analyst as Writer	The theorist occupies a dual role as both observer and participant in the dynamics of abjection.	Kristeva’s writing enacts the analytic process, where the abject is both studied and experienced through language (Powers of Horror, p. 152).
Impossible Catharsis	The unattainable resolution of the abject’s disruptive effects.	Kristeva argues that the abject cannot be fully purged but must remain a site of ongoing tension and engagement (Powers of Horror, p. 31).

Contribution of “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Psychoanalytic Theory

• Exploration of Abjection: Extends Kristeva’s concept of abjection by showing how it destabilizes subjectivity, particularly through its performative dimensions in language and literature. (Powers of Horror, pp. 5-6)
• Borderline Subjectivity: Discusses how the borderline subject illuminates the psychic mechanisms of abjection, shedding light on the interplay between the semiotic and symbolic in literary texts. (Powers of Horror, pp. 8-9)
• Role of Fear and Phobia: Provides a psychoanalytic reading of fear and its displacement in phobic metaphors, linking it to literary expression. (Powers of Horror, pp. 35-37)

2. Feminist Theory

• Critique of Traditional Psychoanalysis: Harrington highlights how Kristeva’s work disrupts Freud and Lacan’s patriarchal frameworks, particularly by addressing the maternal and its repression. (Stabat Mater, p. 162)
• Ethical Feminism: Proposes a feminist ethics grounded in the engagement with the abject, challenging traditional binary oppositions such as self/other, male/female. (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 233)
• Performative Writing as Feminist Praxis: The enactment of abjection through performative writing critiques the phallocentric language systems. (Powers of Horror, pp. 140-142)

3. Poststructuralist Theory

• Destabilization of Subjectivity: Builds on Kristeva’s notion of the subject-in-process to question stable, unified notions of identity, aligning with poststructuralist critiques. (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 119)
• Interplay of Semiotic and Symbolic: Shows how the semiotic disrupts the symbolic, paralleling poststructuralist concerns with the instability of meaning. (Powers of Horror, pp. 18-20)
• Text as Performance: Demonstrates how Kristeva’s work enacts the theories it articulates, aligning with poststructuralist ideas of performativity in writing. (Powers of Horror, pp. 139-140)

4. Literary Aesthetics

• Reimagining Catharsis: Challenges classical notions of catharsis in literature, proposing instead an “impossible catharsis” that retains the tension of the abject. (Powers of Horror, p. 31)
• Heterogeneous Texts: Highlights the blending of voices (autobiographical and theoretical) in Kristeva’s texts as an innovative aesthetic practice. (Stabat Mater, p. 162)
• Abjection in Literature: Positions the abject as a central force in literary production, offering a new lens to analyze texts dealing with horror, loss, and fragmentation. (Powers of Horror, pp. 210-212)

5. Ethical Philosophy and Literature

• Linking Ethics and Aesthetics: Explores how Kristeva’s writing connects ethics with literary aesthetics through the acknowledgment of heterogeneity and abjection. (Revolution in Poetic Language, pp. 233-234)
• Abjection as Ethical Engagement: Proposes that encountering the abject in literature fosters ethical awareness by forcing the subject to confront its boundaries. (Powers of Horror, pp. 18-20)

6. Postmodern Theory

• Subjectivity as Process: Aligns with postmodern concerns about fluid, fragmented identities by emphasizing the subject-in-process/on-trial. (Powers of Horror, pp. 8-9)
• Textual Multiplicity: Highlights the multiplicity and heterogeneity of voices within Kristeva’s texts, resonating with postmodernism’s rejection of metanarratives. (Powers of Horror, pp. 140-142)
• Temporal Disruptions: Reflects on the notion of time as an anterior future, echoing postmodern temporal paradoxes. (Revolution in Poetic Language, p. 232)

7. Rhetoric and Semiotics

• Language as Abjection: Explores how language becomes a site of abjection, where the signifier’s arbitrariness mirrors the subject’s existential fears. (Powers of Horror, pp. 37-38)
• Phobia and Metaphor: Examines the rhetorical strategies of phobia as metaphors for the unnameable, connecting linguistic play with psychic structures. (Powers of Horror, pp. 35-37)

Examples of Critiques Through “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington

Literary Work	Critique Through Harrington’s Lens	Key Concepts Applied	References to Harrington’s Analysis
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein	The monster as an embodiment of the abject: rejected by society and creator, representing the borderline subject in crisis.	– Abjection – Subject-in-process – Fear and phobia as metaphors	Kristeva’s concept of “manque” and the “speaking abject” illuminate Victor’s fear of the monstrous and his own failure to confront it (Harrington, pp. 35-38).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	Sethe’s haunting by Beloved illustrates maternal abjection, with the act of infanticide revealing a confrontation with the primal loss.	– Maternal abjection – Fear as unspeakable – Impossible catharsis	Maternal body as the site of trauma and its repression ties into Harrington’s use of Kristeva’s “Stabat Mater” (Harrington, p. 162).
Samuel Beckett’s Endgame	The fragmented narrative and existential dread reflect abjection as a breakdown of meaning and identity in a desolate world.	– Heterogeneity – Subjectivity in flux – Language as fetishized and fragmented	Harrington’s exploration of linguistic abjection reveals the play’s fragmented dialogue as a metaphor for existential lack (Harrington, pp. 140-142).
Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar	Esther’s mental breakdown mirrors the abjection of self, with her inability to reconcile societal expectations and personal identity.	– Semiotic vs. symbolic tension – Phobia as a metaphor – Subjectivity on trial	Harrington’s analysis of the semiotic and symbolic interplay aligns with Esther’s disconnection and desire for self-definition (Harrington, pp. 18-20).

Criticism Against “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington

• Complexity and Accessibility
  • Harrington’s analysis is dense and heavily reliant on Kristeva’s philosophical framework, making it challenging for readers unfamiliar with Kristeva’s work or psychoanalytic theory.
  • The performative and layered writing style may obscure the central arguments for readers seeking clarity.
• Overreliance on Kristeva’s Framework
  • The critique leans heavily on Kristeva’s theories without sufficiently interrogating their limitations or offering alternative perspectives.
  • Critics argue that this dependence may stifle broader interpretations and applications of abjection.
• Limited Engagement with Feminist Critiques
  • While addressing feminist ethics, Harrington’s focus on abjection could have engaged more deeply with critiques from contemporary feminist scholars who challenge Kristeva’s ambiguous stance on the maternal and the semiotic.
  • The analysis risks reinforcing gender binaries through its framing of maternal abjection.
• Insufficient Application to Non-Western Literatures
  • The focus on Western philosophical and literary traditions limits the scope of the discussion, leaving out potential cross-cultural or global applications of abjection.
  • Critics point out that the essay does not adequately consider how abjection might function in different cultural or historical contexts.
• Tendency Toward Theoretical Abstraction
  • The essay’s engagement with theoretical abstraction, particularly regarding the subject-in-process and the semiotic/symbolic divide, may alienate readers seeking concrete applications.
  • Some critiques suggest a need for more tangible literary examples to illustrate the theory effectively.
• Ambiguity in Ethical Implications
  • While Harrington emphasizes the ethical dimensions of Kristeva’s abjection, critics argue that the practical implications of these ethics remain unclear.
  • The connection between ethics, aesthetics, and the abject, though innovative, is underdeveloped in terms of real-world applications.

Representative Quotations from “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The abject collapses in a burst of beauty that overwhelms us—and ‘that cancels our existence.'”	Harrington emphasizes the duality of the abject as both horrifying and sublime. This collapse of boundaries forces us to confront our mortality and sense of identity, engaging both aesthetics and ethics to question the foundations of human existence.
“The speaking abject must be approached through these splits.”	The fragmented structure of Kristeva’s theory mirrors the fragmentation of the abject. Harrington highlights the need to address the abject through multiple perspectives—psychological, linguistic, and ethical—capturing its paradoxical nature.
“Language is both a tool and a battleground for negotiating the abject.”	Harrington underscores Kristeva’s view that language is where the abject manifests most intensely, as it constantly negotiates between the expressible and the inexpressible, the symbolic and the semiotic. This makes language a site of both empowerment and vulnerability.
“Kristeva’s work choreographs the paradox of the speaking subject as theorist and patient.”	This statement reflects the performative nature of Kristeva’s analysis, where the subject in process/on trial is not only observed but enacted. The theorist becomes both the analyst and the analyzed, embodying the abject through her own fragmented voice.
“The abject is elaborated through a failure to recognize its kin; nothing is familiar.”	Harrington reiterates Kristeva’s description of the abject as rooted in primal loss, making it alien even to the subject experiencing it. This misrecognition creates a destabilizing force within the subject, shaping their identity and perception of others.
“Writing is the primary analog of a phobia: in the play of the sign, Kristeva sees the heterogeneity that marks phobia and abjection.”	Writing becomes an enactment of the abject, illustrating the oscillation between creation and destruction inherent in abjection. For Kristeva, literature provides a medium to explore and articulate this tension, allowing the unspeakable to be symbolized.
“To create/perform these ruptures is to tell the story of the speaking subject in its perpetual struggle.”	Harrington emphasizes the ethical and aesthetic necessity of rupture in Kristeva’s text. This performance reflects the subject’s ongoing process of self-definition and negation, aligning with Kristeva’s notion of a revolutionary practice in art and theory.
“The abject is ‘not yet a place,’ a no-ground that the speaking subject must articulate backward.”	The abject resides in a liminal space that cannot be directly addressed. Instead, it must be circumscribed through indirect articulation, revealing the inherent instability of identity and language. Harrington interprets this as Kristeva’s method of engaging with the abject as an unresolved and disruptive force.

Suggested Readings: “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s “Powers of Horror” by Thea Harrington

1. Harrington, Thea. “The Speaking Abject in Kristeva’s ‘Powers of Horror.’” Hypatia, vol. 13, no. 1, 1998, pp. 138–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810610. Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.
2. STILL, JUDITH. “Horror in Kristeva and Bataille: Sex and Violence.” Paragraph, vol. 20, no. 3, 1997, pp. 221–39. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263665. Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.
3. POWRIE, PHIL. “The W/Hole and the Abject.” Paragraph, vol. 26, no. 1/2, 2003, pp. 222–31. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263726. Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.
4. SMITH, ANNE-MARIE. “Transgression, Transubstantiation, Transference.” Paragraph, vol. 20, no. 3, 1997, pp. 270–80. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263668. Accessed 21 Dec. 2024.