Suchergebnisse

Este artículo, titulado «Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of Post-Modernism», fue traducido del libro Feminist Contentions. A Philosophical Exchange, de Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell y Nancy Fraser. (New York: Routledge, 1995). (N. de la T.)Traducción: Gabriela Castellanos LlanosCentro de Estudios de Género, Mujer y SociedadUniversidad del Valle

Balibar's consideration of Althusser's notion of dramaturgy suggests that we might rethink conventional ways of understanding ideology. Althusser works out his views on dramaturgy through an engagement with Brecht, and so it makes sense to consider how Benjamin's reading of Brecht offers an alternative point of view. Benjamin's focus on gesture offers concrete ways of reconceptualizing both identification and disidentification. Read together with his critique of legal violence, one can also see how the gesture displays and arrests the destructive power of the state. Benjamin thus introduces a way to think about state violence through a dramaturgical formulation of ideology.

Returning to Juliet Mitchell's own rereading of her account of sexual difference, this article takes up the question of how structures of kinship—along with the laws of sexual difference that constitute them—are transmitted. According to Mitchell, the construction of sexual difference is characterized by a certain degree of conservatism in that, despite efforts to effect social change, certain normative ways of organizing sexuality manage to persist and to be conveyed across generations. She stresses that this transmission, if it is in fact one, is not necessarily a conscious operation. As such, it is difficult to locate within a precise topography and may require us to rethink the conditions of address and reception at work in the notions of "acquisition" or "transmission." This essay analyzes two of the examples that Mitchell offers for understanding the historical acquisition of unconscious ideas related to sexual difference, namely, the case of transgenerational guilt and that of the child who emerges into heterosexuality despite being raised by two parents of the same sex. Acknowledging Mitchell's suggestion that sexual difference is marked by recalcitrance, but refusing the way in which she binds sexual difference to the semantic opposition between masculine and feminine, this essay offers an understanding of kinship that, first, recognizes the inadequacy of mimetic accounts of sexuality that treat parents as "models" for the formation of sexual desire and, second, argues that "invariant" laws of sexual difference, which are not merely reproduced from one generation to the next, do not persist without alteration. The trajectory of psychic contents is not unwavering, and what is relayed into the present is only communicated with translations, transpositions, and deviations that leave what is passed on changed and never fully predictable.

In these closing comments from the "Queer Bonds" conference (subtitled "A Symposium on Sexuality and Sociability"), the author suggests that the "sociability" staged at the conference itself depended on a certain forgetfulness, a certain "failure of transmission," that may also be the condition of any sociability. She suggests that there is also a sociality at stake in human relationality that does not imply the intimate connotations of sociability. This sociality derives from the constitutive conditions of the body itself—a body always given over to others, which exists in a field of social norms and depends on those norms, and those others, for its survival. The ontology of the body is thus a social ontology: we are all over each other, and that is true from the start. The generalized condition of precariousness that characterizes all bodies—and that makes the possibility of both violence and eroticism their constitutive condition—is nevertheless differentially distributed and also politically exploited. Queer theory has played a special role in bringing to light this differential distribution of precariousness, and this means that queer theory is from the outset implicated in politics, indeed in political activism, and cannot be separated from its enactments. We exist in a relation of "queer bonds" with—and are obligated to—those "we" may never know or recognize.

Los textos que Hanna Arendt dedicó al judaísmo, alrededor de temas como la patria y el nacionalismo, la pertenencia cultural y la cuestión sobre las personas sin estado, constituyen más una exposición de paradojas que textos cerrados. Escéptica en lo que se refiere tanto al asimilacionismo como al sionismo, Arendt aboga por la secularización de la política mientras desmonta la lógica del estado-nación, ya que para ella la común historia de exilio y desposesión abre la vía para la unión de judíos y palestinos, de inmigrantes y apátridas, abriendo el camino al pensamiento judío respecto al concepto de justicia. ; The texts Hanna Arendt devoted to Judaism, centered on topics like the homeland and nationalism, cultural belonging and the question of stateless people, are exhibitions of paradoxes rather than close texts. Skeptical about both assimilationism and Zionism, Arendt defends the secularization of politics while she dismantles the logics of the state-nation, as, to her, the common history of exile and dispossession sets the path for the union of Jews and Palestinians, of immigrants and stateless people, and enables Jewish thought about the concept of justice.