Kristeva: The Individual, the Symbolic and Feminist Readings of the Biblical Text

Authors

  • Joshua Roe University of Oxford

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/texmat-2014-0009

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop from Kristeva’s account of time and semiotics the conditions of possibility for a new approach to interpreting the Bible. This will be set against the background of feminist biblical criticism, beginning from Esther Fuchs’s assessment of deception. She bases her comparison on the concept of deceptiveness but I will argue, using Lacan, that the aporia of desire undermines this comparison. Through Kristeva’s framework of the phases of feminism it will be shown that Fuchs’s argument weakness lies in her presupposition of the determinate identities of men and women. By examining passages in Genesis it will be shown that such determined identities are also not easily found in the Hebrew Bible. Then by considering another feminist scholar, Alice Bach, it will be shown that overcoming identity requires a more nuanced approach. In the first version of “Women’s Time” Kristeva suggests that identities could be overcome through moving towards the individual but this also operates in the same structure of identity. In fact Kristeva appears to recognize this problem as when she republishes the essay she considers a different way forward. It will be instead suggested that a type of feminism that recognizes its own weakness is needed. This will be used to interpret Proverbs 31 but in doing so it will become evident that this alone lacks the potency to overcome the diffuse nature of the symbolic.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Joshua Roe, University of Oxford

Joshua Roe is an M.Phil candidate in theology at the University of Oxford. His dissertation focuses on Martin Heidegger’s engagement with Duns Scotus. It argues that the main point Heidegger takes from Scotus is the principle of individuation rather than the more recent interest in the univocity of being. His other interests include work on: Immanuel Kant in German Idealism, comparing Karl Barth to Jean-Luc Marion, and Jacques Derrida’s relationship to religion. He intends to begin a Ph.D. on comparing Martin Heidegger to Gilles Deleuze.

References

Bach, Alice. Women, Seduction, and Betrayal in Biblical Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print.
Google Scholar

Deutscher, Penelope. How to Read Derrida. London: Norton, 2006. Print.
Google Scholar

Ehrensperger, Kathy. That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies. London: Clark, 2004. Print.
Google Scholar

Fuchs, Esther. “‘For I Have the Way of Women’: Deception, Gender, and Ideology in Biblical Narrative.” Semeia 42 (1988): 68-83. Print.
Google Scholar

Fuchs, Esther. “Who Is Hiding the Truth? Deceptive Women and Biblical Androcentricism.” Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Ed. Adela Yarbro Collins. Atlanta: Scholars, 1984. 137-44. Print.
Google Scholar

Kesel, Marc De. Eros and Ethics: Reading Jacques Lacan’s Seminar VII. New York: SUNY Press, 2009. Print.
Google Scholar

Kristeva, Julia. Intimate Revolt. New York: Columbia UP, 2002. Print.
Google Scholar

Kristeva, Julia. New Maladies of the Soul. New York: Columbia UP, 1995. Print.
Google Scholar

Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia UP, 1984. Print.
Google Scholar

Kristeva, Julia. “Women’s Time.” Trans. Alice Jardine and Harry Blake. Signs 7.1 (1981): 13-35. Print.
Google Scholar

Lacan, Jacques. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-analysis. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986. Print.
Google Scholar

Lefebvre, Henri. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time, and Everyday Life. London: Continuum, 2004. Print.
Google Scholar

Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2nd ed. London: Darton, 1965. Print
Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

2014-11-25

How to Cite

Roe, J. (2014). Kristeva: The Individual, the Symbolic and Feminist Readings of the Biblical Text. Text Matters: A Journal of Literature, Theory and Culture, (4), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.2478/texmat-2014-0009