ABSTRACT
In the previous chapter I considered Adorno practising negativity in pursuit of the primacy of the object. In this chapter I will explore the way psychoanalytically-informed theories infer negativity in relation to the subject. The focus will be primarily, although not exclusively, on Julia Kristeva, since in her earlier work especially (and in particular in her Revolution in Poetic Language (La Révolution du Langage Poétique, 1974)) she explicitly invoked negativity and related it to a radical politics.1 Kristeva is usually read as a structuralist with poststructuralist tendencies. As such her work falls within an anti-humanist problematic. Despite a fascination with structural linguistics she was, however, reluctant to abandon the speaking, ethical subject, whose fate lies at the centre of her political interests. But, while her work engages with both Marxist and feminist concerns, the politics she advocates looks more postmodern in terms of the transgressive strategies and aesthetic practices she proposes, as opposed to their more collectivist concern with mass movements.2 So far in this book I have implied that poststructuralist negativity is inimical to a politics, but discussion of Kristeva’s work will allow me to present a more enthusiastic assessment of postmodern interventions. What is also novel in Kristeva’s writing as far as the negativity discussed in previous chapters is concerned, is that her psychoanalytic approach provokes questions regarding its gendering. Is there any sense in which negativity might be designated feminine? And if so, what are its implications for sexual difference and for feminist politics? These questions will be addressed in the latter part of the chapter.
