JULIA KRISTEVA
The Subject in Process: Julia Kristeva’s Radical Semiotics
Julia Kristeva’s theoretical framework is anchored in the concept of the "subject in process" (sujet en procès). Unlike traditional philosophy, which often views the "I" as a stable, unified entity, Kristeva argues that the subject is a dynamic, ongoing construction, constantly being made and unmade through the tension between two distinct components of signification: the Semiotic and the Symbolic.
1. The Semiotic vs. The Symbolic
Kristeva distinguishes her use of "semiotic" from general semiotics (the study of signs). For her:
- The Semiotic: Associated with the maternal body, drives, rhythms, and tones. It is pre-Oedipal, fluid, and non-representational. It is the "chora"—a psychic space where rhythmic pulses and bodily pressures exist before language.
- The Symbolic: The domain of social rules, syntax, grammar, and law (the "Name-of-the-Father"). It is the structure that allows for stable meaning and communication.
Meaning occurs only when these two elements intersect. If the Semiotic completely overrides the Symbolic, the result is psychosis; if the Symbolic entirely represses the Semiotic, language becomes rigid, sterile, and "dead." Artistic and poetic language is where the Semiotic "breaks through" the Symbolic, revitalizing culture with bodily energy.
2. The Theory of Abjection
Perhaps Kristeva’s most famous contribution is the concept of abjection, detailed in Powers of Horror. The abject is that which "disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules." It is the reaction (often of horror or disgust) to the breakdown in the distinction between Self and Other.
The ultimate example of the abject is the corpse (the body without a soul), which reminds the living of their own inevitable materiality. We "abject" things like blood, excrement, and decay to maintain the illusion of a clean, bounded "I." Abjection is the violent struggle to separate oneself from the maternal body to become an independent subject.
3. Intertextuality
Kristeva coined the term intertextuality, drawing from Mikhail Bakhtin’s work on dialogism. She suggests that no text is an island; every text is a "mosaic of quotations" and a transformation of other texts. This decentralizes the author, suggesting that meaning is produced through the relationship between the reader and the vast web of cultural and historical discourses that precede the individual work.
4. Strangers to Ourselves: The Ethics of Alterity
In her later work, Kristeva applies psychoanalytic theory to sociology and politics. She argues that the "foreigner" or "stranger" we fear in society is actually a projection of our own internal foreignness. Because our own unconscious is alien to our conscious self, we are all "strangers to ourselves."
By acknowledging the "stranger within," Kristeva believes we can move toward a more ethical society. If we realize that our own identity is fractured and non-identical, we lose the drive to exclude or persecute the "other" in the outside world.
Conclusion: The Revolutionary Potential of the Subject
Kristeva’s thought is inherently revolutionary. By focusing on the "process" rather than the "product" of identity, she creates space for resistance against rigid social norms. Her work insists that the body—with all its drives, abjections, and rhythms—is never truly silenced by the structures of society, but remains a constant, disruptive force for renewal and meaning.