Sunday, March 1, 2015
New Forms of Revolt
In Kristeva's piece, she contrasts two different forms of revolt with another: internal and external revolt. Arguing that each type of revolt holds a specific place within a certain historical context, Kristeva notes that internal and external forms of revolt are not two distinct kinds of revolt that were born individually, but rather one followed the other with the progression of time and the changing relationships between a state and its people. At first, Kristeva makes it seem as if modern revolt is different from revolt in the past, contrasting The French Revolution with university strikes seen today, but as her piece develops she argues that the new form of revolt has more to do with the "inner experience" as opposed to challenging external factors. The "inner experience" is "demanding, unique and able to appropriate the complexity of the past in order to approach the present and the future" (2). Contrary to previous popular form of external revolt, the new inner experience is necessary given our historical context because it both rejects the current system of values and policy and offers a "sensible alternative" in its place (2). This is not to take away from the contribution of external revolt in shaping our modern societies, however. Kristeva argues that this "new species" of rebels are just as furious with social, political, and economic injustice as rebels of the past, but they use this anger in order to drive their own internal motivations to revolt and mold their society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you made a great point in differentiating between the external and internal revolt and that they built upon one and other; however, I think the order in which you placed them is a little too finite. In order for someone to externally revolt, they must have experienced something, then internalized that experience, then act upon that internalization (even if this process is subconscious). Citizens externally revolt against pre-conceived notions or a lack of liberty because they have internally realized that it is unjust. I think instead of just a chronologically this came first and then this, it is more of a back and forth, continuous feedback loop like we discussed with the religion example in class. I think you make a great point in that both revolts are equally furious. In fact, I think internal revolts are sometimes even more furious, albeit less visible.
ReplyDeleteI think that all revolts have an internal and external driving force. For example, the French Revolution was, in the most simplistic terms, a call for liberty. Evidently, as an external force, there was the economic crisis and political crisis (among the monarchy). This economic crisis and political crisis failed to remain an external issue as it had an immense impact on the livelihood of the citizens. Freedom to think and to practice one's chosen religion did NOT exist prior to the revolution. (We could also argue that it still does not exist...as France remains highly nationalistic). Anyways, maybe I am stumped on the idea of external and internal. To me, it is a cycle - the external can affect the internal just as much as the internal can affect the external.
ReplyDeleteI think your explanation is linear rather than circular. What do you think?