Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Between Irony and Revolution: Sexual Difference and the Case ofAufhebung

2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13534640801990558

1460-700X

Миглена Николчина,

Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Hegel

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 257. 2. A.I. Volodin, Gegel'i russkaja socialisticheskaja mysl’ XIX veka (Moskva: Mysl’, 1973), p. 6. [Unless otherwise stated, all translations are done by the author.] 3. Oleg Sumin, Gegel’ kak sud'ba Rossii (Sofia: Malvina, 1997). 4. Oleg Sumin, Gegel’ kak sud'ba Rossii, p. 43. 5. A.I. Volodin, Gegel'i russkaja socialisticheskaja mysl’ XIX veka, pp. 8; 235. 6. G.V.F. Gegel’, Sochinenija, vol. 7 (Moskva‐Leningrad: Sotsekgiz, 1934), p. xv. 7. Oleg Sumin, Gegel’ kak sud'ba Rossii, p. 90. 8. V.I. Lenin, ‘Gosudarstvo i revoljucija: Uchenie marksizma o gosudarstve i zadachi proletariata v revoljucii’, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenij, 5‐e izd., vol. 33 (Moskva: Izdatel'stvo politicheskoj literatury, 1974), p. 70. 9. V.I. Lenin, ‘Filosofskie tetrady’, in Polnoe sobranie, vol. 29, p. 330. 10. V.I. Lenin, ‘Filosofskie tetrady’, in Polnoe sobranie, vol. 29, p. 92. 11. Jacques Derrida, ‘Qu'est‐ce qu'une traduction “relevante”?’, in Jacques Derrida, ed. Marie‐Louise Mallet and Ginette Michaud (Paris: Éditions de l'Herne, 2004), pp. 561–76. 12. Cf. Gwendoline Jarczyk and Perre‐Jean Labarrière, ‘Sursumer/Sursomption’, in Hegeliana (Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1986), pp. 102–20. 13. Jean‐Luc Nancy, La remarque spéculative (un bon mot de Hegel) (Paris: Galilée, 1973), p. 18, n.4. 14. Alexandre Kojève, Introduction à la lecture de Hegel (Paris: Gallimard, 1947), p. 482. 15. Jean Wahl, ‘Le role de A. Koyré dans le developpement des études hegeliennes en France’, Hegel‐Studien, Beiheft, 3 (Bonn: H.Bouvier Verlag, 1966), pp.15–26 (p.22). 16. Jean Wahl, ‘Le role de A. Koyré’, p.22. 17. Jacques Derrida, ‘Différance’, in Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 1–27 (p. 13). 18. Jacques Derrida, Positions, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 44. 19. Michael Inwood, A Hegel Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2003), p. 284. 20. Jacques Derrida, ‘Différance’, p. 20, tr.n.23. 21. Gwendoline Jarczyk and Perre‐Jean Labarrière, ‘Sursumer/Sursomption’, p. 110. 22. For example in Victor Delbos, ‘Les Facteurs kantiens dans la philosophie allemande’, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale (1925). Cf. Alexandre Koyré, ‘Rapport sur l'état des études hégeliennes en France’, in Études d'histoire de la pensée philosophique (Paris: Gallimard, 1971), p. 235, n.1. 23. Alexabdre Koyré, ‘Rapport’, pp. 213; 215. 24. Alexandre Koyré, ‘Hegel à Iéna’, in Études d'histoire de la pensée philosophique (Paris: Gallimard, 1971), pp. 147–89 (p. 161). 25. Alexandre Koyré, ‘Note sur la langue et la terminologie hégelienne’, in Études d'histoire de la pensée philosophique (Paris: Gallimard, 1971), p. 209. 26. Alexandre Kojève, Introduction à la lecture de Hegel, p. 21. 27. Jacques Derrida, ‘Qu'est‐ce qu'une traduction “relevante”?’, p. 573. 28. Jacques Lacan, ‘L'étourdit’, in Autres écrits (Paris: Le Seuil, 2001), pp. 449–95 (p. 453). 29. Jacques Lacan, ‘The Signification of the Phallus’, in Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the école freudienne, ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose, trans. Jacqueline Rose (New York: Norton, 1985), pp. 74–85 (p. 82). Here goes the French version: ‘[…] signe lui‐même de la latence dont est frappé tout signifiable, dès lors qu'il est élevé (aufgehoben) à la fonction de signifiant. Le phallus est le signifiant de cette Aufhebung elle‐même inaugure (initie) par sa disparition.’ Jacques Lacan, Écrits II (Paris: Seuil, 1999), p. 170. 30. Jacques Lacan, Le Seminaire livre XX, Encore (Paris: Seuil, 1975), p. 79. 31. Alain Badiou, Théorie du sujet (Paris: Seuil, 1982), p. 187. 32. V.I. Lenin, ‘Detskaja bolezn’ “levizny” v kommunizme’, in Polnoe sobranie, vol. 41, pp. 69–70. 33. Cf. Joan Scott, Only Paradoxes to Offer: French Feminists and the Rights of Man (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996). 34. Cf. my ‘The Seminar: Mode d'emploi. Impure Spaces in the Light of Late Totalitarianism’, in Going Public: Feminism and the Boundaries of the Private Space, ed. Joan W. Scott and Debra Keates (Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004), pp. 359–89. 35. Cf. Judith Bulter, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990); Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (New York: Routledge, 1993); Undoing Gender (New York: Routledge, 2004). 36. Judith Bulter, Bodies that Matter, p. 95. 37. Joan Copjec, ‘Sex and the Euthanasia of Reason’, chapter 8 in Read My Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists (Cambridge, MA: The MIT University Press, 1995), pp. 201; 210. 38. Joan Copjec, ‘Sex and the Euthanasia of Reason’, p. 236. 39. Joan Copjec, ‘Sex and the Euthanasia or Reason’, p. 236. 40. Joan Copjec, ‘Sex and the Euthanasia of Reason’, p. 234. 41. Joan Rivière, ‘Womanliness as a Masquerade’, in Formations of Fantasy, ed. Victor Burgin, James Donald and Cora Kaplan (New York: Methuen, 1986), pp. 35–44. 42. Alain Badiou, Théorie du sujet, p. 278. 43. For a different discussion of the manner in which Butler's and Copjec's views on gender and sexual difference ‘need’ each other see Susanne Lummerding, Agency@? Cyber‐Diskurse, Subjektkonstituierung und Handlungsfähigkeit im Feld des Politischen (Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau, 2005), pp. 97–150; Susanne Lummerding, ‘Wasteland TV?/Ödland Fernsehen?’, in SCREENWISE. Film, Fernsehen, Feminismus, ed. Monika Bernold, Andrea B. Braidt and Claudia Preschl (Marburg: Schüren, 2004), pp. 165–73. 44. Elena Petrovskaja, ‘JEtot smutnyj obraz devjanostyh’, Hudozhestvennyj ZHurnal, 25 (1999), pp. 13–15 (p. 14). 45. Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future. Eight Exercises in Political Thought (New York: Penguin, 1977), pp. 5–6. 46. I treat this issue in greater detail in ‘The West as Intellectual Utopia’, in Remembering Communism: Genres of Representation, ed. Maria Todorova (New York: SSRC, forthcoming). 47. Ralitsa Muharska, ‘Mylchania i parodii. Feministkia dialog mezhdu iztoka i zapada. Kyde sme nie?’, in Maiki i dywteri. Pokolenia i posoki v bylgarskia feminism (Sofia: Polis, 1999), pp. 53–61. 48. The text that prompted Bunzhulov's idea was Michel Foucault, ‘Of Other Spaces’, diacritics, 16:1 (1986), pp. 22–27. More recently, texts that Foucault delivered for the radio and that deal with the same problematic have appeared. Cf. Michel Foucault, Die Heterotopien. Les heterotopias. Der utopische Körper. Le corps utopique, (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2005). 49. Cf. Andrej Bundzhulov, ‘Modernoto obwtestvo i socialisticheskata heterotopia’, Kritika i humanizym, 3 (1991), pp. 207–23; Heterotopii (Sofia: Kritika i humanizym, 1995); ‘Vlast i vidimost. Uvod vyv fenomenologiata na heliotorpizmite’, Kritika i humanizym, 6 (1999), pp. 161–76. 50. Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992), p. 256. 51. Alenka Zupančič, The Odd One In: On Comedy (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008), p. 81. 52. Alain Badiou, Théorie du sujet, p. 162. 53. Giorgio Agamben, Le temps qui reste. Un commentaire de l'Épître aux Romains, trans. Iudith Revel (Paris: Rivages, 2004), pp. 170–72. 54. Catherine Malabou, whose ‘transformation’ of the Aufhebung into ‘plasticity’ as ‘sculpture’ and ‘explosion’ deserves a separate discussion, notes that ‘If the sublation (relève) can sublate itself, it is precisely because it ends by seeing itself and can consequently let (itself) fall [(se) laisser tomber].’ Catharine Malabou, La plasticité au soir de l'écriture. Dialectique, destruction, deconstruction (Paris: Léo Scheer 2005), p. 68.