A Critique of Martha Nussbaum’s Liberal Aesthetics

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Theory Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1177/00905917231194734
Katie Ebner-Landy
{"title":"A Critique of Martha Nussbaum’s Liberal Aesthetics","authors":"Katie Ebner-Landy","doi":"10.1177/00905917231194734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While we are familiar with socialist and fascist aesthetics, liberalism is not usually thought to permit a political role for literature. Nussbaum has attempted to fill this lacuna. She sketches a “liberal aesthetics” by linking three aspects of literature to her normative proposal. The representation of suffering is connected to the capability approach; the presentation of ethical dilemmas to political liberalism; and the reaction of pity to legal and political judgment. Literature is thus hoped to contribute to the stability of liberal democracies. For over 25 years, individual works by Nussbaum on the value of literature have been critiqued on aesthetic grounds: for not dealing with form, for denying the polyphony of texts, for having a limited conception of readerly identification, and for using an elitist and generically limited selection of material. As of yet, no criticisms have, however, considered the full oeuvre of Nussbaum’s defense of literature, and none have examined this aspect of her work in light of her political philosophy. By placing the aesthetic and political aspects of Nussbaum’s work in conversation, this article investigates the proposed relationship between literature and liberalism. It argues that each component of Nussbaum’s liberal aesthetics contains a political danger: foreclosing discussion of intergenerational responsibility; obscuring questions about which doctrines are permissible in the public sphere; and encouraging stereotypes of marginalized people. Literature, understood like this, may risk exacerbating present tensions within liberalism, rather than bolstering its stability.","PeriodicalId":47788,"journal":{"name":"Political Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231194734","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While we are familiar with socialist and fascist aesthetics, liberalism is not usually thought to permit a political role for literature. Nussbaum has attempted to fill this lacuna. She sketches a “liberal aesthetics” by linking three aspects of literature to her normative proposal. The representation of suffering is connected to the capability approach; the presentation of ethical dilemmas to political liberalism; and the reaction of pity to legal and political judgment. Literature is thus hoped to contribute to the stability of liberal democracies. For over 25 years, individual works by Nussbaum on the value of literature have been critiqued on aesthetic grounds: for not dealing with form, for denying the polyphony of texts, for having a limited conception of readerly identification, and for using an elitist and generically limited selection of material. As of yet, no criticisms have, however, considered the full oeuvre of Nussbaum’s defense of literature, and none have examined this aspect of her work in light of her political philosophy. By placing the aesthetic and political aspects of Nussbaum’s work in conversation, this article investigates the proposed relationship between literature and liberalism. It argues that each component of Nussbaum’s liberal aesthetics contains a political danger: foreclosing discussion of intergenerational responsibility; obscuring questions about which doctrines are permissible in the public sphere; and encouraging stereotypes of marginalized people. Literature, understood like this, may risk exacerbating present tensions within liberalism, rather than bolstering its stability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
玛莎·努斯鲍姆的自由主义美学批判
虽然我们熟悉社会主义和法西斯主义美学,但人们通常认为自由主义不允许文学扮演政治角色。努斯鲍姆试图填补这一空白。她通过将文学的三个方面与她的规范性建议联系起来,勾勒出一种“自由主义美学”。苦难的表征与能力方法有关;政治自由主义伦理困境的呈现以及对法律和政治判决的同情反应。因此,人们希望文学有助于自由民主国家的稳定。在超过25年的时间里,努斯鲍姆关于文学价值的个别作品一直受到美学方面的批评:不处理形式,否认文本的复调,对读者身份的概念有限,以及使用精英主义和一般有限的材料选择。然而,到目前为止,还没有任何批评考虑过努斯鲍姆为文学辩护的全部作品,也没有人从她的政治哲学的角度来审视她作品的这一方面。通过将努斯鲍姆作品的美学和政治方面置于对话中,本文探讨了文学与自由主义之间的关系。它认为,努斯鲍姆的自由主义美学的每一个组成部分都包含着一种政治危险:阻止对代际责任的讨论;模糊了哪些教义在公共领域是被允许的问题;鼓励对边缘人群的刻板印象。这样理解文学,可能会加剧自由主义内部目前的紧张局势,而不是增强其稳定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Theory
Political Theory POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Political Theory is an international journal of political thought open to contributions from a wide range of methodological, philosophical, and ideological perspectives. Essays in contemporary and historical political thought, normative and cultural theory, history of ideas, and assessments of current work are welcome. The journal encourages essays that address pressing political and ethical issues or events.
期刊最新文献
Machiavelli Against Sovereignty: Emergency Powers and the Decemvirate Carl Schmitt’s Political Theology: Legitimizing Authority after Secularization “A New Kind of Death”: Rape, Sex, and Pornography as Violence in Andrea Dworkin’s Thought Neurotic Situations: A Critical Dialogue between Freud and Fanon “Parties Are the Supreme Mentors of the Nation”: Appreciations for Parties and Partisanship in China, 1895–1920
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1