Critiques of Violence: Arendt, Sedgwick, and Cavarero Respond to Billy Budd’s Stutter

IF 0.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Critical Horizons Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/14409917.2023.2233112
Andrea Timár
{"title":"Critiques of Violence: Arendt, Sedgwick, and Cavarero Respond to Billy Budd’s Stutter","authors":"Andrea Timár","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2233112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines how Adriana Cavarero extends and offers an alternative to Hannah Arendt's understanding of speech and its relationship to politics and violence through a re-reading of Herman Melville’s, Billy Budd, Sailor (1891). The novella was examined by Arendt in On Revolution (1963) where she considers the apolitical character of the French Revolutionary Terror and establishes a link between violence, mimetic contagion, and the failure of articulate speech. I suggest that whereas Arendt’s reading only offers two possible responses to violence—forgiveness or punishment (perpetuating violence)—a reading of the novella inspired by Cavarero’s work shows a third alternative, the prevention of violence, while equally revealing the blind spot of Arendt’s argument. The blind spot is Arendt's privileging of articulate speech and her failure to consider the embodied character of human expression. Cavarero’s ethics of inclination, however, allows for a response to, and responsibility for, the uniqueness of the human voice, and for the intention to convey meaning. To mediate between Arendt and Cavarero, the paper also reconsiders Nidesh Lawtoo’s understanding of mimesis, evokes Eve Sedgwick’s paradigm-setting queer reading of Billy Budd, and engages with Walter Benjamin’s and Giorgio Agamben’s contrary takes on the relationship between violence and language.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Horizons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2233112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines how Adriana Cavarero extends and offers an alternative to Hannah Arendt's understanding of speech and its relationship to politics and violence through a re-reading of Herman Melville’s, Billy Budd, Sailor (1891). The novella was examined by Arendt in On Revolution (1963) where she considers the apolitical character of the French Revolutionary Terror and establishes a link between violence, mimetic contagion, and the failure of articulate speech. I suggest that whereas Arendt’s reading only offers two possible responses to violence—forgiveness or punishment (perpetuating violence)—a reading of the novella inspired by Cavarero’s work shows a third alternative, the prevention of violence, while equally revealing the blind spot of Arendt’s argument. The blind spot is Arendt's privileging of articulate speech and her failure to consider the embodied character of human expression. Cavarero’s ethics of inclination, however, allows for a response to, and responsibility for, the uniqueness of the human voice, and for the intention to convey meaning. To mediate between Arendt and Cavarero, the paper also reconsiders Nidesh Lawtoo’s understanding of mimesis, evokes Eve Sedgwick’s paradigm-setting queer reading of Billy Budd, and engages with Walter Benjamin’s and Giorgio Agamben’s contrary takes on the relationship between violence and language.
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
暴力批判:阿伦特、塞奇威克和卡瓦雷罗回应比利·巴德的《口吃》
摘要本文通过重读赫尔曼·梅尔维尔(Herman Melville)的《比利·巴德·赛罗》(Billy Budd,Sailor,1891),探讨了阿德里安娜·卡瓦雷罗(Adriana Cavarero)是如何扩展汉娜·阿伦特(Hannah Arendt)对言论及其与政治和暴力的关系的理解的,并为其提供了一种替代方案。阿伦特在《论革命》(1963)一书中对这部中篇小说进行了研究,她在书中考虑了法国革命恐怖的非政治性,并在暴力、模仿传染和口齿不清之间建立了联系。我认为,尽管阿伦特的阅读只提供了对暴力的两种可能的回应——宽恕或惩罚(使暴力永久化)——但受卡瓦雷罗作品启发的中篇小说的阅读显示了第三种选择,即预防暴力,同时也揭示了阿伦特论点的盲点。盲点是阿伦特对口齿清晰的话语的特权,以及她没有考虑到人类表达的具体特征。然而,卡瓦雷罗的倾向伦理允许对人类声音的独特性做出回应并承担责任,以及传达意义的意图。为了在阿伦特和卡瓦雷罗之间进行调解,本文还重新思考了奈德什·劳图对模仿的理解,唤起了伊芙·塞奇威克对比利·巴德的范式设置的酷儿阅读,并与沃尔特·本雅明和乔治·阿甘本对暴力与语言关系的相反看法进行了探讨。
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
Critical Horizons
Critical Horizons SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Giorgio Agamben’s Critique of the Covid-19 Response has Little to Do with Biopolitics Political Judgment and Ingenium: Rethinking the Sensus Communis Through Arendt and Vico The Politics of Bodies: Philosophical Emancipation with and Beyond Rancière Universality as a Historical-Political Problem: On the Limits of Buck-Morss’ Conceptualisation of Universality Of Israel, Forst & Voltaire: Deism, Toleration, and Radicalism
×
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