The Postcure and the Lecture Well: A Lover's Discourse in Light of Barthes' Late Pedagogy

IF 0.5 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM CounterText-A Journal for the Study of the Post-Literary Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.3366/count.2023.0298
B. Blanchfield
{"title":"The Postcure and the Lecture Well: A Lover's Discourse in Light of Barthes' Late Pedagogy","authors":"B. Blanchfield","doi":"10.3366/count.2023.0298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A reader's personal essay on and critical contribution to the retroactive understanding of A Lover's Discourse as a close formal and methodological predecessor to Roland Barthes's final three Collège de France lectures, especially the first of them, How to Live Together (1977). The essay tracks the ways that the “figures” of amorous discourse, Barthes's term for the stances and formulations that belong to and constitute the impassioned lover's subject position, anticipate the “traits” suggestive of the problem of living-together, as an individualist in a collective. It also marks the distinctions between the two projects, primarily in the latter the manifested objective of “désapprentisage,” or an unlearning, a “jamming” of the mission of the intellectual, which motivated his refusal thenceforth to repurpose any lecture as a book. Even as Barthes insisted on further differences between his two late subjects, a close “semioclasmic” analysis is brought to bear on a single “scene of language” that produced much that would be coded as figures and traits in the two studies, namely Barthes's letters written from the sanitoriums in which he spent his youth, letters issued at once lover to beloved and convalescent to outpatient in which he formulates both his estrangement in love and his flooded idiorrhythmy in communal living.","PeriodicalId":42177,"journal":{"name":"CounterText-A Journal for the Study of the Post-Literary","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CounterText-A Journal for the Study of the Post-Literary","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/count.2023.0298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A reader's personal essay on and critical contribution to the retroactive understanding of A Lover's Discourse as a close formal and methodological predecessor to Roland Barthes's final three Collège de France lectures, especially the first of them, How to Live Together (1977). The essay tracks the ways that the “figures” of amorous discourse, Barthes's term for the stances and formulations that belong to and constitute the impassioned lover's subject position, anticipate the “traits” suggestive of the problem of living-together, as an individualist in a collective. It also marks the distinctions between the two projects, primarily in the latter the manifested objective of “désapprentisage,” or an unlearning, a “jamming” of the mission of the intellectual, which motivated his refusal thenceforth to repurpose any lecture as a book. Even as Barthes insisted on further differences between his two late subjects, a close “semioclasmic” analysis is brought to bear on a single “scene of language” that produced much that would be coded as figures and traits in the two studies, namely Barthes's letters written from the sanitoriums in which he spent his youth, letters issued at once lover to beloved and convalescent to outpatient in which he formulates both his estrangement in love and his flooded idiorrhythmy in communal living.
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
后治与演讲:从巴尔特晚期教育学的视角看一个情人的话语
《情人话语》是罗兰·巴特最后三次法兰西学院讲座的正式和方法论前身,尤其是其中第一次讲座《如何生活在一起》(1977),这是一篇读者个人文章,对追溯理解《情人话语。这篇文章追踪了情爱话语中的“人物”,即巴特对属于并构成激情情人主题立场的立场和表述的术语,如何预测暗示作为集体中的个人主义者共同生活问题的“特征”。它也标志着这两个项目之间的区别,主要是在后者中,“désaprentisage”或遗忘的明确目标,对知识分子使命的“干扰”,这促使他从此拒绝将任何讲座重新用作书籍。尽管巴特坚持认为他的两个晚期研究对象之间存在进一步的差异,但对一个单一的“语言场景”进行了密切的“半破坏性”分析,在这两项研究中产生了许多被编码为数字和特征的东西,即巴特年轻时在疗养院写的信,他在信中表达了他在爱情中的隔阂和在公共生活中泛滥的白痴。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Poems Variations on a Dominant Design Concept: Scenes from Changeling Front matter A Test of Names: Franco Fortini and Primo Levi on the Language of Anti-Fascism The CounterText Interview: Annette Gilbert
×
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