I and We: Hannah Arendt, Participatory Plurality, and the Literary Scaffolding of Collective Intentionality

IF 0.1 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Interdisciplinary Literary Studies Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.5325/intelitestud.25.2.0235
B. Morgan, Naomi Rokotnitz, F. Budelmann, D. Zahavi
{"title":"I and We: Hannah Arendt, Participatory Plurality, and the Literary Scaffolding of Collective Intentionality","authors":"B. Morgan, Naomi Rokotnitz, F. Budelmann, D. Zahavi","doi":"10.5325/intelitestud.25.2.0235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This article examines Hannah Arendt’s contribution to notions of the “We” and tests key Arendtian concepts through relation and juxtaposition with philosophical and literary texts from different periods, thereby complicating discussions of (1) how individuals participate in, shape, and are shaped by various forms of “We”; (2) how, within collective participation, individuals come to care about being themselves; and (3) to what extent literary texts enable and encourage processes of identity construction and (re)configuration. For Arendt, the “place in the world which makes opinions significant and actions effective” (2017, 387–88) is “the result of our common labor, the outcome of the human artifice” (2017, 393)—the shared practices and institutions that Wittgenstein calls “forms of life” (2009, 15). In this article, the authors argue that by exploring and critiquing “forms of life” literature can expand the range of activities we recognize as fostering “participatory sense-making” (De Jaegher and Di Paolo 2007, 465). The three literary provocations presented here—Callimachus’s “Hymn to Apollo,” Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, and Margaret Atwood’s Alias Grace—all interrogate the situated interactions of “I’s” and “We’s” that instantiate the “participatory plurality” of the shared world.","PeriodicalId":40903,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Literary Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"235 - 264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Literary Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.25.2.0235","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

abstract:This article examines Hannah Arendt’s contribution to notions of the “We” and tests key Arendtian concepts through relation and juxtaposition with philosophical and literary texts from different periods, thereby complicating discussions of (1) how individuals participate in, shape, and are shaped by various forms of “We”; (2) how, within collective participation, individuals come to care about being themselves; and (3) to what extent literary texts enable and encourage processes of identity construction and (re)configuration. For Arendt, the “place in the world which makes opinions significant and actions effective” (2017, 387–88) is “the result of our common labor, the outcome of the human artifice” (2017, 393)—the shared practices and institutions that Wittgenstein calls “forms of life” (2009, 15). In this article, the authors argue that by exploring and critiquing “forms of life” literature can expand the range of activities we recognize as fostering “participatory sense-making” (De Jaegher and Di Paolo 2007, 465). The three literary provocations presented here—Callimachus’s “Hymn to Apollo,” Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, and Margaret Atwood’s Alias Grace—all interrogate the situated interactions of “I’s” and “We’s” that instantiate the “participatory plurality” of the shared world.
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
我与我们:汉娜·阿伦特、参与性多元性与集体意向性的文学框架
摘要:本文考察了汉娜·阿伦特对“我们”概念的贡献,并通过与不同时期的哲学和文学文本的联系和并列来检验阿伦特的关键概念,从而使以下讨论变得复杂:(1)个体如何参与、塑造和被各种形式的“我们”塑造;(2)在集体参与中,个体如何开始关心做自己;(3)文学文本在多大程度上促进和鼓励身份建构和(重新)配置的过程。对于阿伦特来说,“在世界上使意见有意义和行动有效的地方”(2017,387 - 88)是“我们共同劳动的结果,人类技巧的结果”(2017,393)-维特根斯坦称之为“生活形式”的共享实践和制度(2009,15)。在这篇文章中,作者认为,通过探索和批判“生活形式”,文学可以扩大我们认为可以促进“参与式意义构建”的活动范围(De Jaegher and Di Paolo 2007,465)。这里提出的三种文学挑衅——卡利马库斯的《阿波罗赞美诗》、托马斯·曼的《魔山》和玛格丽特·阿特伍德的《别名格雷斯》——都质疑了“我”和“我们”之间的相互作用,这些相互作用体现了共享世界的“参与性多元化”。
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
Interdisciplinary Literary Studies
Interdisciplinary Literary Studies LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Interdisciplinary Literary Studies seeks to explore the interconnections between literary study and other disciplines, ideologies, and cultural methods of critique. All national literatures, periods, and genres are welcomed topics.
期刊最新文献
Negotiating Demons of the Mind: Psychological Distress, Social Apathy and Victimhood in Tagore’s The Garden (Malancha) Discourse and Madness in Shadows in the Sun The Weather Is Dirty: Jane Austen’s Use of Nature as a Social Agent Women’s Dilemma of Love: An Ethical Literary Interpretation of Miss Sophie’s Diary by Ding Ling Improvisation in Jack Kerouac’s “Jazz” Writing: Intersubjectivity, Authenticity, and the Collectivist Utopia
×
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