Abstract: This article puts forth a theory of an Arendtian mode of political allegory: a technique of reading to illuminate an effaced and excluded figure in philosophical accounts of the polis. I retrieve how a speechless hero recurs throughout Arendt’s writing as a critique of a “tradition” of political philosophy. Arendt’s readings of figures silent before the law, such as Socrates’s “speechless wonder” in representations of his trial and Melville’s casting of a figure with a “vocal defect” in Billy Budd, are political allegories about rightlessness. I assemble a range of such literary citations and examples to demonstrate how her understudied but remarkable attentiveness to the literary works to expose the limits of an established rationality in political philosophy about law. In addition, I demonstrate how literary concepts—allegory, doxai (irony), and verse—inform Arendt’s influential thesis on the “right to have rights.” Literature is a recurring “trace,” not only in The Origins of Totalitarianism and Eichmann in Jerusalem but throughout Arendt’s writings: the essays on Socrates’s trial, the introduction to Walter Benjamin’s Illuminations, the references to Herman Melville’s Billy Budd, and her readings of Plato. Literary concepts such as allegory, irony, and verse then function to contest an entrenched juridical rationality in the legal setting and in philosophical prose that effectively erases the predicament of the stateless from a history of political philosophy.
{"title":"Literary Arendt: The Right to Political Allegory","authors":"Munia Bhaumik","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.11","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article puts forth a theory of an Arendtian mode of political allegory: a technique of reading to illuminate an effaced and excluded figure in philosophical accounts of the polis. I retrieve how a speechless hero recurs throughout Arendt’s writing as a critique of a “tradition” of political philosophy. Arendt’s readings of figures silent before the law, such as Socrates’s “speechless wonder” in representations of his trial and Melville’s casting of a figure with a “vocal defect” in Billy Budd, are political allegories about rightlessness. I assemble a range of such literary citations and examples to demonstrate how her understudied but remarkable attentiveness to the literary works to expose the limits of an established rationality in political philosophy about law. In addition, I demonstrate how literary concepts—allegory, doxai (irony), and verse—inform Arendt’s influential thesis on the “right to have rights.” Literature is a recurring “trace,” not only in The Origins of Totalitarianism and Eichmann in Jerusalem but throughout Arendt’s writings: the essays on Socrates’s trial, the introduction to Walter Benjamin’s Illuminations, the references to Herman Melville’s Billy Budd, and her readings of Plato. Literary concepts such as allegory, irony, and verse then function to contest an entrenched juridical rationality in the legal setting and in philosophical prose that effectively erases the predicament of the stateless from a history of political philosophy.","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"166 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114550421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: What are the politics of allegory? For several decades, Latin American literary studies have been haunted by Fredric Jameson’s (in)famous claim that “all third world texts are […] national allegories,” accompanied, more recently, by a critical counter-tradition in Latin Americanism that rejected Jameson’s argument without pursuing alternative readings of allegory. What would happen if, after the death of allegorical reading in Latin American studies, we were to return to the question of allegory in the work of Paul de Man, who argued that allegory always allegorizes the impossibility of reading? This essay traces the politics, or metapolitics, of allegorical representation, and of allegorical readings, in Latin American studies and concludes with an analysis of César Aira’s El congreso de literatura as an example of the allegorization of the impossibility of a politics grounded in sovereign decisionism.
摘要:寓言的政治含义是什么?几十年来，拉丁美洲文学研究一直被弗雷德里克·詹姆逊(Fredric Jameson)的著名论断所困扰，“所有第三世界的文本都是[…]国家的寓言”，最近，拉丁美洲文学中出现了一种批判的反传统，拒绝詹姆逊的论点，而不追求对寓言的其他解读。在拉丁美洲研究中的寓言阅读消亡之后，如果我们回到保罗·德曼作品中的寓言问题，他认为寓言总是将阅读的不可能性寓言化，会发生什么?本文追溯了拉丁美洲研究中寓言再现和寓言阅读的政治或元政治，最后分析了cassaar Aira的《文学大会》(El congress de literatura)，作为一个以主权决策主义为基础的政治不可能的寓言化例子。
{"title":"Beyond Jameson: The Metapolitics of Allegory","authors":"Erin Graff Zivin","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.156","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: What are the politics of allegory? For several decades, Latin American literary studies have been haunted by Fredric Jameson’s (in)famous claim that “all third world texts are […] national allegories,” accompanied, more recently, by a critical counter-tradition in Latin Americanism that rejected Jameson’s argument without pursuing alternative readings of allegory. What would happen if, after the death of allegorical reading in Latin American studies, we were to return to the question of allegory in the work of Paul de Man, who argued that allegory always allegorizes the impossibility of reading? This essay traces the politics, or metapolitics, of allegorical representation, and of allegorical readings, in Latin American studies and concludes with an analysis of César Aira’s El congreso de literatura as an example of the allegorization of the impossibility of a politics grounded in sovereign decisionism.","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117314543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: This article is an extended meditation on Javier Cercas’s 2014 novel El impostor. An extant fragment from Heraclitus says “ethos anthropoi daimon.” Marco, Cercas’s protagonist, is undecidably a “man of destiny” or a “man of character,” to use Hegelian categories recently reappropriated by Rafael Sánchez Ferlosio. But, if “character” is “destiny” for the man, as the conventional translation of Heraclitus asserts, how does a destructive character relate to history?
{"title":"Memory Heroics: Ethos Daimon","authors":"A. Moreiras","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.68","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article is an extended meditation on Javier Cercas’s 2014 novel El impostor. An extant fragment from Heraclitus says “ethos anthropoi daimon.” Marco, Cercas’s protagonist, is undecidably a “man of destiny” or a “man of character,” to use Hegelian categories recently reappropriated by Rafael Sánchez Ferlosio. But, if “character” is “destiny” for the man, as the conventional translation of Heraclitus asserts, how does a destructive character relate to history?","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133835381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: This article posits Nabokov’s Invitation to a Beheading as an allegorical novel that resists classical markers of allegory. Its narrative action unfolds without a history, setting, or temporality, and it becomes, in its self-containment, a system outside specific reference. Attributing this text to a critique of a particular totalitarian regime is difficult, as there are no Soviet or Nazi markers in place. The text denies orientation with reality outside the novel; it draws into itself, denying history, nationhood, and language; yet the political system in which Cincinnatus is stuck and to whose laws he is subject follows classic game-plays of totalitarianism. Nabokov uses the literary to enhance the absurdity of such political and social games. Nabokov’s counter-allegorical allegory functions according to a logic of ruins, which gives readable form to the text, the suggestion of a real-life politic, but at the same time exposes its instability and turns its reader-voyeur to its inner workings. The power system is an absurdly intricate theater with no playwright, no director, and no sovereign. It is self-perpetuating; it relies on absolute loyalty to what remains of central dynamism, but the edges of the stage illusion lie exposed. The system reveals nothing about its political inception, and this seems to be the point. In the novel’s prison ruins, we only have the remnants of a past political system, continuing to sustain itself from a previous momentum but unable to draw power from a specific historical past and unable to guarantee a sustainable future.
{"title":"Ruin Lust and Totalitarian Remnants","authors":"Yelizaveta Goldfarb Moss","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.35","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article posits Nabokov’s Invitation to a Beheading as an allegorical novel that resists classical markers of allegory. Its narrative action unfolds without a history, setting, or temporality, and it becomes, in its self-containment, a system outside specific reference. Attributing this text to a critique of a particular totalitarian regime is difficult, as there are no Soviet or Nazi markers in place. The text denies orientation with reality outside the novel; it draws into itself, denying history, nationhood, and language; yet the political system in which Cincinnatus is stuck and to whose laws he is subject follows classic game-plays of totalitarianism. Nabokov uses the literary to enhance the absurdity of such political and social games. Nabokov’s counter-allegorical allegory functions according to a logic of ruins, which gives readable form to the text, the suggestion of a real-life politic, but at the same time exposes its instability and turns its reader-voyeur to its inner workings. The power system is an absurdly intricate theater with no playwright, no director, and no sovereign. It is self-perpetuating; it relies on absolute loyalty to what remains of central dynamism, but the edges of the stage illusion lie exposed. The system reveals nothing about its political inception, and this seems to be the point. In the novel’s prison ruins, we only have the remnants of a past political system, continuing to sustain itself from a previous momentum but unable to draw power from a specific historical past and unable to guarantee a sustainable future.","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125283623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: This article reads together Baudelaire’s poem “Le Cygne” and sections from Freud’s Mourning and Melancholia in order to argue that a pathology of melancholic allegory and the norm of grievable object loss coexist in an endless and nondialectical struggle that is to be affirmed. The allegory of melancholia translates the loss of the object into the defective principle on which—because of our structural disanalogy, because of the conflict between institution and principle at the heart of the catastrophe of representative democracy today—subjects stand forth as distinctly grievable-ungrievable objects, and on this defective concept may found ephemeral, transparent, and formal administrative modes, agencies, and instances of association. These are called, in the article, globally weak republican institutions.
{"title":"The Object of Allegory (A Polemic)","authors":"Jacques Lezra","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.86","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.86","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article reads together Baudelaire’s poem “Le Cygne” and sections from Freud’s Mourning and Melancholia in order to argue that a pathology of melancholic allegory and the norm of grievable object loss coexist in an endless and nondialectical struggle that is to be affirmed. The allegory of melancholia translates the loss of the object into the defective principle on which—because of our structural disanalogy, because of the conflict between institution and principle at the heart of the catastrophe of representative democracy today—subjects stand forth as distinctly grievable-ungrievable objects, and on this defective concept may found ephemeral, transparent, and formal administrative modes, agencies, and instances of association. These are called, in the article, globally weak republican institutions.","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117341950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: Paul de Man’s “Literary History and Literary Modernity” serves as a telling point of departure for reexamining the configuration of revolutionary history and revolutionary modernity in polemical writings written by Marx and Engels in the aftermath of the 1848–1849 European Revolutions. What de Man calls “literature” models an impasse between modernity understood as an aspiration to pure action free from the mediation of history and history understood as the inevitable recursivity through which such action finds itself caught in reflections on—and repetitions of—the past. Marx’s early “Letters to Ruge” already hints at the potential conflict and co-implication of a backward looking-left melancholia with a forward-driving revolutionary project. These issues get taken up not only in the much cited Eighteenth Brumaire but in the more purely polemical writings of Marx and Engels’s London exile. In these writings, Marx and Engels explore how the anarchic putschist fantasies of their fellow communists (August Willich and Karl Schapper) paradoxically converge with the most retrograde apologetics of their liberal opponents (Gottfried Kinkel and Arnold Ruge). They detail the short circuit between calls for an immediate renewal of revolutionary action and a nostalgic retreat from any action into secondhand literary posturing. At the same time, Marx and Engels’s own relation to that short circuit proves difficult to stabilize. Their allegory of history as long-term struggle does not conceal their ironic imbrication in the aporias they delineate. The conclusion is not that revolutionary Marxism has no alternative but to reiterate the same short circuit, but rather that it must recognize, with Marx and Engels, how revolution inevitably turns on the impasse as it takes place in a disjunction of time with itself: a conjuncture whose status remains radically undecidable.
{"title":"Allegory and Impasse: Revolutionary History and Revolutionary Modernity in Marx and Engels","authors":"D. White","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.102","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Paul de Man’s “Literary History and Literary Modernity” serves as a telling point of departure for reexamining the configuration of revolutionary history and revolutionary modernity in polemical writings written by Marx and Engels in the aftermath of the 1848–1849 European Revolutions. What de Man calls “literature” models an impasse between modernity understood as an aspiration to pure action free from the mediation of history and history understood as the inevitable recursivity through which such action finds itself caught in reflections on—and repetitions of—the past. Marx’s early “Letters to Ruge” already hints at the potential conflict and co-implication of a backward looking-left melancholia with a forward-driving revolutionary project. These issues get taken up not only in the much cited Eighteenth Brumaire but in the more purely polemical writings of Marx and Engels’s London exile. In these writings, Marx and Engels explore how the anarchic putschist fantasies of their fellow communists (August Willich and Karl Schapper) paradoxically converge with the most retrograde apologetics of their liberal opponents (Gottfried Kinkel and Arnold Ruge). They detail the short circuit between calls for an immediate renewal of revolutionary action and a nostalgic retreat from any action into secondhand literary posturing. At the same time, Marx and Engels’s own relation to that short circuit proves difficult to stabilize. Their allegory of history as long-term struggle does not conceal their ironic imbrication in the aporias they delineate. The conclusion is not that revolutionary Marxism has no alternative but to reiterate the same short circuit, but rather that it must recognize, with Marx and Engels, how revolution inevitably turns on the impasse as it takes place in a disjunction of time with itself: a conjuncture whose status remains radically undecidable.","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127518188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"«Dieu est Dieu» : Essai sur la violence des propositions tautologiques","authors":"S. Breton, Jacques Lezra","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.212","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129958811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In traditional Jewish homiletics, one strategy often adopted by the darshan or expositor was to select two texts as remote from each other as possible and, by a series of deft interpretative moves, to demonstrate their deep affinity. It is in something of this spirit, recalling the rabbinic adage that in scripture there is neither early nor late, that Robert Alter has traced for us the surprising parallels between the David story and The Charterhouse of Parma. In responding to his paper, I shall try to explore a little further his intermillennial pairing, taking as guide the two words of his title, “political” and “fiction,” but turning them around and, since the political has already received generous treatment, concentrating on the complementary term, “fiction.” By “political,” I take it Alter means what Balzac meant when he claimed, in his famous review of the Chartreuse, that Stendhal had “written the modern Prince,” the book Machiavelli would have written had he lived in the nineteenth century. Machiavelli’s political theory rests on the premise that “everyone sees what you seem to be, but few feel what you are” (ch. 18). The wise ruler must therefore know when not to be good. This is what modern philosophers call a consequentialist view of politics: good and evil are only means to an end, which in Machiavelli’s view is power over others. Moreover, for his prince, as for Stendhal’s, the final end of political power is not “the human good,” as it was for Aristotle, but the gratification of personal vanity. “Fiction,” as first introduced into literary discourse by Mme. de Stael (a name consciously echoed by Henri Beyle when he signed his works
{"title":"Political Fiction, Anonymous and Pseudonymous (A Response to Robert Alter)","authors":"H. Marks","doi":"10.3138/ycl.61.303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ycl.61.303","url":null,"abstract":"In traditional Jewish homiletics, one strategy often adopted by the darshan or expositor was to select two texts as remote from each other as possible and, by a series of deft interpretative moves, to demonstrate their deep affinity. It is in something of this spirit, recalling the rabbinic adage that in scripture there is neither early nor late, that Robert Alter has traced for us the surprising parallels between the David story and The Charterhouse of Parma. In responding to his paper, I shall try to explore a little further his intermillennial pairing, taking as guide the two words of his title, “political” and “fiction,” but turning them around and, since the political has already received generous treatment, concentrating on the complementary term, “fiction.” By “political,” I take it Alter means what Balzac meant when he claimed, in his famous review of the Chartreuse, that Stendhal had “written the modern Prince,” the book Machiavelli would have written had he lived in the nineteenth century. Machiavelli’s political theory rests on the premise that “everyone sees what you seem to be, but few feel what you are” (ch. 18). The wise ruler must therefore know when not to be good. This is what modern philosophers call a consequentialist view of politics: good and evil are only means to an end, which in Machiavelli’s view is power over others. Moreover, for his prince, as for Stendhal’s, the final end of political power is not “the human good,” as it was for Aristotle, but the gratification of personal vanity. “Fiction,” as first introduced into literary discourse by Mme. de Stael (a name consciously echoed by Henri Beyle when he signed his works","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114427442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Allegory is always topical, but the mode seems closer to our experience of representative politics today than it has in many years. Thirty-five years after the publication of Stephen Greenblatt’s important collection of 1981, Allegory and Representation, we write in the shadow of elections (in the United States, in Europe) and referenda (in Greece, in Britain) that have worked with figures and slogans meant to stand for existing collectivities or to establish them. Aliquid, the Scholastic maxim reads, stat pro aliquo: this stands in the place of that. This, a minority of the electorate in the United States, stands for that, a spectral, archaic figure of a great America to whose mythological features—Caucasian, orderly, safe—the unruly and disparate present and an equally unruly and disaggregated electoral majority must be made to conform. “Who will speak for England?” asked a headline in the Daily Mail in February of 2016, before the Brexit vote, borrowing, the tabloid said, a phrase used once before, in Parliament, to force Neville Chamberlain to “bow[] to the mood of the House” and declare war on Germany. Imagine: the native citizens of a sceptered isle, assaulted by what the Daily Mail’s editors call “mass migration,” prey to “a statist, unelected bureaucracy,” “unaccountable judges,” “a sclerotic Europe.” In the United States, the heartland is assailed by the twin specters of the illegal alien and the Islamic terrorist, each frequently a figure for the other, their hazy propinquity painting economic anxiety with the colors of post-9/11 national and religious terrors, and vice versa. And then there is a newly elected administration ciphering the bodies of those displaced, deported, dead as a figure for the shambling chimera of “America First,” in a farcical echo of Lindbergh’s 1941 rallying cry to isolationism, anti-Semitism, blood libel. Political allegory, then, operates
寓言总是话题性的，但这种模式似乎比多年来更接近我们今天的代议制政治。斯蒂芬·格林布拉特(Stephen Greenblatt) 1981年出版的重要文集《寓言与再现》(Allegory and Representation)出版35年后，我们在选举(在美国、在欧洲)和公投(在希腊、在英国)的阴影下写作，这些选举和公投与代表现有集体或建立现有集体的人物和口号有关。学院派的格言是这样说的:液态的，这个取代了那个。这个在美国选民中占少数的人，代表着一个伟大美国的幽灵般的、古老的形象，这个伟大美国的神话特征——高加索人、有序、安全——必须使不守规矩、不同的当下和同样不守规矩、分裂的选举多数一致。“谁来代表英格兰发言?”2016年2月，英国脱欧公投之前，《每日邮报》(Daily Mail)的一个标题问道。该报称，借用了议会曾经使用过的一个短语，迫使内维尔·张伯伦(Neville Chamberlain)“向下议院的情绪低头”，向德国宣战。想象一下:一个拥有权权制的岛屿上的土著居民，受到《每日邮报》编辑所说的“大规模移民”的攻击，成为“中央集权、未经选举的官僚机构”、“不负责任的法官”、“僵化的欧洲”的牺牲品。在美国，中心地带受到非法移民和伊斯兰恐怖分子这对孪生幽灵的袭击，他们经常互为对方的形象，他们模糊的接近为经济焦虑涂上了9/11后国家和宗教恐怖的色彩，反之亦然。然后，新当选的政府将那些流离失所、被驱逐、死亡的人的尸体加密，作为蹒跚的“美国优先”(America First)幻想的一个数字，滑稽地呼应了林德伯格1941年对孤立主义、反犹太主义和血腥诽谤的集会口号。于是，政治寓言起了作用
{"title":"Introduction: Allegory and Political Representation","authors":"T. Mendola, Jacques Lezra","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.1","url":null,"abstract":"Allegory is always topical, but the mode seems closer to our experience of representative politics today than it has in many years. Thirty-five years after the publication of Stephen Greenblatt’s important collection of 1981, Allegory and Representation, we write in the shadow of elections (in the United States, in Europe) and referenda (in Greece, in Britain) that have worked with figures and slogans meant to stand for existing collectivities or to establish them. Aliquid, the Scholastic maxim reads, stat pro aliquo: this stands in the place of that. This, a minority of the electorate in the United States, stands for that, a spectral, archaic figure of a great America to whose mythological features—Caucasian, orderly, safe—the unruly and disparate present and an equally unruly and disaggregated electoral majority must be made to conform. “Who will speak for England?” asked a headline in the Daily Mail in February of 2016, before the Brexit vote, borrowing, the tabloid said, a phrase used once before, in Parliament, to force Neville Chamberlain to “bow[] to the mood of the House” and declare war on Germany. Imagine: the native citizens of a sceptered isle, assaulted by what the Daily Mail’s editors call “mass migration,” prey to “a statist, unelected bureaucracy,” “unaccountable judges,” “a sclerotic Europe.” In the United States, the heartland is assailed by the twin specters of the illegal alien and the Islamic terrorist, each frequently a figure for the other, their hazy propinquity painting economic anxiety with the colors of post-9/11 national and religious terrors, and vice versa. And then there is a newly elected administration ciphering the bodies of those displaced, deported, dead as a figure for the shambling chimera of “America First,” in a farcical echo of Lindbergh’s 1941 rallying cry to isolationism, anti-Semitism, blood libel. Political allegory, then, operates","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127143419","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: This article looks at how Paul de Man’s work on allegory and temporality can help to shed light on literary treatments of political violence, dictatorship, historical trauma and memory. Horacio Castellanos Moya’s 2013 novel El sueño del retorno [The Dream of My Return] explores the internal contradictions and limits found in one of the most influential themes in the literature of post-dictatorship in Latin America: the literary deployment of memory as a step toward truth and justice. At the same time the novel also proposes a subtle but profound critique of the legacy of militancy today.
摘要:本文探讨保罗·德曼关于寓言和时间性的作品如何有助于文学处理政治暴力、独裁、历史创伤和记忆。奥拉西奥·卡斯特拉诺斯·莫亚(Horacio Castellanos Moya) 2013年的小说《我回归的梦想》(El sueño del retorno)探讨了拉丁美洲后独裁时期文学中最具影响力的主题之一的内部矛盾和限制:文学上对记忆的部署，作为走向真理和正义的一步。与此同时，小说也对当今战争的遗留问题提出了微妙而深刻的批评。
{"title":"The Allegorical Machine: Politics, History, and Memory in Horacio Castellanos Moya’s El sueño del retorno","authors":"P. Dove","doi":"10.3138/YCL.61.174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/YCL.61.174","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: This article looks at how Paul de Man’s work on allegory and temporality can help to shed light on literary treatments of political violence, dictatorship, historical trauma and memory. Horacio Castellanos Moya’s 2013 novel El sueño del retorno [The Dream of My Return] explores the internal contradictions and limits found in one of the most influential themes in the literature of post-dictatorship in Latin America: the literary deployment of memory as a step toward truth and justice. At the same time the novel also proposes a subtle but profound critique of the legacy of militancy today.","PeriodicalId":342699,"journal":{"name":"The Yearbook of Comparative Literature","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115881840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：