• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Chanter will not be concerned to show the invalidity of Irigaray’s or Butler’s readings of the Sophoclean text, however to point out how these readings are however complicit with another kind of oppression - and stay blind to issues of slavery and of race. Chanter convincingly exhibits that the language of slavery - doulos (a family slave) and douleuma (a ‘slave thing’) - is there in Sophocles’ textual content, despite its notable absence from many modern translations, adaptations and commentaries. Provided that these themes have been translated out of most contemporary versions and adaptations of the play, Irigaray and Butler can hardly be blamed for this failure in their interpretations.

Chapters three and 4 embody interpretations of two essential current African plays that take up and rework Sophocles’ Antigone: Fémi Òsófisan’s Tègònni: An African Antigone (1999), which relocates the mythology of Antigone to colonial Nigeria, and The Island (1974), collectively authored and staged by Athol Fugard, John Kani and Winston Ntshona. If Chanter isn't the primary to take up these two ‘African Antigones’, big cock what's distinctive about her strategy is the manner wherein she sets the two performs in dialog with these traditions of Hegelian, continental and feminist philosophy which have a lot contemporary purchase.

Mandela talks about how important it was to him to take on the part of Creon, for whom ‘obligations to the folks take priority over loyalty to an individual’. A lot of Chanter’s argument in the primary chapters (and prolonged footnotes throughout the text) is worried with establishing that when Antigone insists on performing the correct burial rites for the body of Polynices (son of Oedipus and brother to Antigone), blowjob in defiance of the orders of Creon (the king, and brother to her dead mother fucker, Jocasta), part of what's at stake is the slave/citizen dichotomy.

She also shows how the origins of Oedipus - exposed as a baby on the hills near Corinth, and introduced up by a shepherd exterior town partitions of Thebes, big cock where the whole motion of the play is about - would have been rendered problematic for an Athenian viewers, given the circumstances surrounding the primary efficiency of Sophocles’ play (roughly ten years after endogamy was made a requirement for citizenship, and exogamous marriages outlawed by Pericles’ legislation). The Tragic Marginalization of Slavery has relevance additionally for actors and dramatists considering how best to stage, interpret, modernize or fully rework Sophocles’ drama and, indeed, the whole Oedipus cycle of plays.

Chanter argues that Hegel unduly narrows the notion of the political - and, certainly, that of the tragic - by ignoring the thematics of slavery which are present in Sophocles’ play. Arguing that chattel slavery offers one of the linchpins of the historical Greek polis, and therefore additionally for the ideals of freedom, the family and the state that Hegel himself advocates, Chanter means that Hegel’s emphasis on the grasp-slave dialectic in the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) ‘domesticates and tames the ugliness of slavery’, and must be understood in the context of the slave revolt in Haiti of 1803-05. A critique of Luce Irigaray, Judith Butler and different feminist theorists who read Antigone in counter-Hegelian ways - however who nevertheless nonetheless neglect the thematics of race and slavery - can be key to the argument of the guide as an entire.

In this framework it seems perfectly pure that freedom, as a aim of political action, is privileged above equality, even when equality is understood, in Rancièrean terms, as a presupposition and not as an goal and quantifiable aim to be achieved. Once once more, plurality must itself, as an idea, be split between the different, but equal standing positions in an egalitarian political scene (i.e., different positions that depart from a typical presupposition of the equal capability of all) and a pluralism that's merely transitive to the hierarchical order of various interests - pursuits that necessarily persist after that event which inaugurates an emancipatory political sequence.

Such resistance is rooted in Breaugh’s unconditional defence of pluralism and his mistrust of any form of unity as a horizon for politics. In historical situations where the goal of political unity comes into conflict with the existence of political plurality, as for instance in the French Revolution, ebony sex the risk to plebeian politics comes, for Breaugh, from the try and kind a united subject who then constitutes a threat to the mandatory recognition of the divided character of the social. The lump sum of five thousand dollars was one thing, a miserable little twenty or twenty-5 a month was quite one other; and then another person had the money.

However that drawback solely arises when we consider the chance of changing from a social order resting on growing inequalities and oppression, to a different hopefully more just one. Lefort’s thought looms large here, since for him the division of the social is an authentic ontological condition, whose acceptance is essentially constitutive of every democratic politics, and not merely a sociological counting of the elements. The issue here could also be that Breaugh takes the plurality of pursuits at face worth, disregarding the way in which such a plurality of political positions might in itself be grounded in the unjust division of the social.