1 Paweł Leszkowicz From Literary Hospitality (Intertextuality) to Political Hospitality Who/what in performativity against ACTA and for Pussy Riot? What “sociologies of literature” (ever-universal)? Is po(st)-et(h)ics past it? Literary criticism, or even the critical faculties of literature itself/Literary thought, or even the thought processes of literature itself, are in thrall to “intertextuality”, the notion coined by Julia Kristeva in her ruminations on the Other, the Alien/Foreign (čužoj) and Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin' dialogism, and then developed inter alia by Michał Głowiński in teoria et in praxi. It's a notion which – as Columbia University's Leon S. Roudiez, Kristeva's translator and commentator, aptly remarks – has been and continues to be abused on both sides of the Atlantic. I will abuse the notion-idea yet again, for intertextuality nullifies the division between the theory and the practices of literature, and reifies the unity-in-multiplicity, universality-in-diversity of writing which has depuis toujours, pour toujours et à jamais played out “between old and newer” texts, between tradition, subversion and futurity (a quality so now relevant for research), all of which – Kristeva teaches – runs counters to the perception of a text as a point, but goes along with the view of writings as intersections of textual spaces. The most recent investigations in humanities (memory, trauma, feminist, gender, queer, postcolonial or ecology studies) are deeply indebted to the sociology of literature, which they also transform, just as they revive the idea of intertextuality by returning to it. We, the precariat in the global city (book and concept by Saskia Sassen), are made and left to process – but also created to produce – codes, artefacts and texts, in order for our bodysouls to express, impress, press-gang, or possibly – after the 9th Feuerbach Thesis – interpret and change the world (or worlds? Also the internal ones), cultures, the Self, the intersubjectivities: 2 relationships, loves-hates, nurturings of Others. Reflecting upon intertextuality hepls re-center subjectivity, lost by the early post-modernists; Kristeva (Sémanalyse) and Bauman (Sociology after the Holocaust) do not abolish the subject(ess), but nourish it/her. And this, in a Bakhtinian fashion, is where we meet otherness, as the po(st)ethics of hospitALTERity (otherguestness), a true altruism, begins. Intersubjectivity, central to existence and emphasised by Todorov in his discussion of what he calls Bakhtin's philosophical anthropology, recurs throughout the work of Kristeva, an advocate of new humanism, life, rebellion (one we start from within ourselves) and forgiveness, a defender of the rights of people with disabilities, the founder of the Simone de Beauvoir Prize for women's freedom. Intersubjectivity also makes a return to queer studies, which have now come closer to the feminist (of all genders) notion of care following a brief anti-social turn. Post-Holocaust sociologies (Zygmunt Bauman, Nechama Tec1, Jan Tomasz Gross, …) and sociologies of literature (Chana Kronfeld2, Irena Grudzińska-Gross and others) plot the trajectory of (multiple) humanities of, as I put it, hospitALTERity. We enter the humanities after antihumanism, and after posthumanism. PSYCHE (SING.) + POLEIS (PL.) = SOCIA (FEM.) An anti-intertextual architecture/architexture in the name of “discipline and punish” now rules in the guise of the absolutisation of copyright and the hedging of property (the only thing sacred in our capitalism), in the Homeric “cunning” and Hegelian “slyness of reason” of many a Lawmaker and in the hubris of many an Artist. Meanwhile, escaping these confines, we unite in a new solidarity of a 1 Zygmunt Bauman mentions the sociology of Nechama Tec in Sociology after the Holocaust, whose early version was published in “The British Journal of Sociology”, December 1988, and which later became part of Modernity and the Holocaust, Cornell University Press, New York 1991. Among Tec's publications, let me point to the fascinating Defiance: The Bielski Partisans. The Story of the Largest Armed Rescue of Jews by Jews during World War II, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1995, and Resilience and Courage. Women, Men and the Holocaust, Yale University Press, New Haven 2003, which uses a gender perspective, refers to Virginia Woolf's anti-fascism and interviews Holocaust survivors. 2 Chana Kronfeld refers to the anti-essentialism of Deleuze and Guattari, and of Michał Głowiński: “Indeed, the classical notion of genre, according to Michał Głowiński (1969: 14) is ‘anchored so deeply in the literary consciousness’ as a model for literary classification that ‘it has been accepted without reservations, as if it were a gift of nature’. On the Margins of Modernism. Decentering Literary Dynamics, University of California Press, Berkeley 1996. 3 hyperconnected acceleration (accélération hyperconnectée), where intertextuality fuels our individual and collective creativity. Here, online, we are all artists, creatrices and … piratesses. A spectre is haunting this place – the spectre (a returning ghost, perhaps?) of the year 1968, when the notion of “intertextuality” was being forged, as subversive now as it was then. For revolt, as Kristeva reminds us, is etymologically an act of turning around (De revolutionibus...), a re-turn. In this part of Europe, an intertextual revolt was precipitated by Maria Janion's Transgressions series (Wydawnictwo Morskie, Gdańsk 1981-1988), an intertext of writings and visuals (with an exceptional selection of images at the end of each volume) which returns to the suppressed potencies of gothicism, romanticism and surrealism, to Komornicka/Włast, Przybyszewska, Artaud, Bataille, Foucault and Grotowski (himself returning to Shekhinah). That series was an act of intertextual psychosociology of literature and history of art and ideas, revealing the voice of Maria Janion, the revelatrix of humanities. It was followed by her other books psychoanalysing Poland and standing up to anti-semitism (targeted already in her study Zygmunt Krasiński, debiut i dojrzałość; Do Europy – tak, ale z naszymi umarłymi; Niesamowita Słowiańszczyzna, Bohater, spisek, śmierć.) – all intertextual, and no less important (in fact, possibly all the more important, facing up as they did to prejudice. The sociology of literature, which has a strong presence in Poland thanks to Stefan Żółkiewski and the Institute of Literary Research he created, is now regenerating and pluralising. It returns to the origins of sociology as literature: both Wolf Lepenies in his 1985 study Die drei Kulturen. Soziologie zwischen Literatur und Wissenschaft, and recently Richard Sennett (recently dubbed by Zygmunt Bauman in Lublin “one of the keenest minds in humanist sociology today”) underscore the affinities and the artificial boundaries between sociology and writing. Sennett, a sociologist and novelist, is a proponent of dialogism in the authorial voice in sociology, which would “narrativise the historical and cultural experience of the Self and the Other” (this is 4 how Harvard's Homi K. Bhabha described the recent book by Yale's Seyla Benhabib). Sociologies of literature investigate the experience (as Erlebnis and Erfahrung) of literature, with the key categories of Erlebnis/Erfahrung recycled by Kristeva, Bauman and Sennett. Here, a pirate self-quotation from The Other is Within Us. Loving According to Julia Kristeva: “a lived experience bursting in a flash (Erlebnis), becoming comprehension, patient knowledge, experience (Erfahrung). Sharing experiences, generosity, socialisation, largesse – this is a new-old moral lesson, and an intertextual one. Let us move beyond private property (this dubious, as we noted, sacrum of our orthodoxy) and beyond the modernist “virtue” of originality. Maybe ideas belong to us all? Maybe we are heiresses to all traditions and we herald all innovation, quoting from all, not stealing, but developing, creating (continuously, anew) phonemes, morphemes, ideologemes, philosophemes. Res publica or rather rei publicae of cultures, républiques des lettres – let us republicanise and re-publish intertextual relations. Interpersonal ones, too. To remedy hierarchy and oppression – a commonality of textuality. To heal inequalities – a direct, participatory democracy – of texts and co-authors of all genders. Intertextuality is the daughter of Kristeva's 1968 anarchism and the grand- daughter of Bakhtin's Marxism-cum-mysticism. Now, to counteract monopolies, patents and other injustices – much-needed generic medicines and … a co- authorship of culture. Women writers, DJs, VJs, fashion and web designers, like every philogenetic child, we re-enact humanity's evolution, its thoughts and affects from the past-future continuum. From Sappho to Shakespeare, Eco, Sarah Waters, JK Rowling, borrowing plots and formal elements has been not so much an act of theft as an act of homage to the original (which, in Plato and in Baudrillard'd simulacra, doesn't exist). Proudhon is as right as ever: a propriété c'est le vol. I would add that property is privateering; not just vol, theft, but also viol, rape. Maybe we co- own the heritages of the planet? Maybe culture is our commons? Let us dare socialise culture. 5 A SAMPLE OF MY OWN (?) THEORY In this text I take the liberty to multi-quote myself; I do it self-consciously and in the spirit of intertextuality; I go auto-pirate. Let me open the intertext of self-quotations with a passage on the intertextuality and cinema on Sergey Mikhailovich