‘THE SEMIOTIC PASSION’ – A THEOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO JULIA KRISTEVA’S CONSTRUCT OF THE SPEAKING BEING FROM THE ‘THEOLOGIA CRUCIS’ (A Good Friday dialogue) Balint Gabor Heythrop College, University of London Ph.D 2013 1 Abstract of Thesis (500 words): ‘THE SEMIOTIC PASSION’ – A THEOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO JULIA KRISTEVA’S CONSTRUCT OF THE SPEAKING BEING FROM THE ‘THEOLOGIA CRUCIS’ This thesis develops a theological critique of Julia Kristeva’s project of the ‘speaking being. The main purpose of the thesis is to establish the theological context of a secular ‘atheist’ thinker, whose engagement with Christian texts is permanent throughout the oeuvre. The principal aspect of Kristeva’s project is the ‘speaking being’ and her Freudian materialist critique of religion. The thesis argues that Kristeva’s analysis of the ‘speaking being’ discloses itself as the crisis of the ‘exhausted subject’. The crisis of the ‘exhausted subject’ of modernity and post-modernity is the central problem of her work, which is not fully answered by her psychoanalytic regime. Kristeva’s understanding of the ‘speaking being’ leads to an ‘ontic’ exhaustion of the subject, which can only be resolved through a theological engagement, namely, the ‘Semiotic Passion’, which is a comprehensive response from the theology of the cross. The thesis speaks of the ‘semiotic Passion’ because Kristeva’s methodology involves an intertextual and linguistic analysis, and therefore she has to be engaged with on that level. Central to the thesis is also an exploration of the key texts of Kristeva’s work which disclose a ‘mourning’ for the loss of a theological discourse and its potentials, albeit that this is never made explicit. The thesis identifies the ‘linguistic gap’ (ontological, epistemological, semantic, ideological and methodological), to which the ‘Semiotic Passion’ is presented as a response. By ‘semiotic Passion’ is meant a re-reading of the Passion which aims both to respond to Kristeva in her own terms, and to incorporate her anthropological insights and elements of her own semiotic analysis. It is proposed that the ‘semiotic passion’ allows us to revisit the image of the Father, the regenerative dynamic of divine love, as a necessary completion of Kristeva’s ‘semiotic’ resourcing. The ‘Semiotic Passion’ makes this claim by developing a renewed imagery of the cross, by drawing also on Kristeva’s metaphor of ‘maternal suffering’. The solution that the ‘Semiotic Passion’ offers enters into a critical dialogue with the underlying materialist ontology of Kristeva’s model. It demonstrates that the theologia crucis has sufficient resources for doing this. The overall concern of the study is to introduce Kristeva’s post-structuralism and her Freudian regime to the domain of systematic theology. At the same time, the other aim of the thesis is to show how Kristeva is an important dialogue partner and resource for theology. Kristeva’s complex Freudian anthropology is necessary for theology if it wants to develop a relationship with culture, which is not locked within apologetics. As a result of this, it becomes possible to develop a theological model of the secular through the image of the ‘Father’, which gives a more thorough understanding of the contemporary subject, which is central both to a theological project as well as to a humanist and a philosophical one. The ‘Semiotic Passion’, being also a theoretical proposal, outlines a core to a Christian anthropological program which can ground such a non-apologetic model of the secular. 2 COPYRIGHT DECLARATION1 1. I agree that the thesis presented by me in 2011 for examination for the MPhilStud Degree of the University of London shall, if a degree is awarded, be deposited in the library or electronic institutional repository of Heythrop College and that, subject to the conditions set out below, my thesis will be made available for public reference, inter-library loan and copying. 2. I authorise the College authorities to retain a digital copy of the abstract of my thesis for inclusion in any published list of theses offered for higher degrees in British universities or in any supplement thereto, or for consultation in any central file of abstracts of such theses. 3. I authorise the College Library, or its designated agents, to hold a digital copy of my thesis for the purposes of electronic public access, inter-library loan or the supply of copies. 4. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 5. I understand that in the event of my thesis not being approved by the examiners this declaration will become void. Date............................... Signature ........................................................................................ PLAGIARISM DECLARATION 1. I certify that the work presented in this thesis contains no unacknowledged direct copying from the work of another person or close paraphrasing of previous work (including my own which has been presented elsewhere) and that any reference to other sources has been properly acknowledged in the bibliography according to academic custom and practice. Date............................... Signature ........................................................................................ 1 The University’s Ordinances make provision for restriction of access to an MPhil/PhD thesis and/or the abstract but only in certain specified circumstances and for a maxiumum period of two years. If you wish to apply for such restriction, please enquire about the conditions and procedures. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing my Thesis, I am conscious of a debt of gratitude to a large number of people for their support. First and foremost, Dr James Hanvey S.J. has sustained me with his scholarship, encouragement, friendship and outstanding theological wisdom from the beginning in my interest in the theological reading of Kristeva’s work, and has been unfailingly generous with guidance and criticism. I am also grateful for the intellectual stimulus of Julia Kristeva whose interest in my ‘borderline’ work was highly inspirational. I must also record my gratitude for financial support during the course of my research from the Order of Regular Canons of Csorna (Ordo Praemonstratensis, Hungary). I am especially indebted to the Canonesses of Saint Augustine (London) for their generous support during my studies, which was manifest in many forms, friendship, assistance, and accommodation. I am particularly conscious of a debt of gratitude to Sr. Gabriel Robin for reading my text and improving my English. I am also grateful to her for her intellectual and spiritual support. I am offering my work for my mother and father whose love was the hidden ‘object’ of this work. I dedicate my thesis to my father, Gabor Thury who was hospitalised during the last weeks of the writing-up period. Witnessing his sufferings, which were beyond expression, was an existential confirmation that the Passion is our ultimate reality. I dedicate my Semiotic Passion to him and my mother. 4 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS p.4. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE THESIS p.8 Part One − PREPARING THE DIALOGUE p.19 1 ADVENTURES AND IMPASSES − SITUATING KRISTEVA’S ‘SEMIOTICS’ FOR THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE p.20 1.1 Submitting the Paradox: The Possibility of ‘Ontological Discourse’ in a Post- Metaphysical Age? p.20 1.2 Kristeva’s New Contribution to Psychoanalysis p.26 1.2.1 Autobiographical Background p.26 1.2.2 A Brief Recapitulation of Kristeva’s Semiotic Program p.27. 1.2.3 Kristeva’s Relationship to Lacanian Psychoanalysis p.29 1.2.4 Kristeva’s Psychoanalytical Critique of Culture and Ethics p.35 1.2.5 A Theological Link − The ‘Secularisation Debate’ p.39 1.3 The Problem of Kristeva’s Engagement with Christian Texts for Theology and the Problem of Kristeva’s Theological Reception p.40 1.4 Conclusions p.45 2 THE EXHAUSTED SUBJECT p.47 2.1 Analysis I. −The ‘Exhausted Subject’ as the Underlying Problem of the Oeuvre 2.1.1 Transition from Modernity to Postmodernity: Exhausted Subject or Exhausted Narratives? p.49 2.1.2 The Exhaustion of Kristeva’s Revolutionary Program p.53 2.1.3 The ‘Exhausted Subject’: ‘Ontological’ Dialogue through the Symbolic Needs of the Subject? p.56 2.1.4 The Evaluation of Kristeva’s Turn to the ‘Exhausted Subject’ p.58 2.1.5 Conclusions p.60 2.2 Analysis II. − ‘Transcendence’ p.62 2.2.1. The ‘Speaking Being’ Grounded in Immanence p.63 2.2.1.1 The Overlapping of Kristeva’s ‘Marxist’ and ‘Freudian’ Frameworks p.63 2.2.1.2 The ‘Chora-thetic’: Kristeva’s Reconception of ‘Transcendence’ in Language p.67 2.2.1.3 The Materialist Grounding of the ‘Chora-thetic’ p.76 2.2.3 Conclusions p.83. 2.3 Analysis III. − ‘Mourning’ p.84 2.3.1 The Significance of Kristeva’s Novels: Mourned and Unmourned Dimensions of the Postmodern Self p.84 2.3.2 Mourning the Father’s Religious World and the Ontological Anxiety of the Postmodern Self p.88 2.3.3 ‘Mourning the Father’s Hope’ − The Loss of the ‘Graced’ Loving Third p.98 2.3.4 The Need to Counteract the Violence of Culture p.101 2.3.5 Summary and Conclusions p.103 3 APORIAS AND RESOLUTIONS p.105 3.1 ‘Ontological’ Critique Justified p.105 3.2 Addressing Kristeva’s ‘Atheistic Subtexts’ p.107 3.3 The Problem with Kristeva’s ‘Semiotic’ Agents (The Evaluation of Kristeva’s Materialism) p.108 3.4 The Problem of the Isolated Self p.110 3.5 ‘Kristeva and Religion’: Kristeva’s New Dialogical Position p.116 3.5.1 Kristeva’s Critique of Religious Fundamentalism p.117 3.5.2 Kristeva’s Psychoanalytical Critique of Religion p.118 3.5.3 Kristeva’s Recent Dialogue with Religion p.124 3.6 The Way Forward (Conclusions to Part One) p.130 3.6.1 A Thematic Overview of the Oeuvre (Areas for Theological Engagement) p.130 3.6.2 Strategic Conclusions p.131 5 Part Two − THE ‘SEMIOTIC PASSION’: A RESPONSE FROM THE THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS p.137 INTRODUCTION p.137 4 THE NEW SITUATION IN CULTURE: THE LOST FATHER p.141 4.1 Why Develop a Response from the Theology of the Cross? p.141 4.2.