موسوعة قبيلة بلي

هذه الصفحة للقراءة فقط. يمكنك تصفح مصدرها، ولكن لا يمكنك تعديلها. إن كنت تتعتفد أن هناك خطأ ما خاطب المدير.
 Chanter just isn't involved to show the invalidity of Irigaray’s or Butler’s readings of the Sophoclean textual content, but to point out how these readings are nonetheless complicit with one other form of oppression - and remain blind to problems with slavery and of race. Chanter convincingly exhibits that the language of slavery - doulos (a family slave) and  [[https://seolink.info/|ebony sex]] douleuma (a ‘slave thing’) - is there in Sophocles’ textual content, regardless of its notable absence from many trendy translations, adaptations and commentaries. Given that these themes have been translated out of most contemporary variations and adaptations of the play, Irigaray and Butler can hardly be blamed for this failure in their interpretations.



 Chapters 3 and 4 embrace interpretations of two important recent African performs that take up and rework Sophocles’ Antigone:  [[https://blissq.pages.dev/|ebony sex]] 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 just isn't the primary to take up these two ‘African Antigones’, what's distinctive about her method is the manner in which she sets the two plays in dialog with those traditions of Hegelian, continental and feminist philosophy which have so much contemporary buy.



 Mandela talks about how vital it was to him to take on the a part of Creon, for whom ‘obligations to the people take precedence over loyalty to an individual’. A lot of Chanter’s argument in the first chapters (and lengthy footnotes all through the text) is concerned with establishing that when Antigone insists on performing the proper burial rites for the physique of Polynices (son of Oedipus and brother to Antigone), in defiance of the orders of Creon (the king, and brother to her dead mother, Jocasta), part of what's at stake is the slave/citizen dichotomy.



 She also exhibits how the origins of Oedipus - uncovered as a baby on the hills near Corinth, and brought up by a shepherd outside the town walls of Thebes, where the entire motion of the play is about - would have been rendered problematic for an Athenian viewers, given the circumstances surrounding the first performance of Sophocles’ play (roughly ten years after endogamy was made a requirement for citizenship, and exogamous marriages outlawed by Pericles’ law). The Tragic Marginalization of Slavery has relevance additionally for actors and dramatists contemplating how greatest to stage, interpret,  [[https://mmwatches.co.uk/|mother fucker]] modernize or fully rework Sophocles’ drama and, certainly, the whole Oedipus cycle of performs.



 Chanter argues that Hegel unduly narrows the notion of the political - and,  [[https://seoflx.net/|big cock]] indeed, 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 ancient Greek polis,  [[https://global-rank.pages.dev/|bbw sex]] and therefore also for the ideals of freedom, the household and the state that Hegel himself advocates, Chanter means that Hegel’s emphasis on the grasp-slave dialectic within 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 other feminist theorists who read Antigone in counter-Hegelian methods - but who nonetheless nonetheless neglect the thematics of race and slavery - can also be key to the argument of the guide as a whole.



 In this framework it appears perfectly natural that freedom, as a goal 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. As soon as again, plurality should itself, as a concept, be break up between the completely different, however equal standing positions in an egalitarian political scene (i.e., different positions that depart from a standard presupposition of the equal capability of all) and a pluralism that's merely transitive to the hierarchical order of various pursuits - interests that essentially persist after that occasion 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 conditions the place the aim of political unity comes into battle with the existence of political plurality, as for instance in the French Revolution, the risk to plebeian politics comes, for Breaugh, from the attempt to form a united subject who then constitutes a risk to the required recognition of the divided character of the social. The lump sum of 5 thousand dollars was one factor, a miserable little twenty or twenty-5 a month was fairly one other; after which another person had the money.



 However that problem solely arises when we consider the chance of fixing from a social order resting on rising inequalities and oppression, to another hopefully more just one. Lefort’s thought looms massive right here, since for him the division of the social is an unique ontological condition, whose acceptance is essentially constitutive of every democratic politics, and never merely a sociological counting of the components. The issue right here may be that Breaugh takes the plurality of pursuits at face value, disregarding the way such a plurality of political positions may in itself be grounded within the unjust division of the social.