포스트 비판 시대 읽기 방법론 논쟁 —편집증적 읽기와 회복적 읽기의 생산적 관계에 대해
Method War in the Age of Postcritique: On the Productive Relationship between Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article aims to discuss Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s reparative reading and paranoid reading within the context of post-critique. Since the mid-1990s, Sedgwick has been attempting to recalibrate the relationship between text and critic, which she named ‘reparative reading.’ This article returns to Sedgwick’s argument within the current stream of ‘post-critique’ in order to explore how to engage with (literary) texts as both ‘agents’ and ‘objects,’ what kind of relationships we attempt to form between text and reader, and what kind of reading we produce. Latour’s research method and reading style called ‘concern’ leads to discussions of ‘care,’ which is connected to Sedgwick’s reparative reading. For Sedgwick, however, the paranoid-schizoid position and the depressive–reparative position cannot be completely separated. Humans cannot but find balance between the two. To believe that we can completely escape from the paranoid-schizoid position is to fall into the fantasy that knowledge without aggression, and love and care without harm is possible. This article proposes that we should develop richer reading methods caring for the details of a text without ignoring its contradiction and complexity, yet at the same time that we should not completely deny the power of critique as a technique of not being governed in an era when posttruth operates as a new governing power.
Abstract
This article aims to discuss Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s reparative reading and paranoid reading within the context of post-critique. Since the mid-1990s, Sedgwick has been attempting to recalibrate the relationship between text and critic, which she named ‘reparative reading.’ This article returns to Sedgwick’s argument within the current stream of ‘post-critique’ in order to explore how to engage with (literary) texts as both ‘agents’ and ‘objects,’ what kind of relationships we attempt to form between text and reader, and what kind of reading we produce. Latour’s research method and reading style called ‘concern’ leads to discussions of ‘care,’ which is connected to Sedgwick’s reparative reading. For Sedgwick, however, the paranoid-schizoid position and the depressive–reparative position cannot be completely separated. Humans cannot but find balance between the two. To believe that we can completely escape from the paranoid-schizoid position is to fall into the fantasy that knowledge without aggression, and love and care without harm is possible. This article proposes that we should develop richer reading methods caring for the details of a text without ignoring its contradiction and complexity, yet at the same time that we should not completely deny the power of critique as a technique of not being governed in an era when posttruth operates as a new governing power.