The Reject
Community, Politics, and Religion after the Subject
Fiction & Literature, Literary Theory & Criticism, Theory, Nonfiction, Religion & Spirituality, Philosophy, Political, Social & Cultural Studies, Political Science, Politics, History & Theory
| Author: | Irving Goh | ISBN: | 9780823262700 |
| Publisher: | Fordham University Press | Publication: | October 15, 2014 |
| Imprint: | Modern Language Initiative | Language: | English |
| Author: | Irving Goh |
| ISBN: | 9780823262700 |
| Publisher: | Fordham University Press |
| Publication: | October 15, 2014 |
| Imprint: | Modern Language Initiative |
| Language: | English |
This book proposes a theory of the reject, a more adequate figure than the subject for thinking friendship, love, community, democracy, the postsecular, and the posthuman.
Through close readings of Nancy, Deleuze, Derrida, Cixous, Clement, Bataille, Balibar, Ranciere, and Badiou, Goh shows how the reject has always been nascent in contemporary French thought. The recent turn to animals and bare life, as well as the rise of the Occupy movement, he argues, presents a special urgency to think the reject today.
Thinking the reject most importantly helps to advance our commitment to affirm others without acculturating their differences. But the reject also offers, Goh proposes, a response finally commensurate with the radical horizon of Nancy’s question of who comes after the subject.
This book proposes a theory of the reject, a more adequate figure than the subject for thinking friendship, love, community, democracy, the postsecular, and the posthuman.
Through close readings of Nancy, Deleuze, Derrida, Cixous, Clement, Bataille, Balibar, Ranciere, and Badiou, Goh shows how the reject has always been nascent in contemporary French thought. The recent turn to animals and bare life, as well as the rise of the Occupy movement, he argues, presents a special urgency to think the reject today.
Thinking the reject most importantly helps to advance our commitment to affirm others without acculturating their differences. But the reject also offers, Goh proposes, a response finally commensurate with the radical horizon of Nancy’s question of who comes after the subject.
