Revolution in Poetic Language ,/ Julia Kristeva Translated 6 Margret Wale wits an Introduction By Leon S. Role Columbia Univraty Press Now York 1984Library of Coneress Cataloging in Publication Data rsteva, lla, 1941— Revolution in poetle language ‘onsation and abridgment of: La evolution language poetiaue ‘bliogtophy: . 1 Semiotics and Merature, 2 Poetics, L title PNSHKIS 1984 BosOOIsE | B4I218 ISBN0-251-03642-7 (clothy ISBN 0.231-05643-5 [paper] Columbia University Press ew York Guildlord, Suntey Copytght © 1984 Columbia University Press Lr rltion de langage pique © 1974 Elitions du Sel Alt its seserved Printed in the United States of America Clothtound editions of Columbia Unvesty Press books ate Smith Son and printed on permanent and durable acd-re paper. Contents Translatr’s Preface Introduction by Leon S, Roudlez Prolegomenon 1. The Semitic and the Symbolic 1 jhe Phenemenological Subject of Eruncation 2. he Semotc Cine Ordering the Dries 4. Husse' yeti leaning A Natural Tes ‘Commanded bythe cing Subic. ‘he Tet Rupute andor Boundary 6 The Miror and Cartation Posting the Subject 5 sent tom the Sie Froges Notion of Signfication- Enunciation ‘nd entation 4, breaching the Thete: Mines "The Unstable Symbol, Substations i the Symbolic Fesusm 10. the Signing recess 11, Poety That Not a Ft of Murder 12, Gencest and Pheoteat 13. Four Signing Paces 1. Negativiy: Rejection Inthe Fourth “Term ofthe Dialectic 2: Independent an Subjqated "Force" n Heel 3, Negaty os Tavera to Tete gentvi / Contents of Expulsion: 7. Freud 1, Heterogeneity Teme Dichotomy aed Heternony of ves 2, Factation, Stas, and the Thetic Moment 4. The Homolapea!fzonomy ofthe Rereetamor 4 Though the Principle of Lan 5. Skeptics an nhs i Hopeland inthe Tent W. Pract 2 the Nose Subject of Practice ia Mans 4 Calg Back Rupe Within Practice 5, The Second Ovetuming of the Dialect Aer Poicl eaomy, Aesthetics Notes Index 165 93, 2 Translator's Preface THE TRANSLATOR's preface usualy beelns by assessing what fs ost the translation and ths preface wil be no exception, Bat prefatery references to metaphorical debits presuppos® the "ora- ist text ae plenitade and presence as to deny thatt does not linave already constitute a [ass Moraover, such an ostensibly sl ‘facing geste losses over the deferential submission and vo ent struggle by which the ed result fs actieved: the translation {tomas slave to the origial fm an attempt to master I 1 senting what textually “othe.” the translation inevitably ap froprates the “alien” through the fara Indeed. inasmuch 25 Preetaces the previous work. 3 tanslation Is not only a transfor fhutlon of that text but Iso Hs elimination: the homage patd i> ‘Peavert form of parcide' Although the traces of this conflict, untae in the prelac’s allusion toa igurative balance sheet of tains and losses they remain. of couse, camouflaged within the Eransation itso Th translation. its etymology suggests 5 cating across, cone that mote or fess conceals what Is lost in transit, Following thot Wdeslzed Image. this text aims to cary La Retton dln pique (1974) across linguistic and sociocultural inerstie 50 thathit may be tead in 1086 by an Anglo-American audience Whether or not the name Iulia Kester already speaks volumes to this audience, negotiating any such cial divide is always 2 frsardous enterprise In presenting texts from that particular de fade. the translator may succumb to two equally unproductive femptations: to look back nestalecally on 1974 as an apical mo trem ef contemporary they? andor 1 deprecate wings ofthat {rain the light of subsequent critical preoccupations. To ensurevik Translators Preface any sigifcant gain from this “caning atess” however, one must Aher ignore the shortcomings f these time bound works nor Seether up as straw dogs for later arguments Rout n Pete Language counts among the emblematic vwotks Of the 1970s that extended the parameters of what could Be tavd sbour texts and questioned the epistemologal premises [reaticl theory. But Krister’ eat, her thesis forthe dao a. ‘hates this nique within the forms ofscholasly convention with {ew signs of selbtefexive Iteraniness. Despite the later evolu tion of her style rom the stall formalistic to a more personal node, Kssteve descibes her whiting as conscious resistance to the “strong pest Heldeggeran temptation” of equating theoreti al and Therery discourse? She argues that although epister> Topic! honesty requires a recognition of the limits of scents, ce sectrton that theory and fiction ate the same constitutes 3 (use of power? Ahough Keister'sattude may explain why her ot retains for actively engaging inthe ply of signifies, this ‘Joes not mean ofcourse, that Reelin may nt be subjected 12 f Symptomatic reading and translation Despite its academic format and ts refusal of playful polysemia La Pétion du langage ig resists easy readail Fo and smooth tnsation. The tes density and dificult force the ataslator to determine at every Cr whether to separate the ‘enfier from the signified and wher to pillge. n the name of detny. the latter over the Forme These decisions, whieh ae never nnocent were oten eached In consultation (and complicity) with the author But they inevitably entailed “saving” one aspect of the owt only to deform another, fn some instances, such alterations had stlistc. particularly syntactic, consequences. specifying an tecedents, changing nouns to verbs, making passive ver forme Stine. brcaling up and sometimes rearranging sentences, as well 23s inserting paragraph brea. “These gae In canity meant nuances lost, have ted of course, 0 minimize the losses by retalning—even when it meant ‘eersional galiisme--ike meaning effects ofthe texts most Sortant terminological dstincions and ts most elie topes, Such Reures of speech symptoms of the “blindness and insight” in “Translators rece | modern theoretical discourse, permeate Kista’ woe “the tue: Thea the mutder of the thetic” "the shattering of the sub- eek the thtes points of the family tangle.” and so forth This tRetoncat stated is pethaps endemic to wht Philp Lewis has talled Repintons superdiscolinary approach to an inter-cscpi- fary subject such 9 tategyeluceates the mete-significance of centre phenomena ever ae k seems to distance the object of Stotysis through ambiguly and abstraction, Similay, the pet Daal dissolves ino the impersonal through the exclusive use of Pademocatic yet royal "we" (more common in French than in English) that paradoxically cals attention to ts own sel fdlocement Indeed in one of the rare se-reterential moments in the tex, Risto cals attention to this pronoun and makes its Use emblernatie of metalanguage in general! Teuton (othe most wide-ranging metalinguisti eabora tion of Krstevn's theories, As a result, although the vanslatons Uf come other later essays in De in Language have provided the fats for my on protic the vast scope ofthe earlier work pre Bene te own terminological minefields, Most of these center ‘round the cca Kristeven prcoccupation with the “subject” "Lz Sk the speakingthinking agent) is of "masculine gender but ‘eNSeually rendered in English as WC” Unfortunately, using the FFapersonal pronoun inthis instance would merely compound the ited considerable dificutes of ambiguous antecedents, On the Sther hand, "ste" and "hisher” would ovetlyconeretze what re- Mhatns for Kristeva a highly abstract concept, have therelore cho Tanto use the masculine “he” and “his” wth their standard com fotations of unieraiy? The individual subjects cited in Relion Ure in point of fact, exchsively male, and the psychoanalytic 2c oun ered forthe emergence ofthe sublect s rooted in a fn {Lomereally masculine [Oedipal model, Although the abstract“ nay point 10 2 genderspeciie foundation, the Kristevan subject eiddnethelese always implicated in a Heterogeneous signifying froceae his Wentity ever become, ever becoming, questioned ed questionable, i aways on tial (er pos). Over and beyond aha Soubject in procession fval" numerous other tess for the Subject appear in Krsteva's text: eo. ef0, Mol, met, and “mmox1 Translator’ Preface Since no systematic distinetion is made among these variants 1 Ihave followed "standard practice” and specific English tansla- thors. using "ego" when the fetm denotes a psychoanaltic con ‘cept but sellin explicitly nonanaltic passages; “for its ap peatanee in Frege and "EGO" (capitalize) for this same notion in Hegel and Huseet For paychoonaljtic terminology, t have generally followed. Laplanche and Pontalis's Vabulaedelapschanalse and its En plish tanslation® Two Important exceptions, should be nate, Rbwever “Drive” was prefered over “instinct” because It conveys more precisely the French "pun" and Freus's “Ti.” “Instinc- {Wal blways fetes to the drives rather than to instinets and, whenever possible | have used “deve” a5 an adiective ("ive bases,""tve movement,” and so forth). Secondly, “investment teas chopen over veatheis” far is silly to the Ftench (“is- Tesrmant and fo its versatile ver form: Invests, invested, vest ing, ete T have teed on published translations of teats cited in lian 9 muuch a8 possible, and have modified them ony when treonaintences between French and English tems would have fbscured the argument. [Such changes ate indicated inthe notes) ‘Ai translations not etherwiseatibuted, However, are my own, The ‘Quotations from Mallarmé required particular attention because either infamous “untanslatabiy” From the many translations SEun coup de désT have chosen the attempt that coheres best, Sith Krsteta’s own emphasis on the interdependence of the emiolic” and “signing” modalities. For Mallarmé's prose es hyo and hie gia have ventured my own English versions, with eEstonal borrowings ftom previous tansations, in an attempt fo ensure the intllgbility of Ksteva’s analyses without incur fing the net loss of Mallar ‘Although the balance sheet of any text remains indeter minable, ret for this tran laon is largely du to Jl Kristeva Teme Hee gracious and. patient attention through numerous translating sessions and writen queries helped me avoid large “Translators Peace xi ‘umber of misnterpretations. Many ofthe moaifiations for elat- Tivund conctsion could not and would not have been made wih (Shcher generous assistance and “authorization.” I owe a similar ‘eb of gratitude to Leon 5, Roudiex for his invaluable readings Stttis work His meticulous clanfication of countless ambiguities Mere essential to my understanding othe te CGinen is scope and difcly, this translation has been, pethaps mote than some, a collaborative process of vision and Fevblan, Specific chapters in early drafts ofthe manuscript ben ‘Ged enormously from the inlormed and attentive scritiny of Sanous lends and colleagues. Alice Jardine on avant-garde prac Te Mary Shaw on Mallarmé, and Rick Livingston on historical Ttotetalam, Avital Rone helped resolve difcutis with pas ‘hye on Hegel and Derrida, Eprain Kristal wth the Hegelian di- Slectc and Blo Kaka wth paychonaitic concepts and tet Trunolgy. For their excellent and rely suggestions on penultimate Ttusione, | thank Nancy K- Miles, Terese Lyons, and Kathryn ‘Guoval, Doma C. Stanton painstakingly edted some ofthe most teal pages wisely and well As always. Kate Jensen gave not hiya roding ef the manuscript but her uniafing tendship, Ane felt in priate to Ken Bowran, the invaluable in-house teitor who sustained me Had tae fil advantage of so much help fom 30 many. “what ie meviebly lost in translation might represent a more sub- ential gain, Fo all erors and inadequacies, homever, the Hab hye mine aloneIntroduction JULIA KRISTEVA is a compelling presence that cris andl schol- as can ignore only atthe risk of intellectual sclerosis. She is also. famong the major theoreticians weting in France the ony wornan— find that makes her conthbution even more noteworthy as she Challenges long Western tadtion of male-dominated thought. Pethaps we have, In the United States, been slow in recognizing the importance of her work for has not been translated as promptly as it has been elsewhere! We are nevertheless closing the gap and with Reston i Porte Language a large portion of het basic theoretical work has now become available in English Her aim here isto investigate the workings of “poetic Lan- {zuage” [a notion to which I shall presently return) as sing Prac, that is, a8 a semiotic system generated by a speaking sub- fect within a social. historical Feld The “evolution” inher title fefers to the profound change that began To take place in the rineteenth century, the consequences of which are still being Sustained and evaluated in our own time. The change has al fected what we commonly cll "hterature’ tao concerns other domaine in liferent but related ways. Indeed, philosophy and History have been transformed, linguists and psjchoanalsis have ‘come into being. and without a knowledge of what is at hand in those disciplines it would be dificult to account fr the revolue tion in “poetic language" What Kristeva actually does in the fl- Towing pages isto impress large bodies of philosophical ingus- tic and paychoanaltic texts (concurrently submitting them to ‘tical analsis In the sence of her main argument. namely that the nineteenth-century post Symbolist avant-garde elected a teal ‘mutation in IRerary“epresenation’; and once the process of this2 1 Introduction alteration has been identified, one is able to detect a similar fete tent inthe essential writings of other historical periods ’ few definitions of clarifications are in order. That there has been a conceptual “revolution” is, tbelleve, a generally ac- Cepted fact_Louls Akhusser, in 1970, expressed this in terms that fare both challenging and, to my mind, quite accurate". there is'a chance that our times wil some day be seen as branded by the most dramatic, laborious ordeal one can imagine—the dis covery of and proficiency In what ae the ‘simplest’ acts of our festence: seeing. Istening. speaking. reading"? He addled that we ‘ove his “beuldering knowledge” to 4 mete hanlul of men: Mar Nietzsche, and Freud. But what about "poetic language"? tn the content ofthis work It does Involve notions of Itersture™ anc “poetry” but without the preconceptions these usually cary does not connote "belles letres” or verse, fr instance. The phrase was Coined by the Russian Formalist, specially Ossip Bak, who founded the Society forthe Study of Poetlc Language in Moscow in 1917, whose members worked n conjunction with the Noscow LUnguistte Circle. For Brik "poetic language” stands in opposition to spoken language. a language whose basie purpose is commu hication. and it includes what he and others called tansrational Tanguage, As Roman fakabson also emphasized, in a diferent ‘context, “Any attempt to limit the domain ofthe poetle function to poetry, of to reset poetry to the poeic function would only amount to an excessive and misleading implication”? Neither Bik nor lakabeons definitions, however, suifice to account for Krsteva's concept of "poetic language.” While agreeing with la Robson that "poetic language” cannot be viewed as a “deviation from the norm of language. she does not see it asa sub-code of the linguistic cade. Rather, i stands for the infinite possiblies of language, and all other language acts are merely partial reali- tations of the possiblities inherent in "poetic language.” From Such a point of view, "iterary practice ls seen as exploration and ‘discovery ofthe possibilities of language: as an activity that Ib trates the subject from a numberof ingustic. psychic. and social networks. as a dynamism that breaks up the Inertia of language Introduction 1 3 habits and grants linguists the unique possibilty of studying the tesoming ofthe sigifleations of slgs."* Te should be clear, inedertaly, that Kristeva canbe termed neither a formalist nor a structualst, the Russlan Fonlists themselves as a matter of fact, ae an eary, seemingly absolute formalism (Yormalsm” was fst a peloratve term applet to therm by thelr adversaries), evolved inthe direction of a more socioog ical approach. Most French literary structuralist, with the signal feception of Lucien Goldmann, tended to leave aside history a ‘wll as what Jean Piaget has called the epistemic subject. As can be seen here as wel asin previously translated works, Kristeva takes into account the historical dimensions of Iierary and ats- tie works and also analyzes the role of the subject, albeit a het- ‘erogencous one, in thet production. Now the link between poetic language and revolution Is. nether causal nor Immediate: what it entalls ss very diferent from What Sartre. fr instance, had in mind when he elaborated the no tion of engage Sarte saw Nall as @ consciously commit ted writer whose commitment, however, consisted in lage pat In a relusal of the "bourgeois stupidity of his time; when he ex famines his poetic practice, he dismisses all references to “brutish Instincts or the dark history of his seal" Kristeva. on the other hand, emphasizes the signing process in Mallarmé’ texts, which, along with those of Lavteéamont, fe seen asthe prototypes of modem avant-gatée practice. Pointing to manifestations of the Semiotic disposition she shows how closely their wrting practice parallels the loge of the unconscious, drve-sidden and dark as it night be: sucha practice thus assumes the privilege of commu: cating regression and jouissance In the inal analysis, may be Interpreted as an affirmation of freedom, a an anarchic real even though openly advocates nether freedom nor revolution) against, 8 society that extols material goods and profit “The idea that poetic language constitutes a “semiotic sys tem” needs to be tempered with the reminder that the word semiotic” asa very specie meaning when used by Kristeva cannot be understood propery unless it is considered within the41 Introduction polarity that characterizes what she has termed te symbolic and ‘semiotic dspostions. The fist chapter ofthe present volume deals with this in some detail and there would be no point in sum: marking a presentation that needs tobe followed step by step It Is essential just the same, to begin with a5 few misconceptions ‘a possible Her concer does lle within the Feld of la sémitque Wet "semiotics" as a general scence of signs) but it involves a more specitc domain that she cals le séwinique ("the semiotic") Seen as one ofthe two components of the signifying process— the other being “the symbolic” While thls divison isnot identical with that of ‘unconsciousconscious, idsuperegs, of nalute’ Culture. there are analogies here that could be usefully kept in mind. In all four instances there isa constant dlalectial pro estat wotk, ne that has ifs soute In infancy, and is implicated In sexual difeentiation. Such a dialectic comprises dives and Jmpulees on the one hand. the family and society structures on the other One difference. however, is thatthe semticlsymbolic ‘opposition as envisaged here operates within, by means cl, and ‘ough language. Hence the weight Kristeva assigns inthe elaboration of her concept of poetic language to the ideas of Lacan and to contern- porary linguistic theory Lacan ts sought after because he gave further emphasis to the role Feud had already assigned to lan ‘guage. Ina noteworthy paper readin Rome in 1933 he sid, "The Fesources fof paychosnalsis] are those of speech to the extent that it endows a person's activity with meaning its domain is that cof concrete discourse as eld of the subject's tansindvidualreal- iy, Is operations are those of history Insofar as the latter con- stitutes the emergence of truth within the real"® While the im- ot of linguistics Is cbvious, and Kristeva craws on both Ferdinand 4e Saussite and Charles § Peitce, the witings of Emile Benven Iste are most signicant.n a Festschrift published onthe occasion ‘ofthe linguists retirement, she contributed an essay in which she noted the tendency of ingustes to “eliminate from Its fed of inquiry everthing that cannot be systematized,stuctured, or log Iciaed into formal entity” and praised Benveniste who, although ‘caught up in the same trend, “nevertheless opened this oblect Introduction / 5 called language to practices in which it realizes itself, which ¢0 beyond It, and on the basis of which its very enstence as mono lithic object is ether made telative or appears as problematic” ‘Thus does Kristeva, I addition to affiming that a consideration of subject and history Is necessary for a sound textual analysis, fdvocate breaking down the barriers that isolate related dis: plines from one another Textual analjss ls Indeed a better phrase than "Iterary analysis” forthe activity Kristeva engages in it relegates esthetic {nd formalist considerations to the background, Textual analy- Sis also denies pertinence 10 Iieratychticism” insofar ashe a. ter evaluates a work by confionting It with one’s preconceived or ieal notion of what that wark shouldbe. For the points 10 ele fan account of what went into a work, how Icafets readers, and why. The tent that is analyzed Is actally the effect of the dialec- tical interplay between semiotic and symbolic dispositions, Here it would be helpful to keep in mind the etymology ofthe word ‘and think of i as @ texture a "disposition or connection of treads Filaments, of other slender bodies, interwoven” (Wesier 2). The analogy stops there, however forthe text cannot be thought of fc. finshed, permanent piece of cloth ts in a perpetual state flux as cifferent readers intervene, a5 thelr hrowledge deopens, and as history moves on ‘The nature of the "Yhreads" thus intervoven will deter imine the presence or absence af poetic language. Those that ate ‘pun by drives and are woven within the semicte dsposton make ‘Up what Kristeva has defined as denotes they are actualiaed in poetic language Those that issue from societal. cultural. syntact- Fel, and other grammatical constraints constitute the phenotext they insure communication. Seldom, however, does one encoun ter the one without the other A mathematical demonstration is perhaps a pure phenotext thee are writings by Antonin Artaud fat come close to being unblended genotest, those. in Susan Sontag: words, "in which language becomes party unintellghe, that is an unmediated physical presence" For, as Krisea’s reader wil soon discover, soften the physical, material aspect ofa {uage (cerain combinations of leters,cetain sounds—regar. 46 Introduction less ofthe meaning of words in which they cccut that slnals the presence ofa genotext, “These ad other theoretical concepts had presously been formulated separately in essays witen as earl 25 1966-1967 be- fore being brought together im more systematic fashion in Re lation n Pete Language They are roughly contemporaneous with Some ofthe seminal works published by Roland Barthes, Jaques Deda, Michel Foucault, Tacques Lacan, and others she is in debted to some, usta they, in turn, have profited from her work For, a5 Buel H,Zepp has noticed, spc nthe eave of eas presented by Barthes and Umberto Eco, Kristeva "had not oaly treated fuch] concepts ut had ateady gone beyond them in may ways" With the possible exception of Barthes. none of these Writers is a Iterarycrti—and Barthes could hardly be restcted to that category (Kristew’s own department at the Univesity of Paris-V has been named "Science of Tests and Documents"). As is the case with other theoretical ites, what she has to 3) 1 of concern to "specialists n several disciplines Al ofthese we: fs, just the same, have something to say to those whose prnc\- pal affiliation is with "Iterary" research and she, perhaps more than others, has provided a’ conceptual foundation for signi cantly changing ones approach to whatever he of she chooses fo Include under tha vogue heading, AS a “terry” scholar | shall ‘ow set forth those conclusions that I believe can be reached on the basis of Kristevas theoretical work Fist, the need for interdisciplinay studs i ed to ones ‘nati to provide a definition of literature that is both rigorous and generally accepted. The Russian Formalists ted, and so did thers but tno all The set of "teary" writings isa fuzy st, In LotR Zades sense ofthe term," ust as the set of “miele aged” persons in society Is a fuzzy se dependent as both sets fate on variable factual data as well as ideological constraints. As to factual data 1 would mention lit expectancy andthe invention ‘of movable type: among ideological constraints, cultural precon ‘ceptions and esthete pattems of thought come to mind. Wile ft Js tne that we usualy have no hestation in identiying a given person as being middle-aged (we would not think of ang Niet Introduction (7 young” of “eldely’), while we instinctively sense as we read a page in Parte Rese, for instance, chat it belongs to the iterary Subset known as “short story” (we would never mistake it for pola essay of which that evew publishes many}—we also know that the erteta that enable us to come to such conclusions woul not be acceptable at other times of in ather places, Francois Vil fon was beyond middle age when he wrote his Grand Testamen: Sylvia Path was youne when she died-—and yet they were both {hit Bérangers writings were considered "Mera" when he was lalve but they are na Tonger so valued today, the opposite has happened in the case ofthe Morguis de Sade. On account ofthat famines. all we can conclude Is that literature is whatever i ale Iteratute in a given seciety ata given moment in history Ds Kesteva had stated earl, Iieature” 8 an object that fur culture consumes; iis viewed 3s @ Rinished product and the process offs productivity is usualy ignored " When this process [taken into consideration, however, one realizes that what makes 8 work interesting or significant does not depend on its having been accepted infor rejected fromm the “trary compu that lat ter judgment ls both ethical and estheti, hence a function of ‘dominant ideology (in the Manian sense of the phrase). What makes the work significant Is a Teitual presence—poetic lan ‘eiage The mathematical demonstration {refered to earlier is Significant from a scientific point of view, poetic language bears ‘amore basi significance that has to do wth our individual and collective beinginthe world Tone Isto acount forthe prediction ofa wovk. one needs to investigate the forces that broight Into being. Such forees fate channeled trough what shall be called a "wing subject” father than an “author” forthe latter term emphasizes the con Selous intent ofa weiter who has authority over the meaning of his work The notion of writing subject counters the illusions of Sate, for instance, who aserted that no matter how far the reader right go, “the suthor has gone farther than he has. NO matter how he connects various parts ofthe book... he can rest a5- sured that those connections have been expressly intended This ‘does nat mean denying all intentionality or refusing to give a role8 / Introduction to the conscious parson who writes the work: rather, It means ‘emphasizing that consiousness is fat from dominating the pro ‘ess and thatthe writing sublet 1s # complex heterogeneous force [see inf par, sections 5 and 10, and part il section 4) he writing subject. then. includes not only the conscious ness ofthe writer but also his ot her unconscious, The important thing here isto avoid fepeatng the mistakes ofa few decades, ‘ago when misguided cites thought they could psychoanalae a writer by studying his biography and then ty to explain the work bby means of what they had leared from the biography. The point ‘of departure must be the text. the whole test, and nothing but the tent. @ way, there [sa fesemblance (although one should be wat of pushing this to fr) between this aspect of textual analy- fis and the manner in which Feu studied dream narratives. An important clference Is that textual analysis involves more than this one aspect, nating anes dreams does not necessary make fone a poet risteva's examination of Céline's waiting, in Powers (for, provides a good illustration ofall this ‘The subjet of wing also includes the non-conscious. that is, the domain not subject to repression but not within the reach ‘of consciousness either. This Is an atea coveted by the notion of slominant ideology the whole sytem of myths and prejudices that aes our view of society and of our place in i specie orien tation I eludes all those things that we take for granted, that ‘we do nat question because we assume they ae true—not real Teng that instead of being truths they ae elaborate constections| that cerve whatever group, class, of patty 1 holding power, The process is complex one forthe wntr is also conscious of being Situated in @ moment of history, acted upon and reacting to (and perhaps against) historical forces or currents ll such aspects of the writing process are covered by Kristeva in the instances of Mallarmé and Lautréamont. Tir impact could also be shown In the care of a modern American text such as Faulkner's Abalm, ‘Abalm! That novel the result ofa process undergone by a writer tho, in addition to whatever personal dlalctc between his con Selous and unconscious he was stuggling through, was himsel Southerner ving in Mississippi, concerned by history (e3ct9g to Inoduction 1 9 and against It, had a Southern family history of which he was ‘are, witnessed the hardships caused by the Great Depression, knew of the often Violent labor unrest ofthe Thies, Saw Con- ress pass the fst social reform bill and peshaps noted with fpproval the governments inaction concen the status of blacks A ofthis germinates within the threads of the text! ‘The wing subject 6 further impelled by someone who has ‘chosen to become a witer and to do so ina certain manner. The decision may have been to compose essays, oF verse. oF prose poetry, or a diay. or tion, it may also have Deen to write tran- Sitively or intransitive) to use Roland Barthes’ terminology: it ‘may have been to emulate an admired poet or novelist ot the Contrary to feact against what others have published to general terms, as Kristeva explains in part of the essay not translated In this book. “the texts presuppose several catepories of narra tives, ether of the same period or weten earlier, they appro priate the latter to themselves either to confirm orto reject them nd at any rate to possess them. As these other narratives ‘were an incitement to perform a deed that isthe teat sel ‘That statement evemplies what teatual analysis must constantly take into account In order to reach an understanding ‘ofthe slenifying proces. On the one hand, no tet signifies ithe ‘out its context—ils tla context. be It conscious, unconscious, preconscious, linguist, cultural, political, literary: on the other, Fis the text alone that leads one to the various areas ofthat to tal context Needless to say the textual scholar, while he or she cannot be a universal expert, needs to have @ working knowledge othe relevant disciplines have just alluded to a lack: part ofthe ofignal version of this book has not been translated. Actually, only about a thitd of ‘now appears in English. La Ravan da aaa pote is a weighty ‘646 page tome that Kristeva presented for her State Doctorate In Paris in july 1973 The defense of such a doctoral disertation which thas no real equovalent inthis county, an impressive ritual to sihich the publi i lvited The newspaper Le Monde sent a te- porter to cover the ceremony; he wrote that Roland Barthes, who ‘vas one of the examiners, pointedly refrained from asking any10 £ Introduction ‘questions. He was quoted as saying, “Several times you have felped me to change. particularly in shitting away from a semiol- ‘ogy of prodcts {0.8 semiotis of production In that contest Batthes’s attitude wae @ manner of prise and his remarks an un tual acknowledgment of indebtedness, This might lead one fo egret thatthe entire work has not been translated ‘Tere i, however, @ good reason for that—In adtion to the prohibitive expense of publishing and, fr the eventual reader of purchasing) such a volume. Inthe remaining four hunted and Some odd pages of La Revluion da langage poi Krlstevs ana Iyaes olen in reat deal, French passages ftom Lautréaont an Malle. But this tansation is imended for persons who are not Specialists in French iterate and who perhaps read French with Somme dificuly of not at all all Iiklihood, an argument fre ‘quently based on the material shape and sound of French words stould hardly be comprehensible. what has been translated con ‘Sittes the theoretical section of the book. which requires no Special knowledge of either French or French erature other than et one assumes to be atthe disposal of most scholars: it does, fon the other hand, require some familanty with or Interest in) Philosophy, historical materialism, linguists, and psychoanaly bis, to the extent that those dscplines have provided the inte lectual underpinnings of our time. Specialists in such fields wil find much that ts challenging here, tery” scholars ill dl ‘cover new paths open te their investigations of those “simple fact of our enistence—reading and wing eon $ Roudlez ‘wat therefore fs npn in the ay of Swe that tne sould take on oneself he strenuous flo the No : gel, Phooey SitProlegomenon OUR PHILOSOPHIES of language, emboxtiments of the Idea, are hathing more than the thoughts of archivists, archaeologists anc necrophiiacs, Fascinated bythe remains ofa process which is partly Giscursive. they substitute this fetish for what actually produced ‘t-Eaypt. Babylon, Mycenae: we see thelr pyramid, their carved tablets, and fragmented codes in the discourse of our contem poraries and think tat by oxiying them we ean possess ther, “These sat thoughts. products ofa esutelycogitation te ‘moved from historical turmo persist in seeking the tuth of lan uae By Formaliing utterances that hangin mat and the trth ff the subject by istening to the narrative of a sleping bod—a body in epose, witha Irom Its soci histriealimbrieaion, removed from ditect experience. "To be oF not to be... To de, to sleep .. To sleep—perchance to dream. ‘and yet this thinking points to a uth, namely, that the bind of actity encourages and privileged by (eapitalist) society represses the pace pervading the Body and the subject. and that Wwe must therefore break out of our interpersonal and intersocial tnperience If we are to gain access 10 What is repressed in the social mechanism: the generating of signee, ‘The atcha, arcacologial. ard necrophllc methods on which the scientific imperative was founded—the building of ar {uments on the basis of empitical evidence, asjtematizble given Sinc!an observable abjecl—in this ese, language—are an ember rassment when applied to modern or contemporary phenomena ‘These methods show that the capitalist made of production has Sotied language into idioleds and duided it Into sell-con tained, isolated islands—heteoclite spaces exiting in dierent61 Prolegomenon temporal modes (as relics or projections, and oblivious of one snather, ‘These random lscusive instances have yet to be a Signed a typology coresponding to the subjective and socioeco. nomic typaloges in society as a whole. Instead, as agents oft tal, in postions of conta, science and theory intervene to make such discursive instances intelligible. each within thet separate domain, eventhough they may lose them and have to start uni ing them over and Over again. only pewisionally—fr that stir Long March. Linguists, semiotics, anthropology, and psycho analysis reveal thatthe thinking sect the Cartesian sublet who defines his being through thought or language. subsumes within that being and the opetaions which suppose structure it all trans-inguiste practiee—a practice ip which language ad the subject are merely moments From this perspective. the ples phy of language and the "human seienees" that stem Im i temerge as reflections on moments, Whether they ate viewed a= Spy lingustic, subjective, or more largely sacecconomie--de- pending on the “discipline—such moments are nevertheless Fragments, remains; their indvidial arculation #8 often exam: ine, but rarely thir interdependence or inception, The crcl question fs noe whether one can do otherwise (One clearly cannot f the object chosen is a human unwerse of Full subjects who simply make systematic combinations in la ‘guage an are themseles implicates in communication, Nori 4 question of caleulsting the pyramids base and sant Height and miming taces oa Babylonian tablets letters in Cretan neat Siting. Such refinements in economics, phenomenclogy. and psychosnafsis de structure finite systems and show that they are produced by 2 random albeit necessary causality But one must SUH posit an “outside” that ist fact intemal to ach closed set since otherwise the sot would temain enclosed, ever i internal aileremiation could be extended indefinitely. One must. then de ‘center the closed set and elaborate the dialectic of a process within plural and heterogeneous universes We will make constant use of notions and concepts bo: rowed from Freudian psjchoanaltc theory and is various recent Prolegomenon 115 developments inorder to pve the advances of dial age 9 ma felt fundaon a theory of signification based on the subject his formation. and his corporal linguistic, and socal dialectic ar purpose 1s not to adhere tothe orthodoxy of any particular school, but rather to select those aspects of analytic theary ca pble of rationalizing the signfying process as itis procticed within texts. Dees this dlalestic sel avoid atchivism? AL feast i ind cates its own position, and renaunees both the totaling fag ‘mentation chafacteletc of postivist discourse, whieh reduces al Signing practices to @ komalism. and a reductive identification with ether (discursive, ideotiel, economic islands of the $0: ial aparepate Fiom this postion, it seems possible to perceive a sign fying practice which, although produed in language. is only In teligibe troup it By exposing the phonetic leieal, and ytac: tic objeto guises, this practice not ony scapes the atempled hold ofall anthropomonphc sciences, f also refuses to identify withthe recumbent body subjected to transterence onto the an labyer. Ultimate, it exhausts the ever tenacious Ideological in stitutions and apparatuses, thereby demonstrating the linits oF foumalst and psychoanalytic devices! This signing practice —a particular type of moder Iterature attests to a “csi” of socal Structures and their ideological, coerce and necrophilic man festations Ta be sute, such crises have occured atthe dawn ad decline of every mode of prediction: the Pidarc obscurity that followed Homer clarity and community 8 one of many exam ples. However, with tauttéamont. Mallarmé, Jojee, and AAU, to hhame only few, this cisis represents 4 new phenomenon. For the capitalist mode of production produces and marginalizes, but simmitaneously exploits forts own regeneration one ofthe most seectaculr shattetings of discourse, By exploding the subject and his Ideologial limits this phenomenon has tiple elect, ant raises thee sets of questions | becanse of ite specific isolation within the discursive totality of cut time, this shattering of discoutse reveals that lin aulstic changes constitute changes In the satus of he subjet—Bis elation tothe body, to others, and ta objects; aoa veal that16 1 Prolegomenon normalized language is just one of the ways of articulating the Signing process that encompasses the body, the material ree fen and language ftsell How are these stat inked? What is their intereation within signing practice? 2 The shattering further reveals thatthe capitalist mode of production, baving attained a highly developed means of pro ‘uction through sclenee and technology, no onget need remain strictly within linguistic and ideological rors, bu can also inte trate their process qua procs. As at, this shattering can display the productive basis of subjective and ideological signifying forma Tions-—a foundation that primitive societies call “sacred” ond Imodemity has celected as “schizophrenia.” What isthe extent of {his integration? Under what conditions does Ik Become Incl ppensable. censured, repressed, or marginal? 7. Finally, inthe history of signing ystems and notably that of the arts feligion, and rites, thete emerge, in retospect. fragmentary phenomena which have been kept in the background brpidlyinterated into more commura signifying systems but point to the very process of sinfiance. Mag. shamanism, e30 ferism, the carnival and “incomprehensible” poetry all une Score the limits of socially useful discourse and atest to what it represses the pres that exceeds the subject and his commu hieative structures, But at what historical moment does social ex change tolerate or necessitate the manifestation of the signifying process in ts "poetc” or "esoteric" orm? Under what conditions ‘oes this “esoterism,”n displacing the boundaries of socaly es tablished signing practices, corespond to socioeconomic change, fre ultimately, even to revolution? And under what conditions oes it remain a bind alley. @ harmless bonus offered by a social ‘order which uses tis “esotersm’ to expand, become fleuble, and thrive? there exists a “dlscourse” which is not @ mere depos tory of thin linguistic layers, an archive of structures o the tes- timony of a withdrawn body. and is, instead, the essential ele- ment of a practice nolving the sum of unconscious, subjective, land socal relations in gestures of conftontation and approori tion, desttion an constuction-—productive vetenee, in short — ftis“iterature” oF, more epectically, the xt. Although simply Prolegomenon | 17 etched out, this notion ofthe text (to which we shall return tteady takes us far from the teal of “ascourse” and “ar.” The text is practice that could be compared to political revolution the one brings about in the subjct what the other intduces into society The history and political experience of the twentieth cen tury have demonstrated that ne cannot be transformed without the atherbut could there be any doubt after the overtuming Irenwremont| of the Hegelian dalectic® and especialy after the Freudian revolution? Hence. the questions we wil ask about lit trary practice will be aimed atthe political horizon from which this practice is inseparable, despite the efots of aestheticiing fesoteism and repressive socilogizing o feralist dogmatics to keep ther apart We shall call this heterogeneous practice sig Fiance to Indicate, on the one hand, that biological urges are so cally controled, diected, and orange, producing an excess with regard to octal apparatuses, and, on the other, that this Instin tual operation becomes a praize—s transfrmation of natural and social resistances, imitations, and stagnations—i and only if fetes into the code of nguiste and socal communication, Lang land Coopet, lke Deleuze and Guattar, ae right to stress the de- Structuring and a-signiying machine of the unconscious? Com- prted withthe ideologies of communication and normativeness, ‘which largely inspite anthropology and psychoanalysis, thet ap proach is lerating. What Is readily apparent. however, is that Their examples of “schizophrenic flow” are usually awn from ‘mode Inerature, in which the “low” itself ensts only through Tsnguage. appropriating and displacing the signifier to practice wit it the heterogeneous generating of the "desting machine ‘What we cal gion, then, is pecely this unlimited and unbounded generating process, this Unceasing operation of the Gives toward in. and through language: tower, in, and through the exchange system and is protagonists—the subject and his Institutions. This heterogeneous proces, either anarchic. fag- ‘mented foundation not schaopheenc blockage, is 3 structuring and de-structring pra, a passage tothe cuter Sounlares ofthe sub- ject and society Then—and only then—can it be joussance and revolutionThe Semiotic and the SymbolicThe Phenomenological Subject of Enunciation \WE MUST spec, fist and foremost, what we mean by the sgn Ing proces vi-Svis general theories of meaning, theores of lan frag, and theories ofthe sublet, Despite their variations. all_ modern linguistic theories consider language a strely “Yormal” abject—one that wolves syntax or mathematiczation, Within this petsnective, such theo fies generally accet the following notion of language. or Zellig ats, language is defined by: the arbitrary relation between signifier and signified, (2) the acceptance ofthe sign aa subst tute for the extralinguistc, (3) ts disrete elements. and) is Senumerale, oF even finite, nature! But withthe development cf {Chomstyan generative grammar and the logico-semantic research that war artculated around and in response to i, problems arose that were generally believed to fall within the province of se ‘manties™ of efen“brogmatis,” and raised the awkward question ofthe eva-aguit But Language lionge—moder Inguisties sel ‘assigned object™—lacks a subject or tolerates one oly a5 9 ax “cordon eo (i Huset's Sense oF In Bervenist's more spec cally linguistic sense), "and defers any interrogation of ts (alway Slieady dialectical becouse trans-linguisti) “excemalty Twa trends in urent linguistic research do attend to this ‘externality inthe belef tha fallute to elucidate It wil hinder the development of linguistic thenry itso. Although such al: una poses problems {which we will fter specity) for “formal linguistics, i has always been a particular problem for semiotics, which is concemed with speclving the functioning of signifying22 The Semitic and the Symbolic practices such as aft poety, and myth that are Ireducible tothe language” object. 1 The frst ofthese two tends addtesses the question of the so-called “arbittaty” relation between signifier and signed by examining signtving systems in which this relation i pe- sented as “motivated” It seaks the principle ofthis matiation in the Freudian notion ofthe unconscious insofar as the theories cf ives fpulsons| and. primary processes (displacement and com densaton) can connec "empty signers” to psychosomatl Lune tlonings. or can atleast ink them in a sequence of metaphors and metonymies: though undecidable, such a sequence replaces arbitrariness" with “articulation” The discoutse of analysands, language "pathologles” and atic, particulary poetic. systems ate especialy suited to such an exploration Formal lingustic re lations are thus connected to an “extemality” in the payehoao matic realm, which is ultimately reduced to 8 fragmented sub stance |sustance mar (the body divides into erogenous zones) and articulated by the developing ego's connections tothe thee points of the family tangle Such a linguistic theory. clea In- ebted to the positions of the psychoanalytic schoo! of Landon and Melanie Klin in particular, restores to formal linguistic re lations the dimensions (instinctual dives) and operations (dls placement, condensation, vocal and intenational ferenta on} that frmalistic theory excludes. Yet for wont ofa calectial notion ofthe sinfung pres asa whole, n which signfiance puts the subject in process/on tn jen acs such considerations, no matter how astute all 0 take into account the syntactic seman tic functioning of language. Although they rehabilitate the notion ofthe agmented body pre Gedipal but always alteady vested with semiosis—these linguist theres fal to articulate its ta sitional link to the pestOedipal subject and his always symbole ander syntactic language. [We shall return to this point) 2. The second trend, more recent and widespread, intro- duces within theory's own formalism a “layer” of sss which had been sty relegated to pragmatics and semantics By pos Inga suet of enunction (nthe sense of Benveniste Colo ete this theory places logical modal relations, relations of presuppo ‘The Semitic andthe Symbolic | 23 sition, and other relations between interloeutos within the speech Sct in. very deep “deep structure” This sft of uncon, which Gomes direty tom Husserl and Benveniste (0 N.3), ino ‘aces through categoria intuition, both seman els and ing but also inrnbycte—rlatons, which prove to be both intra- and trans-lingusie® Ta the extent i is assumed by a subject who °means” (fe ewe, language has “deep structures” that articulate cateorix ‘These categories are semantic [a in the semantic fields intro- duced by recent developments in generative grammar, logical {modality relations etc), and intercommunieational (those which Searle called "speech acs” seen as bestowers of meaning)® But they may also be related to histoncallingustie changes, thereby joining diacheony with syncheony’” In this way, through the sub fect who “means,” linguistics ts opened up to all posible cate- ote and thus to philosophy, which linguistics had thought it ‘ould be able to escape. Ina similar perspective, cetan linguists, Interested in ox plaining semantic constraints, distinguish between diferent types Of sles depending on the speaking subjects position vis-bvs the lueranee. Even when sich research there lntoduces stylistic into semantis, ts alm Is 10 study the workings of signification, taking Into account the sujet of enunciation, which always proves to be the phenomenological subject® Same lingustic research foes even further starting from the subject of enunciation’ transcendental ego, and prompted by the opening of linguistics ‘onto semantics and fiat views signification as an ideologcal Sand therefore historical production” ‘We shall not be able to discus the various advantages and drawbacks of ths second tend in modern linguistics except to Say that i Is still eolving, and that although its conclusions are nly tentative, its epistemological bases lead us fo the heart of the debate on phenomenology which we can ony touch on here— and only insofar as the specie research we are presently under taking allows ‘To summarize briefly what we shal elucidate later, the two tuende just mentioned designate two modates of what is, for us24 The Semitic andthe Symbolic the same signiying process, We shall cll the fist the smi’ land the second the simi” These two modalities ate Insepara- bile within the saving pce that constitutes language, and the dlalectie between them determines the ype of discourse [nar tive, metalanguage, theory, poet, et) invoked; in other words, so-called “natura” language allows fa different modes of arc baton ofthe semiotic and the symbolic. On the other hand, here are nonverbal signing systems that are constucted exclusively ‘0m the bass ofthe semiotic (music for example, But as We shall sce, this exclusivity is relative, precisely because ofthe necessary dlaectc between the two modalities of the sgnibing process hich is constitutive ofthe subject, Because the subjects always {tk semiotic and symbolic, no signifying system he produces con be either “exclusively” semiotic or “excisvely” symbol, and Is Instead necessarily marked by an indebtedness to both 2 The Semiotic Chora Ordering the Drives \WE UNDERSTAND the tetm “semiotic” in its Greek sense omusion= distinctive mark. trace, Indek, precursory sigh, root, ‘ceraved or written sign, imprint, ace, fiuation, This etwmolog wal reminder would bea mete archasologtal embeishnet (ad an unconvincing one at that. since the term ultimately en Compasses such dlapsrate meanings), wete it ot for the fact that the preponderant etymological use ofthe wot the one that im plies a dstintons, allows us to connect toa precise modality in the signifying process. This modality is the one Freudian psy Chaanalyts points to in postulating No: only the faiaton and the structuring dipsion of dives, but also the socalled. pany meses which dlsplace and condense bath energies and thet i Scrption Discrete quantities of energy move through the body of the subject who isnot yet constituted as sch and in the course of hie development, they ate artanged according to the various onstiints imposed on this bed always already involved In a Semlaie process by faily and social stratus, In this way the tives, which are “energy” charges as well as "paychcal” marks, articulate what we calla vhoa nonexpresive totality formed by the dives and thelr stases in a motty that is as full of move ment a5 is ogulated, ‘We borrow the ferm cor! fom Plato's Tinaas to denote an essentially mabile and extemal provisional articulation con Stated by movements and thelr ephemeral stases, We diferen tiate this uncertain and indeterminate aration from Aston that alzady depends on representation, lends elf 9 phenom26 1 The Semitic and the Sumbolie nological, spatial intulton, and ees rise to 2 esomety. A though our theoretical description ofthe cho ste par ofthe tlscouree of presentation that ofertas evidence, the cr 25 future and areslations (ehh) recedes evidence. vets {eke sptiaity, and temporality. Our discouse—alldiscourse— moves mth and agaist the cia inthe sense that i simultane: Susiy depends upon and ruses i Although the cr canbe lesignated and regulated, can never be defintely posted as Stren one can state the chr and necessary, lend a to ology. but ne can never ee ft axdomatie for The chris not yet poston that represents something for someone fhe. Ie isnot sig not i ea pale tha pe sents someone for another postion (ve. its fot Yet a signer citer iis however, generated in order to attsn to this sig {ying postion fvether model nor copy, the ca precedes ahd underlesRgutation and thus speculation, an is aalogoUs oly to vocal or kinetic thm [ve mist estore this mats ges {ral and vocal pay lo mention oly the aspect relevant oh ‘guage on the Teel of the solzed body n oder to remove mo {iy rom ontology and amorphousniess where Plato confines it in an apparent attempt conceal i fmm Democitean thyth, ‘The theory ofthe subject proposed by the theory ofthe uncoo scious wil allow us to readin tis eythmlc space, which has 90 thesis and no position, the process by which signfiance is con stituted, Plato ims leads us to sich a process en he cals this rceptecl o cre nourishing and maternal * not yet uniod in an ordered whole because deity absent ftom i. Though de prived of unity identity. or deity, the chris nevertheless subject to. regulating proces riemetation|. which silent rom tat ‘of symbolic law but nevertheless ellectuates dscontouties by temporary aiculating them and then stating ener gn and ‘The dora is a modality of sigiflace in which the Hingus tie sign fs not yet articulated asthe absence ofan abject and 2 the distinction between real and symbolic. We emphasize the reg ulated aspect of the era is vocal and gestural organization i= subject © what we shal allan clectiv odin odoaeanceent The Semioic end the Symbolic | 27 ich ecate by natural osc contains sich mike lop alewnes terveen theses Sic may tore pe se gsi, aye ey roles fs cnstn In. nite rm nich es Me te dre ot ord to bw tem ve esa Smolen eng Wt is meant ‘cording tt nb pooling eae sale semute Spee scoring To loge gu whch ae TRrcy shown pce or Casco nga om he Storch sal info epncie a an opin sate atin of 9 preva rt! sa that gre he cone toe bec tet (nthe cess costing al a tear opel coc the pga o amy cre tor wcll den ne rctonng tom mba epce fons thot depend en lnguge os aghsytrter he trea mp voce gx os th ds mate) he free unetnat ag ofthese peste ease Line gn tna hes cogtve te sets of bana Sumat'bys hoing teny east abject The pe ie hon omslane the seine pass cn be Su relate ny ma they he sujet docs not Ten the stone of unertanding bu ten pet tr tr suet hs oer sen at re smb nine he marten gunn wp Fes potions on the dives wilmomenrsene a ue tres mv pe Ota seit cons and ene [ste a et ot chon ae aways acd angio Itunes hs com os Feentepestted oa tezod oraz due hea inthe com Rear tte DNA an RNA plas aes tesmed DS pce fpr son Te ol nom veh reich verted an sted tind he moter Bd chminote ths sensory enantiomers 3) ‘helt et sues he bol venga a28) The Semioic and the Sumbolic whichis on the path of destruction, agaressivy, and dea although drives have been described as alsunited or contadic tory structures. simultaneously “postive” and “negative.” this doubling is said to generate a dominant "destructive wave” that Is dives most charactestic tat, Feud notes thatthe most in- stinctual drive isthe death dive: In this way the term "ie denotes waves of attack against stases, which are themselves ‘cnatitited by the repetition ofthese charges tether, chores and tases lead to no identity (aot even that ofthe "body prope) that could be seen asa vesul of thet functioning, Ths Ist say that the semiotic dis no more than the place where the su lectis both generated and negated the place where his unity suc clubs befoee the proces of charges an stases that produce Ni ‘We shall al this process of charges and stases a mei to i= tinguish st from negation, whichis the act ofa dene subject {sce below, part ‘Checked by the constraints of biological and social struc: tures, the dive charge thus undergoes stases, Dive facilitation tempor attested. marks diininates in hat may be called the ‘rious materia supports [maénaua| susceptible to semiotzaion. volee, gesture. colors, Phonic (later phonemic), kinetic, or chic- atic units and diferences ate the matks of these stases inthe dives, Connestions oF fancons are thereby established between these discrete marks which ae based on dives and articulated sccording to ther resemblance or apposition ether by slippage ‘or by condensation, Hete we fin the principes of metonyy and metaphor indissoclable from the dive econcmy underlying them, ‘Altnough we recogni the vital role played by the pro cesses of displacement and condensation inthe organization of the semiotic we must also add to these processes the relations {eventually representable as topological spaces) that connect the ones of the Iragmented body to each other and als To "etter nal” vobjects” ad subjects,” which'afe not yet constituted as such, This type of telation makes it possible ta spec the sewiatc fa psyehosomatie modality of the signing process, in ther Swords, not a symbolic medality but one articulating (in the larg fstsense ofthe word} a continuum the connections between the ‘The Semiotc and the Symbolic / 29 {elotal and anal} sphincters in (hythmic and intonational vocal modulations, or those between the sphincters and famalyprotag- fists or example Al these vavious processes and relations terior to sign and syotax. have jst been Identied from a geitie perspective 3s previous and necessary tothe acquisition of language. but not Identical to language Theory can “situate” such processes and felatons diachrontaly within the process ofthe consteution of the subject precisely because Hey uncon specroaliy-in he Sloning pass of te ube ins Le, the subject of cegtaty/Only in dream logic however, have they attracted attention only it certain signifying practices, such a5 te wat. do they dominate the ‘sigmying process. a IRmay be hypothesized that cetain semiotic anteulations ate transmitted. through the biological code or physiological "memory" and thus form the inborn bases ofthe symbolic func: tion Indeed, one branch of generative linguistics aserts the prin ‘ple of innate language universals. As it will come apparent in ‘what follows, however, the symbvle—and therefore syntax andl linguistic categories i a social effect of the relation to the athe, established through the objective constrains of Dioloekal In ‘luding sexi) diferences and concrete, historical family stuc tures" Genetic programming are necessarily semiotic: they I clude the primary processes, such as displacement and ‘ondensaton-absorption and repulsion, rejection and stasis, all ‘of which funetion as innate preconditions, "memorable" by the species, fr language acquistion “Mallamé calls attention 10 the semiotic rhythm within language when he speaks of "The Mystery in Literature” [Le Mystere ans les lettres Indifferent language, enigmatic and Feminine, this space undevving the written ehythmic_ unt tered. reduce to is neligble veal asa ms Cal anterior to judgment, but restrained by a single guarantce: ‘yntan_As evidence we could Ce "The NSeryibiteratue” in its entirety" For now, however, we shall quote only those pas Sages that ally the functioning of that "ait of song beneath the text with woman