FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2019950355> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2019950355 endingPage "2" @default.
• W2019950355 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2019950355 abstract "Introduction:Reading the Ethical Turn in Montaigne Criticism Zahi Zalloua To find oneself reading an inventive work is to find oneself subject to certain obligations—to respect its otherness, to respond to its singularity, to avoid reducing it to the familiar and the utilitarian even while attempting to comprehend by relating it to these. Derek Attridge, The Singularity of Literature1 To talk about an ethical turn in Montaigne criticism might strike some readers as unwarranted, considering the long-standing image of Montaigne as humanist. Presupposing a more or less mimetic approach, readers of the Essais have traditionally conceived of Montaigne's work as the expression of its author's humanist concerns and beliefs. The Montaigne that emerged from these readings tended to be seen as the sole source of truth and meaning of the Essais. But it was precisely this kind of faith in the subject's ability to control language fully that became the object of critique in the second half of the twentieth century. The problem of language was posed most forcefully by the emergent discourse of structuralism. With its theoretical roots in linguistics, structuralism called into question the alleged originary status and ontological priority of the subject. Not surprisingly, the structuralist revolution or linguistic turn swiftly radicalized the reception of the Essais. Against the traditional importance attributed to the author's biography, (post)structuralist critics emphasized thelittérarité or poetics of Montaigne's work. Consequently, the figure that emerged from such readings was less that of a ready-made humanist thinker or a philosopher in pursuit of truths than a literary writer engaged in a different kind of writing, textually formed through the essayistic process itself. Dissatisfied with this seemingly excessive investment in Montaigne's textuality, later critics opted to return to a referential Montaigne, placing him and his work in the dynamic context of the late sixteenth century. With the sixteenth century being a period of great, if not unprecedented, change—brought on by the Wars of Religion and the conquest of the New World, for example—a contextualist approach to the Essais, emblematic of a larger cultural turn in literary studies, seemed perfectly suited to the task of reading Montaigne's work ethically once again. In this view the Essais are not a self-consuming [End Page 1] artifact divorced from the referential realm. To understand the ethical thrust of the work, the critic must historicize Montaigne, that is, situate him and his writing firmly within the tumultuous socio-political reality of the late Renaissance, and pay attention to the ways his historical condition significantly mediates his ethical perspective. Yet in the last two decades a strong desire to (re)think the ethical otherwise has emerged in poststructuralist circles. This poststructuralist ethical sensibility—visible most notably in the works of Jean-François Lyotard, Emmanuel Levinas, and Jacques Derrida—has for some time now influenced literary studies in general and Montaigne scholarship in particular. This attitude is perhaps best illustrated by J. Hillis Miller who defends an ethics of reading, arguing against the reduction of the text to its context: If a given literary work were fully explicable in terms of its context, it would not be worth reading.2 Poststructuralist critics such as Miller locate the ethical not in the content of the literary work (in its propositional statements or didactic messages) but in the act of reading itself, in the reader's exposure to the singularity of the work. Montaigne's own preoccupations with the manner and matter of his writing (Nous sommes sur la maniere, non sur la matiere du dire) seem to welcome this type of concern. Taking as a point of departure the absence of an unequivocal protocol of reading—the lack of shared assumptions about what constitutes an ethical Montaigne or an ethical reading of the Essais—this volume raises ethics as a question. Its contributors, many of whom have played a central role in shaping the current field of Montaigne studies, propose complementary and at times divergent ethical visions of Montaigne.3 It is our contention that doing justice to Montaigne's highly inventive work necessitates such an interdisciplinary approach to the Essais, that is, an..." @default.
• W2019950355 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2019950355 creator A5085354228 @default.
• W2019950355 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2019950355 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2019950355 title "Introduction: Reading the Ethical Turn in Montaigne Criticism" @default.
• W2019950355 cites W1964055795 @default.
• W2019950355 cites W600281710 @default.
• W2019950355 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/esp.2006.0015" @default.
• W2019950355 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2019950355 type Work @default.
• W2019950355 sameAs 2019950355 @default.
• W2019950355 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2019950355 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2019950355 hasAuthorship W2019950355A5085354228 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C153606108 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C154949211 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C164913051 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C2779960602 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C2781238097 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C556248259 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C111472728 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C124952713 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C138885662 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C142362112 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C153606108 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C154949211 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C161191863 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C164913051 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C27206212 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C2777855551 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C2779960602 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C2780876879 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C2781238097 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C41008148 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C41895202 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C554936623 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C556248259 @default.
• W2019950355 hasConceptScore W2019950355C7991579 @default.
• W2019950355 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2019950355 hasLocation W20199503551 @default.
• W2019950355 hasOpenAccess W2019950355 @default.
• W2019950355 hasPrimaryLocation W20199503551 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2321051850 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2362880359 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2367196758 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2371198265 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2374162275 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2379516419 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2485820499 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2560187574 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2019950355 hasRelatedWork W361100321 @default.
• W2019950355 hasVolume "46" @default.
• W2019950355 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2019950355 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2019950355 magId "2019950355" @default.
• W2019950355 workType "article" @default.