Reading through 1989's Contemporary Literary Theory and I've just finished the section on archetypal theory and started the one on semiotics when the semiotics section hits me with "meaning is intertextual; that is, a given text always refers us to other texts, which explains why readers are able to infer meaning from sparse information."

Does this not sound similar to how archetypal criticism works? Is archetypal criticism just more zoomed out in the sense of analyzing a text in a genealogy of texts and meanings of certain images around the world? I understand "text" in the above quotation is a broad word- not just referring to literature but to culture, history, social realms etc, but still I struggle to figure out a difference between the archetypal theory of relation of texts and symbols and the semiotic belief of texts referring to other texts. can anyone clear it up for me?

EDIT: even further muddying the waters, the next page talks about semiotics in regard to the analysis of myth, discussing that "structural similarities among myths rewarded analysts with discoveries about the larger social functions of mythmaking. working from Saussure's preception that meaning is relational, structural anthropology identifies the binary oppositions in a culture as they are manifested in story and ritual. Insofar as stories mediate between irreconcilable oppositions, mythmaking is a survival strategy."

this sounds very similar to some of the comparative analysis done by archetypalists like James Frazer or Murray's excursus and breakdown of the tragedy that the book discusses

There is a mention of this in the Introduction to Illuminations:

To describe adequately his work and him as an author within our usual framework of reference, one would have to make a great many negative statements, such as: his erudition was great, but he was no scholar; his subject matter comprised texts and their interpretation, but he was no philologist; he was greatly-attracted not by religion but by theology and the theological type of interpretation for which the text itself is sacred, but he was no theologian and he was not particularly interested in the Bible; he was a born writer, but his greatest ambition was to produce a work consisting entirely of quotations...

Can anyone tell me where Benjamin speaks of such ambition? From another place in the Introduction where such ambition is once again remarked upon, it seems like he wrote about it in a letter. At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you let me know where I can see him discussing it.

Hey. I hope you're all doing well. I need some help confirming whether I am understanding Deleuze and Guatarri's concepts. This is for an argument I am preparing, but essentially, I currently understand that:

Strata = groups.

The Body without Organs describes how different ideologies and organizations can operate within individuals, and strata. Strata and individuals can have multiple Bodies without Organs. Is this correct?

I've noticed that whenever I read critical theory and feel that I, consciously or not, have had problematic beliefs (or lacked certain beliefs I feel I should have had), I begin to feel guilty, ashamed, and become anxious because I feel I may be a bad person. This is exacerbated when psychoanalysis is brought into the equation.

For example, I was recently reading some secondary text about Fanon and his work, in particular "Wretched of the Earth", and became anxious and disgusted with myself when I read about how racism, in Fanon's view, is primarily sexual in nature, even if unconsciously.

So, I've looked into "complicity" and this thread came up: https://www.reddit.com/r/CriticalTheory/s/7XrTK2ZzAk. It made me feel a bit better, but not much, considering that power differentials, in particular when gender, race, and class intersect, are very significant, even on the individual level.

So, have any of you experienced similar feelings when reading a text, especially if you felt called out? If so, how do you manage these feelings and keep educating yourself? If not, how do you compartmentalize theory and your life?

I've noticed something interesting while thinking about Critical Theory. It seems that the more we engage in self-reflection and critique, the harder it becomes to decide when-or how-to act. It feels to me like a paradox of reflexivity, where the process of reflection itself creates a sort of analysis paralysis that doesn’t lead to any actionable outcome I know this isn't a new idea-Adorno and Marcuse touched on it in their work. But it seems like Critical Theory still hasn't solved this problem. In today's world, where activism is often as much about discourse as direct action, I wonder: Are we still stuck in this loop of reflection, or have we found a way to break free?

Kind of a misleading question, I know, because that terminology may not have existed for them. But it’s undeniable that they are talking about things that have a very ADHD/hyperfocus feel to them—hello, rhizome!

So even if they aren’t naming ADHD as such, I do believe they are talking about the concept or the tendency in a dynamic system that includes autism. I’ll probably pick up on some more examples later, but I was curious if anyone else had seen this in the text and made other connections.

I was on the PC gaming subreddit and the issue of you not really owning digital games but licensing them for the privilege of accessing the publishers content.

It got me thinking what does leftist thought says about media piracy and the concept of IP law.

My understanding is neoliberalism emerged out of 1960s economic crises, and I've also read that the ruling class seizes this opportunity to jam neoliberalism into the public. But if there were economic crises during this period, I wonder if there were popular sentiments around people wanting deregulation etc. Any recs on where to look to understand this better?

Some of you will know this motto from the late Fredric Jameson, but I am currently looking into the contrary position, and need some help finding who articulates it best. I know Nietzsche was somewhat disdainful of dialectical method... but I am not necessarily sure that is exactly what I am finding.

The thought is this: if historicism inevitably leads to something like an "end of history" thesis, then there must be an argument against historicism because such a sense of BELATEDNESS is not mentally bearable, either at the individual or collective level.

So if there is a well articulated argument against historicism that goes something like the above, then I would be grateful if you could direct me to an article/book/link.

I've came to a strange conclusion recently.

If wage labor were to be abolished and things like food, water, housing, etc, all would be guaranteed to people with 15 hr workweek - let's say it happens - consumerism would be impossible.

Conspicuous consumption or even just buying things to show off would stop making sense. There won't be people struggling for years to become "rich". There won't be competition where everyone tries to get to the finish line ahead of everyone else.

The problem is the following: I think people may be too invested in this whole "race" sort of. I can't exactly explain what it is, but I feel like consuming "goods" in an ever-increasing quantities and prices has been ingrained in the psyche of majority people.

I think people may actually want it. Want to "show off" wealth, dream about getting rich, look down on others, etc. They dream about being happy once they get there in a way. If you take these things away, then what would they be doing? I think it may cause them existential crisis.

Anyways, sorry for not being able to word it properly, but this is sort of my hunch. I just feel like people may be too invested in this whole thing. If the whole "world" they operate in (wage labor world) crashes down, then it would be a very threatening situation for people's psyche IMO.

Edit: Sorry if this came off as "elitist" or "amateurish", I was just sharing my pov hoping to see if there are works or texts that explore this question.

I am a longterm reader of the sub, though not really well-versed enough to participate in the discussion.

I’m in dire need of pointers to thinkers who have written on attitudes and depictions of the underprivileged white class. I am equally interested in the description and deconstruction of terminology, and the writing on general attitudes of the society and media depictions.

To clarify - for the lack of better word - I am interested in thinkers on what is derogatively called white trash; undereducated people getting by on low end jobs or no jobs at all, in communities often rife with substance abuse and minimum upward social movement.

I am interested especially in European thinkers, though I will not shy away from interesting US writing. The problem with most US writers from my particular point of view are the racial undertones, which are not particularly fitting to the context I am looking at.

(Edit - Thank you everybody for your fabulous pointers. It will take a while to look closer at all of them individually. Love and respect.)

I ask this question because I have been wondering whether or not certain acts of resistance/ rebellion have been justified and how to go about deciding this. I recently made a post that was removed about this very topic, asking if things labeled as anti-colonial resistance that involve physical violence against non-military targets such as 9/11 and October 7th is justified. This post made me realize that I didn't understand the definition of resistance.

However, trying to define it has proven difficult. I read one paper titled "“When you live in a colony… every act counts”: Exploring engagement in and perceptions of diverse anti-colonial resistance strategies in Puerto Rico". The author defines resistance as that which "involves action and opposition. In contexts of oppression, this entails challenging the group's subordination and undermining the oppressor's goals and power".

My issue with this is, how do we know when this is the case? October 7th certainly did, as did 9/11. But what if, say, an indigenous group did something like target a marginalized community, for example, if they bombed a synagogue(s) in the USA. Technically they could claim to be resisting since they are attacking people who are part of a settler-colony and likely benefit and uphold it, but how much does that "undermine the oppressors goals and power"? On October 7th, it was a relatively recent settlement that was targeted, and one close to Gaza. But was, say, the killing of a Thai migrant worker justified? Is it wrong to say that was morally wrong?

I supposed this is all to say that I understand where Fanon was coming from when he claimed that anti-colonial resistance will always be violent and that it restores the dignity of the colonized. But is it wrong to condem the purposeful killing of small children when it is not required to achieve the undermining of "the oppressors goals and power"?

I don't know what to think. It seems innately repulsive to me, if understandable. And it disturbs me that so many on the Left seem to just give nebulous quotes from various critical theory to say that it is inevitable, but rarely seem to want to talk about whether it is condemnable and the limits of our support, especially from privileged positions such as from the imperial core in the USA.

I've been here before discussing Dr. Ben Zweibelson of the US Space Command. His philosophy of conflict studies are very interesting in my opinion.

I'm seeking further sources for military theory, as well as emergency response theory.

We see all these mutual aid networks sprouting with the recent hurricanes. For me it's the most hopeful social phenomenon in a while.

Does anyone have theory recommendations about emergency response? Can cover emergency theory proper or just organizing principles and doctrines re: peer support, logistics organization, etc. from a "below" perspective.

If you are interested in a study group on military & emergency theory please let me know. I'm looking for more people to study with on an ongoing basis. This can manifest in writing projects later on.

A deep dive into Donna Haraway's Cyborg Manifesto, reexamined through the lens of our existential dread over microplastics and what it means to live—and die—as a cyborg in the modern world.
https://open.substack.com/pub/siona17/p/even-cyborgs-die?r=1d3s7s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

A common capitalist talking about is that it is responsible for uplifting counties like South Korea and Japan into industrialized powerhouses.

But was that really good. Considering the high rates of suicide and unhappiness in Japan and South Korea.

A video I was watching was about Japanese leftists protesting Japanese industrialization because of how it negatively effected peasants and minority communities like the Ainu, Dowa people, and Koreans.

Why is western based industrialized capitalism seen as the most desirable form for organizing nation state.

I’m not much interested in New Yorker pieces on Dime Square from out-of-touch centrists. In some ways I’m looking for a more in-depth sequel to ‘Kill All Normies.’

I would love a through-line from John Maus and Ariel Pink at the Cap on Jan 6th to the present, increasing influence/fetishism of regressive ideals (a la Catholicism, monarchism, anti-feminism, etc.)

Also interested in recommendations recounting similar cycles throughout history. Thanks.