Psychoanalytical Criticism- Julia Kristeva

 

Download

Psychoanalytical Criticism- Julia Kristeva

Welcome to the New edition of Psychoanalytical Criticism. As we navigate the complex landscapes of modern literary theory, certain figures stand as towering beacons, challenging how we think about language, identity, and the very fabric of our being. Following our deep dive into the foundational works of Freud, Jung, and Lacan, it feels only fitting to turn our attention to a revolutionary thinker who built upon, and radically departed from, their ideas: Julia Kristeva.

This newsletter Psychoanalytical Criticism- Julia Kristeva will serve as your primer to Kristeva’s world, where psychoanalysis, linguistics, and feminism collide. We’ll be untangling her complex ideas about how literature interacts with discourses of insanity, and how the act of writing is fundamentally tied to the formation—and sometimes the fragmentation—of our identity.

Introduction

Julia Kristeva is a Bulgarian-French philosopher, literary critic, psychoanalyst, and novelist. She moved to Paris in the 1960s and quickly became a central figure in the influential Tel Quel group of intellectuals. Drawing from (and debating with) giants like Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida, Kristeva’s work is a unique synthesis of linguistics, psychoanalysis, and political theory.

Her central project explores the interconnection between language and the speaking subject—that is, how we, as individuals, come to be through language. She is particularly fascinated by the margins of identity: the points where the self threatens to dissolve into madness, ecstasy, or poetic revolution.

Key Concepts:

To understand Kristeva’s contribution to discourses on insanity and literature, we must first get to grips with her unique vocabulary.

1. The Semiotic and The Symbolic

This is perhaps Kristeva’s most crucial contribution, a direct development from Lacan’s ideas.

• The Symbolic Order: Borrowed from Lacan, this is the realm of language, law, order, and social structure. It is the world of grammar, syntax, and shared meaning—the ‘dictionary definition’ of things. To enter the Symbolic is to accept societal rules (especially the Law of the Father) and to communicate in a way that others can understand. It’s the domain of conscious, rational thought.
• The Semiotic Chora: This is Kristeva’s groundbreaking concept. The Semiotic (from the Greek semeion, meaning ‘sign’) is a pre-linguistic, primal realm of experience. It is associated with the maternal body and the pre-Oedipal phase (before the child enters the language-based Symbolic order). It’s not language itself, but the rhythms, tones, pulses, and drives that underlie it. Think of the babbling of a baby, the cadence of poetry, or the raw, uncontrolled sounds of anguish or joy. It is the raw energy of communication before it is shaped into logical sense.

Why it matters for madness and literature: Kristeva argues that a healthy subject exists in a constant, dynamic dance between the Semiotic and the Symbolic. The Semiotic drives constantly disrupt and challenge the rigid order of the Symbolic, infusing language with desire, rhythm, and emotion. Literature, especially poetry, is a controlled space where this disruption can happen safely. Madness, in Kristevan terms, can be seen as a catastrophic collapse of this balance—where the powerful, chaotic forces of the Semiotic overwhelm the structuring capacity of the Symbolic, threatening the individual’s sense of a coherent self.

2. Abjection

A concept that has become incredibly influential in gender studies and theories of horror.

• What it is: Abjection is the violent, visceral reaction of horror and revulsion we feel towards something that profoundly disturbs our sense of identity, system, and order. It is not about something being evil or dirty in a simple sense, but about something that blurs the lines between self and other, subject and object, life and death.
• Common examples: A corpse (it shows us our own materiality and death), bodily fluids like blood or pus (they remind us that the body’s boundaries are permeable), spoiled food (something that was once nourishing becomes revolting). The abject is what we must jettison or ‘ab-ject’ from ourselves to maintain a clean and proper self.

Why it matters for madness and literature: The process of abjection is fundamental to forming an identity. By rejecting what is ‘not us’, we define what ‘us’ is. Kristeva links this powerfully to the maternal body—the original source of nourishment and comfort that must be rejected for the child to become a separate individual. Literature, particularly Gothic and horror genres, is a stage for exploring the abject. Think of Frankenstein’s monster (a blurred line between life and death) or the pervasive bodily horror in much modern writing. Furthermore, societal discourses often label madness as ‘abject’—something to be hidden away because it disturbs our rational, symbolic order.

3. Intertextuality

A term Kristeva coined that is now a cornerstone of literary studies.

• What it is: Kristeva argued that “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another.” This means that no text exists in a vacuum. Every novel, poem, or play is in dialogue with every text that came before it. It absorbs, references, contradicts, and reworks them.

Why it matters for madness and literature: If identity is formed in language, and language is inherently intertextual, then our very selfhood is a mosaic of the voices, stories, and discourses we have absorbed. This challenges the romantic idea of the ‘lone genius’ author or the completely autonomous self. When a character’s identity fractures into madness (e.g., in works like The Yellow Wallpaper or Hamlet), we can often read this as a failure to successfully manage the multitude of conflicting internalised ‘texts’ and voices—be they social expectations, familial demands, or traumatic memories.

4. The Subject-in-Process / On Trial

Kristeva directly challenges the idea of a fixed, unchanging, unified identity.

• What it is: For Kristeva, the subject is never a finished product. We are perpetually ‘in-process/on trial’ (sujet en procès—a brilliant pun meaning both ‘in process’ and ‘on trial’). Our identity is constantly being formed, challenged, and re-formed through the never-ending tension between the Semiotic (drives, desires) and the Symbolic (law, language).

Why it matters for madness and literature: This view makes madness not a static state but a potential within all subjectivity. The ‘trial’ of being a self can sometimes break down. Literature is the ultimate record of this trial. The stream-of-consciousness novel (e.g., Virginia Woolf), which captures the pre-Symbolic flow of thought, is a perfect example of writing that explores the ‘subject-in-process’. It shows the self not as a solid thing, but as a continuous, and often precarious, event.

Literature, Madness, and Identity Formation

So, how do these complex ideas help us examine the relationship between writing and identity, particularly through the lens of madness?

1. Writing as a Cathartic Rehearsal of Selfhood: The act of writing is a symbolic practice (it uses language) but it is fuelled by semiotic drives (emotion, rhythm, unconscious desire). In putting words to experience, an author—and by extension, a reader—is actively engaged in the process of forging an identity. For characters on the brink of madness, writing can be a desperate attempt to impose Symbolic order on Semiotic chaos. Think of the narrator in The Yellow Wallpaper whose journal is her only outlet as her sense of self unravels under the weight of patriarchal medical discourse.

2. Social and Medical Discourses as Symbolic Law: The ways a society defines ‘sanity’ and ‘insanity’ are powerful Symbolic forces. These definitions are not neutral; they are historically constructed and often serve to police boundaries (e.g., the Victorian-era medicalisation of female ‘hysteria’, which pathologised women’s discontent). Literature frequently exposes the violence of these discourses by giving voice to the ‘abject’ figures they exclude.

3. Gender and Madness: Kristeva’s work is deeply feminist. The association of the Semiotic with the maternal and the pre-Oedipal creates a powerful link between femininity and that which threatens the patriarchal Symbolic order. Historically, therefore, women’s speech and expression have more easily been labelled ‘irrational’ or ‘hysterical’—a way of policing the Semiotic disruption they represent. Literature by female authors often explores this tension directly, wrestling with the need to speak within the Symbolic order while also expressing semiotic drives that order devalues.

4. Modernism and the Fractured Self: Kristeva’s theory is a superb key for understanding Modernist and Postmodernist literature. These movements, with their fragmented narratives, stream-of-consciousness techniques, and rejection of linear plots, formally replicate the breakdown of a unified self. They allow the Semiotic to erupt into the Symbolic structure of the novel itself, mirroring the modern experience of alienation and psychological fragmentation.

Conclusion:

In an age where we are constantly curating our identities online, where discourses of mental health are both more prevalent and more contested, and where the boundaries of the self feel perpetually under threat, Kristeva’s work is not just academic—it is profoundly urgent.

She teaches us that the self is not a fortress to be defended, but a continuous, often messy, negotiation. She shows us that literature is not an escape from this reality but its most powerful rehearsal room. And she insists that what society calls ‘madness’ is often just the visible, terrifying, and ultimately human struggle of the ‘subject-on-trial’, a struggle that art has always sought to document and understand.

Julia Kristeva's Key Works 

1. Revolution in Poetic Language (1974): The essential text. This is where she first fully elaborates her seminal concepts of the Semiotic and the Symbolic and their dynamic interaction in avant-garde poetic language.
2. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (1980): A more focused and gripping read. She develops her theory of abjection through analyses of biblical law, Céline's literature, and art. Excellent for understanding the horror of blurred boundaries.
3. Black Sun: Depression and Melancholia (1987): Explores depression not as a lack of meaning but as an unnameable grief, linking it to artistic creation. Analyzes works by Holbein, Dostoevsky, and Marguerite Duras.
4. Tales of Love (1983): Examines the history of "love" as a discourse and its role in the construction of the subject. Complements her work on identity formation.