Talk:Julia Kristeva

"Novels" section

I've edited this section for clarity, and also removed some redundancies; i.e., repeated reference to "psychological" themes, and the claim that her fiction also contain elements of her academic / theoretical work. 128.32.11.144 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)jj

External Links

Removed link identified as Spam

• www.observacionesfilosoficas.net/literaturacomocura.html La literatura como cura en la obra de Julia Kristeva |in Revista Observaciones Filosoficas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.184.208 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Abject = Id?

Kristeva's abject reads pretty much like the pessimistic interpretation of Freud's Id as a threatening loss of control, loss of will, probably also as a loss of (civilized) self/identity, which Kristeva seems to mix with some being nothinged (being touched by nothing) due to negative experience, originally as a precondition for adult realism, a la Heidegger or Buddha. If so, couldn't the article be simplified a lot by referring to such an established, well-known concept such as Freud's Id? --87.154.0.78 (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration with the communist regime

Why is the section about the collaboration with the communist regime marked as "alleged" and written as if it is disputed? That section is as proven as it can possibly be. An official institution provided the information including a lot of documents (scanned documents that can be seen online) proving this collaboration. In addition the very fact that she was let out of the country is indirect proof that she collaborated. I understand that she disputes it but this does not make the facts any less certain.

Stilgar (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The expression "as if it is disputed" conveys a falsehood. The alleged "collaboration" is indeed disputed, strongly and vigorously, by Kristeva herself and not only by her. According to Alice Jardine, "a French literature professor at Harvard who is writing an intellectual biography of Ms. Kristeva", "Everyone is trying to keep an open mind, but nobody who knows anything about her or her work believes this". See the New York Times discussion here. Your comment appears to be taking sides against a living person, and that is unfortunate. What I would recommend is a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The topic is sensitive in Bulgaria, but according to the letter and the spirit of the law that treats the matter a registration card with the name and the few mandatory details is enough to qualify the person as a collaborator. This view has been confirmed by the Constitutional Court as there has been objections to it. In this sense Kristeva has been indisputedly a collaborator and the burden of proof lays on those who write 'alleged' or deny the authenticity of the card.80.72.89.19 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the BLP noticeboard. You can find it here. At present, there appears to be agreement that the allegation that Kristeva collaborated with the communist regime in Bulgaria should be mentioned only as an allegation and should not be presented as confirmed fact. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Neal Ascherson writes:[1]

In the same way the recent fuss about Julia Kristeva boils down to nothing much, although it has suited some to inflate it into a fearful scandal. Bulgarian security files from the communist period log her as an ‘agent’ and a ‘secret collaborator’. But the reality shown in her files is trivial. After settling in Paris in 1965, she was cornered by Bulgarian spooks who pointed out to her that she still had a vulnerable family in the home country. So she agreed to regular meetings over many years, in the course of which she seems to have told her handlers nothing more than gossip about Aragon, Bataille & Co. from the Left Bank cafés – stuff they could have read in Le Canard enchaîné. Surveillance dogged everything she did and everyone she met, but the combined intelligence value of its product and her reports was almost zero. The Bulgarian security men seem to have known they were being played. But never mind: they could impress their boss by showing him a real international celeb on their books, while expense-account meals with Kristeva at the Closerie des Lilas must have been agreeable.

This is a plausible reading (particularly in the context of the surrounding book review) and I think it's worth using in the article in some way. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a trimmed-down version of the above to the article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Politically Motivated aditions?

The section "Denunciation of identity politics" seems oddly specific, probably politically motivated to show that Kristeva supposedly sides in a very prominent and recent debate, it just seems fishy and too prominent and long for an article this scrawny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Il giovane bello 73 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)