Summary: Kristeva’s “The Semiotic and the Symbolic”

Editor’s Note: For this assignment, I needed to read and summarize the published piece or content listed below, and then provide a response or assessment of the writing.

McAfee Noëlle. Julia Kristeva. Routledge, 2007.

Summary

Kristeva’s essay analyzes the signifying process of language while differentiating between the semiotic and the symbolic, stating that, “these two modalities are inseparable.” She introduces chora, a “nonexpressive totality formed by the drives and their stases in a motility that is as full of movement as it is regulated” that can never take on an “axiomatic form.” Kristeva believes that all discourse “simultaneously depends on and refuses” chora. The semiotic chora is structured around the mother and is a “psychosomatic modality of the signifying process” that is different from language, feminine, and more rhythmic in nature. She compares the semiotic to the unconscious Freud defined in his psychoanalysis theory. Kristeva also contrasts the semiotic with the symbolic, which she defines as a discourse that is “established through the objective constraints of biological (including sexual) differences and concrete, historical family structures.” Unlike the semiotic, the symbolic is tangible and definable as discourse relating to an object; it is defined by an individual’s environment, and it is defined in an instance. The semiotic, on the other hand, is evolving with each individual as the energies that compose it change and move through the individual.

Response

Kristeva’s essay was not the easiest read, but the main point that I took away from reading her essay was her focus on the mother developing the semiotic in a child. Emphasizing the feminine nature of the semiotic and shifting the focus to the importance of the role of the mother in a child’s development was a refreshing view. I liked how she acknowledged Freud’s theory of the unconscious, but held fast in her belief that maternal forces created the semiotic. Her deviation from Freud’s well-respected theory with a solid patriarchal focus was a courageous move. Also, the idea of the symbolic and the semiotic resonated well with me (as I understood it). I can understand the two parts of discourse effecting overall linguistics and human discourse, rather than simply one or the other exclusively influencing discourse.