Poetics of the Flesh

Rivera Mayra Rivera

Description

In Poetics of the Flesh Mayra Rivera offers poetic reflections on how we understand our carnal relationship to the world, at once spiritual, organic, and social. She connects conversations about corporeality in theology, political theory, and continental philosophy to show the relationship between the ways ancient Christian thinkers and modern Western philosophers conceive of the "body" and "flesh." Her readings of the biblical writings of John and Paul as well as the work of Tertullian illustrate how Christian ideas of flesh influenced the works of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Michel Foucault, and inform her readings of Judith Butler, Frantz Fanon, and others. Rivera also furthers developments in new materialism by exploring the intersections among bodies, material elements, social arrangements, and discourses through body and flesh. By painting a complex picture of bodies, and by developing an account of how the social materializes in flesh, Rivera provides a new way to understand gender and race. 

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie
• Theology

Informations

• Publié par: Duke University Press
• Date de parution: 15 octobre 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780822374930
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 9 Mo

Extrait

Poetîcs of the Fesh

This page intentionally left blank

M A Y R A R I V E R A P O E T I C S O F T H E F L E S H

Duke Unîversîty Press Durham and London 

©  Duke Unîversîty Press A rîghts reserved Prînted în the Unîted States o Amerîca on acîd-ree paper∞ Desîgned by Heather Hensey Typeset în Whîtman by Westchester Pubîshîng Servîces

Lîbrary o Congress Cataogîng-în-Pubîcatîon Data Rîvera, Mayra, author. Poetîcs o the flesh / Mayra Rîvera. pages cm Incudes bîbîographîca reerences and îndex. isbn---- (hardcover : ak. paper) isbn---- (pbk. : ak. paper) isbn---- (e-book) . Fesh (Theoogy) . Human body—Reîgîous aspects— Chrîstîanîty. . Human body (Phîosophy) . Chrîstîan phîosophy. I. Tîte. bt..r  '.—dc 

Cover art: Wangechî Mutu,Non je ne regrette rîen, . Ink, paînt, mîxed medîa, pant materîa, and pastîc pears on Myar,  ×  înches. Courtesy o the artîst and Vîctorîa Mîro Gaery.

 vîî



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowedgments

I NTRODUCTI ON Both Fesh and Not

PA RT I : Regardîng Chrîstîan Bodîes 

CHAPTER 1 Becomîng Fesh: The Gospe o John

CHAPTER 2 Abandonîng Fesh: The Letters o Pau

CHAPTER 3 Embracîng Fesh: Tertuîan

PA RT I I : The Phîlosophers’ (Chrîstîan) Flesh  CHAPTER 4 Incarnate Phîosophy

CHAPTER 5 The Ends o Fesh

PA RT I I I : A Labyrînth of Incarnatîons  CHAPTER 6 Inescapabe Bodîes

CHAPTER 7 Carna Reatîons

CONCLUSI ON

Notes



Bîbîography



Index

C O N T E N T S

This page intentionally left blank

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

Thîs book has emerged sowy, shaped by conversatîons wîth students, co- eagues, and rîends. I cannot name every person who shaped the project, but namîng those who commented on ît most dîrecty I acknowedge my debt to many others. Among the students who afected thîs project most dîrecty are Nîchoas Dîas and Eeanor Craîg, who assîsted me dîîgenty în the research, and Cassîe Houtz, who aso read the manuscrîpt and ofered hepu comments. Wîth- out the competent research assîstance and reentess chaenges o Andrea Quîñones-Rîvera, I woud not have dared to devote so many hours to readîng through and dîscussîng scîentîfic îterature. I am grateu or a I earned and aware that the subtety o her anayses oten escaped me. Mónîca Quîñones- Rîvera heped me thînk about the sîgnîficance o metamorphoses, oferîng însîghts înto cassîca texts and hepîng wîth Latîn and Greek transatîons. The research or thîs project was supported în part by a Lîy Facuty Fe- owshîp durîng the academîc year –. I am aso grateu to Harvard Dîvînîty Schoo and îts acuty or theîr support. My coeagues Mark Jor- dan, Jonathan L. Waton, and Laura Nasraah read parts o the manuscrîpt and ofered învauabe comments. Laure Schneîder, Dennîs Bue, Een Armour, Mîchae Nausner, Shey Rambo, Catherîne Keer, Inese Radzîns,

Marîon Grau, Krîsta E. Hughes, and Andrea Bîeer ofered comments and chaenges, as we as tîmey encouragement. I am thanku or Urîke Guthrîe’s edîtorîa advîce. Juîe Meadows’s per- ceptîve readîng and brîîant suggestîons were an unexpected gît în the ast stages o thîs work. My deep gratîtude or the wîse contrîbutîons and gen- erous spîrît o the team at Duke Unîversîty Press, especîay Jade Brooks, Danîee Szuczewskî, and Heather Hensey.

vîîî Acknowledgments

I N T R O D U C T I O N Both Flesh and Not

Fesh carrîes memorîes o theoogîca passîons. In Chrîstîanîty, flesh evokes a creatîve touch, dîvîne ove, and suferîng. More promînenty, ît audes to sîn, ust, and death. To be descrîbed as îvîng “accordîng to the flesh”—as Jews, women,andsexuamînorîtîeshavebeen—îstobeconsîderedtrappedînsîn- 1 uness. Outsîde Chrîstîan cîrces, în everyday uses o the term “flesh,” those memorîes mîght be barey recognîzabe; but they are not înconsequentîa. Desîre and înstîncts are saîd to înhabît flesh, or even to be îndîstînguîshabe rom carnaîty. These assocîatîons have earned flesh a bad reputatîon—but aso the admîratîon o many oowers o Eros. Ironîcay, ît îs the reîgîous aura o flesh that most troubes postmodern phîosophers, not îts bad reputatîon. For them, flesh unctîons as an essence, the se-îdentîty o the body. As a subjectîve înterîorîty, ît osters the îu- sîon o unmedîated sensîbîîty and thus o absoute truth. They aso consîder flesh to be îrremedîaby Chrîstîan, aways haunted by the încarnatîon. Those assocîatîons ead some thînkers to denounce flesh and procaîm the end o the passîons that “flesh” once named. These phîosophers’ gestures may be hasty, betrayîng îrrîtabîîty toward the persîstence o Chrîstîan îdeas în Western thought, but theîr crîtîques cannot be taken îghty. Fesh îs a con- cept prone to metaphysîca excess, used not ony to demonîze corporeaîty but aso to spîrîtuaîze ît—în both cases osîng touch wîth ordînary bodîes.