Journals / Cankaya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences / 2012 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

The Spul(aris)ation of "I"

The Specul(aris)ation of “I”

Pages
165–175
Publication Date
2012-02-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Likewise, the Mouth (as a fragment) in Beckett’s play becomes alienated to her unrepresented body.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this article, the main aim is to analyze Samuel Beckett’s short absurd play “Not I” (written as a dramatic monologue in 1972) through speculation/specul(aris)ation concepts of Luce Irigaray including also a Lacanian perspective.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Under the light of the Irigarayian concept of specul(ariz)ation, the invisible and unknown nature of the dark hollow (vagina)/ Mouth as a reflection of the female self and sexuality will be explained.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Likewise, the Mouth (as a fragment) in Beckett’s play becomes alienated to her unrepresented body.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Specul(aris)ation · Samuel · Beckett’s

Özet

In this article, the main aim is to analyze Samuel Beckett’s short absurd play “Not I” (written as a dramatic monologue in 1972) through speculation/specul(aris)ation concepts of Luce Irigaray including also a Lacanian perspective. Under the light of the Irigarayian concept of specul(ariz)ation, the invisible and unknown nature of the dark hollow (vagina)/ Mouth as a reflection of the female self and sexuality will be explained. Irigaray herself defines the concept as a process of alienation because she thinks the “absence of the subject from its own image” gives specularization a “de-realizing power”. In other words, because women are defamiliarised to their own self as a result of not seeing their own image, they are invisible. Likewise, the Mouth (as a fragment) in Beckett’s play becomes alienated to her unrepresented body.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNDÜZ, E. İ. (2012). The Spul(aris)ation of "I". Cankaya University Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 165–175. https://ajindex.com/articles/85889

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Brater, Enoch. (1974). “The ‘I’ in Beckett’s Not I”, Twentieth Century Literature, 20/3 pp.189-200.
  2. Beckett, Samuel. (1973). “Not I”, (London: Faber&Faber). Bryson, Norman. (1988). “The Gaze in the Expanded Field,” in Hal Foster (ed.), Vision and Visuality (New York: The New Press). Catanzaro, Mary. (2011). “Recontextualising the Self: the Voice as Subject in Beckett’s ‘Not I’’, South Central Review, 7/1 pp.36-49.
  3. Gross, Elizabeth. (1986). “Irigaray and Sexual Difference,” Australian Feminist Studies, 1/2 pp.63-78.
  4. Irigaray, Luce (1985). The Sex Which is not One [translated by Catherine Porter] (New York: Cornell University Press.) Tubridy, Derval. (2000). “Words Pronouncing Me Alive: Beckett and Incarnation”, in Marius Buning (ed.), Samuel Beckett Today (Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V.). O’Gorman, Kathleen. “So that People Would Stare’: the Gaze and the Glance in Beckett’s “Not I”’. Modern Language Studies, 2/3 pp.32-44.
  5. Postlewait, Thomas. (1978). “Self-performing Voices: Mind, Memory, and Time in Beckett’s Drama”, Twentieth Century Literature, 24/4 pp.473-491.