A kulturális trauma elmélete a bírálatok tükrében

A tétel rövid nézete
dc.creatorTakács, Miklós
dc.date2011-07-01
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-11T08:36:26Z
dc.date.available2020-09-11T08:36:26Z
dc.descriptionThe present survey aims to overview the criticism on the theory of cultural trauma, as well as to define the specific character of this theorem in the light of its critical judgement. Trauma studies, an interdisciplinary field of humanities has been successful for over two decades and this popularity manifests itself also in the very early emergence of severe criticism. The first wave of critics attacked especially the fact that Shoshana Felman’s and Cathy Caruth’s arguments regard the trauma as a metaphysical centre, as opposed to their point of origin in deconstruction. Because of this defect, Wulf Kansteiner, the fiercest critic considers even the use of the term cultural trauma an ethical delinquency. At this point, however, he himself can be criticised too: he fails to make any conceptual distinctions, based on which one could clearly distinguish between individual, psychic trauma and cultural traumas. In case of an individual trauma the medium is the body, the therapy is the representation, thus the traumatic experience becomes part of another medium. Mediality is an inevitable factor in the interpretation of any trauma, which we can also conclude when taking into consideration other context such as the theory of cultural memory or narratology. Therefore, I finally argue for the integration of the aspect of mediality into trauma-theory.
dc.descriptionThe present survey aims to overview the criticism on the theory of cultural trauma, as well as to define the specific character of this theorem in the light of its critical judgement. Trauma studies, an interdisciplinary field of humanities has been successful for over two decades and this popularity manifests itself also in the very early emergence of severe criticism. The first wave of critics attacked especially the fact that Shoshana Felman’s and Cathy Caruth’s arguments regard the trauma as a metaphysical centre, as opposed to their point of origin in deconstruction. Because of this defect, Wulf Kansteiner, the fiercest critic considers even the use of the term cultural trauma an ethical delinquency. At this point, however, he himself can be criticised too: he fails to make any conceptual distinctions, based on which one could clearly distinguish between individual, psychic trauma and cultural traumas. In case of an individual trauma the medium is the body, the therapy is the representation, thus the traumatic experience becomes part of another medium. Mediality is an inevitable factor in the interpretation of any trauma, which we can also conclude when taking into consideration other context such as the theory of cultural memory or narratology. Therefore, I finally argue for the integration of the aspect of mediality into trauma-theory.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifierhttps://ojs.lib.unideb.hu/studia/article/view/3987
dc.identifier10.37415/studia/2011/3–4/36–51.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2437/295811
dc.languagehun
dc.publisherDebreceni Egyetemi Kiadó
dc.relationhttps://ojs.lib.unideb.hu/studia/article/view/3987/3854
dc.rightsCopyright (c) 2011 Studia Litteraria
dc.sourceStudia Litteraria; Vol. 50 No. 3–4 (2011): A trauma alakzatai; 36–51.
dc.sourceStudia Litteraria; Évf. 50 szám 3–4 (2011): A trauma alakzatai; 36–51.
dc.source2063-1049
dc.source0562-2867
dc.titleA kulturális trauma elmélete a bírálatok tükrében
dc.titleA kulturális trauma elmélete a bírálatok tükrében
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Fájlok
Eredeti köteg (ORIGINAL bundle)
Megjelenítve 1 - 1 (Összesen 1)
Nem elérhető
Név:
Studia Litteraria 2011-3-4 A trauma alakzatai-38-53.pdf
Méret:
130.99 KB
Formátum:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Letöltés
Gyűjtemények
Studia Litteraria (OJS)