Being, Exoticism And The Other:Emmanuel Levinas And Contemporary French Literary Theory

The research topic of this thesis dwells on the literary thoughts and artistic theories of Levinas and his relationship with contemporary literary theory in France. Throughout the thesis, it is found that the analysis of Levinas’s literary theory, with the combing of his interrelations with French literary theorists such as Blanchot, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, will be the main concern in general.The significance of literature in the thought of Levinas will be firstly introduced because literature can be viewed as the motive that pushes Levinas to go further in his study of philosophy and ethics and the tool for him to transcend ontological language. In a way, Levinas traces the meaning of literature back to the Bible, for the Bible is the literature in literature and literature might be the revelation from God and the Other, so it has the power to surpass the totality of philosophy.After the introduction, the next part will reveal Levinas’s reliance on the work of Heidegger and indicate that his literary thought is actually shaped in his critique and transcendence of Heidegger’s ontological aesthetics. Levinas argues that Heidegger’s ontological aesthetics is a kind of totality, so he adds two new dimensions to the art, namely, exoticism and the other, for breaking this totality. Based on Heidegger’s concept of Being, exoticism is something that cannot be the light of Being, that is, exotic existence in the truth, which will be served as the theme of modern art and opposed to Heidegger’s theory of art as truth by its anti-horizon and passivity. In terms of Levinas, the reason why exoticism does not have the capability to transcend Being is that exoticism as an art space of self-sufficiency cuts off the confrontation with the reality and the other. Only the ethical call from the other and my unlimited responsibility to the other will evoke the transcendence from Being, and only through the other can Levinas realize his dream of replacing ontological foundation with ethics. Literature plays a key role in this idea because, while Levinas needs to use a kind of language that belongs to ethics to interpret ethics, literature has a close affinity with such a kind of language. Literature is close to the other continuously, but is also refused to appropriate the other.The transformation from "Being" to "exoticism" and "the other" initiates the following idea of the thesis:the entanglement of exoticism and the other. From those two dimensions, Levinas exerts great influence on French contemporary literary theory (surely, as one of the first philosophers who introduce Husserl and Heidegger into France, his influence is undoubtedly spread from the dimension of Being). Those two dimensions are intertwined in his literary theory and have after-effects on French literary theory in the following years, which will be embodied in the disputes and divisions among the literary theorists, for example, Ranciere’s critique of the Absolute Other in Lyotard and Derrida, and implied in the theories of Blanchot and Derrida about the relationship between difference and the other. On the basis of the comparison of Levinas with other French theorists, this article sorts out the theoretical correlation between each other and intensifies the conflict and tension between exoticism and the other by the extreme heteronomy of Levinas’s ethics.As Levinas and Blanchot are lifelong friends, many his view points influence the development of the French literary thoughts through Blanchot. Consequently, in the next part, this thesis will deal with Levinas’s relation with Blanchot claims, discussing the word "il y a" that Levinas uses to refer to exoticism is related to Blanchot’s literary theory, in which "il y a" represents "the neuter" and "the outside" of literary space and thus avoids morals because of this neuter. The very point at which Blanchot and Levinas diverse is that morality will destroy neuter. Yet, here ethics and morality can not be seen as the same, in fact, ethics for the other can be found in Blancot’s writing. In order to keep the other unrestricted, unlike Levinas, Blanchot makes the other stay in the neuter and the outside, not referring to the other clearly. In the thesis, the writer does not discern which theory is better, but instead states that close interrelations and mutual respects are to be detected in those two different theories of ethics and literature, which is analogous to their friendship.Given that Blanchot’s notions of "the neuter" and "the outside" deeply affect Foucault and Roland Barthes, it is said that they are associated with Levinas indirectly. The thesis will focus on their inheritance of Blanchot and compare "exoticism" in their literary theories with "the other" in Levinas’s thought. In terms of Foucault, the comparison of Levinas with Foucault will be situated under the context of this quotation that God is dead, which is cited from Nietzsche, the spiritual mentor of Foucault. The ideas involved in this part are as follows:transgression and transcendence of literature, postmodern planarity in Foucault’s thought and asymmetry in Levinas’s ethics, and confrontation with the death of God, namely, self-remodeling and remodeling of the other. By comparing these ideas, attempts will be made to find similarities between their thoughts with the anti-fascist ethics and somaesthetics. As for Roland Barthes, how his theory of degree zero writing is related to Blanchot and Levinas will be explored. Both Levinas and Barthes criticize the modern literature as a kind of myth, but their fundamental aims on ethics tend to differ, with the former pointing to be responsible for the other and the latter to the openness and interdependence in writings. Finally, it is true that a tendency to Utopia is manifested in the literary theories of Foucault, Barthes and Levinas, but in the work of Foucault and Barthes, utopia is "Heterotopia", heterogeneous with history, space and mechanism whereas Levinas’s conception of utopia is described as "Otherotopia", the other’s loft ethics.Next chapter aims to compare the literary theory of Levinas with that of Lyotard and of Ranciere. Levinas’s conception of time will be first compared with Lyotard’s conception, followed by an elaboration of their ideas on the art and redemption. In terms of Levinas, time is generated in its relationship with others, so only the other can take the responsibility of rescuing the subject from the bondage of "the present" and giving hope and future to it. However, what modern art brings is the "meanwhile" in time because it is alienated from the reality and others. But as for Lyotard, "the present" is indicative of autoregressive heterogeneity, especially reflected in what he defines as the sublime art. Even though Lyotad and Levinas distinguish from each other on their conceptions of time, reciprocity of ethical discourse and asymmetry, Ranciere criticizes Lyotad, as Lyotad is considered as the representative of Levinas in a way. He argues that the priority on the other will disturb the equality and dissensus in politics of difference, whereas Lyotard’s theory of sublime is simply a speculative hyperbole. A comment on this argument is made in this thesis:it is argued that Lyotad’s appropriation of Levinas’s view about the heteronomy of ethics in the field of aesthetics does entail risks, however, Ranciere’s critique of Lyotad is in essence a debate from different perspectives. This means "the other" in Lyotad’s theory is merely a structural element, involving the theme in Levinas’s book Totality and Infinity, that is, which comes first, infinity (the other) or totality (the structure)?The last part of this thesis is devoted to the comparison between Levinas and Derrida, for a close correlation is to be traced in their thought origins. From the aspect of language, Derrida offers a critique of Levinas in which he seeks to prove that the language Levinas employs still falls within the scope of ontology, even if Levinas tries to transcend the boundary of ontology. Levinas accepts his critique, followed by a critical response that Derrida’s theory of deconstruction is founded on logos and presence in a similar way. Then the thesis proceeds to analyze how Derrida interpret and appropriate Levinas’s text. In the article dedicated to Levinas, Derrida shows his grateful ingratitude to Levinas by his deviation from Levinas’s idea, but at the same time, his deviation is constructed on what he follows Levinas, which implies that this paradox itself is closely tied to Levinas. Hospitality and justice in their thoughts are also examined in the third part in terms of the paradox of hospitality, hospitality and hostage, hospitality and language, and hospitality and gifts. Finally, this thesis has found a Levinas otherwise than Levinas and a Derrida otherwise than Derrida in Derrida’s eulogy about Levinas’s life, which will be served as an opportunity to bring down Levinas to the level of reality and clarify some misunderstandings on his ideas.