What is the abject? It is that which cannot be purged, always within us, "forcing an eternal repetition of repulsing and expelling that is doomed to fail." (1) Kristeva attempts to articulate an explanation of the abject in her text, Powers of Horror. The abject is constantly shifting and different for everyone, but Kristeva asserts that without it, we would have no way to understand ourselves as fully formed subjects in the symbolic order. The abject is something so vile that we cannot recognize it as a concrete "thing." (2)
Julia Kristeva is a philosopher who has extensively written on the abject:
"She is concerned with the vital role of the abject in forming the subject. Abjection allows one to separate themself from what they are not. She contends that we cannot exist without using the abject to draw a border. The abject is what must be repulsed because it cannot be assimilated (Kristeva 3). The necessity of this repulsion is described thus: “we may call it a border; abjection is above all ambiguity. Because, while releasing a hold, it does not radically cut off the subject from what threatens it – on the contrary, abjection acknowledges it to be in perpetual danger” (Kristeva 9). We must expel what is abject, but doing so requires recognizing that it is always already within us. We cannot approach the repugnant abject, yet we cannot be without it; it is the border that defines us."
The positioning of women’s bodies in the dominant culture as abject has important implications for women’s lived experience. It places them in the position of the "monstrous," the misunderstood, the reviled.
Monstrous-Feminine
"Used the term ‘monstrous-feminine [because] the term ‘female monster’ implies a simple reversal of ‘male monster’. The reasons why the monstrous-feminine horrifies her audience are quite different from the reasons why the male monster horrifies his audience . . . The phrase ‘monstrous-feminine’ emphasizes the importance of gender in the construction of her monstrosity." (3)
Woman’s ‘lack’ of the phallus is closely linked with this notion of monstrosity. As Creed argues, “the concept of the monstrous-feminine, as constructed within/by a patriarchal and phallocentric ideology, is related intimately to the problem of sexual difference and castration."
Julia Kristeva is a philosopher who has extensively written on the abject:
"She is concerned with the vital role of the abject in forming the subject. Abjection allows one to separate themself from what they are not. She contends that we cannot exist without using the abject to draw a border. The abject is what must be repulsed because it cannot be assimilated (Kristeva 3). The necessity of this repulsion is described thus: “we may call it a border; abjection is above all ambiguity. Because, while releasing a hold, it does not radically cut off the subject from what threatens it – on the contrary, abjection acknowledges it to be in perpetual danger” (Kristeva 9). We must expel what is abject, but doing so requires recognizing that it is always already within us. We cannot approach the repugnant abject, yet we cannot be without it; it is the border that defines us."
The positioning of women’s bodies in the dominant culture as abject has important implications for women’s lived experience. It places them in the position of the "monstrous," the misunderstood, the reviled.
Monstrous-Feminine
"Used the term ‘monstrous-feminine [because] the term ‘female monster’ implies a simple reversal of ‘male monster’. The reasons why the monstrous-feminine horrifies her audience are quite different from the reasons why the male monster horrifies his audience . . . The phrase ‘monstrous-feminine’ emphasizes the importance of gender in the construction of her monstrosity." (3)
Woman’s ‘lack’ of the phallus is closely linked with this notion of monstrosity. As Creed argues, “the concept of the monstrous-feminine, as constructed within/by a patriarchal and phallocentric ideology, is related intimately to the problem of sexual difference and castration."