Writing Otherwise than Seeing : Writing and Exteriority in Maurice Blanchot

Maurice Blanchot (1907-2003), the French writer and novelist, is one of the most important figures in post-war French literature and philosophy. The main intention of this study is to figure out his position and originality in the field of phenomenology. Since this thesis concentrates on the notion of vision in Blanchot s work, its primary context is the post-war discussion of the relation between seeing and thinking in France, and particularly the discussion of the conditions of non-violent vision and language. The focus will be on the philosophical conversation between Blanchot and his contemporary philosophers. The central premise is the following: Blanchot relates the criticism of vision to the criticism of the representative model of language. In this thesis, Blanchot s definition of literary language as the refusal to reveal anything is read as a reference pointing in two directions. First, to Hegel s idea of naming as negativity which reveals Being incrementally to man, and second, to Heidegger s idea of poetry as the simultaneity of revealing and withdrawal; the aim is to prove that eventually Blanchot opposes both Hegel s idea of naming as a gradual revelation of the totality of being and Heidegger s conception of poetry as a way of revealing the truth of Being. My other central hypothesis is that for Blanchot, the criticism of the privilege of vision is always related to the problematic of the exteriority. The principal intention is to trace how Blanchot s idea of language as infinity and exteriority challenges both the Hegelian idea of naming as conceptualizing things and Heidegger s concept of language as a way to truth (as aletheia). The intention is to show how Blanchot, with his concepts of fascination, resemblance and image, both affirms and challenges the central points of Heidegger s thinking on language. Blanchot s originality in, and contribution to, the discussion about the violence of vision and language is found in his answer to the question of how to approach the other by avoiding the worst violence . I claim that by criticizing the idea of language as naming both in Hegel and Heidegger, Blanchot generates an account of language which, since it neither negates nor creates Being, is beyond the metaphysical opposition between Being and non-Being.

Luonnoksia käsityön ruumiillisuudesta. : Käsityö Maurice Merleau-Pontyn ruumiinfenomenologian valossa.

Purpose This study focused on craft from a standpoint of phenomenological philosophy and craft was interpreted through Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of the body. The main focus was the physical phase of the craft process, wherein a product is made from material. The aim was to interpret corporality in craft. There is no former research focusing on lived body in craft science. Physical, bodily making is inalienable in craft, but it is not articulated. Recent discussion has focused on craft as ”whole”, which emphasizes designing part in the process, and craft becomes conceptualized with the theories of art and design. The axiomatic yet silenced basis of craft, corporality, deserves to become examined as well. That is why this study answers the questions: how craft manifests in the light of phenomenology of the body and what is corporality in craft? Methods In this study I cultivated a phenomenological attitude and turned my exploring eye on craft ”in itself”. In addition I restrained myself from mere making and placed myself looking at the occurrence of craft to describe it verbally. I read up Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of the body on his principal work (2002) and former interpretations of it. Interpreting and understanding textual data were based on Gadamer’s hermeneutics, and the four-pronged composition of the study followed Koski’s (1995) version of the Gadamerian process of textual interpretation. Conclusions In the construction of bodily phenomenology craft was to be contemplated as a mutual relationship between the maker and the world materializing in bodily making. At the moment of making a human being becomes one with his craft, and the connection between the maker, material and the equipment appears as communication. Operational dimension was distinctive in the intentionality of craft, which operates in many ways, also in craft products. The synesthesia and synergy of craft were emphasized and craft as bodily practice came to life through them. The moment of making appeared as situation generating time and space, where throwing oneself into making may give the maker an experience of upraise beyond the dualism of mind and body. The conception of the implicit nature of craft knowledge was strengthened. In the light of interpretation it was possible to conceptualize craft as a performance and making ”in itself” as a work of art. In that case craft appeared as bodily expression, which as an experience approaches art without being it after all. The concept of aesthetic was settled into making as well. Bodily and phenomenological viewpoint on craft gave material to critically contemplate the concept of “whole craft” (kokonainen käsityö) and provided different kind of understanding of craft as making.

Kirkon vai valtion kirjat? : Uskontokuntasidonnaisuuden ongelma Suomen väestökirjanpidossa 1839-1904

The Population Register – run by the Church or the state? The problem posed by the obligation to belong to a religious community in the registration of births and deaths in Finland between 1839 and 1904 The Lutheran Church of Finland is the nation’s largest church; approximately 82 per cent of Finns were members in 2007. The Church ran an official register of its members until 1999, when the state then undertook this task. The registration of births and deaths by the Church has a long history dating back to the 17th century, when Bishop Johannes Gezelius Sr. decreed that all parish members would have to be recorded in parish registers. These registers were used to control how well parish members knew the Christian doctrine and, gradually, also if they were literate. Additionally, the Church attempted to ensure by means of the parish registers that parish members went to Holy Communion annually. Since everyone was a member of the Lutheran Church, the state also took advantage of the parish registers and used them for the purposes of tax collection and conscription. The main research theme of “The Population Register – run by the Church or the state?” goes back to these times. The actual research period covers the years of 1839–1904. At that time Finland was under Russian rule, although autonomous. In the late 19th century the press and different associations in Finland began to engage in public debate, and the country started moving from a submissive society to a civic one. The identity of the Lutheran Church also became more prominent when the Church Act and the General Synod were realised in 1869. A few years earlier, municipal and parish administrations had been separated, but the general registration of births and deaths was left to the Church to see to. In compliance with the constitution of the country, all the inhabitants in principle still had to be Lutheran. In practice, the situation was different. The religious and ideological realms diversified, and the Lutheran concept of religion was no longer acceptable to everyone. The conflict was reflected in the registration of births and deaths, which was linked to the Lutheran Church and its parish registers. Nobody was allowed to leave the Church, there was no civil register, and the Lutheran Church did not consent to record unbaptized children in the parish registers. Therefore such children were left without civil rights. Thus the obligation to belong to a religious community had become a problem in the registration of births and deaths. The Lutheran clergy also appealed to the 1723 privileges, according to which they had been exempted from the drawing up of additional population registers. In 1889 Finland passed the Dissenters Act. By virtue of this act the Baptists and the Methodists left the state Church, but this was not the case with the members of the free churches. The freethinkers had to retain their church membership, as the law did not apply to them. This meant that the unbaptized children of the members of the free churches or those of freethinkers were still not entered in any registers. The children were not able to go to school, work for the state or legally marry. Neither were they able to inherit property, as they did not legally exist. The system of parish registers was created when everyone was required to be a member of the Lutheran Church, but it did not work when liberal attitudes eventually penetrated the sphere of religion, too. The government´s measures to solve the problem were slow and cautious, partly because Finland was part of Russia, partly because there were only about 100 unbaptized children. As the problem group was small and the state´s resources were limited, no general civil register was established. The state accepted the fact that in spite of the problems, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the congregations of dissenters were the only official establishments to run populations registers in the country, and for social purposes, too. In 1900 the Diet of Finland finally approved a limited civil register, which unbaptized children and unregistered foreigners would be recorded in. Due to political reasons the civil register did not come into existence until 1917, after the actual research period.