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.