Per un'etica della letteratura: la cornice il doppio legame nell'opera di J. M. Coetzee

The elusive fiction of J. M. Coetzee is not a work in which you can read fixed ethical stances. I suggest testing the potentialities of a logic based on frames and double binds in Coetzee's novels. A double bind is a dilemma in communication which consists on tho conflicting messages, with the result that you can’t successfully respond to neither. Jacques Derrida highlighted the strategic value of a way of thinking based on the double bind (but on frames as well), which enables to escape binary thinking and so it opens an ethical space, where you can make a choice out of a set of fixed rules and take responsibility for it. In Coetzee’s fiction the author himself can be considered in a double bind, seeing that he is a white South African writer who feels that his “task” can’t be as simply as choosing to represent faithfully the violence and the racism of the apartheid or of choosing to give a voice to the oppressed. Good intentions alone do not ensure protection against entering unwittingly into complicity with the dominant discourse, and this is why is important to make the frame in which one is always situated clearly visible and explicit. The logic of the double bind becomes the way in which moral problem are staged in Coetzee’s fiction as well: the opportunity to give a voice to the oppressed through the same language which co-opted to serve the cause of oppression, a relation with the otherness never completed, or the representability of evil in literature, of the secret and of the paradoxical implications of confession and forgiveness.

In nome della comunità. Analisi dei testi della sicurezza e del terrorismo

The focus of this dissertation is the relationship between the necessity for protection and the construction of cultural identities. In particular, by cultural identities I mean the representation and construction of communities: national communities, religious communities or local communities. By protection I mean the need for individuals and groups to be reassured about dangers and risks. From an anthropological point of view, the relationship between the need for protection and the formation and construction of collective identities is driven by the defensive function of culture. This was recognized explicitly by Claude Lévi-Strauss and Jurij Lotman. To explore the “protective hypothesis,” it was especially useful to compare the immunitarian paradigm, proposed by Roberto Esposito, with a semiotic approach to the problem. According to Esposito, immunity traces borders, dividing Community from what should be kept outside: the enemies, dangers and chaos, and, in general, whatever is perceived to be a threat to collective and individual life. I recognized two dimensions in the concept of immunity. The first is the logic dimension: every element of a system makes sense because of the network of differential relations in which it is inscribed; the second dimension is the social praxis of division and definition of who. We are (or what is inside the border), and who They are (or what is, and must be kept, outside the border). I tested my hypothesis by analyzing two subject areas in particular: first, the security practices in London after 9/11 and 7/7; and, second, the Spiritual Guide of 9/11 suicide bombers. In both cases, one observes the construction of two entities: We and They. The difference between the two cases is their “model of the world”: in the London case, one finds the political paradigms of security as Sovereignty, Governamentality and Biopolitics. In the Spiritual Guide, one observes a religious model of the Community of God confronting the Community of Evil. From a semiotic point view, the problem is the origin of respective values, the origin of respective moral universes, and the construction of authority. In both cases, I found that emotional dynamics are crucial in the process of forming collective identities and in the process of motivating the involved subjects: specifically, the role of fear and terror is the primary factor, and represents the principal focus of my research.