Human Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 187–206 | Cite as

Dissymmetry and Height: Rhetoric, Irony and Pedagogy in the Thought of Husserl, Blanchot and Levinas

  • Gary Peters
Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

This essay is concerned with an initial mapping out of a model of intersubjectivity that, viewed within the context of education, breaks with the hegemonic dialogics of current pedagogies. Intent on rethinking the (so-called)“problem” of solipsism for phenomenology in terms of a pedagogy that situates itself within solitude and the alterity of self and other, Maurice Blanchot and Emmanuel Levinas will here speak as the voices of this other mode of teaching. Beginning with the problematization of intersubjectivity in romantic aesthetics and hermeneutics, I introduce the concept of irony as a crucial element in the conceptualization of this other pedagogical model, one that requires, initially, a discussion of Husserl's response to the charge of solipsism in the 5th Cartesian Meditation. As a starting point I introduce his symmetrical notion of bodily “pairing” into a consideration of rhetoric, understood here as an integral part of teaching, thus forging links with phenomenology via the work of Merleau-Ponty. The above provides a context for an extended discussion of pedagogy as it appears in the work of Blanchot and Levinas. Although similar in many respects, on closer inspection it will emerge that important differences are evident in the dissymmetrical and asymmetrical models suggested by the two thinkers respectively. These differences, I will argue, begin to open up a critical perspective on Levinas' “height” model of teaching in the name of the more radical configuration of phenomenology and rhetoric to be found in Blanchot.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blanchot, M. (1993). The Infinite Conversation, trans. S. Hanson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blanchot, M. (1982). The Space of Literature, trans. Ann Smock. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  3. Derrida, J. (1988). The Ear of the Other, trans. Peggy Kamuf. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hegel, G.W.F. (1981). The Philosophy of Right, trans. T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Husserl, E (1995). Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology, trans. Dorion Cairns. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Husserl, E. (1969). Ideas 1, trans. W.R. Boyce Gibson. London: Allen and Unwin Press.Google Scholar
  8. Husserl, E. (1964). The Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness, trans. James Churchill. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  9. Kant, I. (1973). Critique of Judgement, trans. James Creed Meredith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Levinas, E. (1978) Existence and Existents, trans. Alphonso Lingis, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  11. Levinas, E. (1998). Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence, trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity, trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  13. de Man, P. (1979). Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke and Proust. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1981) Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, trans. J.B. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Safranski, R. (1999). Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil, trans. Oswald Osers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Schlegel, F. (1991) Lucinde and the Fragments, trans. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schlegel, F. (1984) On Incomprehensibility. In Kathleen Wheeler (Ed.), German Aesthetic Theory and Literary Criticism: The Romantic Ironists and Goethe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Schleiermacher, F. (1986). Hermeneutik und kritik, trans. J. Duke and J. Forstman. In K. Mueller-Voller (Ed.), The Hermeneutics Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Shapiro, G. (1991) Nietzsche and the Future of the University. Journal of Nietzsche Studies 1: 15–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary Peters
    • 1
  1. 1.University of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations