Jacques Khalip
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- June 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780804758406
- eISBN:
- 9780804779685
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Stanford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.11126/stanford/9780804758406.001.0001
- Subject:
- Literature, 19th-century Literature and Romanticism
Romanticism is often synonymous with models of identity and action that privilege individual empowerment and emotional autonomy, models that, in the last two decades, have been the focus of critiques ...
More
Romanticism is often synonymous with models of identity and action that privilege individual empowerment and emotional autonomy, models that, in the last two decades, have been the focus of critiques of Romanticism's purported self-absorption and alienation from politics. While such critiques have proven useful, they often draw attention to the conceptual or material tensions of romantic subjectivity while accepting a conspicuous, autonomous subject as a given, thus failing to appreciate the possibility that Romanticism sustains an alternative model of being, one anonymous and dispossessed, whose authority is irreducible to that of an easily recognizable, psychologized persona. This book goes against the grain of these dominant critical stances by examining anonymity as a model of being that is provocative for writers of the era because it resists the Enlightenment emphasis on transparency and self-disclosure. The author explores how romantic subjectivity, even as it negotiates with others in the social sphere, frequently rejects the demands of self-assertion and fails to prove its authenticity and coherence.Less
Romanticism is often synonymous with models of identity and action that privilege individual empowerment and emotional autonomy, models that, in the last two decades, have been the focus of critiques of Romanticism's purported self-absorption and alienation from politics. While such critiques have proven useful, they often draw attention to the conceptual or material tensions of romantic subjectivity while accepting a conspicuous, autonomous subject as a given, thus failing to appreciate the possibility that Romanticism sustains an alternative model of being, one anonymous and dispossessed, whose authority is irreducible to that of an easily recognizable, psychologized persona. This book goes against the grain of these dominant critical stances by examining anonymity as a model of being that is provocative for writers of the era because it resists the Enlightenment emphasis on transparency and self-disclosure. The author explores how romantic subjectivity, even as it negotiates with others in the social sphere, frequently rejects the demands of self-assertion and fails to prove its authenticity and coherence.
Ward Keeler
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- May 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780824865948
- eISBN:
- 9780824876944
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Hawai'i Press
- DOI:
- 10.21313/hawaii/9780824865948.003.0009
- Subject:
- Religion, Buddhism
Connell’s famous account of “hegemonic” masculinity requires some qualification in light of the fact that in Burma a man wins respect by fulfilling either of two roles: as a male householder or as a ...
More
Connell’s famous account of “hegemonic” masculinity requires some qualification in light of the fact that in Burma a man wins respect by fulfilling either of two roles: as a male householder or as a Buddhist monk. More telling in Burma gender ideology than masculine vs. feminine is the less intuitively obvious but crucial distinction between autonomy and attachment. Masculine prestige stems from displays of autonomy. Because sexual relations imply at least some compromise of autonomy, in the need for a female partner, the monk’s sexual continence means that he enacts autonomy more thoroughly than male householders, justifying his greater prestige and explaining the prominence his asexuality holds in all accounts of his role’s obligations.Less
Connell’s famous account of “hegemonic” masculinity requires some qualification in light of the fact that in Burma a man wins respect by fulfilling either of two roles: as a male householder or as a Buddhist monk. More telling in Burma gender ideology than masculine vs. feminine is the less intuitively obvious but crucial distinction between autonomy and attachment. Masculine prestige stems from displays of autonomy. Because sexual relations imply at least some compromise of autonomy, in the need for a female partner, the monk’s sexual continence means that he enacts autonomy more thoroughly than male householders, justifying his greater prestige and explaining the prominence his asexuality holds in all accounts of his role’s obligations.
