Search

Rad se bavi istraživanjem statusa avangardne i modernističke književnosti u feminističkoj književnoj teoriji. Teorijsku raspravu o ovom pitanju razvijamo u četirima poglavljima rada u kojima razmatramo različite, međusobno povezane manifestacije odnosa feminističke teorije s književnošću modernizma i avangarde. U prvom poglavlju pokazujemo kako rani feministički pristupi književnosti tretiraju modernističke književne tekstove te ističemo njihove teorijske i metodološke pretpostavke koje ovi tekstovi dovode u pitanje: pojam reprezentacije, koncepciju odnosa fikcije i zbilje te koncept autorstva. Drugo poglavlje nastavljamo rekonstrukcijom feminističke rasprave o teorijama čije se nasljedovanje modernizma i avangarde očituje ne samo u koncepciji književnosti već i u teorijskim strategijama i formalnim postupcima, s naglaskom na opusu francuske teoretičarke Hélène Cixous i njezinoj recepciji koji se u tom smislu ističu kao egzemplarni. Nadovezujući se na uvide ovog poglavlja, u sljedećem dijelu rada donosimo analizu modernističke i avangardne književnosti kao historijskog, estetskog i političkog elementa genealogije feminističkih koncepcija književnih revolucija, usredotočujući se na rane faze opusa Hélène Cixous i Julije Kristeve. Iz perspektive njihova odnosa prema zajedničkim prethodnicima – Bretonu, Joyceu, Batailleu i Bahtinu – raspravu pozicioniramo s jedne strane prema feminističkoj teoriji, a s druge strane prema suvremenim teorijama avangarde. U posljednjem poglavlju ukazujemo na reperkusije dosadašnje rasprave za domaću znanost o književnosti, a napose recepciju naših suvremenih spisateljica čiji su opusi formirani pod utjecajem modernizma i avangarde, te za suvremene tendencije u feminističkoj teoriji i širem kontekstu humanistike i društvenih znanosti. This dissertation addresses the status of avant-garde and modernist literature in feminist literary theory and the influence of avant-garde and modernist literature on feminist conceptualisations of literary revolutions. In four main chapters, we explore various interrelated aspects of this relationship and reconstruct the elements in which feminist encounters with avant-garde and modernist literature have shaped discussions and conceptualisations of literature since the emergence of feminist criticism in the late 1960s. The first chapter, entitled The Impossible Contradictions of Feminist Literary Theory, opens the discussion with an overview of the major changes in the disciplinary field of contemporary feminist theory from the mid-1980s onwards, and considers the status of modernist literature in the most influential studies of feminist literary criticism that formed the early disciplinary field. To introduce the question of literature in contemporary feminist theory, we highlight the differences between the first integral introduction to feminist literary theory published by Toril Moi in 1985 (Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory) and the author’s more recent essay, “I Am Not a Woman Writer”. About Women, Literature and Feminist Theory Today (2008), that takes note of the apparent marginalisation of literature in contemporary feminist theory. Following the author’s arguments, we open the question of feminist dissent about literature with an analysis of early feminist criticism developed in the context of American literary criticism: Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics(1970), Elaine Showalter’s A Literature of Their Own. British Women Novelists from Brontë to Lessing (1977), and Sandra M. Gilbert’s and Susan Gubar’s The Madwoman in the Attic. The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination (1979). We focus on the treatment of modernist literary texts, taking the readings of Virginia Woolf’s novels as exemplary for the feminist dissent mentioned above. In doing so, we emphasise the problematic theoretical and methodological assumptions of these readings: especially the concept of representation, the relationship between fiction and reality, and the conceptualisation of the author and authorship. The privileged position of realism in early American feminist criticism is confronted with critical approaches to realist literature and the status of the author and authorship in literary studies and criticism. In this sense, we follow the contributions of Shoshana Felman (Women and Madness: The Critical Phallacy, 1975) and Roland Barthes (S/Z, 1970) published in the formative decades of feminist criticism. Drawing on these approaches to a literary text, we question the early feminist treatment of 19th -century novels and its impact on feminist readings of modernist and contemporary literature. After questioning the problem of influential feminist readings of (modernist) literature, in the next chapter entitled That dangerous metaphor: politics of literature, politics of theory, we reconstruct the feminist reception of theorists who develop their concept of literature and their writing strategies under the influence of modernist and avant-garde literature. We take the work of the French theorist Hélène Cixous and the reception of her work as exemplary in this context. The problem of the feminist reception of French theory, including Cixous, is opened with a discussion of the metaphorical and metonymic strategies recognised in reflection on the categories of feminist theory. On the one hand, we note the privileged position of metonymy in the feminist perspective vis-à-vis the general theoretical interest in metaphor as a means of politicising feminist categories. We further problematise the opposition between metaphor and metonymy as one of the dominant models of reading and reflection on the relations and differences between American criticism and French theory. The thesis on the metaphorical/metonymic dichotomy is challenged here with theoretical arguments about the critical potentials of metaphorization of terms such as women and feminine to open up the future possibilities of sexual difference (as Cornell, 1999) and the deconstruction of the opposition itself (Kamuf 1990, 1995). This question is followed by an insight into the feminist discussions on hysteria following the polemic between Hélène Cixous and Catherine Clément in the third part of La jeune neé (1975). By tracing this discussion to Freud’s Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria (1905), we consider the complex relations between the conception of hysteria, literature and theory in this foregrounding polemic and its reception. The dissent on hysteria, literature and theory is followed by a reconstruction of the readings of Cixous’ work in the context of deconstruction. From the perspective of the deconstructive readings of her texts offered by Jacques Derrida (2002, 2004) and Peggy Kamuf (1995), the political potential of reference without a referent at work in Cixous’ texts is seen as a site of resistance to the dominance of thematic criticism in their reception. Following the reconstructed discussion, in the next chapter entitled The Avant-Garde in Feminist Theory, we analyse the influence of modernist and avant-garde literature on feminist conceptualisations of literary revolutions in the second half of the 20th century and the contribution of the feminist perspective to the general history and theory of the avant-garde. Our analysis is situated in the field of feminist theory on the one hand and contemporary theories of the avant-garde on the other, and attempts to overcome several disciplinary barriers: the relative marginalisation of the avant-garde in feminist (literary) theory, the notion of masculinity in avant-garde movements, and the thematic, content-oriented readings of French theories developed under the influence of the avant-garde and modernism. Following recent discussions on European modernist and avant-garde literature, we emphasise the importance of the perspective of feminist theories developed in the 1960s and 1970s among the possible sources that revalue these literary movements in contemporary literary theory. Continuing this chapter, we focus on the most influential feminist theoretical appropriations of modernism and avant-garde – the conception of écriture féminine by Hélène Cixous and the revolution in poetic language by Julia Kristeva. We follow the former contributions to the literary genealogy of their theories and focus on their conceptions of the subject in avant-garde writing practises. To address this question consistently, we analyse the relations of their theories to their common precursors, André Breton, James Joyce, Georges Bataille and Mihail Bakhtin. In the sub-chapter devoted to Cixous, we emphasise the influence of Surrealism on her concept of writing and the readings of James Joyce that precede her famous manifesto Le rire de la Méduse (1975). In analysing these readings, we discuss Cixous’ relationship to Bakhtin’s theory of the novel and Bataille’s notion of expenditure. We further consider the relations between Kristeva’s concept of revolution in poetic language and Russian Formalism and Futurism, and discuss her readings of Surrealism, Joyce, Bataille and Bakhtin. Based on these readings, we point out a specific paradox between Kristeva’s critique of the category of the subject and its centrality in her theory of poetic language. What was highlighted in the former analysis as the difference between the feminine and masculine subject of avant-garde practise becomes, from the perspective of these relations, a specific tension between the possibility of artistic depersonalisation in Cixous and the central position of the subject (in process) in Kristeva’s theory. However, both theories derive the critique of the category from modernist and avant-garde literature, which invalidates a simplistic relationship between the subject of artistic practise and the authorial instance, and therefore offer a critical starting point that could be articulated not only in relation to the readings of modernist and avant-garde literature. Following the avant-garde and modernist literature, Cixous and Kristeva develop a conceptualization of the subversive potential of literature in general, which is particularly directed against the processes of commodification in the contemporary literary field. In the final chapter of the dissertation, entitled The Text in Contexts, we emphasise the implications of our discussion in specific local and global contexts. In the first part of this chapter, we consider the reverberations of 20th -century literary theory in the context of the Yugoslav and Croatian literary field from the 1980s onwards. We offer a critical analysis of the reception of Cixous and Kristeva, which led to the use of a homemade version of women’s writing in critical and historical approaches to women writers who appeared on the Yugoslav literary scene in the second half of the 20th century. Using the reception of two women writers – Irena Vrkljan and Dubravka Ugrešić – as examples, we show how the term undercuts both the influences of the avant-garde and modernism and the importance of the Yugoslav literary field in the formation of their poetics. In the radically changed context of post-war Yugoslav countries which has profoundly altered the way subversive literary women’s voices are treated, we argue that a return to the theoretical geneses of feminist literary theory could be an important corrective to the current state of affairs. Following this statement, we return in the second part of this chapter to the beginning of our discussion of the marginalisation of literature in the field of contemporary feminist theory. Starting from the argument of Culler’s approach to the literary in theory, we consider the crucial relations between the earlier conceptions of literary revolutions such as those of Cixous and Kristeva and the contemporary feminist interest in gender performativity formed by Butler’s influential Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990). Therefore, the contribution of the avant-garde to feminist theory is analysed on four interrelated levels: as a problem that challenged the theoretical and methodological assumptions of feminist approaches to literature; as an influence on the writing strategies of feminist theorists that provoked resistance and misunderstanding in the feminist disciplinary field; as a historical, aesthetic and political genealogy of feminist concepts of the literary revolution; and as a privileged site of reflection on theoretical, methodological, political and ethical aspects of contemporary feminist theory.

Pojam autoriteta, napose kako ga vidi Hannah Arendt, nužno je jasno odijeliti od pojmova vlasti i moći. Autoritet pojmovno dolazi prije vlasti i predstavlja njeno utemeljenje. Pojam je nastao od latinske riječi auctoritas, a svoje izvorište ima u antičkomu Rimu u kojem su autoritet, religija i politika bili snažno povezani. U kasnijim povijesnim razdobljima autoritet se iz polja transcendentnoga spuštao u polje svjetovnoga, što je rezultiralo pozicioniranjem autoriteta u narod. To se nije odvijalo u skokovima nego u dugom nizu stoljeća. Takav pomak može biti okarakteriziran kao progresivan, no istraživanjem filozofijske literature dolazi se i do zaključka da je jedna od posljedica bila ta da se moderni autoritet našao u krizi. Razlog je tomu što narod, kao nositelj autoriteta u smislu vezivanja za temelj, ima pravo od političara, koji su birani na određeni mandat, u obnašanju vlasti zahtijevati izvršenje svih zahtjeva koji se pred njih postave. Ukoliko političari ne riješe spomenute zahtjeve naroda, utoliko ih je lakše nego ikada prije u povijesti smijeniti s pozicije obnašanja vlasti. Radi se o svojevrsnoj krizi modernoga autoriteta kojoj se na prvi pogled ne nazire rješenje. Ova kriza, također, još jednom iznosi na vidjelo ontološke temelje autoriteta koji su tek prividno prevladani u demokratskom društvu. Stoga, da bi se ona razriješila treba još jednom razmotriti temelje same demokracije. Početci demokracije ustanovljeni su u antičkoj Grčkoj, a demokraciju kakvu poznajemo danas uvelike su kroz njenu povijest oblikovale ideje slobode, jednakosti i ekonomske proizvodnje. Isprva sramežljivo, potom sve snažnije, te ideje su od pojavljivanja do čvrstoga etabliranja prošle put koji je trajao gotovo nekoliko stoljeća. Međutim, poduzetim istraživanjem demokracije postaje jasnije da se dijagnoza o napetosti modernoga autoriteta iznova potvrđuje. Čini se da odgovor na krizu modernoga autoriteta ne može doći iz postojeće paradigme demokracije, pa ga upravo zato treba tražiti izvan nje. Upravo u pojavi tehnike, koja prodire u pojam demokracije putem tehnike povezanih blokova (eng. blockchain) pronađena je naznaka koja bi mogla trasirati put do razrješavanja krize modernog autoriteta. No prije istraživanja tehnike povezanih blokova valja istražiti i sâm pojam tehnike. Istraživanjem navedenoga pojma ustanovljeno je da potencijal oslobođenja krize modernoga autoriteta ne dolazi po tehnici povezanih blokova ni iz tehnike po sebi, nego iz odnosa čovjeka i tehnike. Čovjek i tehnika u dihotomičnom su odnosu te kao takvi usko povezani od sâmih začetaka ljudskoga roda. Naime, čovjek je oduvijek živio s alatima (grč. tekhne) i konstantno je morao učiti o njima i njihovoj primjeni. Bitno je naglasiti da čovjek nikada nije zaboravio da tehnika, iako mu olakšava život, ne smije nad njime preuzeti primat. Čovjek se u tomu suživotu konstantno podsjećao da je tehnika u položaju objekta, a da je on sâm subjekt koji njome upravlja. Isti je slučaj i kod tehnike povezanih blokova koja predstavlja tehničku okosnicu digitalne demokracije – čovjeku se valja podsjetiti da je on politički subjekt i da je, u tom kontekstu, on taj koji je nositelj političkoga autoriteta, a ne tehnika. To znači da vezivanje za temelj završava na čovjeku koji na sebe preuzima odgovornost odlučivanja. Prilikom toga podsjećanja, čovjek preuzima individualnu odgovornost za djelovanje u zajednici, a njegova aktivna participacija može djelovati na decentralizaciju autoriteta, u smislu decentralizacije odgovornosti. Na taj se način moderni autoritet može izvesti na put izlaska iz trenutne krize i primaknuti korak bliže autentičnijoj aktualizaciji demokracije, ali i njezinog osnaživanja jer decentralizacija podrazumijeva aktivniju participaciju većeg broja subjekata koji tako konačno aktualiziraju svoju ulogu u demokratskom procesu. In the beginning of this doctoral thesis, I will discuss the difference in meaning of authority and political authority. For that purpose, I will use Platonʼs Crito, debate between Huemer and Layman, as well as works of Renaut, Arendt and Weber. The semantic difference between terms of authority, power and political authority has its roots, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, in ancient Rome. The concept of authority among the Romans was strongly connected to the concepts of religion, tradition and politics. The term authority comes from the Latin auctoritas which means ʻbinding to the foundationʼ and is opposite from power (lat. potestas). In Rome, the source of power is positioned in the Senate, and the senators present themselves as reincarnations of the founders of Rome. Also, Senators can interpret the Roman constitution as the founders of Rome would have done it back then. Furthermore, Arendt points out that auctoritas comes from the Latin verb augere, which means ʻto increaseʼ, because it was the responsibility of the senators to increase the foundations of authority. The concept of authority, as Romans knew it, was incorporated into a political institution, the Roman Senate. There was a saying – potestas in populo, auctoritas in senatu sit, which means that, while power resides within the people, Senate has all the authority. Romans separated authority from power, which leads to the conclusion that those two terms were established as opposite concepts. Namely, authority has its roots in the past and power in the present. Religion also played an important role in ancient Rome and it was the connective tissue between power and authority. The term religion comes from the Latin re-ligare, which means ʻbindingʼ (to the foundation). Politics, religion and tradition, as Arendt suggests, were closely intertwined in ancient Rome. After beforementioned analysis, I will present definitions of power, authority and political authority. Political authority, therefore, means having the legitimacy of making a decision which the majority of citizens obey. Power is the very act of making and implementing a decision that affects the lives of people in a particular state. Political authority and power are different concepts, and they also differ with regard to the concept of authority. Authority does not only represent an influence on someone, but based on the concept of auctoritas, the very foundation of political authority. Conceptually, it comes before political authority and before power, and its origins are derived from the Romans. The Greeks did not have anything similar to Roman notion of auctoritas and that can be partly confirmed with analysis of Aristotleʼs Politics. Aristotleʼs notion of authority in Politics is similar to three terms in Greek – archē, kurios and crisis. However, that is nowhere near the meaning Romans produced and because of that we can only talk about reconstruction of the similar concept within Aristotleʼs Politics. Reconstruction can be done in three directions: authority as protection from evil people, authority as an improver and promoter of interactions in society and authority as a result of common interest. At this point of discussion, we might ask ourselves why is it that the concept of authority is so important. In order to get an answer to that question, it will be researched what happens to authority when it is inverted and what consequences this inversion carries with it. For that purpose, thoughts of Hannah Arendt on totalitarian government will be consulted. Arendt points out that one of the symptoms of totalitarianism indicates the absence of hierarchy. The lack of hierarchy creates an impersonal system where disrespect for the law is the modus operandi. Arendt claims that authority cannot function within totalitarianism because there is no hierarchy as a prerequisite, there is no structure, there is just lack of real power and general weakness of the Government. Moreover, Selak Raspudić, a Croatian philosopher, will add to this topic that totalitarianism implies the rule of disorder, a world in which authority is invisible, which inevitably leads to self-destruction of man. The rest of the symptoms of totalitarianism include: the absence of hierarchy, cruel formlessness, disrespect for the law and the accumulation of official apparatus. However, these are not the worst consequences, as the cruelest manifestations of totalitarian regimes are concentration camps. Arendt will conclude that those camps are the true central institutions of totalitarian organizational power. All of these symptoms are the direct result of inversion of authority which clearly indicates the importance of its existence in society. That is why it is interesting to notice how Max Weber and Arendt somehow direct the discussion about authority towards the framework of democracy. In order to better understand how authority acts within democracy, Alain Renaut introduces the authority of the Ancients and the authority of the Moderns. He argues that at one point in history the authority of the Ancients was replaced by a new, modern authority. Wilhelm von Humboldt was among the first philosophers who pointed out this phenomenon by dividing states on the Ancient and Modern ones. Ancient states were most concerned about the overall development and upbringing of a human being in accordance with virtue ethics, while modern states, writes Humboldt, paid most attention to prosperity and productivity. The main question facing the Moderns became how to increase the power that has weakened itself by setting limits in order to establish the foundation of power. Modern government guarantees freedom to people who can use it not only to question it but also to destroy it. According to Renaut, this is the principle of modern-day democracy that is constantly subjected to judgment, change or even overthrowing the elected Government. How did this happen? The people (Greek demos) became the successor of the Roman auctoritas. The foundation of authority positioned itself in demos, and apart from the substantial positional shift of authority, demos is in a constant pursuit to increase its authority based on the Roman principle. On the other hand, elected officials are initially limited in exercise of their power, which makes them unable to do their task properly. Also, elected officials have the power to make decisions, but they cannot increase authority as it is positioned in the demos and not in the Government (which would be the senators in ancient Rome). With regard to the described, the situation of modern authority could be characterized as a state of crisis, namely, as a crisis of modern authority. Arendt agrees that the traditional form of authority has experienced a breakdown and believes that authority can best be rehabilitated through revolution, highlighting the example of the American Revolution. However, a careful study of her thought leads to the conclusion that she too could agree that modern authority is in crisis. Democracy seems to be a system that simultaneously enables the emergence of authority and its crisis. We will try to answer why this is so in the next chapter, where we will try to find the essence of democracy and what this term represents. The research quest will begin with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Thomas Aquinas. For Plato, democracy represents wrong form of organization of the state. Other wrong forms include timocracy, oligarchy and tyranny. Plato points out that democratic rule arises as a result of the degradation of oligarchy. Plato was followed by Aristotle, who believed, in regards of the exercise of power, that power can be exercised by one person, a group of people or a multitude. With this in mind, Aristotle distinguishes between the correct and incorrect types of government. The right types of government strive to work for the common good and they are kingdom, aristocracy and constitutional government, while their opposites are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Cicero has a significant impact in the beginnings of the concept of democracy. In Ciceroʼs work De re publica, Scipio Africanus states that the state (Latin res publica) is a matter of the people. Scipio adds that if the nation wants to survive, it must necessarily adopt some kind of decision-making process. Decision-making in the state could be managed by one, a few or many. Although he admits that in case of necessity he would give primacy to the royal government, Scipio claims that the best type of decision-making is composed of all three decision-making types. Additionally, in this context it should be mentioned that democracy represents an incorrect type of government for Thomas Aquinas as well. Philosophers of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages are responsible for establishing the beginnings of the framework of democracy. In the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero and Thomas Aquinas, two key features of democracy are clearly outlined – freedom and equality. Although the ideas of equality and freedom in the context of democracy appeared in the Classical period, there were no thinkers who would recognize the people as an essential and unavoidable component in the exercise of power until the Early Modern period. This changed with Machiavelliʼs Il Principe where he tried to somewhat persuade Lorenzo Medici of the importance of winning the people over in the exercise of power. By carefully reading Il Principe, it can be established that Machiavelli tried to direct Medici with recommendations to exercise power with the support of the people, or to rule in popular-democratic direction, so to speak. A few centuries later, Rousseau praises Machiavelli for skillfully serving Il Principe to rulers presenting it as an aid to their rule, when in fact it was a first book of the Republicans. Machiavelliʼs Il Principe for the first time puts the people in a more equal position with the ruler, a position with more respect and recognition. Centuries later, from the idea of more equality between the people and the ruler emerged the concept of republicanism from Rousseau. Rousseau placed equality within the framework of law and considered it to be the crucial element in governing the state. Rousseauʼs contemporary, Montesquieu, pointed out that in a republic, the sovereign power rests with the people as a whole and it is mediated by democracy. For Montesquieu, democracy represents a subtype of republicanism. He also argues that there are two basic laws in democracy. The first one regulates how ballots are submitted, and the other basic law of democracy is that the people should make laws by themselves. In the context of the idea of equality with a focus on laws, Kant is also one of the philosophers worth the mention. His doctrine of the state is based on law, but even more importantly, on eternal peace. For Kant, the equality of all citizens with subordination to legislation is one of the fundamental principles of the republican constitution whose ultimate purpose is to achieve eternal peace. The equality of all citizens is most important in Kantʼs philosophy, which is slightly opposed to Tocqueville who emphasizes the equality of conditions that helps shape the laws in a state, sets maxims for the holders of power to follow and at the same time creates favorable habits of citizens resulting in positive public opinion. Tocqueville went on the study visit to USA where he found a lot of positive elements in its democratic system. When he will emphasize the positive elements of American democracy, he will mention that the reasons for greatness of the American people derive from its laws and customs. Along with the universal right to vote, Tocqueville singles out the jury system as a powerful tool that Americans use to establish democracy. Machiavelli, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant and Tocqueville made contributions to the idea of equality that eventually ended up as a significant element of modern-day democracy. One of the ideas that also made impact on democracy as we know it today is the idea of liberty. English philosopher John Locke is largely responsible for paving the way for this idea. Locke argues that a human being possesses liberty on the basis of which he can decide to unite with other free people and set up the first Government. This idea created what we now know as liberalism and in its first years of existence it was used as an argument opposing absolutism. In this line of thought, just many centuries later, the modern thinker John Rawls appeared. Key question which concerns him is how is it possible that over time there exists a fair and stable society of free and equal citizens who remain deeply divided by reasonable religious, philosophical and moral doctrines. This question also shows how liberalism evolved from Locke to Rawls. In the discussion about the modern intellectual contribution to liberalism, another important thinker is mentioned in this doctoral thesis, a man who also undoubtedly left a great mark in this context – Isaiah Berlin. Berlin argues that there are two concepts of liberty, namely negative and positive one. Berlin proposes the thesis that the negative concept of liberty is to be free from and consists in ensuring protection from the interference of others in private affairs. Positive freedom, on the other hand, represents freedom to decide for something. Berlin, therefore, believed that political liberty represents the domain of action without interfering from others, that is, if someone prevents one from doing what he wants, then he is not free. The third idea that shaped democracy as we know it today is that of economic production that shapes the political superstructure of the world. Origin of the idea can be traced back to Karl Marx. Accordingly, Abensour claims that it would be wrong to conceptually limit oneself in the study of Marx and consider only his thoughts on the bourgeoisie, the family or civil society, because by doing so one would ignore his effort to find the root which would be authentically political subject in whose place lies demos. According to Abensour, the center of all meaning of the state for Marx is located in the demos. He also points out that the concept of a democratic state is an illusion, and the fullness of democracy is achieved in its establishment against the state. In the Communist Manifesto Marx presents the idea that the structure of society is based on economic production which constitutes political and intellectual history of each historical epoch. History, according to Marx, is nothing but the history of the class struggle between those who exploit, i.e., the bourgeoisie, and those who are exploited, i.e., proletariat. Marx thinks that the proletariat should overthrow the bourgeoisie from power and win the battle of democracy which would essentially mean to centralize production in the hands of the state. In doing so, favourable conditions for communism would be established and that would mean the abolition of private property. Furthermore, according to Marx, the communists are the most advanced and the most resolute section of the proletariat and based on this, they have the ability to place political power in the hands of the proletariat who would go on to work for the interests of the majority. Marxʼs theory of economic production also means harsh criticism of liberalism as liberalism favours right to own and protect private property. Years after Marx, one who would agree with him on certain points would be Jacques Rancière. Rancière thinks that we as a society do not live in a democracy but in states that have oligarchic laws. The hatred, instead of being directed at the oligarchic system that stands masked behind democracy, turns to democracy as a concept. Hatred, however, can only be used to support an oligarchic system, and in that case, democracy serves as a great tool. Democracy can take a large amount of criticism without offering a solution because the democratic paradox is impossible to solve. To sum up the research about democracy, modern perspectives of democracy are also considered. There will be analysis of Aron on democracy and totalitarianism, Lijphartʼs thoughts on concept of consociational democracy, Dahlʼs perspective that could be considered as a political science aspect on democracy and deliberative perspective of Habermas. However, after an extensive analysis of the concept of democracy and an attempt to penetrate into its essence, no answer was obtained on how to solve the crisis of modern authority. For this reason, in the continuation of the paper, the concept of technology paired with democracy is considered as a possible solution. Heidegger points out that the essence of technology has two meanings. Technology threatens manʼs relationship with the essence of truth, and at the same time directs man to stand next to that essence of truth. It seems that Heideggerʼs statement leads to the conclusion that the use of technology has a dual character. Namely, technology can be dangerous and that must never be forgotten, but at the same time it can enable many things that have a positive effect on the human race. Following Heidegger, Stieglerʼs definition of technology is also analysed in the doctoral thesis. According to Stiegler, technology is the skill by which a certain material is transformed into a product. With this in mind, one can rightfully ask the question: Does the technology serve humanity or does it serve tekhne itself? Stiegler claims that there is a historical dichotomy between the evolution of man and tool (or tekhne which is the root of technology), and in his thoughts he goes so far as to state that the Greek polis also arose because of the tekhne. Stiegler then goes on to criticize Heidegger, considering that his thought about technology was carried out through an instrument that had already been instrumentalized. In other words, man is already thrown into the world of pre-existing technology through which he himself exists and confirms this by using tools, and Heidegger failed to see this. Basically, Stieglerʼs criticism of Heidegger boils down to the fact that Heidegger already thinks of technology through the technological. In addition, Stieglerʼs criticism of Heidegger more clearly demonstrated his thought on the co-constitutional relationship between logos and tekhne. At this point, we might rightfully ask what is the connection between technology and democracy. The answer to that question is that in the merge of technology and democracy digital democracy arises. Digital democracy represents a technical innovation that combines aspects of direct and representative democracy. First of all, it means digital platform, software tool, that aims to allow its users to express their opinion in order to make a final decision for the benefit of the community. Expressing opinion or voting stands out as the most important element of digital democracy. Voting takes place via digital platform and must be safe, transparent and anonymous. Technology that is considered as a possible provider of these values is blockchain. Blockchain represents a distributed and decentralized peer-to-peer network of computers that enables direct data transactions between nodes within the system, thus eliminating the need for mediation and a third party. The system remembers all data transactions and stores them in a distributed ledger. Transactions are stored in blocks that stack on top of each other in a chain form, hence the name block-chain. This technology aims to build and preserve trust and integrity in the system which is achieved through two components: hash technology and cryptographic technology. For the blockchain technology to be considered as the technical backbone of digital democracy, it must enable voting to be carried out safely, anonymously and transparently. After a detailed analysis of its comparative advantages and technical and nontechnical limitations, it is determined that it has the technical capacity to be used as the backbone of digital democracy. However, there is also a possibility that the blockchain will take place of authority in digital democracy. In that case, foundation of political authority is not drawn from the people but from technology. Man is given the possibility to shift the responsibility of decision-making and social action from himself to technology, and if this possibility is accepted, then man dislocates himself from the position of a political subject. The only obstacle in positioning as a political subject is man himself. Blockchain belongs to the probabilistic technology and works on a principle designed by man. In order for the people to truly manifest their freedom and for the crisis of modern authority to be solved, it is necessary to focus on the relationship between man and technology. In this relationship, if a person refuses to become an object of technology, namely tekhne, this person re-establishes itself as a political subject. Hence, the foundation of authority in digital democracy is created in beforementioned relationship between man and technology. One of the most important elements of beforementioned relationship is how technology will be used. What is meant by that? Blockchain as the technical backbone of digital democracy is part of a long and well-known diachronic process of human adaptation to the world around them. The emergence of new technical discoveries represents a challenge that requires adaptation anew, and one of the ways of adaptation is the distinction between good and bad use of technology. In this context, good use implies the use of technology as a tool that achieves efficiency in solving certain problems. It means that technology does not assume primacy in the relationship between man and technology, but represents an equal member of the co-constitutional equation. Bad use, on the other hand, would indicate the predominance in the human-technology equation on the side of the technological, which implies that technology takes primacy in decision-making, and man absolves himself of this responsibility by transferring it to a tool. In order to use the technology well, one of the proposed options is to start with how-to education from young age in the school system. In this case the process of epiphylogenesis, that is, learning mediated by technology, is very important. The goal of epiphylogenesis is to ensure that the memories of our ancestors are not lost and forgotten, but embedded in technology. If we translate Stieglerʼs thought into the context of this work, the crisis of modern authority can be resolved in the relationship between man and technology. The point is to maintain the balance of the relationship, whereby there must be no predominance on the side of technology. According to Stieglerʼs philosophy, authority in digital democracy does not require return to the political, since the political and the technical are one. However, the place of political authority can very easily be taken over by technology, which would lead to an even greater default of modern authority, whereby its crisis would not be resolved. By conducting epiphylogenetic education on the responsible use of technology, it is possible to promote the establishment of balance in the relationship between man and technology, thereby enhancing the path of liberation and not the path of default. However, the path of education about responsible use is not at all easy to reach and depends as much on systematic as on individual efforts. According to Selak Raspudić on this matter, the epiphylogenetic process is increasingly difficult to maintain because modern technology causes a loss of memory, which is crucial for man to be reminded of his role in relation to technology. One of the consequences of aforementioned issue is that technology has enabled man to escape from himself. Such modern man is constantly a subject to a fast-paced lifestyle and is looking forward to new adventures that he will be able to share on social networks. Taking into account all of the above, a solution to the crisis of modern authority can be found in the relationship between man and technology. Reaching this solution would also mean the decentralisation of authority and more authentic version of democracy, but reaching this point is by no means one-dimensional process. That conclusion can be partly confirmed through Berardiʼs work as he mainly criticizes modern technology in conjunction with politics and economics. Berardi reaches the conclusion that politics is technical in its core, what he considers to be a negative trait and in further research he turns to economics, wondering if politics is turned towards itself and if it became technical, can economics be the science that will save the system. Berardi points out that the economy has become a hyper-reality, an artificial world that has lost touch with the real conditions of production. He explains that with the digitization of production, capital becomes more abstract which makes it more obscure and with that it reinforces hermeticity and alienation from the real world. In the conclusion of the thesis, relationship between man and technology represents key component for solving the crisis of modern authority. Technology offers great number of options in digital democracy, and as long as individual treats and uses technology as a tool, a person will establish itself as a relevant political subject. Namely, through epiphylogenetic learning about the responsible use of technology, man positions himself in relation to technology as a political subject who does not give technology the place of authority. By maintaining balance in beforementioned relationship, man will have a chance to realize that it is his responsibility to be an active individual in the society, what will turn democracy into more authentic system and authority will become more decentralised.

Jedna od osnovnih karakteristika ranokršćanskoga svijeta jest njegova raznolikost. Razdoblje 2. i 3. st. obilježeno je većim brojem različitih kršćanskih zajednica od kojih su mnoge zastupale proturječna vjerovanja o Bogu, stvaranju, čovjeku i spasenju. Uvažavajući tu stvarnost, u disertaciji se fokus analize usmjerio prema dvjema kršćanskim strujama toga razdoblja: Velikoj Crkvi kao onom dijelu kršćanskoga svijeta koji će na koncu marginalizirati ostale „kršćanske“ („heretičke“) skupine i etablirati se kao organizirana zajednica s prihvaćenim doktrinama, saborima i jasnim sustavom organizacije te Valentinovoj gnostičkoj školi koja je predstavljala specifičan, ali popularan spoj klasične gnostičke misli, judeokršćanske tradicije i grčkog filozofskog nasljeđa (napose platonizma). Kroz interpretacijski ključ društvenog i religijskog kapitala, u disertaciji se analiziraju specifične karakteristike navedenih skupina koje su uzrokovale trijumf Velike Crkve odnosno marginalizaciju Valentinove gnostičke škole. Taj se proces jasnije smješta u širi političkokulturološki okvir obilježen Rimskim Carstvom i židovstvom razdoblja Drugoga hrama. Osnovna argumentacijska teza jest da je Velika Crkva kroz razvoj vlastitoga identiteta (između 1. i 3. st.) posjedovala osjetno višu stopu kako društvenoga (npr. organizirana karitativna djelatnost kao važan faktor privlačnosti i stabilnosti) tako i religijskoga (npr. razvijena ideologija apostolske sukcesije koja je podržavala postojeći sustav organizacije) kapitala od Valentinove gnostičke škole. One of the essential characteristics of the early Christian world is its diversity. The 2nd and 3rd centuries were marked by many different Christian groups that often-held contradictory beliefs about God, creation, Jesus, man, and salvation. The dissertation is focused on two Christian groups that confronted each other during that period. The first one is the so-called Great Church - a stream of Christianity that eventually managed to marginalize other (“heretical”) groups and establish itself as an organized community with a set of accepted doctrines, councils, and hierarchy. The second one is the Valentinian Gnostic School which represented a specific and popular combination of classical Gnostic thought, Greek philosophical tradition (especially Platonism), and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Using a heuristic model of social and religious capital, the dissertation analyzes particular features of those two groups and how these features caused the triumph of the Great Church and the marginalization of the Valentinian Gnostic School. This process is placed in the broader cultural framework characterized by the Roman Empire and the Second Temple Judaism. The main thesis of the dissertation can be defined in the following way: Through the development of its own identity (1st – 3rd centuries), the Great Church emerged as a community that possessed a significantly higher rate of both social (e.g. organized charitable activity that was perceived as a great benefactor of stability) and religious (e.g. narrative constructions such as the idea of apostolic succession that helped strengthen the identity of that community) capital than the Valentinian Gnostic School. Apart from the introduction where the basic research questions and goals were presented, I’ve highlighted the present state of research with a specific focus on the overview of socio-historical approaches in the study of early Christianity. In this respect, the second chapter presented the main studies, especially authors such as Shirley Jackson and Shailer Matthews. Moreover, I’ve made numerous references to the influence of Edwin Judge, Wayne Meeks, and Gerd Theissen. Their work on the development of the first Christian community has given us a fruitful land of new directions and theories. Suffice it to say that Theissen’s collection of essays on the apostle Paul and the community in Corinth has lived up to 75 different editions! In the next chapter I’ve given a detailed review of scholarly studies about the relationship between “heresy” and “orthodoxy”. Because the polemics and battles between different Christian groups in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were crucial in the development of the Great Church, it seemed necessary to present the basic models for the understanding of the early Christian world. I’ve emphasized two different paradigms: The so-called classical or ecclesiastical paradigm represented by authors such as Irenaeus and Eusebius and the contemporary paradigm influenced by the work of Walter Bauer. The first breakthrough after Bauer occurred in the 1970s when Helmut Koester and James M. Robinson published a series of articles arguing that the original (or pure) form of Christianity never existed. Their theory, with some slight changes, remains the dominant discourse in discussions about the relationship between “orthodoxy” and “heresy”. In the fourth chapter, I’ve tried to present the basic terminology related to the stream of Christianity that eventually triumphed over other “heretical” groups such as the Valentinian Gnostic School. I’ve rejected the use of the terms “orthodoxy” or “proto-orthodoxy” because they carry both teleological and theological connotations. Even the phrase “normative Christianity”, popularized by Arland J. Hultgreen, was criticized. In contrast to those suggestions, I have accepted the use of the phrase Great Church as the denominator of that stream of Christianity that came to be recognized as the bearer of “orthodoxy”. Given that the development of the relationship between the Great Church and Valentinian Gnostic School was closely related to the wider socio-political context, the fifth and sixth chapters were focused on elucidating the basic features of that context with special interest to Second Temple Judaism and Roman “paganism”. Perhaps the most fruitful result of that discussion is the clear definition of religion that included both the dimension of beliefs and the dimension of social activity. In that sense, the connection between specific theological postulates and the social reality was anticipated both in the Great Church and in Valentinian Gnostic School. Moreover, such a broad definition of religion gives room for all four entities that were a part of the dissertation: Judaism, Roman religion (polytheism), Great Church, and Valentinian Gnostic School. In the seventh chapter, I tried to analyze the basic features of the “partying of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity. In that aspect, it is worth noting that I’ve tried to show that the seed of the new religion appeared very soon after Jesus’ death when his disciples came to believe that he rose. Needless to say, the separation between Judaism and Christianity was a long–term process, and the identity boundaries were not always clearly defined. Guided by the definition of religion mentioned above, the next chapter focused on the development of the identity of the Great Church during the 1st century. Unlike postmodern historians that emphasize radical diversity and the classical (traditional) paradigm that bears a simple picture, I’ve tried to consider all the available data and present a more balanced view. Basing my analysis of Paul’s authentic epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, I’ve argued that during the first decades after Jesus’ death, the theological and social core of the community was formed. Subsequently, this core was crystallized even more during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. By analyzing the Rule of Faith that can justifiably be defined as the basic symbol of ideological unity, the ninth chapter connected the Great Church of the 1st and 2nd centuries. I’ve argued that the Rule of Faith, as the fundamental theological summary of the Church’s faith, can be seen as an example of the creation of identity boundaries. The core of this Rule is in the connection between the historical Jesus (as a man who lived in Palestine at the beginning of the 1st century) and the resurrected Christ (as God’s Son and a special agent in God’s plan of redemption), but also an emphasis on the value of the Old Testament. Beyond the level of this Rule, the Great Church exercised a “field of flexibility”. Furthermore, I’ve argued that the Rule of Faith can be viewed as an example of religious capital because it represented the building block of the Great Church’s identity. This is of particular importance given the fact that Valentinus and his successors never developed anything like the Rule of Faith. After that, the tenth chapter was focused on the Valentinian Gnostic School. First of all, an effort was made to present the essential characteristics of the broader phenomenon called Gnosticism. In that segment, I rejected the radical methodological deconstructions that call for the abandonment of the term “Gnosticism”. Instead, I’ve proposed a convenient way of using “Gnosticisms” (plural) to highlight all the diversity that was still “held” by the common gnostic myth. Moreover, I’ve analyzed the complex problem of the origin of Gnosticism concluding that Gnosticism did not exist in the pre-Christian period. Although it is difficult to locate the specific origin of such a complex phenomenon, recent studies are inclined towards the urban centers of Egypt (e.g. Alexandria) – Valentinus’ home city. Furthermore, in the same chapter, I’ve dealt with the historical Valentinus and his school. As a popular teacher – a philosopher in Rome during the 2nd century, Valentinus was at the head of a specific community that, at first, was still considered to be a part of the Great Church. However, over the next several decades, the basic theological ideas that Valentinus and his successors advocated became a stumbling block in their relationship with the Great Church. The ideological dimension of Valentinus and his followers represents an important starting position in understanding the various aspects of their social activity. The last part of the tenth chapter analyzed the cosmology and soteriology of Valentinus’ followers by consulting Irenaeus’ summary of Ptolemy’s myth and the Tripartite tractate discovered in Nag Hammadi. The latter represents the only comprehensive description of Valentinian gnosis. I’ve put special emphasis on the differences between the two mentioned sources. Those differences (in some aspects important differences) illustrate the constant revision of the Valentinian myth that points to the acute lack of a normative determinant such as the Rule of Faith characteristic of the Great Church. In addition, the last part of the tenth chapter discussed the three-part anthropology of Valentinians that distinguishes people according to the element that dominates them: spirit, soul, and matter. In the eleventh chapter, I analyzed an important example of the religious capital of the Great Church: The emergence and the development of the concept of heresy. Instead of placing this phenomenon in the middle or the end of the 2nd century, I’ve shown that beginnings can be detected much earlier. Paul’s epistles, if we look at them through the lenses of the sociology of deviance, reveal a community that creates normative boundaries and thereby contributes to the formation of its own identity. Through the rhetorical means of exclusion, stigmatization, and stereotyping, Paul participated in the process of establishing norms that later on became an object of distinction between the Great Church and the Valentinian Gnostic School. With the help of such discursive rhetoric, the Great Church was ready to confront Valentinus and his successors. In the twelfth chapter, I directed my attention to the significant example of both the religious and social capital: The hierarchy and the system of organization in the Great Church and the Valentinian Gnostic School. Relying on the social context of the first Christian communities, I’ve argued that the institutionalization of the Great Church was a relatively fast development in which bishops and presbyters had an important role. Valentinian Gnostic School, characterized by a specific type of spirituality, and cosmology (creation of the world and the beginnings of humankind), rejected the traditional social roles of bishops and presbyters. They considered them as antipodes to the classical Gnostic myth that Valentinus and his followers used to adapt the traditional Judeo – Christian beliefs. Consequently, Valentinians represented a conglomeration of disconnected communities whose identity was closely tied to individual teachers and a specific locality. In other words, Valentinians never developed an ideal of a trans-local community similar to that of the Great Church. In this regard, apostolic succession can be seen as an example of religious capital while the system of organization and authority is an example of social capital. Both of these dimensions did not (to that extent) exist within the Valentinian communities. In the thirteenth chapter, I analyzed the view of tradition both in the Great Church and Valentinian Gnostic School. More specifically, I’ve dealt with the differences between the Great Church and the Valentinian Gnostic School regarding their view on the value of the Old Testament and the Jewish tradition. Unlike the Great Church which places a special emphasis on the continuity of the Old Testament and the life of Jesus, the Valentinians argued for a moderate view – between the radical rejection of the Old Testament (e.g. Marcion) and the view of the Great Church. However, in the Greco – Roman society that was characterized by high value placed on the tradition and the customs of ancestors, the perspective of the Great Church represented an important form of religious capital lacking in the Valentinian Gnostic School. In the fourteenth chapter, I focused on the differences between the two groups regarding the principles of ethics and charity. In a nutshell, I’ve argued that the Great Church stood out with a significantly higher level of practical and organized charity that certainly represented an important form of social capital. Finally, in the fifteenth chapter, I discussed missionary activities as a basic prerequisite in the expansion of any religious community. I’ve tried to show that the Great Church exhibited a considerable rate of missionary activity – it was seen as one of the most visible aspects of the social activities of the Great Church. On the other hand, Valentinians never developed that kind of social impulse. Their “missionary program” was limited and primarily focused on the individuals within the Great Church. This was the consequence of a particular (esoteric) approach to religion and spirituality.

U doktorskoj se disertaciji analizira i kritički razmatra uloga umjetnosti u kontekstu pokušaja uspostave sustava filozofije Friedricha Wilhelma Josepha Schellinga. Općeprihvaćeno je stajalište u povijesti filozofije da se Schellingova ranija filozofija može sagledati kao dovršenje transcendentalnoga idealizma i pokušaj uspostave sustava cjelokupne filozofije, a kasnija kao pokušaj dovršenja idealizma uopće u pozitivnoj filozofiji. Dovršenje transcendentalnoga idealizma Schelling je pronašao u umjetnosti, kao trećemu osnovnomu dijelu filozofije u kojemu se objedinjuju filozofija prirode i filozofija povijesti. Umjetnost u Schellingovoj filozofiji nije shvaćena kao estetika ili teorija umjetnosti, nego kao znanost, odnosno kao osnovni dio filozofije real-idealizma. Premda Schelling za života nije objavio filozofiju umjetnosti, posthumno su ipak objavljena njegova predavanja o filozofiji umjetnosti, koja je održao u Jeni 1802./1803. godine te ih je u više navrata ponovio u Würzburgu 1804./1805. godine. Uz Schellingova predavanja, umjetnost ima značajnu ulogu u djelu Sustav transcendentalnoga idealizma (1800.) te u Schellingovu govoru u Akademiji likovnih umjetnosti u Münchenu pod naslovom O odnosu likovnih umjetnosti prema prirodi (1807.). Bitno različita forma i zadaća pojedinih djela u kojima je umjetnosti pridana značajna uloga, te Schellingovo očitovanje o vlastitoj filozofiji identiteta kao negativnoj filozofiji naspram kasnije pozitivne, rezultirali su uvriježenim shvaćanjem nekonzistentnosti uloge umjetnosti u Schellingovoj filozofiji. S obzirom da je od sredine dvadesetoga stoljeća pa sve do danas pronađen i objavljen niz rukopisa i zapisa Schellingovih predavanja, razumijevanje pojma umjetnosti u Schellingovoj filozofiji u novije se doba bitno izmijenilo. Cilj je disertacije hermeneutičkom i imanentno-kritičkom metodom protumačiti Schellingovu osnovnu misao, kako bi se iz cjeline njegova sustava odredila uloga umjetnosti. Na taj se način nastoji ukazati na konzistentnost i kontinuirani razvoj kako pojma umjetnosti tako i cjelokupnoga sustava Schellingove filozofije. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schellingʼs lectures on the philosophy of art can be considered a unique attempt in the history of philosophy at providing art with a scientific basis. However, they are not notable for being the only such endeavor, as similar attempts were made even before Schelling, but because he made art an essential and indispensable part of the entire system of philosophy. Schellingʼs notion of art is not limited to establishing art as a science, but in his system, it is understood as the organon and document of philosophy and, therefore, as the completion of transcendental idealism. Schelling’s lectures on the philosophy of art were first held in Jena in 1802/1803 and were repeated several times in Würzburg, where he continued his academic work after leaving Jena. Unlike philosophy of nature and transcendental philosophy, Schelling’s philosophy of art was not published during his lifetime. These lectures, entitled Philosophy of Art, were posthumously published by Schellingʼs son, Karl Friedrich August Schelling, in the fifth volume of Schelling’s Complete Works, containing lectures both from Jena and Würzburg. Since Schelling did not intend to publish these lectures, he did not finalize them. From the middle of the twentieth century to the present day, nine more lecture transcripts have been found. The Jena transcript by Johann Friedrich Heinrich Schlosser, published in the second part of the sixth volume of the Historical-Critical Edition, is of a particular note. Bearing in mind Schellingʼs ambiguous statement about his own earlier philosophy as a mere negative philosophy and many later interpretations by his critics of the role of art he presented in the last chapter of the System of Transcendental Idealism, it is the newly found transcripts that provide new insights into the interpretation of the role of art in Schellingʼs system. The sixth volume of the Historical-Critical Edition is dedicated to the Philosophy of Art and was published in two volumes in 2018 by the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, which has been republishing his works together with newly found manuscripts and transcripts. Furthermore, the sixth volume provides not only new insights into common interpretations that his earlier philosophy has been surpassed in the later works and that the notion of art is presented inconsistently in various works but also sheds new light on the relationship between Jena and Würzburg lectures. Considering the subsequently gathered manuscripts and transcripts of Schellingʼs lectures, our doctoral dissertation examines the role of art in specific periods of Schellingʼs philosophy in order to support the hypothesis that art has a continuous and consistent role in the development of his system of philosophy and that seemingly contradictory views on art should be viewed in terms of the task and context of a particular work. In order to consistently substantiate the hypothesis, the first three chapters are divided according to these periods and consider works that have directly or indirectly contributed to the understanding of the concept of art. The first chapter examines the earliest period of Schellingʼs philosophy from 1794 to 1800, focusing on a collection of articles entitled A General Review of the Latest Philosophical Literature, in which philosophy of art is for the first time mentioned as the third basic part of philosophy, combining the philosophy of nature and transcendental philosophy. Furthermore, it focuses on the final sixth chapter of the System of Transcendental Idealism, in which art is understood as the completion of transcendental idealism, therefore, the general organon and capstone of the overall philosophy. The second chapter presents the period of the philosophy of identity from 1800 to 1806. It is particularly significant as the lectures on the philosophy of art were held on several occasions during that period. After elaborating on the philosophy of nature in the period from 1797 to 1799 and completing the system of transcendental philosophy with the notion of aesthetic intuition in art in 1800, Schelling focused on establishing a system of the overall philosophy. The chapter aims to demonstrate that Schelling, with the unity of philosophy of nature and transcendental philosophy, laid the foundation for presenting his overall system, which only confirms that in the philosophy of identity, art is no longer regarded as the main subject matter. Instead, he treats art concerning the whole system. In doing so, the second chapter considers the basic concepts of the Philosophy of Art, thus accentuating the general views of real-idealism in Schellingʼs interpretations of specific forms of formative and verbal arts. The fact that Schelling relied heavily on other authors in preparing his lectures gave many later interpretations reason to challenge his originality, therefore, the chapter emphasizes his original thought based on the interpretation of general views. After considering the role of art in Schellingʼs early philosophy, having concluded that the role of art has not fundamentally changed, the third chapter discusses the notion of art in the first Munich period from 1806 to 1815. Just as in the second chapter the role of art is viewed concerning philosophy, so in the third chapter it is considered concerning religion. The emphasis is placed on Schellingʼs speech at the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich in 1807 entitled On the Relation of the Formative Arts to Nature. Furthermore, the notion of art is placed in the broader context of Schellingʼs attempt to establish historical philosophy. After covering the historical context of the development of Schellingʼs system of philosophy from 1795 to 1815 and pointing out the consistent role of art in the overall system, the fourth chapter elaborates on the romantic idea of the return of science to poetry, present in all periods of his work. By presenting the elementary moments of the fall from the absolute and the return to it, the chapter seeks to substantiate the view that Schellingʼs system of realidealism is fundamentally aesthetic. The final section of the fourth chapter summarizes the relationship between earlier negative and later positive philosophy to further consistently elaborate on Schellingʼs overall philosophy, and confirms that art has the same role in positive philosophy, although it is no longer the issue under consideration.

El objeto de estudio de esta tesis doctoral son las estrategias narrativas de la representación de la violencia de género y el femicidio en la literatura argentina contemporánea. Teniendo en cuenta el debate que ha surgido alrededor de la (im)posibilidad de representar y articular la violencia extrema en las obras literarias, argumentamos que estas obras encontraron una manera empática a la vez que excéntrica e innovadora para llevar a cabo esta difícil tasca. Es de especial interés detectar y analizar no solamente la violencia sino también a los fenómenos acompañantes de la violencia tales como son la precariedad y el capitalismo gore. Partiendo de la narratología clásica y feminista en un diálogo con las recientes teorías de género, la tesis se ha centrado en detectar varias estrategias y modos literarios que utilizan las escritoras argentinas para abordar los temas de la violencia hacia las mujeres. Nos apoyamos también en la teoría de Josefina Ludmer que argumenta que las literaturas actuales no admiten un tradicional análisis literario, ya que se sitúan en un 'entre’, entre la realidad, la historia y la ficción y marcan un cambio de paradigma que requiere otras lecturas. Entendiendo que la violencia hacia mujeres, aunque se trata de una vieja praxis, no ha tenido una visibilidad literaria hasta muy reciente, nos interesa indagar los modos que encuentran y exploran las autoras para desafiar la literatura mimética y realista y superar los viejos arquetipos de la representación. Dentro de un conjunto de obras literarias que abordan los dichos temas, hemos escogido seis obras que nos parecen sumamente importantes y significativas: Le viste la cara a Dios (2011) de Gabriela Cabezón Cámara, Chicas muertas (2014) de Selva Almada, “Las cosas que perdimos en el fuego” (2016) de Mariana Enriquez, Nación Vacuna (2017) de Fernanda García Lao, Por qué volvías cada verano (2018) de Belén López Peiró y Cometierra (2019) de Dolores Reyes. Las autoras utilizan diversos géneros literarios (autobiografía, diario, crónica, distopía feminista, el género gótico, etc.) pero los subvierten otorgándoles una dimensión de género necesaria para poder retratar el complejo tema de la violencia de género. Asimismo, cabe mencionar que la mayoría de las obras en cuestión tiene como el trasfondo la dictadura militar argentina (1976-1983) a la vez que tocan los temas contemporáneos surgidos del movimiento feminista Ni una menos que aparece en 2015 en Buenos Aires. Finalmente, en las conclusiones finales, se exposarán los resultados de los análisis para subrayar las características que prevalecen de todas las obras del corpus. Može li se ekstremno nasilje pripovijedati? Prvi dio rada usredotočuje se na raspravu koja je, potaknuta prepoznavanjem Shoah kao najveće traume u novijoj ljudskoj povijesti, postavila pitanje o (ne)mogućnosti reprezentacije ekstremnog nasilja u književnosti i umjetnosti općenito. Slijedeći teorijsku nit i promišljanja Jacquesa Rancièra, Michela Foucaulta, Giorgia Agambena, Beatriz Sarlo i Jorgea Semprúna, ustvrdili smo da, književnost, naprotiv, izražava upravo ono neizrecivo, budući da, bez obzira na fikcionalni imaginarij u kojem se nalazi, može proizvesti učinak istine i proizvesti drugačiju vrstu senzibiliteta. Dok jedan dio povjesničara, poput Vidala Naqueta, smatra da bi fikcionalizacija povijesnih trauma samo doprinijela smrti sjećanja, drugi, poput španjolskog pisca Semprúna, smatraju da se neke tragedije bolje shvaćaju ako se pribjegne fikciji, budući da je sama stvarnost ponekad suviše strašna i nestvarna da bi se sama po sebi razumjela. Na tom tragu, ova disertacija bavi se suvremenom argentinskom književnosti te djelima spisateljica koja tematiziraju rodnouvjetovano nasilje, seksualno zlostavljanje i femicid iz različitih perspektiva, posebno naglašavajući političku i subjektivnu dimenziju književnosti. Književni korpus čine sljedeća djela: Le viste la cara a Dios Gabriele Cabezón Cámare (2011), Chicas muertas (2014) Selve Almade, „Las cosas que perdimos en el fuego” (2016) Mariane Enriquez, Nación Vacuna (2017) Fernande Garcíe Lao, Por qué volvías cada verano (2018) Belén López Peiró i Cometierra (2019) Dolores Reyes. U radu istražujemo narativne strategije koje spisateljice koriste kako bi pripovijedale rodnouvjetovano nasilje i femicid iz feminističke perspektive, ali i popratne fenomene nasilja kao što su gore kapitalizam i prekarijat, koji doprinose normalizaciji nasilja. Nadalje, smatramo da svjedočimo svojevrsnoj promjeni paradigme u argentinskoj književnosti, budući da upravo spisateljice preuzimaju vodeću književnu ulogu na pragu 21. stoljeća. Većinu spisateljica možemo svrstati pod termin „novija argentinska književnost” koji je skovala Elsa Drucaroff (2011). Drucaroff smatra da se ova generacija, premda se i dalje bavi vrlo sličnim temama kao i prethodne (poput propitkivanja stvarnosti, političke i društvene nepravde, vojne diktature), koristi inovativnim strategijama pripovijedanja. Primjerice, izbjegavaju autoritarni i ozbiljni ton te pribjegavaju korištenju parodije i humora i kada pripovijedaju teme poput rodnog nasilja i femicida. Nasilje je vrlo složen fenomen, ali i neizostavan dio ljudske povijesti. Kako bismo se približili konceptu nasilja, koristimo teorije Hannah Arendt, Slavoja Žižeka, Tzvetana Todorova, Adriane Cavarero i Rite Segato. Važno je istaknuti da teorijska promišljanja o rodnouvjetovanom nasilju i femicidu sve donedavno nisu bila dio znanstvenih istraživanja, budući da se smatralo da pripadaju sferi privatnog. Dok neke teorije ističu instrumentalnu prirodu nasilja, kompleksan odnos moći i nasilja, feminističke teoretičarke, pak, promatraju silovanja, seksualna zlostavljanja i femicid kao političke činove kojima je svrha perpetuiranje i očuvanje patrijarhalnog sustava. Nejednakost je rodova kroz povijest omogućila, održala i naturalizirala ovu vrstu nasilja, smatra, primjerice, Segato. Sve veća umjetnička i književna produkcija koja se bavi pitanjima rodnoga nasilja nadovezuje se na ono što Beatriz Sarlo naziva „subjektivnim zaokretom” koji je omogućio procvat pripovijesti o osobnom, ali i pojavu povijesno nevidljivih subjekata u kulturnom imaginariju. Osim toga, važnu ulogu imaju feministički pokreti poput NiUnaMenos, koji su probudili feminističku i političku svijest, i zbog kojih su nekoć marginalna pitanja prodrijela u javnu i političku sferu. Književnost o nasilju nad ženama osporava tradicionalne načine reprezentacije nasilja te podriva hegemonističke narative koji su se stoljećima temeljili na reprezentaciji bespomoćnih ženskih tijela i pasivnosti. Metodološki se rad oslanja na klasičnu i feminističku naratologiju kako bi detektirao narativne strategije, a feminističku kritiku, kao i različite teorijske koncepte, koristi za analiziranje reprezentacije nasilja i popratnih fenomena. Osim toga, smatramo da djela književnog korpusa odgovaraju definiciji postautonomne književnosti o kojoj govori argentinska teoretičarka Josefina Ludmer. Radi se o djelima koja predstavljaju izazov književnoj autonomiji, postavljajući se često istodobno izvan i unutar književnosti. Smještena u lokalnu svakodnevicu, djela karakterizira hibridnost književnih žanrova, kao i isprepletenost različitih diskursa; zbilji pristupaju kao da je fikcija, a fikciji kao da je zbilja. Osim toga, smatramo da se sva djela koja čine književni korpus mogu svrstati pod feminističku književnosti budući da obrađuju feminističke teme per se: seksualno zlostavljanje, femicid, trgovinu ženama, a usto ih karakterizira kritički diskurs prema patrijarhatu i njegovim popratim manifestacijama. Prvo djelo, koje na neki način inaugurira književnost o femicidu u novijoj argentinskoj književnosti, jest Chicas muertas Selve Almade. U romanu je riječ o tri femicida mladih djevojaka s početkom 80-ih godina, smještena u argentinske provincije, koja su do danas ostala nerazriješena i za koja nitko nikada nije odgovarao. U ovom djelu svjedočimo igri između fikcije i ne-fikcije, tekst se opire mimetičkoj reprezentaciji, iako prisvaja taktiku hiperrealizma u reprezentaciji i osudi nasilja. Roman uspješno izmiče žanrovskoj klasifikaciji, krećući se između novinske kronike i autobiografskog romana. Kako bi se konstruirali životi mrtvih djevojaka, u tekstu se koriste različiti oblici ne-fikcije: obdukcijski i policijski izvještaji, intervjui s policijom i rodbinom žrtava, kao i pribjegavanje elementu popularne kulture u vidu posjeta vidovnjakinji koja komunicira s mrtvim djevojkama gradeći tako tzv. ‘nemoguća svjedočanstva’. Pripovjedačica se, s naknadno stečenom feminističkom sviješću, prisjeća epizoda naturaliziranog patrijarhalnog nasilja iz djetinjstva i adolescencije, koje gotovo svakodnevno trpe žene u argentinskim provincijama, iako ga ne prepoznaju kao takvo. Chicas muertas možemo smatrati činom otpora, književnošću koja iz zaborava izvlači ono što Beatriz Sarlo naziva „spašenim subjektima”; djelo vraća subjektivnost djevojkama i dopušta im da se same pripovijedaju. Mrtve djevojke, kao Agambenovi integralni svjedoci, pripovijedaju se kroz tarot i Almadino pisanje. Autorica ispunjava prazne stranice knjige imenima mrtvih i nestalih djevojaka stvarajući tako otvoreni feministički arhiv koji bi se, nažalost, svakodnevno mogao obnavljati i puniti novim žrtavama femicida čija imena zaslužuju biti zapamćena. Drugo poglavlje bavi se djelom Por qué volvías cada verano Belén López Peiró. Polazeći od problematike (ženske) autobiografije te načina na koji se danas pristupa tom kompleksnom žanru, nakon svih lingvističkih i epistemioloških zaokreta koji subjektu negiraju mogućnost samospoznaje, dovodeći time u pitanje i samu mogućnost postojanja autobiografije, analizirali smo djelo u kojem autorica opisuje seksualno zlostavljanje od strane bliskog člana obitelji. Izmjenjujući dokumente sa suđenja i zapise iz dnevnika, tekst nam otkriva mukotrpan proces koji žrtva prolazi nakon što odluči prijaviti zlostavljača. Međutim, u ovoj slučaju, žrtva prisvaja priču i nameće se kao politički subjekt napuštajući ulogu žrtve koja ju dehumanizira i oduzima joj subjektivitet. Djelo nam se na taj način nameće kao idealna inkarnacija slogana feminističkog drugog vala, osobno je političko, budući da politizira osobno iskustvo. U pokušaju dokazivanja istine, što nije bilo moguće sudskim putem, autorica pribjegava narativnoj polifoniji, dajući tako glasove drugim sudionicima u procesu i otvarajući različite perspektive koje joj omogućuju izlazak iz njezine perspektive te pogled izvana. Na taj način, naslanjajući se na teoriju Judith Butler, ‘ja’ shvaća koliko je ranjiv i krhak, budući da se ne može otrgnuti i odvojiti od okoline i drugih koji su također sastavni dio njezinog subjektiviteta. Osim toga, tekst se koristi strategijom elipse u reprezentaciji nasilja i retoričkom strategijom tišine, ostavljajući prazne bijele stranice kao poziv čitatelju i čitateljici da pokušaju razmišljati izvan nasilja te prazninu ispune smislom. Tišina se nameće kao jedina mogućnost, nakon što su iscrpljeni svi instrumenti sudske žalbe. Tekst se na taj način koristi žanrom autobiografije kako bi razotkrio destruktivne sile patrijarhata koje mogu nastanjivati obiteljske sfere koje nam se inače predstavljaju kao sigurne i bezopasne, osobito za žene. Politizirajući osobno iskustvo, istodobno se resemantizira lik žrtve koji tako dobiva prijeko potrebnu moć djelovanja. U djelu Gabriele Cabezón Cámare Le viste la cara a Dios, detektiramo nekoliko strategija kojima se autorica koristi prilikom pripovijedanja o nasilju. Prije svega valja reći da tekst pribjegava subverziji bajke, u ovom slučaju Uspavane ljepotice, koja je transponirana u sadašnjosti i u argentinski gradić Lanús. Međutim, princeza je izmještena iz svog locus amoenusa te se nalazi zatočena u bordelu i prisiljena je na prostituciju. Nadalje, u intertekstualnim poigravanjima, tekst komunicira s raznim kanonskim djelima argentinske književnosti, od kojih se ponajprije ističe „El Matadero” Estebana Echeverríe. Na taj se način gradi paralela između bordela i klaonice, što dodatno naglašava rodno nasilje kao historijski nevidljiv tip nasilja. Kombinirajući idiome, ulične izraze i aluzije na mističnu poeziju i ritmove kumbije, zasićenost referencama iz pop kulture čini tekst primjerom onoga što Nora Domínguez (2013) naziva neobarroso femenino. Autorica se njime koristi kako bi rodnouvjetovano nasilje učinila vidljivim. Naposljetku, tekst nudi feministički otpor budući da, za razliku od submisivnih ženskih likova klasičnih bajki, Beya iskorištava vlastitu seksualnost kako bi se, zločinom, pretvorila u transgresivni subjekt te se spasila iz zatočeništva. Jedina kratka priča koju analiziramo u disertaciji jest „Las cosas que perdimos en el fuego” Mariane Enriquez. Priča ukazuje na strukturalno i obiteljsko nasilje, pribjegavajući gotičkom žanru kako bi pružila feministički otpor. Međutim, ovaj put nisu potrebni arhetipski gotički tropi kako bi se taj žanr očitovao; materijalna stvarnost puna nasilja dovoljna je manifestacija gotičkog. Feministički zaokret u priči o spaljivanju žena, koje vrše njihovi partneri i muževi, predstavlja osnivanje ženske udruge Mujeres Ardientes koje se dobrovoljno unakazuju i deformiraju, stvarajući na taj način monstruozne likove, spaljene vještice koje se opiru patrijarhalnoj logici i kanonskim standardima ženske ljepote. Spaljivanje žena podsjeća na povijesni fenomen lova na vještice koji, prema talijanskoj teoretičarki Silviji Federici, predstavlja prekretnicu u povijesti jer se preklapa s tranzicijom iz feudalizma u kapitalizam, u kojem se zemlja kao opće dobro privatizira, a njezino mjesto zauzima žensko tijelo koje postaje „opće dobro” muškaraca. U tom smislu, ženski otpor kao očajnički čin protiv muške dominacije mijenja normativni poredak i ukazuje na apsurdu normalizaciju nasilja: jedino ga može zaustaviti nasilje nad samom sobom. U poglavlju Los cuerpos que (no) importan, analiziramo roman Nación Vacuna Fernande Garcíe Lao. Premda jedan dio kritike žanrovski opisuje roman kao ukroniju (ispisivanje alternativne povijesti), smatramo da se ipak radi o feminističkoj distopiji budući da se u njemu, s jedne strane, pretjerivanjem i parodijom ismijavaju rodni odnosi, a s druge se prokazuje seksizam utkan u državni aparat. Roman je smješten u vrijeme ratova za otoke M. (čitatelj/ica može naslutiti da se radi o Malvinima, odnosno Falklandskom otočju) u kojem je Argentina pobijedila, ali su neprijatelji prije odlaska otrovali vode, dok se u isto vrijeme pojavljuje nepoznati virus koji polako desetkuje preostale vojnike. Kako bi to zaustavila, Hunta koja sada vodi zemlju, smišlja projekt koji ima za cilj pronaći lijek za virus, ali i savršena ženska tijela koja bi poslužila demografskom oporavku od krize koja je uslijedila nakon rata. Koristeći se parodijom, roman propitkuje povijesne diskurse, otkrivajući lagune i neizrečene dijelove na kojim se grade službene (pri)povijesti. Osim toga, autorica ukazuje na neizostavnu vezu patrijarhata i izgradnje ‘nacije’, što se u romanu parodira pronalaskom ženskih tijela koja postaju isključivo utilitarna i funkcionalistička, negirajući na taj način ženski subjektivitet. Nadalje, na vrlo sličan način kao Le viste la cara a Dios, autorice Cabezón Cámare, roman subvertira Echeverríjin „El Matadero” te izjednačava nasilje nad životinjama iz te priče s nasiljem koje patrijarhalni i kapitalistički sustav provodi nam ženama. Tekst, dakle, animalizira žene, pretvarajući ih u stoku i sirovinu koja u konačnici služi utilitarističkoj i domoljubnoj svrsi. Žena se, osim toga, poistovjećuje sa zemljom (Segato smatra da je žensko tijelo prva muška kolonija), budući da oboje služe za osvajanje i iskorištavanje. Pribjegavajući Derridaovom konceptu „mesofalogocentrizma” ukazuje se na sjecišta muške dominacije te nasilja nad ženama i životinjama koje se najbolje utjelovljuje u referentnoj odsutnosti. Odnosno, ako klanjem životinja, one postoje samo kao meso, konstantno objektiviziranje žena u patrijarhalnom svijetu ima isti učinak. Time su oboje svedeni na objekt te im se dokida subjektivitet. Roman na taj način izostavlja nasilje nad ženama, one jednostavno nestaju i pretvaraju se u objekte za jednokratnu upotrebu. Osim toga, objašnjavamo Huntin eugenički projekt i pripitomljavanje ženskih tijela u svrhu ultimativnog domovinskog cilja, demografske obnove zemlje nakon rata, vodeći se konceptima biopolitike i „docilnih tijela” Michela Foucaulta. U Cometierri autorice Dolores Reyes, riječ preuzima kćerka žrtve femicida, najavljujući tako novu perspektivu u argentinskoj književnosti. Na vrlo sličan način kao i Enriquez, tekst prisvaja gotičku matricu kako bi prikazao femicid i prokazao sudjelovanje državnih struktura u održavanju statusa quo po pitanju rodnouvjetovanog nasilja. I ovaj put materijalna stvarnost predgrađa Buenos Airesa služi kao polazišna točka za gradnju gotičke atmosfere u kojoj dolaze do izražaja sve posljedice gore kapitalizma i sustavnog nasilja sadržanih u prizorima napuštene mladeži kojoj je budućnost oduzeta. Protagonistica romana odsutnost svoje majke pretvara u spiritus movens djela te, unatoč svim prekarnim uvjetima koji je okružuju, koristi dar vidovitosti kako bi pomogla u rješavanju slučajeva nasilja. Vodeći se teorijama Sare Ahmed o kulturnoj politici emocije, pokazali smo da se kroz ranjivost, ekstremnu empatiju i afektivnost Cometierra konstruira kao feministički subjekt koji destabilizira patrijarhalni poredak. Unatoč heterogenosti narativnih i diskurzivnih strategija, možemo zaključiti da djela koja sačinjavaju korpus disertacija dijele denaturalizaciju patrijarhalnog nasilja s jedne strane te osudu nekažnjivosti koja omogućuje i održava navedeno nasilje s druge strane. Djela se koriste fragmentacijom, umetnutim tekstovima, nemogućim svjedočanstvima, narativnim polifonijama, elipsama, ponovnim ispisivanjem kanonskih djela, parodijom i gotičkim žanrom kako bi ukazala na ranjivost i prekarnost ženskog subjekta u svijetu gore kapitalizma. Premda je kanon hispanoameričke i argentinske književnosti uvijek polagao pravo na ženska tijela i koristio ih kao objekte, odnosno prema riječima Masiello, ženska tijela su „bila temeljne sile mehanizama proizvodnje narativa” (2015: 212), u djelima koja čine naš korpus, žene se same nameću kao subjekti, kao što je to slučaj u Por qué volvías cada verano Belén López Peiró, ili pak različitim strategijama vraćaju žrtvama subjektivnost, koju im je nasilje oduzelo. Također je bitno spomenuti da afekti i afektivni sklopovi kao što su osjećajnost, empatija i ljutnja igraju bitnu ulogu u stvaranju i tjeranju subjekata na djelovanje, kao što je slučaj u Chicas muertas, ili kod Beye i Cometierre. Naposljetku, pretvarajući privatno u političko, ova djela možemo klasificirati kao „kolektivni vapaj” koji se pridružuje zahtjevima feminističkih pokreta u borbi protiv patrijarhalnog nasilja te, na neki način, kao temelj novom tipu književnosti, osjetljivijem na teme rodnouvjetovanog nasilja i femicida. Can extreme violence be narrated? The first part of the thesis focuses on the discussion that, prompted by the recognition of Shoah as the greatest trauma in recent human history, raised the question of the (im)possibility of representing extreme violence in literature and arts in general. Following the theoretical thread and reflections of Jacques Rancière, Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben, Beatriz Sarlo and Jorge Semprún, we have argued that literature, on the contrary, expresses precisely the unspeakable, since, whatever its fictional imagery, it can produce the effects of truth and a different kind of sensibility. While some historians, such as Vidal Naquet, believe that the fictionalization of historical trauma would only contribute to the death of memory, others, such as the Spanish writer Semprún, believe that some tragedies are better understood if they are conveyed through to fiction because reality itself is sometimes too scary and unreal to be understood per se. In an attempt to further explore this, the dissertation deals with contemporary Argentine literature and the works of women writers who thematize gender-based violence, sexual abuse and femicide from different perspectives, with particular emphasis on the political and subjective dimension of literature. The literary corpus consists of the following works: Le viste la cara a Dios by Gabriela Cabezón Cámara (2011), Chicas muertas (2014) by Selva Almada, “Las cosas que perdimos en el fuego” (2016) by Mariana Enriquez, Nación Vacuna (2017) by Fernanda García Lao, Por qué volvías cada verano (2018) by Belén López Peiró and Cometierra (2019) by Dolores Reyes. In the dissertation, we explored the narrative strategies that women writers use to narrate gender-based violence and femicide from a feminist perspective, as well as the accompanying phenomena of violence such as capitalism gore and precariat that contribute to the normalization of violence. Furthermore, we believe that we are witnessing a kind of paradigm shift in Argentine literature, as it is women writers who are taking on a leading literary role on the threshold of the 21st century. Most women writers can be classified under the term “newer Argentine literature” coined by Elsa Drucaroff (2011). Drucaroff believes that this generation, although still dealing with very similar topics as the previous ones (such as the questioning of reality, political and social injustice, military dictatorship) is using innovative storytelling strategies. For example, they avoid serious and authoritarian stance, and they allow a mocking and sarcastic tone even when dealing with the issues of violence and femicide. Violence is a very complex phenomenon, but also an indispensable part of human history. To approach this concept, we used the theories of Hannah Arendt, Slavoj Žižek, Tzvetan Todorov, Adriana Cavarero and Rita Segato. It is important to point out that until recently, theoretical considerations on gender-based violence and femicide were not part of scientific research, as they did not go beyond the realm of the private. Most of these theories emphasize the instrumental nature of violence, the complex relationship of power and violence, while feminist theorists view rape, sexual abuse, and femicide as political acts aimed at perpetuating and preserving the patriarchal system. Gender inequality throughout history has enabled, sustained, and naturalized this type of violence, according to Segato, for example. The growing artistic and literary production dealing with issues of gender violence builds on what Beatriz Sarlo calls the “subjective turn” that allowed the narrative of the ‘personal’ to flourish, as well as the emergence of historically invisible subjects in the cultural imagery. In addition, an important role is played by feminist movements such as NiUnaMenos, which have awakened feminist and political consciousness and because of which once marginal issues have penetrated the public and political spheres. Literature on violence against women undermines hegemonic narratives that have been based for centuries on helpless female bodies and female passivity. The methodological work relies on the classical and feminist narratology to detect narrative strategies, and uses the feminist critique as well as various theoretical concepts to analyse the representation of violence and the accompanying phenomena. In addition, we believe that the works of the literary corpus correspond to the definition of post-autonomous literature as defined by the Argentine theorist Josefina Ludmer. These are works that challenge literary autonomy, often being placed both outside and within literature. They are set in the local everyday life, and are characterized by the hybridity of literary genres, as well as the intertwining of different discourses. They approach reality as if it were fiction, and fiction as if it were reality. In addition, we believe that all works that make up the literary corpus can be classified as feminist literature as they address feminist themes par excellence: sexual abuse, femicide, trafficking of women, and are characterized by a critical discourse on patriarchy and all its accompanying elements. The first work, which in a way inaugurates the literature on femicide in recent Argentine literature, is Chicas muertas by Selva Almada. The novel is about three femicides of young girls from the early 80s, set in the Argentine provinces, who have remained unresolved to this day and for whom no one has ever been held accountable. In this work we witness a game between fiction and non-fiction, the text resists mimetic representation although it appropriates the tactics of hyperrealism in the representation of violence. It successfully evades genre classification, moving between a chronicle and an autobiographical novel. In order to construct the lives of dead girls, the text uses various forms of non-fiction: autopsy and police reports, interviews with police and relatives of victims, as well as resorting to an element of popular culture in the form of visits to a clairvoyant who communicates with dead girls and in that way the impossible testimonies are being created. The narrator, with a subsequently acquired feminist consciousness, recalls episodes from childhood and adolescence depicting naturalized patriarchal violence suffered almost daily by the women in the Argentine provinces, although they do not perceive it as such. Chicas muertas can be considered an act of resistance, the literature that pulls out of oblivion what Beatriz Sarlo calls “rescued subjects” - it restores subjectivity to girls and allows them to narrate themselves. The dead girls, as Agamben’s integral witnesses, are narrated through tarot and Almada’s writing. The author fills the blank pages of the book with the names of dead and missing girls, creating a feminist archive that could, unfortunately, function as an open work that could be renewed daily and filled with new victims of femicide whose names deserve to be remembered. The second chapter deals with the work Por qué volvías cada verano by Belén López Peiró. Starting from the issue of (female) autobiography and the way in which this complex genre is approached today, after all the linguistic and epistemological turns that deny the possibility of self-knowledge to the subject, thus questioning the very existence of autobiography, we analysed the work in which the author describes sexual abuse by a close family member. By exchanging trial documents and diary entries, the text reveals to us the arduous process that the victim goes through after deciding to report the abuser. However, in this case, the victim appropriates the story and imposes herself as a political subject who abandons the role of the victim, which dehumanizes her and deprives her of subjectivity. The work thus imposes itself on us as an ideal incarnation of the slogan of the feminist second wave - the personal is political, as it politicizes personal experience. In an attempt to prove the truth, which was not possible in the court, the author resorts to narrative polyphony, thus giving voices to other participants in the process and opening different perspectives that allow her to get outside of her condition and look at herself from the outside. In this way, drawing on Judith Butler’s theory, the ‘I’ realizes how vulnerable and fragile it is, as it cannot tear itself away and separate from its surroundings and others who are also an integral part of its subjectivity. In addition, the text uses an ellipse strategy in the representation of violence and a rhetorical strategy of ‘silence’, leaving blank white pages as an invitation to the reader to try to think outside the violence and fill the gap with meaning. Silence is imposed as the only possibility, after all the instruments of appeal have been exhausted. The text is thus used in the genre of autobiography to expose the destructive forces of patriarchy that can inhabit the family spheres that are otherwise presented to us as safe and harmless, especially for women. By politicizing personal experience, at the same time the character of the victim is resemanticized, thus gaining much-needed power of action. In the work of Gabriela Cabezón Cámara Le viste la cara a Dios, we detected several strategies that the author uses when narrating violence. First of all, it should be said that the text resorts to the subversion of a fairy tale - in this case the Sleeping Beauty, which is transposed in the present and in the Argentine town of Lanús. However, the princess is displaced from her locus amoenus and is trapped in a brothel and forced into prostitution. Furthermore, in its intertextual playfulness, the text communicates with various canonical works of Argentine literature, among which Esteban Echeverría’s “El Matadero” stands out in the first place. In this way, a parallel is built between the brothel and the slaughterhouse, which further emphasizes gender-based violence as a historically intangible type of violence. Combining idioms, street expressions and allusions to mystical poetry and the rhythms of cumbia, the saturation with pop culture references, makes the text an example of what Nora Domínguez (2013) calls neobarroso femenino. The author uses it to make gender-based violence visible. Ultimately, the text offers feminist resistance since, unlike the submissive female characters of classic fairy tales, Beya exploits her own sexuality and by resorting to crime, she turns into a transgressive subject and escapes from captivity. The only short story we analyse in the dissertation is “Las cosas que perdimos en el fuego” by Mariana Enriquez. The story points to structural and domestic violence, resorting to the Gothic genre to offer feminist resistance. This time, however, no archetypal Gothic tropes are needed for this genre to manifest; the material reality full of violence represents a sufficient manifestation of the genre. A feminist twist in the story of the burning of women by their partners and husbands is the founding of the Mujeres Ardientes women's association, where women are voluntarily mutilated and deformed, creating monstrous characters, burned witches who defy patriarchal logic and canonical standards of the female beauty. The burning of women is reminiscent of the historical phenomenon of witch-hunting, which, according to the Italian theorist Silvia Federici, represents a turning point in history because it overlaps with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, in which the land as a common good is privatized with the female body taking its place, i.e., the female body becomes a man’s common good.In this sense, female resistance as a desperate act against male domination changes the normative order and points to the absurd normalization of violence – that only auto-violence can stop. In the chapter Los cuerpos que (no) importan, we analyse the novel Nación Vacuna by Fernanda García Lao. Although one part of the critique classifies the novel as an uchronia (alternate history), we believe that it is a feminist dystopia since, on the one hand, it exaggerates gender relations with the use of parody, and on the other shows the woven sexism of the state apparatus. The novel is set during the wars for the M. Islands (the reader can guess that the M stands for Malvinas, i.e., the Falkland Islands) in which Argentina won, but the enemies poisoned the water before leaving, while at the same time an unknown virus appears which slowly decimates the remaining soldiers. To stop this, the junta, which now runs the country, is devising a project aimed at finding a cure for the virus, but also perfect female bodies that would serve as a demographic recovery from the crisis that followed the war. Using parody, the novel interrogates historical discourses, revealing lagoons and unspoken parts that build official stories. In addition, the author points to the inevitable connection between patriarchy and nation-building, which is parodied in the novel by finding female bodies that become exclusively utilitarian and functionalist, thus denying them any female subjectivity. Furthermore, in a very similar way to Le viste la cara a Dios, by Cabezón Cámara, the novel subverts Echeverría’s “El Matadero” and equates the violence against animals from that story with the violence that the patriarchal and capitalist system inflicts on women. The text, therefore, animalizes women by turning them into cattle and raw materials that ultimately serve a utilitarian and patriotic purpose. The woman, moreover, identifies with the land (Segato considers the female body to be the first men’s colony) which is to be conquered and exploited. By resorting to Derrida's concept of “carnofalogocentrismo”, he points to the intersections of male domination and violence against women and animals, which is best embodied in the absence of reference. That is, if the slaughter of animals makes them exist only as meat, the constant objectification of women in the patriarchal world has the same effect. In this way their subjectivity disappears since both are reduced to the object. The novel thus omits violence against women, they simply disappear and turn into disposable objects. In addition, guided by Michel Foucault's concepts of biopolitics and “docile bodies”, we explain the junta's eugenic project and the domestication of women's bodies for the ultimate patriotic goal - the country's demographic renewal after the war. In Cometierra, by Dolores Reyes, the word is taken by the daughter of a victim of femicide, thus announcing a new perspective in Argentine literature. In a very similar way to Enriquez, the text appropriates the Gothic matrix to depict femicide and demonstrate the participation of state structures in maintaining the status quo on gender-based violence. And this time the material reality of the suburbs of Buenos Aires serves as a starting point for building a Gothic atmosphere in which all the consequences of the capitalism gore and systematic violence manifesting itself in the abandoned youth whose future has been taken away, come to the fore. The protagonist of the novel turns her mother's absence into the spiritus movens of the work and, despite all the precarious conditions that surround her, uses her gift of clairvoyance to help solve cases of violence. Guided by Sarah Ahmed’s theories on the cultural politics of emotion, we have shown that through vulnerability, extreme empathy, and affectivity, Cometierra is constructed as a feminist subject that destabilizes the patriarchal order. Despite the heterogeneity of the narrative and discursive strategies, we can conclude that the literary works that make up the corpus have in common the denaturalization of patriarchal violence, on the one hand, and the condemnation of impunity that enables and perpetuates this violence, on the other. The works use fragmentation, inserted texts, impossible testimonies, narrative polyphonies, ellipses, rewriting of canonical works, parody and the Gothic genre to point out the vulnerability and precariousness of the female subject in the world of gore capitalism. In addition, they impose themselves as a counterpoint to hegemonic literature that glamorizes and spectacularizes violence against women. Although the canon of Hispanic and Argentine literature has always claimed female bodies and used them as objects, that is, according to Masiello, female bodies were “fundamental forces of narrative production mechanisms” (2015: 212), in the works of our corpus women impose themselves as subjects, as is the case in Por qué volvías cada verano by Belén López Peiró. Or by different strategies they return the subjectivity to the victims that the violence had taken away from them. It is also important to mention that emotions such as sensitivity, empathy, and anger play an essential role in creating and forcing subjects to action, as is in Chicas muertas, or in Beya’s and Cometierra’s case. Finally, turning private into political, we can classify these works as “collective clamour” that joins the demands of feminist movements in the fight against the eradication of patriarchal violence and, in a way, as a foundation for a new type of literature more sensitive to gender-based violence and femicide.

U radu je obrađena tema Osoba i vjera u fenomenologiji religije Bernharda Weltea (1906. – 1983.). Temeljni okvir, a koji je ujedno poslužio i kao podloga prvom dijelu rada, jest Welteovo djelo Gesammelte Schriften I/1 Person objavljeno 2006. godine. U cjelini o Osobi istog djela Welte predstavlja svoje viđenje ljudskog postojanja i fenomene koji su uz to postojanje vezani te slijedom toga iznosi originalni koncept ljudske osobe u cjelini. Taj je koncept na tragu aristotelovsko-kršćanske ideje o čovjeku, međutim Welte ovu sliku o čovjeku u bitnom obogaćuje i posuvremenjuje, pri čemu to obogaćenje ni po čemu ne odudara od netom navedene klasične ideje. To se obogaćenje sastoji u Welteovoj razradbi osobe u kontekstu razgovora, jezika, kršćanstva i svijeta općenito, pri čemu čitavim izlaganjem dominira tema dijaloga. Nadalje se iznimno važnom pokazala tema odlučnosti i slobode još jednog istoimenog Welteova spisa Odlučnost i sloboda iz 1966. godine gdje on promišlja o slobodi kao čovjekovoj duhovnoj kategoriji i uz nju vezanoj savjesti kao čovjekovu duhovnom putokazu prema dobru. Teme nade, straha i tjeskobe također su kod Weltea vezane uz ljudsko postojanje. U konačnici ovaj filozof promišlja o ljudskom postojanju kroz prizmu igre i sreće. Sloboda je vezana u Weltea uvijek uz ljudsko postojanje i neodvojiva je od njegova bivstvovanja. U drugom dijelu rada krucijalno Welteovo djelo koje se obrađuje jest Filozofija religije koja je objavljena na hrvatskom jeziku 2016. godine. Welte ovdje promišlja o temeljnim pojmovima i stvarnostima vezanim uz pojam vjere i poglavito njezina izvršenja. Na samom početku drugog dijela riječ je o trenutku kada Welteova filozofija religije 1949. godine postaje fenomenologijom religije, pri čemu je dan svojevrsni uvod u fenomenološku filozofiju uopće. Srž drugog dijela, odnosno cjeline rada jest tema Boga kao začetnika religije te s njim čovjekova odgovora koji je sadržan u vjeri i njezinu izvršenju. Ovdje se također dotičemo i njemačkog mistika M. Eckharta koji je u svojim filozofsko-teološkim djelima predstavljao nadahnuće Bernhardu Welteu. Kao istinski filozof religije, Welte nije zaobišao ni njezine suprotnosti od kojih je ateizam najizraženiji. Stoga završne dijelove rada posvećujemo upravo ovoj temi, pokušavajući dati barem djelomičan odgovor na tako staro, ali i tako novo pitanje je li govor o Bogu i vjerovanje Njemu (još) uvijek moguć unatoč kaotičnosti i zlu koje je prisutno u svijetu. S Bernhardom Welteom smo zaključili da je to moguće. This disertation wishes to explore the topic of The Person and The Faith in Bernhard Welte’s Phenomenology of Religion (1906-1983). The basic framework used as the basis for the first part of the paper is Welte's work Gesammelte Schriften I / 1 Person published in 2006. In Wlete’s work in the part where he talks about the person, Welte presents his view of human existence and the phenomena associated with that existence, which consequently amount, to Welte’s original concept of the human person, a person as a whole. Welte’s concept is in line with the Aristotelian-Christian idea of man, and as Welte explores the classical idea of man as a person, he polishes the classical idea which philosophically speaking brings it up to date, enriching it by expanding it and making it more modern. The enrichment Welte brings consists in the dialogue in which one can elaborate the person in the context of Conversation, Language, Christianity, and The World. In regard to the person the theme of determination and freedom proved to be extremely important, which is discussed in another of Welte's 1966 writings, entitled Determination and Freedom, where Welte reflects on freedom as man's spiritual category and with it associated conscience as man's spiritual compass towards good. With that, in Welte’s philosophy the themes of hope, fear, and anxiety also relate to human existence. Ultimately, Welte contemplates human existence through the prism of games and happiness, where freedom is tied with human existence and is inseparable from man’s existential situation. In the second part of this disertation, Welte's crucial work Philosophy of Religion is examined, where Welte reflects on the concepts and realities related to faith especially those that relate to exercising faith. At the beginning of the second part, Welte's coining the term The Philosophy of Religion, being examined, as the term since he coined in 1949. later becomes known as the phenomenology of religion, which provides a good basis to introduce a philosophical- phenomenological of perspective of The Person and The Faith. The core of the second part of this dissertation explores the theme of God as the originator of religion and Man as the one whose answer to God’s call is contained in faith and its execution. In this part the philosophy of the German mystic M. Eckhart will be explored as his philosophical and theological works were an inspiration to Bernhard Welte. As a true philosopher of religion, Welte also examined atheism, in terms of religious expression, to which the last parts of this work will be dedicated to, in trying to give, at least in part, an answer to the phenomenon of atheism, and to the question whether talking about God and believing in Him is (still) possible despite the chaos and evil that is present in the world.

U disertaciji se razmatra prisutnost specifičnoga ženskog govora (le parler femme) i ženskog pisma (l'écriture féminine) u opusu Oriane Fallaci te njihov odnos s autoricom kao stvarnom, izvantekstualnom osobom. Polazi se od spoznaja poststrukturalističke teorije teksta te psihoanalitičkog feminizma, koje se proširuju rezultatima istraživanja u području kognitivne lingvistike, pragmalingvistike i teorije roda. Pomnim čitanjem odabranih naslova iz Fallacinog opusa te lingvističkom analizom odabranih ulomaka opisat će se odnos ženskog, ženstvenog i tekstualnog. Na temelju kritičkoga čitanja teorijske literature i rezultata analize polaznih i ciljnih tekstova revidirat će se model ženskog pisma, koji će uvažiti i rezultate istraživanja u području lingvistike i teorije teksta. Interdisciplinarnost teme zahtijeva osmišljanje i razvijanje prikladne metodologije, kombinirajući istraživačke metode i postupke svojstvene disciplinama i(li) pristupima iz kojih proizlazi tema rada. Naime, pitanje ženskosti i ženstvenosti utemeljeno je u psihoanalitičkoj teoriji te teoriji roda, uspostavljajući poveznice s teorijom teksta i lingvistikom dolazi se do uočavanja osobitih odnosa između roda, spola i teksta. Usvojene spoznaje i metode primjenjuju se u lingvističkoj analizi važnih dijelova odabranih tekstova deskriptivnom te analitičko-poredbenom metodom. Metodom indukcije, sinteze i apstrakcije, na temelju analiziranih primjera, o razmatranome konceptu i navedenim odnosima, ženskog, ženstvenog i tekstualnog, oblikuje se zaključak o prisutnosti seksualiziranog pisma u opusu Oriane Fallaci. Očekivani je znanstveni doprinos ovoga rada u boljem razumijevanju odnosa između roda, spola i jezika, te produbljivanju suvremenih istraživanja o ženskom glasu i pismu. Rezultati predstavljaju doprinos dosadašnjim istraživanjima o Oriani Fallaci, s naglaskom na specifičnost ženskog izraza, te nude nov interdisciplinaran teorijski model za razumijevanje njezinih tekstova. This complex interdisciplinary doctoral dissertation examines the reciprocal relationships between sex, gender and language, the influence of female sex and gender on language and the particular characteristics of female and feminine speech (le parler femme), female and feminine writing (l'écriture féminine), as well as their presence in the work of Oriana Fallaci. Theoretical investigation of the specific characteristics of female writing began in the second half of the previous century, based on the influence of Freudian psychoanalysis, which helped to define, for the first time, some basic characteristics of female personality and character (Freud, 2006). Freud relates the female and the feminine to elements of the Oedipal and pre-Oedipal paradigm (p. 412), as well as to the structuring, i.e. the lacking compactness of the psychic Super-structure (p. 415). On this, partly by nature determined, passive femaleness and femininity society and social order, emphasizes Freud, superimpose additional conventions and norms (p. 405). Jacques Lacan confirms Freud's thesis about female nature and locates the female and the feminine outside the language area, beyond the symbolic and emblematic area, identifying them as „non-phallic“, therefore „incomplete“ (Lacan, 2017). Insisting on the supremacy of the Phallus, Lacan leaves the woman marked as „a space of sexual breakthrough“ (Lacan 1983, p. 255-257). Post-Freudian psychoanalysis tries to move the Freudian concept of the Oedipus complex backwards, emphasizing the pre-Oedipal stage as a key stage for sexual maturing and identity formation, annulling, in that way, female and feminine marginalization (Laplanche and Pontalis 2010, p. 433-434). The final move from androcentric theories of sexuality is notable in Jung's texts, which see the female psychological structure and personality as different, dominantly intuitive, sensorial and emotional (Jung 1977, p. 225-226) with the presence of the innate picture of the other sex, the so-called animus (p. 206-208), a theory that later helped to define terms like subpersonality, contrasexuality and bisexuality inside the textual space (Young-Eisendrath, 2004). Beauvoir rejects all psychoanalytic interpretations of the female and the feminine, claiming that they understand sexuality and existence as one (Beauvoir, 2016, p. 58), and emphasizes that female and feminine characteristics are not innate (p. 287). Also, she explains that women's artistic creations are influenced by experiences, as well as by women's marginalized social position, and the feeling of psychological and emotional inhibition. Therefore, she reflects upon the following question: speaking of female creativity, can we distinguish between sex and gender? (Beauvoir, 2001). Ellmann (1968) explains how femininity is a socially constructed term, which in no way describes real nature and is also impossible to fix textually because it is in a constant process of linguistic deconstruction. Therefore, Ellmann concludes that it is impossible to define a female text or a female sentence (p. 172). Gilbert and Gubar (1979), examining the nature and the dynamic of female artistic creativity, propose a new theoretical model in order to understand female textual strategies, pointing out the ways they differ from strategies of male authors, especially when it comes to syntactic constructions and deconstructions, syntagmatic and paradigmatic fragmentation, as well as the presence of the author's voice. Also, they claim that every text written by a woman hides the real presence of a woman, and if the text is not the author itself, then at least it is an extension of her subconscious mechanisms (p. 85-90). Kolodny (1975) deals with the exploration of female textual strategy as a separate category, explaining, more carefully, how by emphasising the specificity of female writing, we necessarily define the qualitative portion of gender and sex (p. 76-78), while Showalter (1981) focuses on the importance of a systematic extra-textual gynocentric approach to women's texts, rejecting conventional and formal theoretical research approaches, sympathising with those researches that have, in the most obvious way, contributed to a large understanding of the female subculture, such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, linguistics, as well as cultural theories. Further, Jehlen (1981) remarks that female texts are indeed codified messages of the author's voice. Also, Irigaray (1974) believes that Western philosophic discourse sees woman as „a mirror reflection of the male subject“ and femininity as „a negative of the masculine reflection“ (p. 20). In that way, the female and the feminine become secondary products, always influenced primarily by passing through the male imagination. Irigaray sees a significant analogy between female morphology and female psychology. Both are plural, inclusive and fluid, always privileging contiguity (Irigaray 1977, p. 24-25), nevertheless, womanspeak (le parler femme) is characterized by a strong intimate connection to the woman's own body, as well as the resistance to denotability and the final meaning (p. 76). Cixous (1977) reflects on the female and the feminine inside the textual, claiming that a feminine text „works on différance“ (p. 480), on breaking up the binary opposition system. Also, female writing would be a pleasure area (jouissance), an area of continuous exchange with the other (Autre), a libidinous act that denotes „the articulation of desire in language“ (Moi 2007, p. 176), through it the sexual penetrates the textual, merging together and becoming one. Cixous emphasizes that female writing (l'écriture féminine) is indeed a speech act, so femininity in writing can actually be discovered as privileging the speaking voice, because the woman who speaks „physically materializes her thoughts“, designates them with her own body (Cixous 1975a, p. 251; 1975b, p. 170). On the other hand, Kristeva (1974) refuses to define the female and the feminine, arguing that such a terminology closes up the varying area of meaning and determines the mentioned characteristics as unchangeable ontological essences. Questioning the possibility of defining female identity (Kristeva 1981, p. 36), she also questions the possibility of defining female writing. Denying every form of biologism and essentialism, she rejects the metaphysic dichotomy of the feminine and the masculine, considering the female and the feminine only as marginalized positions in opposition to centralized structures of power. Cavarero (2002) rejects almost everything that was written until now, claiming that a particular female language does not exist, because women always interpret reality through the language of the Father, translating and learning it, truly believing that it belongs to them. During this appropriation process, she concludes, some cracks and gaps are developed, as well as silence and misunderstanding. The research continues with a critical commentary of the terms female identity, nomadic subject and female identity as a metaphysic construct, also confirmed by comparative analysis of Braidotti's (2002) work, mostly based on Deleuze and Guattari's philosophic research on nomadism, which offers a theory of female identity as a floating term, Butler's work (1990), which examines Foucault's thesis on corporality and identity, and Battersby's work (1998), which completely twists the Western metaphysical concept of female identity around, claiming how female and feminine are not permanent and final forms. Finally, this theoretical research is employed in a detailed analysis of Oriana Fallaci's work, specifically focusing on the author's voice, mostly inseparable from Fallaci herself as an extra-textual, real person. Fallaci's earlier works, Il sesso inutile (1961) and Penelope alla guerra (1962), show the author's negation of the binary and bipolar structuralist phallogocratic system (Derrida, 2007), in other words, they demonstrate the recognition of the post-structuralist concept of heterogeneous diversity, différance (Cixous 1977a, p. 180), which gives particular fluctuating and mobile characteristics to the written word, setting it free from limitations of final closure and definitive designation. Achieving temporal and spatial openness of the text, in other words, the open system of designation, signifiance (Kristeva 1980, p. 27), the author enters the space of continuous shaping and „heterogeneous destructive causality“ (p. 27), annulling the archaic understanding of language as a stable, monolithic, compact and complete system of signs. Leaving behind the standard Saussurean concept of language, defining the female subject position, i.e. her object choice, both closely related to woman's physiological, sociological and psychological status (Fallaci 1961, p. 254), as marginal and subversive (p. 9) in opposition to the centralized and institutionalized patriarchal structures of power, pouring out sex and gender ambivalence, i.e. the subversion of the body and identity (Fallaci, 1962), into the heterogeneous area of linguistic semiosis, Fallaci thoroughly deconstructs basic installations of the symbolic order, unconsciously confirming her female and feminine writing as marginal, heterogeneous and subversive (Kristeva 1977b, p. 3-8). Fallaci's bisexual textual strategy (Fallaci, 1962), which points to the author's firm bond with both the erotic and the emotional half of the unconscious (Cixous, 1975b), dissolving and decanting the Western paradigm of phallic monosexuality and the Oedipal context, denotes textual space as a space of libidinal freedom and complete relaxation of libidinal impulses (Bonfante 1975, p. 72), a place of marked affinity for writing as a process of the carnal materialization of the voice (Cixous, 1975c). Moving away from conventional morphosyntactic laws and turning back to writing as voice, a speech act that materializes sexuality, leads Fallaci's textuality in a bodily, female and feminine, direction. With her own voice, the ultimate incarnation of desire inside language (Lacan, 1992), which emerges from the most inaccessible layers of the psyche, the author masters and surpasses the space of the symbolic, bringing writing back to the body, to a place beyond the signified. Fallaci's fluid and viscous writing (Gatt-Rutter 1996, p. 72) is situated in the space outside the Law. Its mobile, manifold and variable characteristics enable the constitution of the infinite process of linguistic semiosis. The qualitative and quantitative distribution of prosodemic and punctuation elements, as well as phonetical and morphological interventions, turn the physical into metaphysical, the body into text. The unconventional and informal, extremely phonic and tactile (Irigaray 1977, p. 76), rhetoric deletes the boundaries between the physical and the psychological, reality and fiction, text and context. Fallaci's pre-Oedipal rhetoric, especially present in Lettera a un bambino mai nato (1975), denotes a firm connection between the author's material body (female) and the physical materialization of her voice (feminine) with the infinite imaginary textual space (Cixous 1975c, p. 170). Analysing the very intimate communication between a woman and the child in her womb, in other words, the author and her unborn text (Fallaci, 1975), Gatt-Rutter (1996, p. 63) posits his thesis on the female body that talks, on tissues that emanate thought and language, on the so-called placental rhetoric with pronounced phonic amplitudes that travel through biological tissues and bodily fluids. This imaginary cosmic watery space of heterogeneousness (Cixous 1975b, p. 260), dominated by sound, fluid and touch, acts as a symbol of an absolute rhetoric of freedom, a complete absence of all symbolic authorities, but also as a symbol of femininity, of the natural and direct connection with one's own femaleness. Fallaci's refusal of all forms of Oedipal totalitarianism and hegemony, as well as moving away from already established generic conventions, will result in atypical generic entities bearing a pronounced psychological stamp of the author (Porzio, 1965). These formally undefined texts will follow the program of the so-called non-Oedipal aesthetics (Irigaray, 1974), within which predictability and completeness, integrity and totality, order and system give up their places to spontaneity and fragmentariness, variability and heterogeneousness, overlapping and interweaving. Aricò (1998, p. 167) emphasizes how in Fallaci's case this resulted in a formal creative mess, an almost complete fusion of reality and fiction, a blurred transition from the written to the spoken word, an overlapping of extradiegetic and intradiegetic levels, i.e. in the constitution of a firm semantic and syntactic connection between the author and the narrator (Fallaci 1990, p. 596). This incongruous and asymmetrical textual structure is a result of the complete absence of the universal, omniscient and superior author's self existing outside the textual borders. Fallaci's female and feminine linguistic creativity opposes the phallic hierarchic system, which includes an already constructed author's identity. Inclined towards poststructuralist methodology, which sees the author and the narrator as results of rhetorical strategies, i.e. sees the text as a superior and privileged term (Cavarero, 1977), as well as rejecting the conventional methodological approach (Aricò 1998, p. 171-173), pronouncing but at the same time overhearing the text (Derrida 1988, p. 13), the author turns the subject into an object, the text into a „verbal projection of her own self“ (Aricò 1986, p. 587). Fallaci's subversion of the author and the narrator, more obvious in novels Niente e così sia (1969) and Un uomo (1979), turns the textual into vocal (Spinazzola, 1979), biography into autobiography (Rosa 1982, p. 77-80), reality into fiction (Aricò 1998, p. 172). In line with French poststructuralism, Fallaci gives up the affirmation of the authorial subject as an omniscient extradiegetic identity, distanced from his/her own text. In her opinion (p. 172), the authorial subject is a rhetorical construct, constituted by interpretative procedures, moments in which the subject of the text and the subject of reading exchange their places. Giving up an already constructed authorial personality reveals the process of writing as a process of reconstruction of one's own being (Gusdorf 1991, p. 10). Through writing, and injecting of pieces and fragments of linguistic reality, a (re)construction of the authorial subject is enabled, as well as his/her positioning related to the reality that he/she describes (Cavarero, 1997; Battersby, 1989). Such discursive methods, in Cavarero's opinion (1997, p. 100-101), reflect the influence of the female and the feminine, and will result in a neverending process of linguistic semiosis. Fallaci's texts, charged with a strong feminine „vocal imprinting“ (Milani 1971, p. 30), become, in this way, a mirror space in which the author's self, by a mise an abîme effect (Fallaci 1990, p. 157), reflects and multiplies, a space of performative linguistic strategies (Finci 2011, p. 119). The countercultural revolution and the sexual liberation movement of the 1960's and 1970's brought change to language, media and the field of interpersonal communication, as well as the journalism sector. New unconventional discursive methods were developed and replaced old fashioned and rigid formal criteria with alternative contextual and extra-textual methods of analysis. The text is no longer a closed space of signs and designation (Showalter, 1979), but an open space of interpretative cooperation, a space where the author's experiences, his/her subjective perspective and intellectual judgement are prominent. Subjectivity, polymorphism and linguistic subversion of new journalistic forms, such as New Journalism, especially attracted Oriana Fallaci, mostly in the years when her interest in liberal socialism and women's liberation was at the highest level (De Stefano 2015, pp. 179; 188-189). Her desire for liberation, formally and linguistically, from patriarchal phallocentric political oppression is far more obvious in her, at that time, most successful texts, gathered and published in four extensive collections: Gli antipatici (1963), Se il sole muore (1965), Quel giorno sulla luna (1970), and Intervista con la storia (1974). Her non-Oedipal, subversive and subjective writing, marginal to established linguistic structures of power, demonstrates her linguistic dissident position (Kristeva 1977b, p. 3-8), i.e. her marginalized subject position. By rejecting the formal canon, embracing new analytical and critical methods of thinking, as well as engraving her personal political and psychological imprint, the author portrays and projects her own, female and feminine, voice. David Sanford (1975) ascribes the success of these Fallaci's texts to the author's awareness of the comparative advantages of her own sex, mainly intuition and empathy (Jung, 1971), which enable her extremely precise and clearly directed process of psycholinguistic autopsy, so-called surgical journalism (Sanford 1975, p. 102), the penetration and section of thought and language. By breaking the contract with phallogocratic linguistic authorities, giving up norms, the binary and bipolar hierarchic organization of language and cultural symbols, the author clearly establishes connections to the so-called nomadic aesthetic (Braidotti, 2002), one of the postmodern interpretations of anthropological, cultural and linguistic phenomena in which tradition and territorial stability give way to cultural transition and linguistic deterritorialization (Deleuze and Guattari, 1986). Fallaci's nomadic writing, first of all defined by her transitional and floating nomadic subject position (Braidotti 2002, p. 13), is a non-Oedipal answer directed to the firm and stable „authoritative régime of tyrannical fathers“ (p. 37). Through it, the author shows her disobedience to the symbolic order, patriarchal dogmas and to centralized Western systemic institutions. Deconstructing the phallogocratic hierarchic system of binary and bipolar oppositions (Derrida 2007, p. 298), going back to the position of cultural and linguistic relativism (Said, 1978), she opposes the Saussurean concept of the transcendental signified, the privileged and closed linguistic system (Derrida 2007, p. 299). Fallaci's female and feminine nomadic style, aiming for the deconstruction of the superior hierarchic standard linguistic system, as well as the demystification of Western political enclaves, is an open inter and transdisciplinary linguistic bricolage. Through putting in and pouring out of different concepts, linguistic variants and registers, sociolects and dialects, the author replaces the symbolic area of the Law, dominated by sexual and linguistic puritanism (Braidotti 2002, p. 29), with an imaginary area of linguistic democracy, a space where all kinds of linguistic substrata, heterogeneous lines of linguistic transition and transgression shift racial, class, ethnical, sexual and gender boundaries (Fallaci, 1990), questioning the term identity. Fallaci's affinity for exotic nomadic landscapes at the boundaries of heterogeneous cultures and linguistic substrata, such as Beirut's „no man's land“ (Lyotard 1997, p. 116) described in the war triptych Insciallah (1990), parallels the author's affinity for the process of linguistic deterritorialization (Braidotti 2002, p. 36-37), a process of continuous linguistic, temporal and spatial dislocation. Mostly through the use of imperfective verbs, translinguistic and transcultural transpositions (Fallaci 1990, pp. 20; 30; 33; 35; 58; 68-69; 74), Fallaci surpasses the symbolic field of linguistic law and enters into the imaginary space of multipliable heterogeneous diversity, temporal and spatial semantic openness (Derrida 2007, p. 298-299). Fallaci's highly critical conscience and her perspective grounded in the present strongly oppose the cult of remembrance, divinization and assimilation (Foucault, 1994), as well as any form of linguistic totalitarianism, domination and political violence.

U radu se analiziraju Nietzscheovi pojmovi umjetnosti i afirmacije života, te njihov međusobni odnos. Kompozicija rada prati uobičajenu podjelu Nietzscheove filozofije na rani, srednji i zreli period. Tijekom rane etape svoga filozofskog promišljanja Nietzsche je etablirao metafizički koncept umjetnosti kao rješenje za prevladavanje pesimizma kao najvećeg problema života. Pri tome Nietzsche središnju ulogu pripisuje staroj grčkoj tragediji, kao jedinstvu suprotstavljenih principa apolonskog i dionizijskog, izlažući vjeru u mogućnost ponovnog rođenja tragedije u modernoj njemačkoj umjetnosti. Srednja etapa Nietzscheove filozofije ogleda se u etabliranju života kao centralnog kriterija za procjenu vrijednosti svih ljudskih aktivnosti, te u afirmiranju znanstvenog optimizma nasuprot ranijem metafizičkom konceptu, pri čemu se umjetnost prepoznaje kao početak znanstvenog progresa i putokaz za budućnost čovječanstva. Na koncu, u svojoj kasnoj, zreloj filozofiji Nietzsche odbacuje znanost i znanstveni optimizam u korist svoje nove epistemološke doktrine – perspektivizma. Na temelju perspektivizma Nietzsche gradi tezu o nužnosti prevrednovanja svih postojećih vrijednosti, kako bi se konačno život u cijelosti mogao afirmirati, što podrazumijeva temeljitu kritiku znanosti, religije, morala i umjetnosti. Tako Nietzsche nalazi mogućnost za pravu afirmaciju života u etabliranju perspektive o volji za moć kao najvišem principu cjelokupnog svijeta i života, u kojoj umjetnost zadobiva središnje mjesto. This dissertation explicates Nietzsche’s concepts of art and life-affirmation, including their interrelationship. Composition of the work follows a common division of Nietzsche’s philosophy into early, middle, and late periods. During the early stage of his philosophical thought, Nietzsche has established the metaphysical concept of art as the proper solution to the problem of pessimism as the life’s greatest problem. In doing so, Nietzsche ascribes central role to the ancient Greek tragedy, as the union of antagonistic principles Apollonian and Dionysian, believing in the possibility of rebirth of such tragedy in modern German art. Middle stage of Nietzsche’s philosophy reflects in the establishment of the concept of life as the central criterion for evaluation of all human activity, also in the affirmation of scientific optimism instead of earlier metaphysical conception, whereat art marks the commencement of scientific progress, and the signpost to the future of humanity. Finally, in his late or “mature” philosophy, Nietzsche rejects the science and scientific optimism in favor of his new epistemological doctrine of perspectivism. Based on his perspectivism, Nietzsche constructs a thesis of necessity of reevaluation of all existing values in order to affirm life as a whole, which implies thorough critique of science, religion, morality, and art. Hence, Nietzsche discovers the possibility for the true affirmation of life by establishing the perspective of will to power as the highest principle of the world and life in general, wherein art acquires the central place.

Ono što je u najvećoj mjeri determiniralo fenomen utopijskog zasigurno je njegova etimološka ekvivokacija. Historiografski, ta je 'leksička višeznačnost' opteretila znanstvenu raspravu o naravi utopijskog u tolikoj mjeri, da polemika o definiciji samog fenomena kao osnovnog pojma u akademskoj zajednici, do današnjeg dana biva nedovršena. Možda je upravo ta činjenica nedovršivosti, čini se, akademski, ali i neakademski usud utopijskog kao takvog; utopijskog po sebi. S jedne strane, u smislu i značenju utopijskog kao napredujuće procesualnosti koja se u svakom ovdje i sada dovršava i ne-dovršava; isto tako, kao anticipacija budućeg utopijska procesualnost biva predočiva i nepredočiva; zatim, kao kritika dominirajućih neljudskih odnosa u društvu ista se korjeni i u zbilji, i u zamišljaju. Na određeni način ona implicira i eksplicira istovremenost naoko oprečnih djelovanja i upravo to je njezin metafizički okvir. S druge strane ta njezina polarizacija zrcali samu prirodu utopijske procesualnosti kao takve. Premda je kao fenomen imenovana tek početkom 16. stoljeća (Thomas More), njezina procesualnost u-vremenu i u-putu, u konačnici nadilazi svaku temporalno-prostornu punktualnost, budući ju nije moguće zaustaviti u jednoj točki i proglasiti završenom, gotovom, okončanom. Donjevši sud o kraju utopijske procesualnosti mi donosimo i sud, iako ga eksplicitno ne izričemo, o kraju čovjeka kao bića mogućnosti. Naime, ontologijska slika homo utopicusa jest upravo ta najintimnija, iskonska, perenijalna težnja i čežnja za što je moguće savršenijim formama kako aktualizacije tako i samoaktualizacije. Dakle, koliko joj god naziv bio predmetom semantičke neodređenosti toliko se ona kao djelovanje nedvosmisleno doziva u postojanje kao željeni, nadajući sadržaj. To je svojevrstan paradoks utopijskog imena – premda definicijski 'nedefinirana' ipak se uzima kao priželjkivana stvarnost. Njezin nepredočivi sadržaj predočava se poželjnim, budući da kroz kritiku usmjerenu prema društveno nepoželjnim normativima, taj nepredočivi sadržaj biva upućen kao negacija zadanih odnosa unutar zajednice. Ono što se budućnosno anticipira doživljava se vrijednijim od prisutnog. Oblikujući, transformirajući mjesto čovjek se nadaje kao subjekt, nositelj promjene, donositelj utopijske procesualnosti, jer utopija je poput čovjeka, otvorenost i nedovršenost. Na određeni način ona zrcali čovjekovu ontološku datost, naime, njegovu smještenost u odluku. Tu je ishodište kako utopijske otvorenosti tako i distopijske zatvorenosti. Čovjeka upravo ta smještenost, postavljenost u odluku prisiljava na djelovanje u svakoj prilici. Osoba, ukoliko joj izvanjska zadanost ne priječi drugačije, uvijek izabire sadržaje koje doživljava kao 'za mene' vrijednosno ispunjene. Naprosto, to je zakon ljudskog htijenja. Materijalizacija utopijskog upućena je na mjesto premda nije determinirana mjestom u temporalno-prostornom značenju. Čovjekova zadanost ujedno je i njegov, takoreći, smjer bivanja. Kao biološka (instinktivna) uvjetovanost ona je upućena prema kompleksnijim, usložnjavajućim formama, onima koje se doživljavaju kao razvojno napredujuće. Za razliku od nje, inteligentna je pred ljudsko biće postavljena kao izbor, kao mogućnost. Utoliko je njezina posljedičnost vrijednija, budući zahtjeva osobni pristanak. Biološka utopija slijedi forme procesualnosti imanentne razvoju života kao fiziološki utvrđenog fenomena. S druge strane inteligentna utopija svojom odlukom određuje vlastite forme djelovanja čime biva izložena predočivoj neizvjesnosti koju osoba ispunjava anticipacijskim sadržajima. Upravo je u taj topos dovršenog i nedovršenog smještena osoba kao u potencijalni prostor utopijski napredujuće procesualnosti koju je isključivo čovjek pozvan nadograđivati. Ta procesualnost koja se nadograđuje i izgrađuje kao posljedica ontološke postavljenosti u odluku zapravo je suočavanje pojedinca sa samim sobom i svijetom koji ga okružuje. Egzistirati u zajednici, u-zajedništvu, implicira afirmaciju sebstva, samoaktualizaciju koja se ozbiljuje kroz upućenost na drugoga i to je prijelomna točka utopijskog. Naime, i društvo i pojedinac upućeni su na neko djelovanje koje se ima doživljavati kao dobro. Zadaća društva je da takoreći njeguje slobodu osobe na putu prema višim formama vlastite ozbiljivosti koja ujedno implicira i više forme društvenosti, beskompromisnog, koegzistirajućeg zajedništva. Dobro oko kojega nastoji društvo, vrijednosno mjerilo apstrahira iz ljudske mogućnosti da transcendira vlastitu egzistirajuću uvjetovanost. Most determining influence on utopian phenomenon was surely its etimological eqivocation. Historiographicaly, that 'lexic ambiguity' has burdened the scientific debate on the nature of utopia in such a manner that even the polemics concerning the definition of phenomenon as a fundamental concept in the academic community, to this day remain uncompleted. It seems perhaps, that the very fact of uncompletenes, acamedic as well as nonacademic is the fate of utopian as such; utopian per se. On one hand, in the sense and meaning of utopian as a progressing, advancing processuality, which itself, in every here and now is being completed and uncompleted; in the same sense, as an anticipation of the future utopian processuality as being envisaged and un-envisaged; then as a critique of the dominant unhumane relations in society utopian is rooting in the realm and in imagination. In a certain way, at the same time it implicates and explicates seemengly contrary actions and that is her metaphysical frame. On the other hand that polarization is reflecting the very nature of utopian processuality as such. Although the phenomenon was named rather late, during the first years of the 16th century (Thomas More), processuality in-time and on-the-way, in the end, exceeds every temporaly-spacial punctuality, having in mind the fact that phenomenon can not be halted in one point and proclaimed finished, done, ended. Conclusion about the end of utopian processuality, in itself witholds, although not explicitly formulated, proposition about the end of man as a being of possibility. Namely, ontological picture of homo utopicus is the most intimate, primordial, perenial strive and yearning toward a, as perfect as possible forms of actualization and selfactualization. Therefore, as much as the term itself is subject to semantic ambiguity the more so does its activity unambiguously call itself into existence as a wishing, hope content. It is a sort of a paradox of the utopian name – though definitory 'undefined' it is still considered a coveted realm. Its un-envisaged content is envisaged because through critique aimed toward socialy undesirable normatives, that un-envisaged content is being introduced as a negation of the given relations within the society. That which is anticipated is perceived as more valuable than that which is present. Shaping, transforming the place, human being is presenting itself as the subject, the bearer of change, the bringer of utopian processuality, considering utopia and human being are alike, open and uncompleted. In a way, utopia mirrors a man's ontological default, his permanent be-ing in a place of ruling. There lies the root of utopian openness and dystopian confidment. That very place of ruling is what, so to speak, forces a human being to act in every occasion. Unless the external conditions determine otherwise a person always selects contents which one, for-me of course, percieves abundently. Simply such is the law of volition. Utopian materialisation is directed at a certain place, though it is not determened by the place in a temporaly-spacial sense. A man's givenness is also his direction of being, so to speak. As a biological (instinctive) condition utopia is forwarded towards more complexing forms, ones that are percieved as advancingly progressional. As opposed to that processuality, the inteligent one sets upon a person a choice, a possibility. Insofar are its outcomes more valuable, considering it demands an intimite consent. Biological utopia follows forms of processuality imanent to development of life itself as physiologicaly determined phenomenon. On the other hand, inteligent utopia with its place of ruling determines its own forms of action and thus is being exposed to envisaged uncertanity which a person fills with anticipating content. In that very topos of completed and uncompleted is a person placed, as in a potential place of advancing utopian processuality, which only a human being is invited to upgrade. Processuality being upgraded and constructed as a result of ontological place of ruling is in fact a confrontation of one with oneself and the surrounding world. To exist in a community, in-communion, implies an affirmation of self, a selfactualisation that comes into existance through orientation toward the other and that is the breaking point of utopia. Namely, society and individual are actively oriented on that which is perceived as good. Societie’s duty is to cultivate personal freedom on its way to more perfect forms of selfactualisation that at the same time imply more humane community forms, uncompromising, coexisting collectiveness. Good around which society strives abstracts its value norm from human possibility to transcend its own existing conditioning.