증상-향유로서의 영화관람성과 그 실재의 윤리

박제철 영상예술학회 2004 영상예술연구 Vol.5 No.-

Since 1970's psychoanalytic studies on the cinematic spectatorship have been developed through two opposing approaches: the cinema apparatus approach and the cinema fantasy approach. While the former describes spectatorship as being sutured by ideological interpellation, the latter emphasizes the subversive role of disturbing desire in the spectator. As the Freudian concept of fantasy suggests, the spectator would identify with multiple subject positions whether simultaneously or successively. In contrast to the former approach, in the latter one, ideological operation is actually ineffective and the spectator- subject is already autonomous and subversive. Now in view of late Lacanian insight recently revealed by the works of a group of Slovenian Lacanian scholars, however, such optimistic conception leaves room for doubt. This essay is an attempt to delineate a new psychoanalytic approach on spectatorship, founded upon late Lacanian accomplishments. In order to do this, the essay mainly deals with three inter-related concerns: the logic of symbolic order and the reformulation of the concept of ideology; the reexamination of the concept of suture and instances of suturing cinematic symptom; the ethical act of the real in spectatorship and its relation to the feminine spectatorship. The symbolic order of which the paradoxical logic Lacan articulated several times since 1960 is, properly speaking, different both from a static structure in terms of structuralism and from a heterogeneous open whole that post-structuralism implies. It is not only the structure as not-all that constitutively produces impossible jouissance--object a--as its by-product. But it is also the structure that blinds subject to its constitutive lack, providing her with the fantasy scenario of distancing jouissance. Slavoj Zizek, on this basis, reformulates the concept of the ideological interpellation previously presented by Louis Althusser. According to Zizek, ideological interpellation requires no identification/ subjectivization but functions by implying something supposedly hidden behind strange jouissance. In its light, the pursuit of transgressive desires through the fantasy, rather, supports the ideological function of the existing symbolic order. It is the concept of suture that needs to be illuminated again along with the emphasis on the jouissance in spectatorship. The concept has been misappropriated as describing signification on spectatorship. In view of Jacques-Alain Miller’s proper intention, however, it is worth redeeming as indicating jouissance (and subject as its correlative) in spectatorship. Such reexamination allows us to consider a few important but more or less ignored arguments as embodying instances avant la lettre embodying a new psychoanalytic approach on the spectatorship. Among them, the two noteworthy cases are the study of gaze in Hitchcock films by Pascal Bonizer and that of voice in films by Michel Chion. Indeed, the gaze and voice are the paradigmatic elements of cinematic jouissance. But still more importantly, Slavoj Zizek presents a generalized argument about cinematic jouissance, rediscovering the two cases through his brilliant psychoanalytic insights. Inert, spectral, and persistent Thing as remnants of any cinematic significations is, now, generalized as the minimum or basic level of cinematic materialism. The one of the essential questions that psychoanalytic studies on spectatorship have struggled to answer is how the spectator can/or must break with ideological spectatorship. This new approach, bringing to the fore the spectatorship as jouissance, finds its own answer in the very place that both previous approaches have excluded as impossible. In order to really sever herself from the ideology in spectatorship, the spectator-subject must not merely assume identifications thorough fantasy,but identify with indivisible symptom- jouissance as the ultimate remnant of such identifications. This strategy corresponds to the act of grounding the absolute universal of spectatorshipin that it requires the spectator to find herself in void in the structure of spectatorship. It, indeed, indicates the ethical act in terms of the Real. Such liberating gesture in 증상- 향유로서의영화관람성과그실재의윤리_ 박제철 spectatorship needs to be distinguished from the feminine spectatorship described as multiple and/or fluid identifications. Nevertheless, via Lacanian sexuation formulas, the gesture could open the way toward reformulating feminine spectatorship. In so far as the feminine attitude as the combination of not-all and non-exception can be regarded as essential to feminine spectatorship, the liberating spectatorial gesture mentioned above could precisely be the proper feminine spectatorship. During 1970's and 1980's the psychoanalytic studies on spectatorship had been oscillated between two contrasting approaches. The apparatus approach posited too easily the absolute dominance of ideology in spectatorship, whereas the fantasy approach assumed too early the disturbance of ideology by spectatorial desire. Consequently, neither approach led to really effective arguments concerning the break with ideology and transformation of spectator-subject. Though there remain some further essential questions, this rising approach on spectatorship would deserve concretizing and elaborating, at least, in that it raises to the surface a singular place where we as spectators would not too easily fall into despair nor would they become too early optimistic.

아버지의 위상 - 금지와 향유의 기원

김석 ( Kim Seok ) 한국기호학회 2017 기호학연구 Vol.51 No.-

정신분석적 관점에서 보면 아버지는 욕망과 주이상스의 기원이다. 아버지의 위상과 역할은 주체가 아버지를 가진다는 것의 의미가 무엇인가의 질문을 통해 효과적으로 규명될 수 있다. 프로이트는 <토템과 향유>에서 원초적 아버지의 신화를 소개한다. 아버지는 금제를 통해 자식들에게 욕망과 더불어 법을 위반하고자 하는 향유를 동시에 불러일으키는 존재이다. 아버지는 초자아와 대타자의 두 가지 위상을 가지고 있다. 초자아는 억압적이지만 두려움 보다는 죄책감을 불러일으키는데 이 죄책감은 아버지가 금한 절대적 향유를 누리려고 하는 무의식적 유혹을 보여주는 증상이기도 하다. 또 아버지는 어머니를 상징하는 물(Ding)을 금지하는 거세를 통해 주체의 내부에 결여를 가져오는 대타자이기도 하다. 결여가 욕망을 낳는데 결국 욕망은 향유에 대해 거리를 두면서 주체를 보호하는 방어적 기능을 한다. 아버지가 주이상스를 가능하게 만드는 것은 그가 향유를 누리는 예외적 존재이기 때문이다. 아들은 아버지처럼 환상 속에서 예외적 존재가 되고자 하지만 이것은 기만적인 남근적 향유로 주체를 이끈다. 또 주체가 결여를 수용하지 못하고 타자 속으로 들어가 버리면 주체는 타자의 향유에 의해 소멸 할 수도 있다. 그러므로 아버지를 죽은 아버지, 즉 아버지의 이름으로 만들어야 하며, 타자의 결여를 인정하고 욕망을 유지하면서 보충적 향유의 가능성을 열어야 한다. 결국 욕망과 향유는 대립되는 것이 아니라 상보적인 것이며, 아버지의 두 기능, 즉 초자아와 대타자의 기능도 위상학적 공간에서 동일한 면의 두 측면이다. From the psychoanalytic point of view, the father is the origin of desire and jouissance. The position and role of the father can be clarified effectively through the following question: What does it mean that the subject has a father? Freud introduced the famous myth of the primitive father in Totem and Taboo. The father is the being who invites children, through the taboo, not only to desire, but also to violate the father`s law. The father thus has two status: the Superego and the Other. The Superego is oppressive, but it raises more guilt than fear. Guilt is also a symptom of unconscious temptation for the subject who wants to enjoy the jouissance that the father has forbidden. In addition, the father is also the Other who introduces a lack into the subject by castration. This castration is the prohibition of the Ding which is the symbol of the mother. Lack arouses desire, and desire ultimately accomplishes a defensive function to protect the subject by the distance of jouissance. The father makes possible jouissance, because he is an exceptional being who enjoys total jouissance. The son like his father wants to be an exception in fantasy, but it leads him into deceitful phallic jouissance. But if the subject does not accept the lack and enters the Other, the subject could disappear by the jouissance of the Other. Therefore, the father should be accepted as a dead father(Name of the Father), and so we can create a possibility of complementary jouissance, recognizing the lack of Other and while maintaining desire. The two functions of the Father, the Superego and the Other, are also two faces of the same plane in the topological space.

잉여 쾌락으로서 주이상스(Jouissance)

남경아 ( Kyung Ah Nam ) 한국동서철학회 2015 동서철학연구 Vol.77 No.-

주이상스(Jouissance)는 라캉(Jacques Lacan, 1901~1981)의 정신분석학 이론 내에서 가장 독창적이고도 매력적인 개념이다. 그러나 국내 및 해외 연구 문헌에서 그것의 개념 자체에 관한 상세한 논의를 찾는 일은 그리 쉽지 않다. 라캉 혹은 정신분석학 등을 핵심어로 다루는 여러 문헌들 속에서 주이상스라는 용어 자체에 대한 언급을 찾는 것은 어렵지 않지만, 사실상 대부분의 언급들은 ‘정의하기 어려운’이라는 술어로써 그 시도를 마무리하고 있다. 필자는 라캉의 이론 내에서 주이상스라는 용어를 쾌와 관련되는 것으로 간주하며, 신경증적 증상들의 치료와 관련된 기술(description)에서 반드시 이해되어야 하는 개념 중 하나로서 파악한다. 이에, 본고는 일차적으로 주이상스의 개념 분석을 목적한다. 이는 인간의 쾌가 어떻게 산출될 수 있는지를 구조적으로 해명하는 부수적 효과 또한 드러내 줄 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. Jouissance is the one of the most creative and attention-getting concept in the theory of Lacan (Jacques Lacan, 1901~1981). However, it is not easy for us to find the detailed discussion for its concept itself in both domestic and overseas studies. Instead, it is not hard for us to meet the references regarding the Jouissance; most of them refer it as the one which is ‘hard to define’. I regard the Jouissance as the concept associated with matter of the pleasure, and I also grasp it as the one of the essential concept for the descriptions related to the neurotic symptoms in the psychoanalytic treatment. In this context, the primary purpose of this study is to analyze the concept of the Jouissance. I expect this study could also explain how our mental pleasure is produced in the structural aspect.

테네시 윌리엄스의 『욕망이라는 이름의 전차』에 나타난 향유의 환상과 궁지, 그리고 남성 가부장중심주의

정진만(Jeong, Jin-Man) 한국현대정신분석학회 2021 현대정신분석 Vol.23 No.2

테네시 윌리엄스의 『욕망이라는 이름의 전차』에서 상실의 견딜 수 없는 현실로부터 도피해 환상에 의존하는 병약한 블랜치와 대조적으로, 스탠리는 의문의 여지없이 강건한 현실주의자로 받아들여져 왔다. 그러나 이 글은 향유를 다루는 데 있어서 스탠리가 블랜치보다 크거나 같은 환상을 품고 있다고 주장한다. 이 새로운 해석은 우리가 주이상스(향유)에 대한 라캉의 개념을 염두에 둘 때 가능하다. 라캉에게 있어서 주이상스는 상징계 안에서 주체의 지위를 떠맡는 대가로 금지된 것으로서 실재계에서는 애초부터 불가능한 것이다. 충만하고 완벽한 주이상스는 불가능한데도 불구하고, 역설적이게도 주체는 장애물만 제거하면 그것에 도달할 수 있는 것처럼 위장하기 위해 그 주이상스에 대한 장애물(금지)을 고안해 낸다. 따라서 장애물은 주이상스에 접근하는 데 필수적이게 된다. 여기에 주이상스의 환상과 궁지가 존재하며, 『욕망이라는 이름의 전차』의 스탠리가 그런 점을 예시하고 있다. 스탠리는 블랜치(주이상스와 남성 지배에 대한 장애물)를 자신의 남성중심적, 가부장적 영역에서 제거하기만 하면 블랜치의 달갑지 않은 개입으로 인해 잃게 된 것으로서 스텔라와의 결혼관계에서의 이전의 주이상스를 되찾을 수 있다는 환상에 빠진다. 이런 라캉적 접근은 나약한 블랜치가 패배하고 스탠리의 강건한 마초적 세계가 다시 안정을 되찾는다는 윌리엄스의 사회진화론적 재현이 향유에 대한 대중의 환상에 호소하는 사회-심리적 전략을 통해 남성 가부장중심주의를 떠받치고 있음을 밝힐 것이다. In Tennessee Williams’s A Streetcar Named Desire, Stanley has been unquestionably accepted as a sturdy realist, as opposed to invalid Blanche who resorts to fantasy escaping from the insufferable reality of loss. However, this essay argues that, in his treatment of enjoyment, Stanley has fantasy either more than or as much as she has. This new interpretation is possible when we are reminded of Lacan’s notion of jouissance (enjoyment). For Lacan, jouissance, banned at the price of one’s assuming the subject’s position in the symbolic, is initially impossible in the real. Notwithstanding the impossibility of a full and perfect jouissance, paradoxically one elaborates an obstacle (prohibition) to jouissance so as to believe it as reachable if only one removes the obstacle. Thus, an obstacle becomes prerequisite to access jouissance. Here lie the fantasy and stalemate of jouissance, and Stanley in A Streetcar Named Desire exemplifies them: He fantasizes that he can recover his former jouissance in his marital relationship with Stella that is lost by Blanche’s unwelcome intervention, if only he gets rid of Blanche—an obstacle to jouissance and male dominance—out of his male-centered patriarchal territory. Such a Lacanian approach to the text would illuminate that Williams’s Social Darwinist representations of fragile Blanche’s defeat and the re-stabilization of Stanley’s robust macho world sustain male patriarchism through the socio-psychological strategy appealing to the public’s fantasy of enjoyment.

먹고 마시는 일상적 향유와 예수의 신학적 지향 ― 복음서의 ‘공동식사’ 모티프를 중심으로

차정식 한국기독교학회 2019 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.114 No.-

The human act of eating and drinking allegedly does not end with the satisfaction of an animalistic appetite. Rather, it contributes to promoting cultural jouissance in the context of community gathering, in such a way that consolidates its identity. As a way of embodying the jouissance value, the common meal appears to be a prominent motif in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, the Book of Ecclesiastes contains its pivotal aspect with a focus on the daily jouissance of eating and drinking. In Greco-Roman cultural context, mostly in the Epicurean philosophy, it is apparent that people had been increasingly sensitive to how their participation in a common meal would be conducive to human pleasure. Especially, the people during the period of Roman empire became gradually enlightened on their physical body as the host of dynamic pleasure. With these backgrounds, this study highlights Jesus’ peculiar images of glutton and drunkard, seeking to reinterpret its subversive setting of life from a cultural theological perspective. Along the same line, Jesus’ parable of the great banquet and the last supper are brought into further discussion, illuminating its sensuous feature as a jouissance-oriented experience, apart from its eschatological and sacramental implications. All in all, this study aims to rediscover and reestimate the motif of banquet/festival with the common meal as a significant factor of God’s kingdom, i.e. an important legacy of Jesus’ theology, yet to be reassessed as a jouissance aspect of life. 먹고 마시는 인간의 식사행위가 개인의 동물적 식욕을 채우는 차원을 넘어 공동체의 결속과 유대란 맥락에서 이루어질 때 그것은 인간의 문화적 향유란 가치를 증진하는 데 기여한다. 이러한 향유적 가치로서의 공동식사는 히브리성서의 이면에 면면히 흘러온 전통으로 특히 전도서에 그 핵심적 의미가 뚜렷이 인각되어 나타난다. 뿐 아니라, 그레코-로마의 문화사적 맥락에서도 에피큐리안 철학을 중심으로 먹고 마시는 인간의 행위가 다양한 맥락에서 어떻게 인간의 쾌락에 기여하는지, 또 이것이 로마의 제국 시기를 거치면서 어떻게 개인의 신체적 향유와 밀접하게 결부되어 나타나는지 여일하게 확인된다. 이러한 배경에 비추어 이 연구는 예수의 하나님 나라 운동에 나타난 그의 향유 지향적 일상의 스타일에 착안하여 ‘먹보요, 술꾼, 죄인의 친구’로 낙인찍힌 내력을 전복적으로 재해석하여 기존의 관점과 다른 문화신학적 의미를 부각시키는 데 초점을 맞추었다. 이러한 맥락에서 예수의 잔치 비유와 제자들과 나눈 마지막 식사 또한 그 종말론적 구원의 완성과 성례전적 신학의 의미망을 벗어나 구체적인 음식과 식사행위, 이에 참여하는 인간의 감각적인 체험과 그 향유 지향적 동기를 집중 조명함으로써 지금까지 간과해온 예수의 신학적 유산의 한 음지를 발굴해 그의 하나님 나라 목표에 내재한 향연/축제로서의 삶이란 과제를 재평가하고자 한다.

냄새와 주이상스: 「에밀리를 위한 장미」

조애리 신영어영문학회 2020 신영어영문학 Vol.76 No.-

This paper examines smell in William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” in a new perspective by analyzing it with Jacques Lacan’s concept of jouissance. While existing criticisms have judged Emily Grierson as a character fixated on the Oedipus complex and her relationship with Homer Barron as repetition of incest with a surrogate father, this study views her not as being trapped in the Oedipus complex but as experiencing feminine jouissance represented by smell. The townspeople as a whole seek to repress this unacceptable surplus pleasure and to suture the symbolic order. While townspeople are satisfied with placing her as a “fallen woman,” a murderess, and a necrophile, Faulkner recognizes and acknowledges the heroine’s jouissance. Though he explicitly states it nowhere, he shows his acceptance of her jouissance through the restoration of a rosy bridal from the dust and, moreover, through the title of the story itself, “A Rose for Emily.” Instead of translating her psychology into language and appropriately placing it in the symbolic order, the writer as a Lacanian analyst succeeds in achieving a passage to the act made possible by his identification with feminine jouissance.

라캉의 주이상스 주체로 본 소포클레스의 <안티고네>

김숙현 ( Suk Hyun Kim ) 한국연극학회 2009 한국연극학 Vol.0 No.38

This study aims at knowing how the subject of jouissance are embodied in Antigone based on Lacan`s interpretation of Antigone. First of all, in order to explain Antigone as the subject of jouissance, the subject of drive, this paper examines into process of alienation and separation in subjectivization. The subject tries to recover alienated being through active separation, and the subject of jouissance can escape from metonymy of repetitive desire. In other words, the subject faced on the Other`s lack practices the signifying cut with passing through the fantasy. In Lacan`s innovative reading of Antigone under the relationship of unconscious and language, Lacan deconstructs Aristotle`s term, tragedy. And he emphasizes that Sophocles portrays Creon quite simply as an ordinary human being. The ordinary human error of judgment, that is hamartia, cannot provide the impetus for the kathartic effect of tragedy. Thus hamartia is applicable solely to Creon, and is not, Aristotle`s view notwithstanding, the central condition of tragedy. It is only Antigone herself who is the true heroine of the play. This paper shows that the separation of subject makes it possible for Antigone to reject as worthless all of Creon`s arguments concerning Polyneices` criminality. Antigone`s `raw` words that contradict Creon`s decree is developed in no `signifying chain`, but `nothing`. In effect her act is against community, thereby she is punished with symbolic death. Antigone unshakably pursues as she assumes her desire. Her desire is for `nothing`. This paper asserts that the word, `ate` written by Sophocles and used by Lacan continuously designates metaphor of the Real. Antigone who knows the lack of the Other goes beyond ate with traversing the fantasy instead of metonymy of repetitive desire, she becomes the subject of Jouissance. After all, Lacan shows Antigone represents the subject of Jouissance. For Lacan Antigone is an ethical subject of Psychoanalysis. At a moment `desire is made visible` Antigone herself becomes lost being, `das Ding`, and she has sublime beauty as a painful pleasure with ethical splendor and as an effect of tragedy.

아리랑의 정신분석-상실에 맞서는 애도, 우울증, 열락(jouissance)의 언어

김승희 ( Seung Hee Kim ) 국제비교한국학회 2012 비교한국학 Comparative Korean Studies Vol.20 No.2

As the lyrics of Arirang show, it is a song about the trauma of loss and deprivation. It expresses the heart-felt lament rising from deep inside when a person is deprived of something that had constituted the central foundation of their being, be it the loss of a loved one, of home or of nation, of un-representable ``Chose``. Historically, Arirang was the song of Koreans living in Diaspora, wandering through foreign lands after losing their homeland during the Japanese colonial occupation, a song of loss of home and also a song of healing. For the simple people, Arirang was a ``talking cure.`` This study considers Arirang as language with an emotive function focused on the first-person speaker, interpreting it as showing the three responses to loss found in Freud`s psychoanalytic theory: mourning, melancholy and jouissance. They are labeled at the Arirang of Mourning, the Arirang of Melancholy and the Arirang of Jouissance. This corresponds precisely with the three characteristics of the refrain at the heart of Arirang. According to Freud, both mourning and melancholy are responses to the loss of someone, but among various forms of sorrow, mourning accepts the loss of a beloved one, withdraws the previously committed libido from that engagement and redirects it toward another object or transforms it into vital energy. Mourning follows the principles of reality. On the other hand, melancholy fetishizes the loss of the other, places the ego in its place, then torments it. It makes one fall into a negative narcissism, dark masochism, aggressive urges, death urges, contradictory and ambivalent feelings etc. The Arirang of Mourning sublimates the loss of the beloved according to the cosmic laws of nature, strategically utilizing a rhetoric of two kinds of transcendence. The Arirang of Melancholy, exemplified by the New Arirang, reveals contradictory and ambivalent feelings, as in the love / aggression psychology of The lover who left me and went away / will have sore feet before he goes far, showing withdrawal into deep depression, sometimes even a death wish. The Arirang of Jouissance dispells the fear of mortality sensed in anticipations of loss through sexual hedonism, resolutely singing in praise of sexuality liberated from the gender attributed to women by Confucian ideology. Thus, returning to what came before the formation of the main agent, pre-oedipal energies are plentifully released and the delight experienced prior to loss is celebrated. In addition, Arirang expresses resistance to colonial modernity or anti-colonial longings. The way this one song`s form varies with time and place, constantly producing new versions, shows that it contains within itself a kind of modernity, capable of producing and maintaining its identity. Finally, since its origin in the past, whether the end of Goryeo (c.1392) or the time of Daewon-gun (c. 1865), passed down from mouth to mouth, the modernity which Arirang is reckoned to possess as the agent of its tenacious vitality is analyzed in 5.

칸트의 숭고 너머

남경아(Nam, Kyung-Ah) 새한철학회 2014 哲學論叢 Vol.77 No.3

라캉에게 있어 환상의 주체란 그 스스로 죽음충동을 통해 상징계 한계 너머로 도약하는 능동자이다. 라캉은 그 스스로 죽음을 불사하고 상징적 한계 속에 예속되지 않는 자유를 추구하는 환상의 주체에게서 숭고의 미를 발견한다. 라캉이 숭고의 미를 발견한 지점은 주체가 불쾌에서 전환된 쾌, 혹은 불쾌를 동반한 쾌라고 정의 가능한 “주이상스”(Jouissance) 로 진입한 상태이다. 그와 같은 라캉의 주이상스 개념은 묘하게도 우리에게 칸트 철학의 숭고미 개념을 환기시킨다. 이에 필자는 불쾌, 쾌, 부정성 그리고 불가능성 등의 관점에서 칸트의 숭고미와 라캉의 주이상스 개념 사이의 구조적 유사와 동시에 차이를 해명하고자 한다. 다시 말해, 본고는 라캉적 주체의 죽음충동과 그 이후 경험하게 되는 주이상스의 흔적을 칸트의 부정적 현시와 숭고의 경험에서 추적해보는 것을 목표로 한다. The subject of the fantasy in Lacan plays an active role to leap the Symbolic by ‘death drive’. Lacan finds the sublime in the such subject of the fantasy who is willing to head for the (symbolic) death by himself and seeks a liberty without being subject to the limitation of the Symbolic. The right point that Lacan finds the sublime is when the subject experiences the Jouissance, called the pleasure refreshed from unpleasure in its general definition. Meanwhile, the general concept of the Jouissance makes us to arouse the concept, sublime in Kant. So, I intend to explain structurally the several concepts such as unpleasure, pleasure, impossibility, negativity, and so on in this paper; those are the main concepts related to both the Kantian sublime and the Lacanian Jouissance. In summary, the main purpose of this paper is to trace the ‘death drive’ of Lacanian subject and the Jouissance under the negative presentation and the sublime in Kant.

Toward the Planetary Hospitality Beyond the Phallic Jouissance: David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly and Trying to Find Chinatown

Kim, Jiyun 한국현대영미드라마학회 2021 현대영미드라마 Vol.34 No.1

This paper delves into the ever-present issue of ‘how can a subject genuinely interact with others,’ through David Henry Hwang’s M. Butterfly (1988) and Trying to Find Chinatown (1996). Starting from the Lacanian psychoanalytic analysis on M. Butterfly, the paper investigates the tropes of phallic jouissance among different racial and cultural subjects. In the process, it is revealed that we cannot authentically communicate with others if we keep the western dichotomic perception of the world, which divides the ego and the non-ego. As the paper further explores the shift in Hwang’s identity politics within Trying to Find Chinatown, identity is disclosed as a matter of individual choice, and people are shown to be all connected within a universal network, notably in this cosmopolitan era. That is, each subject is inseparable from one another in infinite cultural hybridity and thus holds an ambiguous and mixed medley of sense of self. Thus, the paper ultimately attempts to find an ethical direction of identity politics that will allow a sincere encounter with cultural others from several gems of postcolonial theories: Gayatri Spivak’s planetarity, Sara Suleri’s radical inseparability, Homi Bhabha’s cultural hybridity, and Jacques Derrida’s absolute hospitality. Such trace of thinking begets the final imperative that we should create our distinct compound of plural identities while accepting others as part of ourselves to commune in planetary hospitality.