Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:49:40.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Logic of Emotionality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Katrin Pahl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

I would like to suggest that we use the term emotionality instead of emotions. this will avoid the taxonomic impulse at work when we take specific emotions and name them as objects of our inquiries. These taxonomies render emotions more stable than they are and create a hierarchy of the most talked-about or salient emotions (like melancholy, for queer studies, or fear, for political theory). More abstract than emotions, the term emotionality can take on the quality of a name and thus allow us to think together with emotionality the way one may think something through with another person. This essay will define emotionality as minimally as possible so that its particulars are allowed to shift and change.

Information

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 130 , Issue 5: Special Topic: Emotions , October 2015, pp. 1457 - 1466
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2015

References

Works Cited

Allemann, Beda. Heinrich von Kleist: Ein dramaturgisches Modell. Ed. Oehlenschläger, Eckart. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2005. Print.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Die Phänomenologie des Geistes. Ed. Wessels, Hans-Friedrich and Clairmont, Heinrich. Hamburg: Meiner, 1988. Print.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. Terry Pinkard. Phenomenology of Spirit Page. N.p., 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 2 Feb. 2014.Google Scholar
Kleist, Heinrich von. Amphitryon. Ed. Reuß, Roland and Staengle, Peter. Frankfurt: Stroemfeld; Roter Stern, 1991. Print. Vol. 1, bk. 4 of Berliner Kleist-Ausgabe.Google Scholar
Kleist, Heinrich von Amphitryon. Selected Writings. Ed. and trans. Constantine, David. London: Dent, 1997. 66–134. Print.Google Scholar
Kleist, Heinrich von Prinz Friedrich von Homburg. Ed. Reuß, Roland and Staengle, Peter. Frankfurt: Stroemfeld; Roter Stern, 2006. Print. Vol. 1, bk. 8 of Brandenburger Kleist-Ausgabe.Google Scholar
Klotz, Volker. “Kleists extremes Theater.” Radikaldramatik: Szenische Vor-Avantgarde von Holberg zu Nestroy, von Kleist zu Grabbe. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2010. 63–121. Print.Google Scholar
Mieszkowski, Jan. “Who's Afraid of Anacoluthon?” MLN 123.4 (2009): 648–65. Print.Google Scholar
Ngai, Sianne. Ugly Feelings. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005. Print.Google Scholar
Pahl, Katrin. “Doublings and Couplings: The Feeling Thing in Valéry and Kleist.” Zeitschrift für Medien-und Kulturforschung 1 (2011): 177–84. Print.Google Scholar
Pahl, Katrin “Forging Feeling: Kleist's Theatrical Theory of Re-layed Emotionality.” MLN 124.3 (2009): 666–82. Print.Google Scholar
Pahl, Katrin Tropes of Transport: Hegel and Emotion. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 2012. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, Katrin “What a Mess.” MLN 130.3 (2015): 528–53. Print.Google Scholar
Pinkard, Terry P. Hegel: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Richter, Simon. Missing the Breast: Gender, Fantasy, and the Body in the German Enlightenment. Seattle: U of Washington P, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; or, You're So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Essay Is about You.” Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham: Duke UP, 2003. 123–51. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar