Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Ethics of objectification in loving the other.||Authors:||Lye, Wai Leng.||Keywords:||DRNTU::Humanities::Literature::English||Issue Date:||2013||Abstract:||The above quote by Brian Treanor, addresses the hostile relationship otherness shares with grand narratives, which by definition seeks to explain everything. It can thus be seen as a form of domination, as it insists on appropriating everything in order to fit into its system of knowledge. Otherness, on the other hand, challenges the authority of grand narratives as its very nature defies any attempts to be understood and subjected into the body of knowledge that underlies power relations. Otherness has been conceived in two ways. On the one hand, the conventional understanding of otherness conceives of otherness as relative. Borrowing Treanor’s explanation, relative “otherness is thought in juxtaposition to, or in terms of, the same; otherness is other-than-the-same” (Treanor 4). There is only one term of value in this relationship – the “same” – against which the other term “other” is defined negatively. This relationship has been criticised for not respecting the nature of otherness, which lies in its very difference (Treanor 5). This difference does not stem from the other’s relation to the same, rather, the other is thought of as having an intrinsic and absolute difference.||URI:||http://hdl.handle.net/10356/52226||Rights:||Nanyang Technological University||Fulltext Permission:||restricted||Fulltext Availability:||With Fulltext|
|Appears in Collections:||HSS Student Reports (FYP/IA/PA/PI)|
Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.