{"id":{"repo_id":"auckland-ms","oai_identifier":"oai:researchspace.auckland.ac.nz:2292/324"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/auckland-ms/oai:researchspace.auckland.ac.nz:2292/324","repository":{"repo_id":"auckland-ms","name":"University of Auckland","base_url":"https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Kristeva’s Social Theory: A Lacanian Critique for Education","abstract":"This research aims to provide a symptomatic reading of the work of Julia Kristeva. A symptomatic reading is one that constructs the problematic or the unsaid of the text. As a symptomatic reader, I attempt to occupy a position within a theoretical discourse that interrogates the texts by Kristeva and those that surround her work. In doing so, my aim is to make visible the suppressed and excluded discourses within Kristevan theory and which have enabled that theory to make sense in particular ways. The specific systems of meaning in Kristeva’s work that I will interrogate coalesce around her theory of the semiotic and the symbolic, which is presented as a revolutionary theory of subjectivity in relation to the social. Kristeva’s theory will be critically examined in terms of how it is formulated in relation to the theories of Althusser, Hegel and Lacan. Each chapter aims to displace an accepted or dominant interpretation by Kristeva and also by her readers. In reconstructing the problematic that is concealed in Kristeva’s work, I will explore how her theory maintains an Althusserian approach to social theory, and how this underlies her critique of Hegel and Lacan. In the final chapters on Lacan, my argument is that Kristeva’s critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis is inherently flawed and that this, therefore, leads her psychoanalytic work into ethically difficult areas. In the last chapter, on education and transference, I will show how certain educational applications of Kristevan psychoanalysis culminate in the very same ethical problems. These ethical difficulties, I will argue, are avoided by Lacanian psychoanalysis and, therefore, by its application to education.","abstract_html":"This research aims to provide a symptomatic reading of the work of Julia Kristeva. A symptomatic reading is one that constructs the problematic or the unsaid of the text. As a symptomatic reader, I attempt to occupy a position within a theoretical discourse that interrogates the texts by Kristeva and those that surround her work. In doing so, my aim is to make visible the suppressed and excluded discourses within Kristevan theory and which have enabled that theory to make sense in particular ways. The specific systems of meaning in Kristeva’s work that I will interrogate coalesce around her theory of the semiotic and the symbolic, which is presented as a revolutionary theory of subjectivity in relation to the social. Kristeva’s theory will be critically examined in terms of how it is formulated in relation to the theories of Althusser, Hegel and Lacan. Each chapter aims to displace an accepted or dominant interpretation by Kristeva and also by her readers. In reconstructing the problematic that is concealed in Kristeva’s work, I will explore how her theory maintains an Althusserian approach to social theory, and how this underlies her critique of Hegel and Lacan. In the final chapters on Lacan, my argument is that Kristeva’s critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis is inherently flawed and that this, therefore, leads her psychoanalytic work into ethically difficult areas. In the last chapter, on education and transference, I will show how certain educational applications of Kristevan psychoanalysis culminate in the very same ethical problems. These ethical difficulties, I will argue, are avoided by Lacanian psychoanalysis and, therefore, by its application to education.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Holmes, Lucille Anne"],"institution":"ResearchSpace@Auckland","degree_name":"PhD","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":"Education","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Stephen Appel","Michael Peters"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2003,"date_issued":"2003","date_published":"2003","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:06:48Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated."],"rights_urls":["https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/2292/324","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Stephen Appel","Michael Peters"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Holmes, Lucille Anne"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2007-01-22T01:20:27Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2007-01-22T01:20:27Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2003"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["ResearchSpace@Auckland"]},{"key":"dc:relation.isreferencedby","label":"Dc Relation Isreferencedby","values":["UoA1178098"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Education"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["PhD"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["The University of Auckland"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated."]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/2292/324"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This research aims to provide a symptomatic reading of the work of Julia Kristeva. A symptomatic reading is one that constructs the problematic or the unsaid of the text. As a symptomatic reader, I attempt to occupy a position within a theoretical discourse that interrogates the texts by Kristeva and those that surround her work. In doing so, my aim is to make visible the suppressed and excluded discourses within Kristevan theory and which have enabled that theory to make sense in particular ways. The specific systems of meaning in Kristeva’s work that I will interrogate coalesce around her theory of the semiotic and the symbolic, which is presented as a revolutionary theory of subjectivity in relation to the social. Kristeva’s theory will be critically examined in terms of how it is formulated in relation to the theories of Althusser, Hegel and Lacan. Each chapter aims to displace an accepted or dominant interpretation by Kristeva and also by her readers. In reconstructing the problematic that is concealed in Kristeva’s work, I will explore how her theory maintains an Althusserian approach to social theory, and how this underlies her critique of Hegel and Lacan. In the final chapters on Lacan, my argument is that Kristeva’s critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis is inherently flawed and that this, therefore, leads her psychoanalytic work into ethically difficult areas. In the last chapter, on education and transference, I will show how certain educational applications of Kristevan psychoanalysis culminate in the very same ethical problems. These ethical difficulties, I will argue, are avoided by Lacanian psychoanalysis and, therefore, by its application to education."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["Scanned from print thesis"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Kristeva’s Social Theory: A Lacanian Critique for Education"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Stephen Appel","Michael Peters"],"dc:creator":["Holmes, Lucille Anne"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2007-01-22T01:20:27Z"],"dc:date.available":["2007-01-22T01:20:27Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2003"],"dc:description.abstract":["This research aims to provide a symptomatic reading of the work of Julia Kristeva. A symptomatic reading is one that constructs the problematic or the unsaid of the text. As a symptomatic reader, I attempt to occupy a position within a theoretical discourse that interrogates the texts by Kristeva and those that surround her work. In doing so, my aim is to make visible the suppressed and excluded discourses within Kristevan theory and which have enabled that theory to make sense in particular ways. The specific systems of meaning in Kristeva’s work that I will interrogate coalesce around her theory of the semiotic and the symbolic, which is presented as a revolutionary theory of subjectivity in relation to the social. Kristeva’s theory will be critically examined in terms of how it is formulated in relation to the theories of Althusser, Hegel and Lacan. Each chapter aims to displace an accepted or dominant interpretation by Kristeva and also by her readers. In reconstructing the problematic that is concealed in Kristeva’s work, I will explore how her theory maintains an Althusserian approach to social theory, and how this underlies her critique of Hegel and Lacan. In the final chapters on Lacan, my argument is that Kristeva’s critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis is inherently flawed and that this, therefore, leads her psychoanalytic work into ethically difficult areas. In the last chapter, on education and transference, I will show how certain educational applications of Kristevan psychoanalysis culminate in the very same ethical problems. These ethical difficulties, I will argue, are avoided by Lacanian psychoanalysis and, therefore, by its application to education."],"dc:format":["Scanned from print thesis"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/2292/324"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["ResearchSpace@Auckland"],"dc:relation.isreferencedby":["UoA1178098"],"dc:rights":["Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated."],"dc:rights.uri":["https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm"],"dc:title":["Kristeva’s Social Theory: A Lacanian Critique for Education"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Education"],"thesis:degree_level":["Doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["PhD"],"thesis:institution_name":["The University of Auckland"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:06:48Z"}