Cohen Quotes

[1] “the monstrum is etymologically "that which reveals," "that which warns," a glyph that seeks a hierophant. Like a letter on the page, the monster signifies something other than itself: it is always a displacement, always inhabits the gap between the time of upheaval that created it and the moment into which it is received, to be born again. These epistemological spaces between the monster's bones are Derrida's familiar chasm of differance: a genetic uncertainty principle, the essence of the monster's vitality, the reason it always rises from the dissection table as its secrets are about to be revealed and vanishes into the night.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 4

• 1

  Comparing the monster to a letter on a page, Cohen elucidates that its significance lies not in its physical form but in the message it conveys. Just as a letter conveys meaning beyond its literal representation, the monster signifies something other than itself. It serves as a displacement, inhabiting the gap between the time of its creation and the moment it is encountered, perpetually reborn in the consciousness of those who behold it.

• 2

  Derrida's concept of "differance": This term encapsulates the idea of inherent linguistic and conceptual gaps, where meaning is both deferred and deferred. Similarly, the monster thrives in these gaps, embodying a genetic uncertainty principle where its vitality stems from the ambiguity surrounding its existence.

• 3

  The metaphor of the monster rising from the dissection table just as its secrets are about to be revealed is particularly striking. It emphasizes the inherent elusiveness of the monstrous, as it vanishes into the night, evading full comprehension. This imagery highlights the perpetual cycle of discovery and concealment surrounding the monster, perpetuating its mystique and allure.

[3] “the monster itself turns immaterial and vanishes, to reappear someplace else” Cohen, Monster Theory, 4

• 1

  Monsters, by their very nature, defy easy categorization and containment. They inhabit the liminal spaces between reality and imagination, materiality and immateriality. Just when one believes they have confronted or conquered the monster, it slips through their grasp, vanishing into the shadows, only to resurface elsewhere.

• 2

  This dynamic underscores the perpetual cycle of fear and fascination that surrounds the monstrous. It feeds into our primal instincts, and keeps us at the brink, the point of edging.

[4] "Monster theory must therefore concern itself with strings of cultural moments, connected by a logic that always threatens to shift". Cohen, Monster Theory, 6

• 1

  Monsters exist as part of a continuum, woven into the fabric of human experience across time and space. By tracing these "strings of cultural moments," monster theory seeks to uncover the recurring motifs, themes, and archetypes that shape our understanding of the monstrous.

• 2

  Just as monsters are shaped by the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which they emerge, they also exert influence on these contexts, shaping narratives, beliefs, and ideologies. Monster theory thus recognizes the intricate web of influences that shape our perceptions of the monstrous, from ancient myths and folklore to contemporary literature, film, and digital media.

• 3

  The notion that the logic connecting these cultural moments "always threatens to shift" speaks to the inherent instability and fluidity of the monstrous. Cultural attitudes, beliefs, and values are constantly in flux, shaped by changing social, political, and technological forces. As a result, our understanding of what constitutes a monster, and the meanings we ascribe to it, are subject to constant reinterpretation and revision.

[5] “invigorated by change and escape, by the impossibility of achieving what Susan Stewart calls the desired "fall or death, the stopping" of its gigantic subject, monstrous interpretation is as much process as epiphany.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 6

• 1

  "The desired 'fall or death, the stopping' of its gigantic subject" refers to the yearning for a definitive conclusion or resolution when interpreting the monstrous. Susan Stewart highlights this desire for closure, for the monstrous to be pinned down or contained within a fixed meaning. However, the phrase "the desired 'fall or death'" suggests that this resolution remains elusive, akin to capturing a giant that continually slips away. The "stopping" implies a cessation of movement or change, a moment of finality that remains perpetually out of reach when dealing with the monstrous. This quote underscores the tension between the desire for clarity and the inherent ambiguity and dynamism of the monstrous subject.

• 2

  The idea that monstrous interpretation is "as much process as epiphany" emphasizes that understanding the monstrous is not a single moment of revelation or enlightenment, but an ongoing and dynamic journey. It is a continuous process of engagement and exploration, marked by moments of insight and understanding, but also by uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity.

• 3

  "The giant is represented through movement, through being in time. Even in the ascription of the still landscape to the giant, it is the activities of the giant, his or her legendary actions, that have resulted in the observable trace. In contrast to the still and perfect universe of the miniature, the gigantic represents the order and disorder of historical forces." Susan Stewart, On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984). 86.
  
  [Footnote from Monster Theory]

[6] “And so the monster is dangerous, a form suspended between forms that threatens to smash distinctions.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 6

• 1

  The notion that the monster "threatens to smash distinctions" speaks to its subversive power to blur the lines between binaries such as good and evil, human and non-human, natural and supernatural. In doing so, the monster disrupts established hierarchies and challenges prevailing systems of classification.

• 2

  The danger posed by the monster lies not only in its physical threat or capacity for violence but also in its ability to unsettle and destabilize our understanding of the world. By embodying the liminal spaces between categories, the monster exposes the constructed nature of these distinctions, revealing them to be arbitrary and contingent.

• 3

  The danger of the monster extends beyond its immediate impact to encompass broader social and cultural implications. By smashing distinctions, the monster opens up possibilities for new modes of being and understanding, disrupting ossified ways of thinking and inviting alternative perspectives.

[7] “This refusal to participate in the classificatory "order of things" is true of monsters generally: they are disturbing hybrids whose externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 6

• 1

  Monsters, as Cohen suggests, are disturbing hybrids, embodying a fusion of disparate elements that defy easy categorization. Their externally incoherent bodies resist attempts to neatly slot them into predefined boxes or systems of classification. This resistance stems from the very nature of monsters as liminal beings, existing on the margins of what is considered normal or acceptable.

• 2

  The refusal of monsters to conform to systematic structuration speaks to their subversive power to unsettle and disrupt established norms and boundaries. By existing outside of conventional categories, monsters challenge the legitimacy of the structures that seek to define and control them. They expose the limitations of human understanding and the arbitrary nature of social and cultural distinctions.

• 3

  The refusal of monsters to be neatly classified reflects the fluidity and complexity of identity itself. Just as monsters resist rigid categorization, so too do human beings defy simple classification into fixed identities or categories. In this sense, monsters serve as a metaphor for the inherent messiness and ambiguity of the human condition.

[8] “A mixed category, the monster resists any classification built on hierarchy or a merely binary opposition, demanding a "system instead" allowing polyphony, mixed response (difference in sameness, repulsion in attraction).” Cohen, Monster Theory, 7

• 1

  Unlike entities that neatly fit into predefined categories, monsters exist in a liminal space that defies easy categorization. They embody a mixture of characteristics that defy traditional classification systems, challenging the very foundations of hierarchical thinking.

• 2

  Monsters may evoke both fear and fascination, repulsion and attraction, simultaneously. This duality of response reflects the complexity of human emotions and the ways in which monsters elicit a range of reactions from different individuals and cultures.

• 3

  Moreover, the insistence on polyphony and mixed responses challenges us to question the validity of hierarchical thinking and the power dynamics it perpetuates. By embracing difference within sameness and acknowledging the coexistence of seemingly contradictory elements, monsters challenge us to confront our own biases and assumptions about the world.

[9] “The monster is difference made flesh, come to dwell among us. In its function as dialectical Other or third-term supplement, the monster is an incorporation of the Outside, the Beyond—of all those loci that are rhetorically placed as distant and distinct but originate Within.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 7

• 1

  The monster, according to this view, embodies the essence of difference, emerging as a tangible manifestation of the unfamiliar and the otherworldly within the familiar confines of human experience. It serves as a conduit for exploring the boundaries between the known and the unknown, the self and the other.

• 2

  Cohen posits that the monster functions as a dialectical Other or a third-term supplement. In this role, it incorporates elements from the outside realms, the realms perceived as distant and distinct from our own. Yet, crucially, these elements originate from within—the very fabric of human consciousness and society. By embodying these externalities, the monster challenges our preconceived notions of identity, normalcy, and belonging.

• 3

  This perspective invites us to consider the monster not merely as a creature of fright or fantasy but as a symbolic construct that reflects deeper societal anxieties and existential uncertainties. Through its existence, the monster prompts us to confront the inherent complexities of human existence and the ever-shifting boundaries between the known and the unknown, the self and the other.

[11] “Representing an anterior culture as monstrous justifies its displacement or extermination by rendering the act heroic. In medieval France the chansons de geste celebrated the crusades by transforming Muslims into demonic caricatures whose menacing lack of humanity was readable from their bestial attributes; by culturally glossing "Saracens" as "monstra," propagandists rendered rhetorically admissible the annexation of the East by the West.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 8

• 1

  By portraying these cultures as monstrous, they are not only dehumanized but also stripped of their inherent worth and dignity. This dehumanization paves the way for their displacement or extermination, often framed as heroic endeavors.

• 2

  In medieval France, for instance, the chansons de geste, epic poems celebrating heroic deeds, served as potent tools for propagandists. They transformed Muslims, the perceived adversaries during the Crusades, into demonic caricatures, replete with bestial attributes and lacking in humanity. By culturally depicting "Saracens" as "monstra," these propagandists made their conquest and annexation by the West rhetorically admissible. The monstrous portrayal justified the violent expansion of Western powers into the East, framing it as a noble crusade against evil.

• 3

  This phenomenon illustrates how the construction of monsters extends beyond the realm of folklore and mythology to serve political and ideological agendas. By labeling certain groups or cultures as monstrous, societies manipulate perceptions, rallying support for their agendas while vilifying the "other." It underscores the power dynamics inherent in the representation of monstrosity and highlights the dangerous consequences of dehumanizing narratives in shaping historical and contemporary conflicts.

[12] “One kind of difference becomes another as the normative categories of gender, sexuality, national identity, and ethnicity slide together like the imbricated circles of a Venn diagram, abjecting from the center that which becomes the monster. This violent foreclosure erects a self-validating, Hegelian master/slave dialectic that naturalizes the subjugation of one cultural body by another by writing the body excluded from personhood and agency as in every way different, monstrous. A polysemy is granted so that a greater threat can be encoded; multiplicity of meanings, paradoxically, iterates the same restricting, agitprop representations that narrowed signification performs.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 11

• 1

  By writing off the excluded body as inherently different and monstrous, the dominant culture naturalizes its own superiority and justifies the subjugation of the marginalized. This process grants a polysemy—a multiplicity of meanings—to the concept of monstrosity, allowing for the encoding of greater threats. Paradoxically, however, this multiplicity only serves to reinforce the same restrictive representations, narrowing the scope of acceptable identities and perpetuating oppressive power structures.

• 2

  As these categories merge and shift, certain individuals or groups are abjected from the center, relegated to the periphery as monstrous figures. This process of violent exclusion constructs a self-validating dialectic, akin to Hegel's master/slave dynamic, where one cultural body asserts dominance over another by dehumanizing and othering it.

• 3

  In this context, "abject" refers to the process of being cast out or excluded from the normative center of society. When individuals or groups are abjected, they are marginalized and pushed to the periphery, considered outside the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable or normal within a given cultural context. This exclusion often involves dehumanization and othering, where the abjected individuals or groups are depicted as inferior, monstrous, or fundamentally different from the dominant culture. The act of abjection serves to reinforce power dynamics, with the dominant culture asserting its superiority and maintaining control over the marginalized.

[13] “By revealing that difference is arbitrary and potentially free-floating, mutable rather than essential, the monster threatens to destroy not just individual members of a society, but the very cultural apparatus through which individuality is constituted and allowed. Because it is a body across which difference has been repeatedly written, the monster (like Frankenstein's creature, that combination of odd somatic pieces stitched together from a community of cadavers) seeks out its author to demand its raison d'etre—and to bear witness to the fact that it could have been constructed Otherwise.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 12

• 1

  The monster, by its very existence, challenges the established order of society by demonstrating that differences are not inherent or fixed but rather constructed and mutable.

• 2

  Through examples like Frankenstein's creature, which is composed of various body parts stitched together, the text illustrates how the monster embodies a multitude of identities and experiences. This amalgamation of difference disrupts the traditional boundaries of identity, revealing the constructed nature of cultural categories such as race, gender, and nationality.

• 3

  The monster's quest for its raison d'etre, its reason for existence, symbolizes a demand for recognition and acknowledgment from society. By seeking out its author, the monster confronts the forces that shaped it and questions the validity of its own creation. This act serves as a powerful metaphor for marginalized individuals or groups demanding agency and autonomy within a society that seeks to define them as "other."

[14] “the monster of prohibition polices the borders of the possible, interdicting through its grotesque body some behaviors and actions, envaluing others.” 14

• 1

  The "monster of prohibition" embodies the societal taboos and restrictions that define the boundaries of acceptable conduct. Its grotesque body represents the physical manifestation of these prohibitions, serving as a visual reminder of the consequences of transgression.

• 2

  The monster of prohibition plays a role in maintaining social order by policing the borders of the possible, delineating the limits of acceptable behavior within a given society. Its existence serves as a deterrent to deviance and nonconformity, ensuring adherence to established norms and preventing the disruption of societal stability.

• 3

  Through its presence, the monster enforces these boundaries by interdicting certain behaviors and actions, effectively limiting the scope of individual freedom and expression. By deeming certain actions as forbidden or taboo, the monster contributes to the evaluation of specific behaviors, reinforcing the dominant cultural norms and values.

[15] “As a vehicle of prohibition, the monster most often arises to enforce the laws of exogamy, both the incest taboo (which establishes a traffic in women by mandating that they marry outside their families) and the decrees against interracial sexual mingling (which limit the parameters of that traffic by policing the boundaries of culture, usually in the service of some notion of group "purity").” Cohen, Monster Theory, 15

• 1

  The monster serves as a powerful symbol of prohibition, enforcing societal norms and regulations related to sexual and marital behavior. Its emergence reflects the cultural anxieties surrounding issues of exogamy and interracial relationships, highlighting the complexities and tensions inherent in regulating human desire and social boundaries.

• 2

  The monster is associated with the incest taboo, which prohibits sexual relations between closely related individuals within the same family. By enforcing the incest taboo, the monster contributes to the establishment of exogamous practices, ensuring that individuals marry outside their families. This regulation of familial relationships serves to maintain social cohesion and prevent the potential disruptions caused by incestuous unions.

• 3

  But by the same vein, the monster is invoked to uphold decrees against interracial sexual mingling. These laws aim to police the boundaries of culture and preserve notions of group "purity" by restricting romantic and sexual interactions between individuals from different racial or ethnic backgrounds. By deineating what is pure and dirty through social as opposed to biological means, that which is outside the human becomes corrupt and expanded

[16] “The monster is continually linked to forbidden practices, in order to normalize and to enforce. The monster also attracts.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 17

• 1

  Despite its role in enforcing societal norms, the monster also possesses a magnetic allure that captivates and intrigues. Its abnormality, grotesqueness, or defiance of conventional standards can elicit curiosity and fascination in observers. This fascination with the monstrous can manifest in various forms, ranging from morbid curiosity to genuine admiration for its perceived uniqueness or power.

• 2

  The monster's ability to attract is often intertwined with its capacity for subversion and challenge to the status quo. By embodying forbidden practices or marginalized identities, the monster may offer alternative perspectives or critiques of dominant cultural norms, thereby challenging the existing social order and inviting reevaluation of prevailing attitudes and beliefs.

• 3

  Cohen suggests that the monster's dual nature—as both a symbol of prohibition and an object of attraction—reflects the complex dynamics of societal norms and human psychology. Its presence serves not only to reinforce boundaries and norms but also to provoke contemplation and exploration of the taboo, inviting individuals to confront their fears, desires, and perceptions of otherness.

[17] “We distrust and loathe the monster at the same time we envy its freedom, and perhaps its sublime despair.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 17

• 1

  On one hand, the monster is often viewed with suspicion and fear due to its deviation from societal norms and its association with the unknown or forbidden. Its grotesque appearance, aberrant behavior, or transgressive nature can provoke feelings of discomfort and revulsion among observers. Additionally, the monster may embody societal anxieties or serve as a symbol of collective fears, eliciting feelings of unease or apprehension about the unknown or the Other.

• 2

  The monster's existential despair, stemming from its alienation or rejection by society, may evoke a sense of poignancy or sympathy among observers. Its tragic plight, characterized by loneliness, isolation, or existential angst, can resonate with individuals who themselves grapple with feelings of alienation or disillusionment.

• 3

  Cohen suggests that the ambivalent emotions surrounding the monster—combining fear and loathing with envy and sympathy—reflect the complex interplay between societal norms, individual identity, and the human psyche. The monster serves as a mirror through which society confronts its deepest fears and desires, while also prompting reflection on the nature of humanity, morality, and existential meaning.

[18] “This corporal fluidity, this simultaneity of anxiety and desire, ensures that the monster will always dangerously entice.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 18

• 1

  Corporal fluidity refers to the ability of the monster to embody multiple, often conflicting, aspects within its physical form. It is characterized by a fluidity of identity, wherein the monster can assume different shapes, forms, or meanings depending on the perspective of the observer or the cultural context in which it appears. This fluidity allows the monster to elude easy categorization or containment, challenging traditional notions of stability and fixity.

• 2

  The monster becomes a site of both anxiety and desire for human observers. On one hand, its grotesque or aberrant appearance may provoke feelings of fear, revulsion, or discomfort, stemming from societal norms or individual prejudices. The monster's uncanny ability to blur the boundaries between familiar and unfamiliar, human and non-human, can trigger deep-seated anxieties about the unknown or the Other, prompting a defensive reaction against perceived threats to established order or identity.

• 3

  On the other hand, the monster also possesses an inherent allure or fascination that draws individuals towards it, despite—or perhaps because of—its perceived monstrosity. This attraction is rooted in the monster's ability to embody taboo desires, forbidden knowledge, or repressed aspects of the human psyche. By confronting and embodying that which is considered taboo or forbidden within society, the monster becomes a symbol of liberation, transgression, or primal instinct, tapping into deep-seated desires for freedom, power, or self-expression.

[19] “A product of a multitude of morphogeneses (ranging from somatic to ethnic) that align themselves to imbue meaning to the Us and Them behind every cultural mode of seeing, the monster of abjection resides in that marginal geography of the Exterior, beyond the limits of the Thinkable, a place that is doubly dangerous: simultaneously "exorbitant" and "quite close." ” Cohen, Monster Theory, 20

• 1

  The concept of abjection refers to the state of being cast out or relegated to a position of marginality and exclusion. The monster of abjection embodies this state, existing in the liminal space beyond the boundaries of the Thinkable—the realm of accepted norms, values, and identities. This marginal geography of the Exterior is characterized by its dual nature, being both "exorbitant" in its deviation from established norms and "quite close" in its proximity to the familiar and the known.

• 2

  Within cultural modes of seeing, the monster of abjection serves as a symbolic representation of that which is deemed unacceptable or repugnant within a given society. It embodies qualities or characteristics that challenge the boundaries of social order and cultural coherence, prompting feelings of fear, disgust, or revulsion among those who encounter it. By existing on the outskirts of the acceptable and the familiar, the monster of abjection highlights the fragility of social boundaries and the potential for rupture or destabilization within cultural systems.

• 3

  The marginality of the monster of abjection also carries with it a sense of danger and threat, as it occupies a liminal space that lies beyond the realm of the known and the comprehensible. Its presence serves as a reminder of the porousness of social boundaries and the constant possibility of contamination or invasion from the outside. In this way, the monster of abjection embodies the anxieties and uncertainties that accompany encounters with the unfamiliar or the Other, prompting individuals to confront their deepest fears and insecurities about identity, difference, and belonging.

[20] “ "This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine." Monsters are our children. They can be pushed to the farthest margins of geography and discourse, hidden away at the edges of the world and in the forbidden recesses of our mind, but they always return. And when they come back, they bring not just a fuller knowledge of our place in history and the history of knowing our place, but they bear self knowledge, human knowledge—and a discourse all the more sacred as it arises from the Outside. These monsters ask us how we perceive the world, and how we have misrepresented what we have attempted to place. They ask us to reevaluate our cultural assumptions about race, gender, sexuality, our perception of difference, our tolerance toward its expression. They ask us why we have created them.” Cohen, Monster Theory, 20

• 1

  Monsters, in Cohen's view, are "our children," born out of the depths of our collective psyche and cultural imagination. They serve as mirrors, reflecting back to us our deepest fears, desires, and prejudices. By confronting these monstrous figures, we are forced to reckon with the ways in which we construct and perceive the world around us, as well as the systems of power and oppression that underpin our social order.

• 2

  Monsters compel us to reevaluate our cultural assumptions and prejudices, particularly regarding race, gender, and sexuality. They confront us with the uncomfortable truth that our understanding of difference is often distorted or misrepresentative, rooted in fear and ignorance rather than empathy and understanding.

• 3

  Ultimately, monsters challenge us to interrogate the narratives we construct about ourselves and the world, prompting us to question why we create and perpetuate these monstrous figures in the first place. In doing so, they invite us to embark on a journey of self-discovery and cultural critique, fostering a deeper understanding of ourselves and the societies in which we live.