The Egalitarian Sublime
The book answers the question: Can the sublime be egalitarian? It gives critical studies of the main historical theories of the sublime, from Longinus, Burke, Kant, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, as well as recent secondary literature. There are also reactions to contemporary positions, from Žižek, Lyotard, Kristeva and Adorno. It is argued that the sublime has always had consequences counter to equality. In response to this, the book defends an anarchist theory of the sublime, where anarchism is part of a radical commitment to democracy and multiplicity. The book develops a new method, inspired by microhistory and by the process philosophy of signs, from my earlier book A Process Philosophy of Signs. Diagrams of the effects of definitions of the sublime are central to this method. The definition of egalitarian is made in relation to Balibar and to Rancière. This definition leads to a rejection of the technological and environmental sublimes on the basis of their failure to be egalitarian.