3.8 Article

Williams and Cusk on Technologies of the Self

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11245-023-09976-5

Keywords

Bernard Williams; Rachel Cusk; Moral development; Moral point of view; Authenticity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The rejection of a characterless moral self and the exploration of developing an authentic moral point of view in the context of contemporary living are the central themes of Bernard Williams' philosophy. The author extends this discussion by examining Rachel Cusk's works, shedding light on the concept of self and authenticity, and exploring alternative approaches to constituting oneself outside traditional narrative structures.
The rejection of a characterless moral self is central to some of Bernard Williams' most important contributions to philosophy. By the time of Truth and Truthfulness, he works instead with a model of the self constituted and stabilized out of more primitive materials through deliberation and in concert with others that takes inspiration from Diderot. Although this view of the self raises some difficult questions, it serves as a useful starting point for thinking about the process of developing an authentic moral point of view in the context of contemporary living. In what follows, I begin to fill out and extend this picture of the self and its related notion of authenticity by exploring some of the technologies of the self at play in Rachel Cusk's recent work (primarily, the Outline trilogy, Coventry, Second Place, and The Stuntman) that ask us to rethink the possibility and importance of stability; seek a way of constituting oneself and one's values outside the confining structures of traditional narrative (focusing instead on a framework that might be provided by the visual arts); and give a different role to the sort of internalized other Williams sees as being at work in the mechanisms of shame.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available