{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03877551020408163, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007653061224489796, 'mean_word_length': 5.387622149837133, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Eating Well, Reading Well: Maryse Condé and the Ethics of Interpretation (review)

sacrificial destruction of use, and social commitment beyond the narrow desires of the self“ (148). The second chapter, “The Atheological Text,” seeks, through a critique of recent attempts to deal with ecology and sustainability from a religious perspective, to propose a notion of postsustainability from the perspective of Bataille’s anti-religion or, as Stoekl calls it, his “counter-book.” This ecoreligion, from Bataille’s standpoint, Stoekl argues, would recognize the natural as a realm not simply autonomous from the human, nor simply subordinate to human desires and “‘needs,’ but instead as one that directly challenges the human in its deepest most characteristic practices” (178). A rethinking of religion from Bataille’s standpoint necessitates a new definition of urban space, for Bataille always considered the architecture and organization of urban space as an expression of the idea of sovereignty borrowed from religion. For this reason, Stoekl’s reading of Bataille’s religion in an age of postsustainability leads inexorably to a rethinking of the city: “when the emptiness, sovereignty, formlessness of this central point is recognized, it collapses, dissolves, and the seemingly stable conceptual and physical world erected in its name goes with it” (181). Nevertheless, the author refuses to predict a structure for the future city, citing Bataille’s own respect of the veil of ignorance that separates us fundamentally from knowledge of the future. Rather than forcing us to cower in fear, however, this ignorance should be heard as a call to “throw ourselves gaily into the future, accepting whatever happens, embracing everything, laughing at and with death” (204). In this vein, he reads Bataille’s contribution to the debate around energy as urging us toward what he calls, with Alphonso Lingis, “a community of those with nothing in common” (205).