"Television": Lacan on the unconscious.
The vogue of Lacan, which in my country is largely restricted to feminist academics harboring a radical agenda, is instructive on grounds that I will set forth after some necessary general exposition.
Whereas Freud went through an elaborate charade of having derived his gindings from sober clincial work, Lacan made no such hypocritical bow toward empiricism. His doctrine was manifestly a recasting of Frued's own to achieve ideological consistency. He wanted to excise the socially conformist, "bourgeois" component of psychoanalysis, leving only a drastic picture of how children's personalities are warped by pressures that force them into predestined complexes. Lacan's conceptual innovation - an unconscious that is "structured like a language," the intimidating "Name-of-the-Father," the progression from a "mirror stage" to "the symbolic" to "the real," and so forth - were all dogmas bearing no connection with independent research. In this sense Lacan was indeed more Freudian than Freud: he dispensed with the pretense of scientific accountability.
The stages of childhood transformaton were no less fixed in Lacan's system than in Freud's. Moreover, Lacan actually outdid Freud's notorious male-centeredness, devoting nearly all of his attention to the psychologically bombarded little boy. The latter allegedly suffers a "linguistic" version of the Freudian castration complex, and he is permanently haunted by a loss of oneness with his mother and by the specter of female "lack" in general.
Ironically, however, it is just this gender asymmetry that explains Lacan's attractiveness to some feminists. He is embraced as a theorist of patriarchal oppression, a phenomenon that is thought to result from men's panic over separation from an undifferentiated female matrix. Lacan knew so little about women that he could think of them only as a principle in the mental economy of the other sex. As such, however, they were sympathetically reconceived as voiceless, helpless objects of persecution. And that image has suited the purposes of radical feminists who are themselves far from voiceless or helpless. If they really sought gender equality, they would be mortified by Lacan's deection of female incapacity. Instead, they seek a total expose of the fearfully aggressive male psyche, and Lacan provides an avenue, however chimerical, to that end. So strong is his doctrinal charm in this regard that the egregious sexism of his personal behaviour is left entirely out of account.
Few of Lacan's disciples have cared that he himself was at best a pseudo-egalitarian who had no revolutionary prescriptions in mind. He thrived within a conservative dispensation that allowed him to behave like a little emperor or pope, surrounding himself with flatterers, excommunicating doubters, and issuing edicts with an air of sublime infallibility. One must wonder, inevitably, whether this side of Lacan goes unrebuked because it speaks to a comparable strain of authoritarianism in his admirers.
You have asked whether there is anything truely Freudian about Lacan's version of a psyche wholly "determined by social conditions and expectations." But Freud's more biologistic conception, so different in appearance from Lacan's obscurantist recourse to the once fashionable linguistics of Saussure, already contained that potentiality. To be sure, Freud emphasized allegedly universal as opposed to culturally unique features of social control over impulse. In doing so, he engaged in "armchair anthropology" of an aprioristic kind that everyone now considers unacceptable. Yet Freud and Lacan, who was himself no student of diverse practices of socialization, occupy a continuum of emphasis on the forcible, often pathogenic thwarting of the wishes that children bring into the world.
All that Lacan did, one might say, was to highlight a half-hidden strain of rebellion in Freud's thoughts that was already seductive to Freudo-Marxists in the 1930s and that still speaks to their remnant (such as Eli Zaretsky) today. The root idea is this. If we conceive of humans, in their essential being, as presocial creatures who learn to "behave themselves" only through traumatic crises in childhood, then the prospect arises of improving "human nature" by overturning or at least modifying the adult value system.
Channel: Howto & Style
Uploaded: November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am
Author: Evolverman
Length: 07:14
Rating: 4.54
Views: 46073
Tags: anatomy Body ego id Lacan linguistics philosophy psychoanalysis reality Soul Televisiontranslation Thought Unconscious
Video Comments
|
omegastrange (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hi, if you are new to lacan, you should know that his idea of soul is diferent from religion or filosophy. He have his own idea, that comes from Hegel, Heidegger, etc. but is not the same.
seaoutro (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
si, si
LLit11 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
and how do you know how a baby feels? and what about the times where there were no mirrors? in roman times for example the mirrors were made of polished silver, so the working-class had no mirrors at all. how could they have been human?
lucadono (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hi there, I'd like to recommend to you and anyone else commenting here the only text I have found so far that helped me make some sense (which I guess does not necessarily mean "understand", but still) of Lacan's ideas, and that would be "Looking awry" by Slavoy Zizek. It's really as clear and interesting as this kind of writing gets, and it's full of examples from popular culture, literature and film.
willwkrueger (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
i am new to lacan and im very unclear about how he relies on the notion of the soul. it seems very idealistic and self serving. so what is the insight that puts such an old fashioned idea back into the equation of identity?
thebloads (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
up till just now i had not understood the mirror stage. You put it so precisely that i doubt one could be more clear
arguingplentifully (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
But, quite right, Lacan wrote and talked a load of bollocks (see above), and seemed to be desperate not to be understood.
If you're interested, though, I think Sean Homer's 'Jacques Lacan' is a good short introduction thing that actually almost makes sense. Zizek's fun too, of course.
arguingplentifully (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The Mirror Stage is when a baby, which feels clumsy and incoherent, sees something like him (his reflection, how other people react to him, a role model, etc.) which seems to be co-ordinated and coherent.
It identifies with this mirror-image, so its ego/self-esteem/whatever is sort of constructed externally: i.e. what you think of yourself depends on what you think other people think of you.
We're thus 'beings that are looked at', always having this vague feeling of being watched and judged.
jacobins3000 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Well, I consider myself a patient person. For example i've tried to read some Kant and Nietzsche. Of course I don't claim to understand nearly everything they say, but they can at least form coherent sentences which actually mean something. Unless you are claiming that the works of Lacan are immeasurably more profound than Nietzsche, Kant and Aristotle, then explain to me why he couldn't express himself just as clearly. Please, try to explain to me one of Lacan's ideas in a way I can understand.
choluntpot (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
yes jacobins, it takes some thinking to penetrate his understanding but once you arrive, there is no looking back. get your thiking cap on and take a basic course to help you understand him? a conclusion is a place where you get tired of thinking... |
|