A more than sufficient reason for maintaining the notion of hysteria is that the status of the subject as such is ultimately hysterical. That is to say, when Lacan asserts that the most succinct definition of the subject is 'that which is not an object', the apparent banality of this claim should not deceive us: the subject--in the precise psychoanalytic sense of the subject of desire--exists only in so far as the question remains open of what she is for the Other as an object, that is, I am a subject in so far as the radical perplexity persists as to the Other's desire, as to what the Other sees (and finds worthy of desire) in me. In other words, when Lacan claims that there is no desire without an object-cause, this does not amount to the banality according to which every desire is attached to its objective correlative: the 'lost object' which sets the subject's desire in motion is ultimately the subject herself, and the lack in question concerns her uncertainty as to her status for the Other's desire. In this precise sense, desire is always desire of the Other: the subject's desire is the desire to ascertain her status as the object of the Other's desire.- Slavoj Žižek, "The Indivisible Remainder: On Schelling and Related Matters" (London: Verso, 1996 & 2007). The preceding citations were from the 2007 edition pp. 163-165.
The status of the Lacanian 'Che vuoi?', 'What do you want?, is thus radically ambiguous. On the one hand, it emanates from the Other--that is to say, it stands for the question the big Other (the analyst) addresses to the (hysterical) subject whose desire is inconsistent and, as such, self-impeding: 'What do you actually want? Do you really want what you are saying you want?' On the other hand, 'Che vuoi?' articulates the perplexity of the subject himself confronted with an impenetrable Other who wants something from him, although the subject is never able to ascertain what this something actually is [....] I, the subject, never know what I really want, since the Other's desire remains forever an enigma... to me....
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Borderlines, and other Liminal Objects
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ugh. Jung said it much better. ;)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by 'borderline'?
Have you ever known someone with BPD?
It's awful.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I mean by "borderline"...
ReplyDeleteHysteria has to be comprehended in the complexity of its strategy as a radically ambiguous protest against Master’s interpolation which simultaneously bears witness to the fact that the hysterical subject needs a Master, that she cannot do without a Master, so that there is no simple and direct way out. For that reason, one should also avoid the historicist pitfall of rejecting the notion of hysteria as belonging to a bygone era, i.e., the notion that today borderline disturbances, not hysteria, are the predominant form of “discontent” in our civilization: borderline is the contemporary form of hysteria, i.e., of the subject’s refusal to accept the predominant mode of interpolation whose agent is no longer the traditional Master but the expert-knowledge of the discourse of Science. In short, the shift from the classic form of hysteria to borderline disturbances is strictly correlative with the shift from the traditional Master to the form of Power legitimized by Knowledge.
The borderline personality forecloses symtoms into "sinthomes.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the borderline personality expresses itself in terms of psychoanalyses... of the universal perspective, instead of the "normal" hysterical perspective... as in tthe following|
ReplyDeleteTo resume again...
Joyce avec Lacan — Préface
JACQUES-ALAIN MILLER
From Joyce-the-Symptom...
SLAVOJ ZIZEK
Joyce: Through the Lacan Glass
PATRICK HEALY
The Crack
ADRIAN DANNATT
My Dinner with Jacques
DAVID HAYMAN
Lacan: the End
JORGE ALEMÁN
Italics
RAPHAEL RUBINSTEIN
Next to Nothing
LYNNE TILLMAN
Genghis Chan: Private Eye XXIII
JOHN YAU
The Woman Who Filled Up the World Because She Didn't Know How to Exist In It
JAN AVGIKOS
What does Lacan's thesis on "Joyce-the-symptom" aim at? Joyce's famous statement that he wrote Finnegans Wake in order to keep literary historians busy for the next 400 years has to be read against the background of Lacan's assertion that, within a psychoanalytic cure, a symptom is always addressed at the analyst and as such points forward towards its interpretation. The "modernism" of Joyce resides in the fact that his works, at least Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, are not simply external to their interpretation but, as it were, in advance take into account their possible interpretations and enter into dialogue with them. Insofar as an interpretation or theoretical explanation of a work of art endeavors to frame its object, one can say that this modernist dialectics provides another example of how the frame is always included in, is a part of, the framed content: in modernism, theory about the work is comprised in the work, the work is a kind of preemptive strike at possible theories about itself. On that account, it is inappropriate to reproach Joyce for no longer writing for a naive reader capable of an immediate consumption of his works, but for a "reflected" reader who is only able to read with an eye on possible theoretical interpretations of what he is reading-in short, for a literary scientist. Such an approach in no way diminishes our enjoyment in the work: quite the contrary, it supplements our reading with a surplus-enjoyment which is one of the trademarks of true modernism.
What interests us here, however, is the general background of the all-pervasive reflectivity of everyday life within which this Joycean attitude is inscribed. In one of his letters, Freud refers to the well-known joke about the newly married man who, when asked by his friend how his wife looks, how beautiful she is, answers: "I personally don't like her, but that's a matter of taste." The paradox of this answer does not point towards an attitude of selfish calculation ("True, I don't like her, but I married her for other reasons-her wealth, the social influence of her parents..."). Its crucial feature is that by providing this answer, the subject pretends to assume the standpoint of universality from which "to be likeable" appears as an idiosyncrasy, as a contingent pathological feature which, as such, is not to be taken into consideration. The joke therefore relies on the impossible/untenable position of enunciation of the newly married: from this position, marriage appears as an act which belongs to the domain of universal symbolic determinations and should as such be independent of personal idiosyncrasies-as if the very notion of marriage does not involve precisely the pathological fact of liking a particular person for no particular rational reason.
Interesting reading, if you ask me. ;)
ReplyDeleteYes, it is interesting. I suppose I am just too much of a Jungian to jump in the deep end of Lacan, though. He has so many levels, or, tiers of explanation, that he loses me.
ReplyDeleteI can't follow Lacan, proper... but Zizek does make his work "accessible" if you read enough of it.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing with Lacan is to understand his "four discourses" which provide the framework under which his "system" functions.
ReplyDeleteThe Zizekian/Lacanian post-moderrn position is that the discourse of the "university"has displaced the "master"... as the "master signifier". The problem, however, is that it is a self-negating discourse.
...rhizomic in its nature (Deleuze and Guattari, "A Thousand Plateaus")
ReplyDeleteThe discourse of university is rhizomic?
ReplyDeleteLacan is, for sure.
Btw, you missed some good posts on Memorial Day.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Where should I look for them? I must not frequent all the same websites anymore. I suppose I've burned too many bridges. :(
ReplyDeleteps - I just bought Deleuze and Guattari's "Thousand Plateau's"... as much as I normally like to read author's chronologically... I'm hoping that the book fullfill's its' promise of rendering reading "order" irrelevant.
ReplyDeletehttp://libertasandlatte.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteYou burned them? Rebuild them!
You've burned me several times. I guess the scar tissue is less innervated than the original skin.
....I used to work in a burn unit...
I'm STILL reading Montaigne, and my friend got me a book called The Happiness Project for my birthday.
ReplyDeleteI love the old writers/thinkers... They are so much more intelligible than the moderns/post-moderns. One almost requires an encyclopedia to read, these days. Were it not for Wikipedia, I wouldn't even try.
ReplyDeleteWe'll, I'm out of battery... and my work computer is getting "re-imaged", so I suppose I'll say, "Have a great day!" And perhaps I'll work onsome of those "bridges", later.
Ciao.
I love the old writers/thinkers... They are so much more intelligible than the moderns/post-moderns.
ReplyDelete-
Exactly!! It's why I haven't read anything but "classics" for a few years now. They make more sense!
hasta manana!
CI seems a pretty decent guy. I really should stop giving him a hard time... but I can't seem to help it. I'm not the go-along type, and I'm not as "generally" accepting of social changes that negatively affect the values I have and hold dear, even if they (my traditions) are borne of "original sin" and "injustice". ;)
ReplyDeleteI didn't know you pestered CI. ;)
ReplyDeleteWhich of his values clash with yours?
Ot, i developed 4 rolls today, feeling very happy.
I think we've clashed over gay marriage. I know that I've accused him of being a helot with a hoplite shield....
ReplyDelete...in other words, a slave impersonating a free man (Spartan).
ReplyDeleteFj, are you as confrontational off line as online? I am not being sarcastic or rude, just curious.
ReplyDeleteNot normally... unless I need to be. And when I see other people blowing smoke... that's generally when I feel that I need to be.
ReplyDeleteI can relate to that. I still feel the. need for justice to be served. Sometimes it makes for too many fruitless confrontations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, confrontation can be very good. It can increase understanding, and lead to forgiveness. I tend to hold onto anger when there is no ....addressing the issue.
ReplyDeleteI am a troll... so I suppose "fruit" is where you find it. In other words, wasting another person's time can be the goal.
ReplyDeleteDuring the political season, if someone is wasting time with me, at least he's not doing any real harm. ;)
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm off to bed now. Good night!
ReplyDeleteSorry, fj. I fell asleep in my chair and then hit the ground running this morning. I am SO ready for a vacation...
ReplyDeleteI hear ya!
ReplyDelete