http://www.othervoices.org/1.3/vlinetski/child.

html

The Promise of Expression to the 'Inexpressible Child': Deleuze, Derrida and the Impossibility of Adult's Literature
adim Linets!i Other Voices, v.1, n.3 (January 1999)

http://www.othervoices.org/cgi/ov/tell/tell.cgi http://www.othervoices.org/cgi/ov/tell/tell.cgi opyright ! 1999 "y #adim $inetski, all rights reserved ... %wins ... cannot "e descri"ed "ecause we should "e sure to "e descri"ing the wrong one. J.&.'arrie, Peter Pan ( mere resem"lance, no dou"t. )nly a discourse o* the sophists+ type would "e so indecent as to misuse it. 'ut to misuse a resem"lance, isn+t that to present it as an identity, isn+t it to assimilate, )ne can also ponder the reasons *or resem"lance as such. Jac-ues .errida, On the Name

As the tale goes, there are many poststructuralisms. 'ut are they compati"le, can they co/e0ist,
(pparently, the answer is yes, meaning that the di**erences within poststructuralism evidence the validity o* its "asic claims as regards the irreduci"le heterogeneity. 1n other words, it is crucial to the whole enterprise to preserve heterogeneity within theory in order to ensure its appeal *or the pro*ane world without. (nd yet already the *act that the "ecoming/*ashiona"le o* the .eleu2e/3uattarian version is concomitant with the demise o* the deconstructive one should give us pause. 4owever, a certain intellectual e**ort is necessary in order to divulge in what appears to "e a historical contingency the workings o* the logic which is the logic o* the poststructuralist di**erence itsel*. 1* there should "e a di**erence "etween .erridaean di**5rance and .eleu2ean di**5rence, "etween the parergonal n61 and the schi2oid synthesis o* 7... and ... and...7, then *irst and *oremost *rom the standpoint o* socio/political application: as is generally "elieved, the *ault o* deconstruction is precisely its ina"ility to contri"ute anything to the ethico/political de"ate *ostered "y the urgent necessity to hear the (repressed) voice o* minorities, to secure *or them the possi"ility o* e0pression (c*. 4olu"8 9eimer). %he imperative has nothing surprising a"out it. 1* the (revolutionary) deterritoriali2ation/reassem"lage should not wind up with an act o* e0clusion/scape/goating which grounds logocentric tradition, then the new assem"lage has to "e an over/inclusive system ('raidotti 19:/19;8 .eleu2e, Logic <=3/<=>8 ?risteva <1>/ <1@). 4owever, the over/inclusiveness runs the danger o* collapsing into/merging with the logocentric notion o* wholeness. %he only way to avoid this danger which postmodernism is a"le to imagine is to ground e0cess in lack, in the primordial need *or the other, i.e. to de*ine e0cess negatively: as an e0cess o* lack/need. 'ut "y the same token the system thus advanced comes to "e grounded in impression, rather than in e0pression, *or the )therness which comes *irst mutilates the su"Aect, impresses upon it a trace. Bince the trace/inscription is an in*inite process, an act o* e0pression itsel* is in*initely postponed.

1t *ollows that on these premises the world (read: the %hird 9orld, the world(s) o* minorities) is only promised an e0pression "ut in actual *act e0ists outside o* e0pression, cannot still e0press itsel*. %he pro"lem which will "e addressed in this paper is whether, i* at all, the promise o* e0pression can "e reali2ed. 'ut *irst o* all let us see whose promise is it that we are speaking o*, %he notions o* trace and inscription seem to "e unam"iguous pointers. Bince they are inscri"ed in the concept o* pharmakon, it is rather tempting to conclude that the .erridean model, whatever its deconstructive merits, *ails to produce an e**ective alternative. 1n *act, the applications o* the scapegoat/model e0plain how the images produced *or mass consumption are impressed upon the pu"lic mind (c*. Celdstein 199;) "ut have nothing to say a"out the latter+s e0pressing itsel*. %his *act alone suggests that the *ault may well lie with the pharmakon itsel* which *osters the misrecognition o* logocentric strategies. %he pharmakon is a *oreign "ody in the "ody o* tradition, an entity which the tradition has tried "ut *ailed to e0pel. 1n other words, the possi"ility o* deconstruction is "ound up with the impossi"ility to per*orm an act o* e0pulsion, o* sacri*ice: the tie is not severed irrepara"ly, *rom time to time the pharmakon returns: as a specter or ghost it haunts the tradition. %he -uestion is whether this ghost deconstructively impresses itsel* upon the haunted, or rather e0presses it. %he scapegoating mechanism *unctions on the $acanian mirror/stage where an identi*ication can only "e a misidenti*ication, a recognition // a misrecognition: 7%hus, monoculturalists manu*acture the scapegoated other through an oppositional process that is not dialectical "ut imaginary, since it is "rought into "eing at the level o* sadistic *antasy that cannot "e owned "y right/wing reactionaries intent upon disavowing aspects o* their own personality ... Deoconservatives ... are *orced to disidenti*y with any re"ellious counter/identi*ication that sur*aces as a dissident counter/ image7 (Celdstein 199;: 1>E8 italics added). $ogically, this can only mean that the e0cluded scapegoats, or, actually, their images manu*actured "y the dominant cultural *orces, are the true e0pressions o* these latter, their "etter and/or true selves. %here*ore, contrary to popular preAudice, not only has deconstruction everything to do with ethics, it is an ethical enterprise // at least so long as the current applications o* grammatology are concerned. Corsooth, the latter is a pedagogy (c*. Flmer), un*ortunately in the patently humanistic sense o* the term. Cor the narrative o* deconstruction is the didactic narrative o* melodrama aimed at "ringing the (logocentric) villain to recogni2e his "etter (postructuralist) sel*. Bince it may "e argued that ethics is not such a "ad thing a*ter all, let us more closely attend to the poststructuralist pedagogy. (t the *ace o* it there is a di**erence "etween the logocentric construction and its deconstruction, and it is this di**erence which, to "elieve the postructuralist advocates, makes all the di**erence in the world. %he post/psychoanalytic and post/deconstructive ethics is 7an ethics o* lack concerned with the gap "etween signs and o"Aects and how this gap is "ridged7 (Celdstein 199;: 13=8 italics added). 1t is this gap, the space in/"etween, which poststructuralism "ares and cherishes, whereas the production o* the uni*ied phallogocentric sel*hood is allegedly "ound up with its erasure. 1n .errida+s theory this gap is known as khora 7which is neither +sensi"le+ nor +intelligi"le+7 (.errida, On the Name @9) and has e0actly the *unction o* making compati"le heterogeneous series (@=,9<) that .eleu2e allots to his mot blanc (Logic @>) or 5l5ment vide (<1>) that "y virtue o* its 7non/ "elonging to either o* the series is their point o* convergence, their +di**erential+7(;E8 c*.39,>9,::,1<>,1>=,19@/<=<). 9hat it should allow *or is the hypercompati"ility which preserves the singularity o* heterogenous elements, that is, negotiates "etween di**erence and repetition in a way allegedly su"versive o* the metaphysics o* presence in which the 9estern hermenutic proAect is rooted. %he phallogocentric drive *or an unam"iguous meaning is an attempt to erase the non/ presence o* khora signaled "y the gaps in the narrative. (Ge/)read, say poststructuralist theorists, Creud+s case histories. $et usH %he authors o* the cele"rated volume In Dora's Case are in accord that the gaps in Creud+s account o* .ora testi*y to Creud+s *ailure to master his own discourse as well as that o* his patient (c*. 4ert2 <338 Gamas 1:</1:@8 Bprengnether <:>/<EE). 9hence the cele"ration o* gaps, silences, raptures and other discontinuities as a distinctive *eatures o* an criture eminine (c*. 'al, 7&ise en a"yme7 11;/1<@, Lethal Lo!e @@8 i0ous :38 ra*t/ Cairchild ;8 3ossy). 4owever, it is su**icient to glance at the history o* $ittle 4ans in order to divulge the real *unction o* the khoraic pause. Bince the ego/ideal/superego plays a prominent part in pho"ic per*ormance, it is not surprising that the mechanism o* pho"ia is that o* scapegoating, splitting o* the non/compati"le elements which come to haunt the su"Aect in the manner o* .erridaean pharmakon. %he aim o* the psychoanalytic

cure is to e0pose the pho"ic symptom not as a *oreign "ody which impresses itsel* upon the patient+s mind "ut as a patient+s own production, to wit, as a pathogenic e0pression o* his/her personality. %he irony o* the matter is that to conceive o* a pho"ic representation as an e0pression means to trans*orm the spectral pharmakonic structure o* undecida"ility into a structure o* interpreta"ility par e"cellence, to wit, into the )edipal structure. %he sine #ua non o* this trans*ormation is precisely the insertion o* gaps into the narrative o as well as on 4ans. %his insertion is necessitated "y the *act that the pho"ic representation is an e0aggeration, an e0cess: pho"ia makes use o* the natural discrepancy (4ans+s relative smallness and the relative "igness o* heavy, dray horses) and e0aggerates it. $ogically, this means that i* we conceive o* pho"ic e0aggeration as a continuous process the patient would either gradually cure him/hersel* (in a 7natural7 way "y outgrowing the *ear/provoking o"Aects or 7culturally7: "y gradual *amiliari2ationI1J), or go mad, in "oth cases escaping the analysis. (nd this is precisely why Creud has to punctuate the narrative o* 4ans+s illness with gaps, pauses, moments when pho"ia is allayed or disappears (<;1, <;3, <E1, 333 etc.) and to su"Aect his own account to the same procedure in order to vindicate his writing on 4ansI<J. %he result o* this khoraic punctuation, o* introducing discontinuities is the impossi"ility to make head or tail o* 4ans+s *ear, *or on Creud+s own premises, only a constant/continuous tension can produce unpleasure (191>: 1:1). )r, to "e more precise, the only possi"ility o* understanding now le*t is precisely to conceive o* the whole a**air along the lines o* the poststructuralist 7ethics o* lack7, which vainly strives to di**erentiate itsel* *rom the )edipal ethics. 1n other words, the )edipal interpretation is not Aust one among many other possi"le translations (o* the discontinuous narrative), as poststructuralism would like us to "elieve (9e"er, Institution 1=;), "ut the only interpretation precisely "ecause it acts/out the movement o* its production. %he irony o* the matter is that it is this theatricality, so dear to the poststructuralist heart (c*. 9e"er 7Kinmal7), which thwarts the su"versive claims o* rhi2omatic anti/ or contra/semiotics. (ccording to poststructuralist readers, the narrative gaps, silences and similar discontinuities are the marks o* repression ( ra*t/Cairchild 1993: 1:, 1;:, 1;9). 'asically, a repression is a *ailed repression, it testi*ies to the desire to erase the gaps and the impossi"ility to do this. 9hence its hermeneutic value. %his e0plains why the gaps inserted into the narrative o* 4ans+s illness resem"le not so much "ottomless a"ysses as "roken "ridges, *or their *unction is to tame the e0cess, to introduce an element o* e0pressivity into the pho"ic representation. 'ut "y the same token the e0pression remains underdeveloped. 1n Creud+s case this vindicates the recourse to childhood as a proo* te0t o* psychoanalytic theory in general, that o* neuroses in particular: the neurotic is the one who has remained a child, who has re*used to grow up. 4owever, precisely this model is what .eleu2ean semiotics, which heralds as a discarding o* )edipus and repression, "oils down to, *or the gap (lment !ideom which 7one speaks7, i.e. which allows *or e0pression, is an element 7o* one+s own sous$d!eloppement % soi Iunder/development to/or within onesel*J7 (.eleu2e, Pourparlers 3=). $ittle wonder, then, that a*ter everything has "een said and done "y way o* ela"orating the concept o* 7minor literature7 (c*. &a ka), 3uattari concedes that the latter as well as 7minor discourse(s)7 in general, can "e seen only 7in its nascent state7 (7Lragmatic/&achinic7), to wit, in a state o* an underdeveloped discourse, whose su"Aect is doomed *orever to remain a child, a poststructuralist Leter Lan. (s Jac-ueline Gose would have it, the case o* Leter Lan testi*ies to the impossi"ility o* children+s *iction (19@>: 1) inso*ar as 7there is no child "ehind the category +children+s *iction+, other than the one which the category itsel* sets in place, the one which it needs to "elieve is there *or its own purposes7 (1=). %hat is, the child is an o"Aecti*ied image, a cultural myth: 7suppose, there*ore, that Leter Lan is a little "oy who does not grow up, not "ecause he doesn+t want to, "ut "ecause someone else pre*ers that he shouldn+t7 (3). %he "rute *act is that it is the poststructuralist strategy which, aiming to remove this patriarchal prohi"ition, imposes it *ar more e**ectively than the tradition was ever a"le to do. 'arrie+s narrative, says Gose, at one and the same time con*irms the patriarchal paradigm and deconstructs it (1>1) in the same way and manner as the women writers o* the last two centuries did ( ra*t/Cairchild 1993: 1;>). 1n "oth cases deconstruction is collated with khoraic gaps (Gose 19@>: 1;), moments when 7there is no clear distinction "etween the narrator and the child Ior womanJ he Ior sheJ descri"es7 (;@). onse-uently we cannot proceed without deciding whether and to what e0tent these gaps are intentional, *or it is the pro"lem o* appropriation on which the

theory o* a dou"le/voiced discourse stands or *alls (c*. ra*t/Cairchild <1/<<,1;>/ 1;E). 1n other words the recourse to cultural studies, *ar *rom "eing a "reak with deconstruction (c*. 'rantlinger), is inscri"ed in, or even prescri"ed "y the deconstructive -uest. &omentarily we shall see that this pro"lem turns out to "e an impasse o* deconstruction as well as o* cultural studiesI3J. %o make o* an )edipal repression a tool o* deconstruction we have to assume that the discontinuities are unintentional, unconsciousI>J, i.e. to conceive o* them as instances o* .eleu2ean pre/su"Aective e0pressionism. %he irony is that in so doing we have to conclude that the latter produces the 7good *orm7 ('arrie) which is the *orm o* all logocentric myths, that o* the childhood included. 7%he *undamental desire, or even *antasy7 which underpins the myth o* Leter Lan is the desire *or 7the eternal return o* the same (the same child and the same literature) which has "een one o* the drives "ehind the very persistence o* a work like Peter Pan7(Gose 19@>: 133). %he parado0 is that so long as we are "ent to treat Peter Pan as 7one o* the most salient representatives7 (13>) o* the mentioned desire we have to concede that neither Creud+s unconscious nor .eleu2e+s re*ormulation o* the Diet2schean eternal return as a di**erence -ua repetition (19;@) o**er 7a decisive challenge to Ithe idea o*J sameness7, to 7the idea that psychic li*e is continuous, that language can give us mastery, or that past and *uture can "e cohered into a straight*orward se-uence, and controlled7 (13>). 9itness the per*ectly .eleu2ean manner o* Leter Lan+s 7"ecoming an animal7. %he animal in -uestion is a crocodile that had swallowed a clock which continues to tick in his "elly. )n his way to rescue the children captured "y aptain 4ook Leter 7decided to tick, so that wild "easts should "elieve he was the crocodile and let him pass unmolested ... Leter reached the shore without mishap, and went straight on8 his legs encountering the water as i* -uite unaware that they had entered a new element. 'hus many animals pass rom land to water( but no other human being o whom I know ... 4e had ticked so long that he now went on ticking without knowing that he was doing it7 ('arrie 1993: 1<<8 italics added). )"viously the 7"ecoming a crocodile7 which implies a regression on a pre/su"Aective, unconscious level would have satis*ied .eleu2e. 4owever, in 'arrie+s narrative this "ecoming is synonymous with the ac-uisition o* the 7good *orm7 which, e-ually, is incompati"le with the conscious egoI:J. 1ronically, this is precisely how the 9estern tradition has always conceived o* aesthetic activity: the "est art is the one that is unaware o* its "eing art. 9hence the place allotted to the notion o* imitation/mimesis and the cele"ration o* the artistic as an eternal childhood: the child who is neither sel*/conscious nor sel*/re*le0ive is so close to nature that it can e0press the latter in a natural way. %he current "elie* which gave rise to the cultural studies is that in order to deconstruct this myth it su**ices to "are the (natural) 7good *orm7 as a cultural construction (c*. 9ood), to e0pose 7the arti*icial at the very heart o* the most humanistic o* discourses, the artistic7 (9ills 13). %o do this means to show that the ac-uisition o* the 7good *orm7 is never 7good7 enough, that the promise o* eternity implied in our notion can never "e maintained. 9hich is to say that to "reak 7good *orm7 is to "reak the li*e/continuity, to introduce a gap. %he pro"lem is, however, that the 7good *orm7 itsel* derives its seductive power *rom "eing precisely such a "reak/gap: childhood and its adult su"stitutes (vacations etc.) are intervals, pauses, gaps. (t its .eleu2ean and .erridaean "est poststructuralism is a"le to challenge the logocentric adversary only at the level o* the latter+s promise that these pauses are in the nature o* things, that they are regular, that their return is guaranteed. 9hence the apparent undecida"ility which is as o*ten hailed as it is re"uked: what seems to "e undecida"le is whether the di**erence "etween logocentric and poststructuralist paradigms is that o* di**erence -ua resem"lance or resem"lance -ua di**erence, (.errida, Name >3). .eleu2e+s di**5rence is the di**erence "etween two kinds o* repetition: the one which recon*irms the moral and natural law and the other which transgresses "oth (19;@: 9), 7the ha2ardous repetition as di**erence without regulari2ing concept7 (3;3). (s J. Gose suggests, the logocentric myth, *or instance the myth o* Puer )eternus, hinges vitally upon the *irst kind o* repetition. (s 'arrie+s narrative shows, it is the second .eleu2ean repetition which makes o* Leter Lan the modern incarnation o* the mentioned myth. %he seductive power o* Leter Lan, o* the logocentric myth in general, is the seductive power o* the 7repetition without concept7, to wit, o* the .erridaean letter, and stems *rom the *act that it/he 7does not always arrive IreturnJ at Ithe promisedJ destination7 (.errida 19@@: <=18 original italics). 4aving once promised 9endy/nostalgic adult reader to return in order to take 79endy *or a week every year to do his spring cleaning7 (1>3), Leter sometimes returns, sometimes *orgets to. %hus

the gaps are everything else than 7 gut tempeririert7: rather than "eing 7measured7 they are rythmic (.eleu2e 19;@: 33). 1n other words, precisely the insecurity o* Leter+s returning ne0t year secures the children *or culture/society and, "y the same token, trans*orms Leter into a myth: i* he would not have *orgotten to return the children would have never "egun to dou"t his e0istence, would never have grown up. 9hich e0plains why the poststructuralist throw o* the dice (repetition without concept) *ails to eliminate the )edipal structure. %he only sense in which we are allowed to speak a"out the deconstruction o* the )edipus comple0 in schi2oanalysis is -ua its resolution in a most conventional way. 1* 7it is so easy to give an )edipal reading o* Peter Pan7 (Gose 3:), then only "ecause the main narrative prop, Leter+s rivalry with aptain 4ook, so o"viously resem"les the )edipal rivalry with the Cather *igure. Crom this standpoint, Leter+s killing the pirate is what makes o* the tale the cele"ration o* a *antasy o* eternal childhood, i.e. corro"orates Gose+s claims. 4owever, the matter is complicated "y the *act that this rivalry is depicted as rivalry not over the mother, "ut over the 7good *orm7. 1* the latter was to remain Leter+s property (c*. .eleu2e 19;9: 3</33), the "runt and thrust o* our preceding discussion would have "een o* the sophists+ type. 4owever hapha2ard, provisional and inconstant the moments o* ac-uisition o* the 7good *orm7 might "e, it would have "een still possi"le to argue that Leter is inconstant and *orget*ul as a true child o* nature, as nature itsel*. Kven the *act that the 7good *orm7 is a temporal structure o* .eleu2ean 7immaterial event7 (19;9: 1>/1E) rather than the spatial one o* $acanian 1maginary order, could not have really improved matters: our analysis still would have remained open to suspicions that we are e0ploiting mere resem"lances. %o make matters worse 'arrie+s narrative, at *irst glance, seems to Austi*y these suspicions, *or aptain 4ook+s, in *ine, the adult+s, ina"ility to ac-uire the 7good *orm7 any more and his 7retained passion *or it7 (11:) is precisely what seems to make o* Leter an o"Aect o* ardent nostalgic desire, i.e. triggers logocentric myth/making. onse-uently, to maintain our charge we have to disappropriate Leter, that is to "reak/split the 7good *orm7 in a properly .eleu2ean manner "y inscri"ing 7di**erence in the very heart o* the di**erentiali2ing di**erential itsel*7 (19;@: 1:>). Cortunately *or us, this disappropriating inscription happens to "e the outcome o* the )edipal rivalry in 'arrie+s novel. 9e had one last triumph, which 1 think we need not grudge him *ook. (s he stood on the "ulwark looking over his shoulder at Leter gliding through the air, he invited him with a gesture to use his *oot. 1t made Leter kick instead o* sta". (t last 4ook had got the "oon *or which he craved. +'ad *orm,+ he cried Aeeringly, and went content to the crocodile. (13=) %hus the Cather retains the last word. %he irony o* the matter is that it is the poststructuralist readers who allow him to do this once and *or all. 7%he parado0icality o* true repetition7, says .eleu2e, 7is that +once+ stands *or +all+ I une ois pour toutesJ7 (19;@: 1<E). 4aving *ailed once to maintain the 7good *orm7, Leter is disappropriated *orever: we cannot claim that he has ever possessed or would have ever possess it. (ppearances notwithstanding, this does not mean the immortali2ation o* desire and the endangering o* the law "ut the immortali2ation o* the latter and the deconstruction o* the *ormer. Larado0ically put, the lment parado"al which makes the di**erent trends o* poststructuralism converge and resonate is the structuralist $acanian theory o* desire that stresses the complicity o* the latter with the law: 7aggression against the Cather is at the very heart o* the $aw ... the $aw is in the service o* the desire that $aw institutes through the prohi"ition o* incest7 (199;: >1@). (s we shall momentarily see, .erridaean deconstruction as well as .eleu2ean schi2oanalysis are 7*orms o* psychotherapy which in*antili2es adults, without recogni2ing children any "etter7 (>1@). 1ronically, thus *ar no"ody has "othered to note that, *rom the $acanian standpoint, on which poststructuralist theories o* visuality so heavily rely (c*. 'rennan and &artin8 Balecl and Mi2ek8 Bilverman), all the talk a"out the patriarchal reduction/su"Aection o* the child/woman to an ob+ect o* the male+s desiring ga2e/discourse (Gose <) makes no sense "ecause, according to $acan, the essence o* desire is to have no o"Aect. 4ence in order to "e a"le to speak 7o* what the adult desires ... in the very act o* construing the child as the o"Aect o* its speech7 (<) we have precisely to diso"Aecti*y the o"Aect, in case o* Leter Lan, to disappropriate him, i.e. to e0pose him as lacking and desiring the same what the Cather *igure lacks and desires. Bince this is what $acan+s dictum

7desire is desire *or desire7 (>1@) implies, it *ollows that the party which really has reasons to critici2e $acan *or promulgating political se0ism is the neoconservative phallocrats and not the *eminist theorists, *or the (in)*amous "ar which grounds the discourse o* desire privileges the woman. 1n e**ect, logically, the threat o* castration can only "ar the su"Aect *rom speech // the "oy that has something to loose more surely than the girl that does not. Bo long as castration is a door to civili2ation, the "oy, prompted "y the instincts o* sel*/preservation, is more likely to reason that, whether or not the mother has a penis, in any event it is *ar more secure to renounce speech as such. %he unruly su"Aect o* the patriarchal $aw is a male one, *or, contrary to what the *eminist orthodo0y would like us to "elieve, in case o* a emale little or nothing "ars her access to the sym"olic order. %he pro"lem o* patriarchy is there*ore how to *orce the male su"Aect to speak, %he only solution is e0actly the one suggested "y poststructuralism, namely to conceive o* parole as prior to langue, o* Aouissance as prior to desire. (nd this is what $acan does in his %wentieth Beminar. 9itness his stress that the unconscious is structured not so much as the language in the sense o* Goman Jaco"son as 7maternal lalangue7 (19E:: 1<;). Fn*ortunately, the solution appears promising only at *irst glance. Cor to *oreground Aouissance means to allow *or total satis*action, to wit, *or an incest, and in so doing to make o* the emergence o* civili2ation, let alone o* the discontent in it, a pu22le. 1n other words, i* within the discourse o* desire the male su"Aect has all reasons to ear to speak, within the discourse o* Aouissance he has no reason to speak at all. %o avoid this impasse we have to privilege the position o* the *emale su"Aect, *or in case o* the *emale su"Aect the coercion to speech seems to "e no coercion at all. 1n e**ect, the Penisneid which is a *eminine analogue o* the incestuous wish o* the male can "e satis*ied in a most natural way, to wit, "y an act o* giving "irth. (s the psychoanalytic orthodo0y would have it, the child is a woman+s su"stitute *or the penis she lacks, i.e. a *etish, an imaginary product. %here*ore to possess it, to achieve Aouissance "y its means seemingly does not imply a transgression o* the $aw. %he irony is that this solution implies the destruction o* the $aw, *or to shi*t onto the 1maginary plane means to admit that the phallus can signi*y only as a *etish, to wit, that it does not signi*y at all. 1n other words, whatever the hierarchical reversals the pro"lem would have haunted psychoanalysis up to this day, were it not *or the schi2oanalytic 7discourse o* support7 (.errida) which is nothing else than an attempt to *ul*ill the promise o* conventional psychoanalysis. (s we have seen, the trou"le emerges the moment desire is allotted the role o* the motor o* Bym"olic signi*ication, is posited as a desire *or recognition and at the same time is "arred *rom ever attaining satis*action ($acan 199;, >1@/>19). Bince to recogni2e is to name (>19) this means nothing else than the Bym"olic )rder leaves no chance *or e0pression. onse-uently, to Au0tapose desire and Aouissance is not enough: the only way to trigger the process o* signi*ication is precisely to split $acanian desire into two desires (the one to "e named, the other // a "lank desire, *orever unsatis*ied, striving *or more) and to introduce Aouissance as their (dis)connecting conAunction: 7desire lacks nothing and ever strives *or more7 ( L')nti$Oedipe, 33:). 9hich means that the discourse o* the )nti$Oedipal desire is the underdeveloped discourse capa"le o* in*inite development. %he irony is that the advanced concept o* desire applies all too well to the discursive strategy o* 7minor literary genres7, say, o* children+ *iction as e0empli*ied "y C.4.'urnett+s Little Lord ,auntleroy, "ut compels us to see in this strategy, i.e. in the )nti$Oedipal desire itsel*, an e0pression o* the mute phallogocentric world una"le to name itsel*. 1n e**ect it is precisely edric+s 7sous$de!elopment a soi7 which *orces him to play the role o* the mediator "etween the discourse o* his mother and grand*ather, to "ring a"out their reconciliation which "ridges/satis*ies their desires (grand*ather+s desire *or the lack and mother+s desire to "e recogni2ed/named) and yet leaves them to desire more. Car *rom "eing scapegoated, to wit, e0cluded *rom the "liss o* !nement incorporel (.eleu2e 19;9: 1:, 1;=), edric also has his share in it. 4owever, the entrance/ticket is paid "y the underdevelopment o* his own discourse: his *unction as a mot blanc (.eleu2e 19;9: ::) is to allow the adult+s wishes to impress themselves upon him and eventually give them an inade-uate articulation. %he same holds *or $ittle 4ans and Leter Lan: only the child can ensure the convergence and resonance "etween heterogeneous discourses o* (con*licting) adult+s desires. %he child is welcome not as an o"Aect o* ga2e, "ut as a mouth/piece/mediatorI;J. &eaning that the myth o* the child+s innocence which, as Gose was -uite astute to point out is the linguistic myth (></;;), does not have anything to do with the authenticity o* e0pression: rather the child is admired *or its mysterious a"ility to e0press anything at all in the

world where the $aw allows only *or impression, since, as Creud has taught us, it is the impression (introAection) o* adult+s voices (those o* parents, tutors) which produces super/ego/conscience (191>: 1;3). (s a result the adult world, the discursive world o* desire, to wit, o* the Bym"olic )rder, "y necessity appears as the world o* silence, muteness wherein the child is "ound to "e kept *rom growing up, *or only *rom the position o* Puer )eternus can a su"Aect hope to utter anything. 9hich means precisely the universal in*antili2ation o* which $acan has warned us and to which he himsel* was the *irst to *all prey. (nd yet this is not the last word o* poststructuralism. Dor it is ours. Buppose, write poststructuralist theorists, that the child+s e0pression is deli"erately inade-uate, that its discourse/tongue is *orked, dou"le/voiced (&yers 199:), in short, that our little lords are active adepts o* de erteau+s 7practice o* everyday li*e7. 4owever striking the resem"lance "etween the latter and the theories o* .errida and .eleu2e, it is not surprising that thus *ar no"ody has "othered to e0amine it, *or such an endeavor would -uestion one o* the *undamentals o* current theori2ing, namely the "elie* that 7taking in7 (impression) is a *orm o* 7talking "ack7 (e0pression), that 7su"Aects create themselves and their cultures ... through collage7, that 7"ricolage is a strategic resistance7 (;@). )"viously the rhi2omatic anti/ or contra/semiotic o* Capitalism and -chi.ophrenia, the "asics *or which were laid in /epetition et Di erence and Logic du sense, is an instance o* "ricolage, an over/ inclusive system o* hyperconnectivity. 4owever, the anti/)edipal "runt and thrust would have "een impossi"le without allotting a more active role to the conAoining 7element o* void7, to the di**erential(i2ing) mot blanc. Dow it is no longer Aust 7 le !erbe in initi 7 (19;9: <1;): 7+'etween things+ does not designate a locali2a"le relation going *rom one thing to the other and "ack again Ie.g. edric+s roleJ, "ut a perpendicular direction, a trans!ersal mo!ement that sweeps one and the other away, a stream without "eginning or end that undermines its "anks and picks up speed in the middle7 (%housand <:8 italics added) IEJ. Bo long as the 7in/"etween7 remains passive it can *oster the conAuncture "etween the two series only at the price o* its own e**acement, meaning that the conAuncture itsel* remains a 7passive synthesis7 with which .eleu2e was still -uite satis*ied in Logic du sense (1><) and which, as we have Aust seen, reinstates, or, more correctly, *or the *irst time states, the Bym"olic $aw (o* silence). Bince the true repetition is said to "e o* a theatrical order (19;@: 3=/3>), the theater o* early .eleu2e is a traditional one in which an actor e**aces himsel* to make the on/stage and o**/stage heterogeneities resonate in the *undamentally impressive manner envisaged "y Btanislavsky. %he deconstructive analogue o**ers the de&anian practice o* Au0taposing two series/readings, in themselves -uite complete and developed. 9hence the dependence on an underdeveloped third party, on the latter+s ina"ility to decide. 9hich means that appearances notwithstanding the undecida"ility is an a**air o* in*antili2ation and the theater in -uestion is the theater o* the primal scene which "a**les the child with mutually e0clusive meanings: *or its level o* comprehension, is this an act o* violence or caress,. Gecently it has "een noticed "y some *eminists that aporia is a method o* silencing, one o* the strategies o* patriarchal su"Aection (%rites <=3). 9hich is precisely why the (theater) o* logocentric semiosis is a theater o* pho"ic terror and dread that stems precisely *rom the primacy o* impression (o* the Dame/$aw o* the Cather) over e0pression with the result that neither a**ects can *ind ver"al representation nor the latter e0press anything (?risteva ><, >@): 7'y Au0taposing drives and discourse, the pervert tends to neutrali2e them. (s a result o* this compromise, the analyst sees the pervert+s *antasy as a dramati2ation, a staging, or an arti*act7 (<<). 1n respect to his drives as well as his discourse the pervert e**aces himsel* "ut the result is a paraestheticI@J acting/out which is nothing else than a rhi2omatic "ricolage o* ver"al, pre/ver"al and e0tra/ver"al elements (c*. &aggiori 1@). 1* the irony o* $acan+s theory is that it hinges upon the ina"ility o* the $aw and its su"Aect to e0press themselves, the irony o* post/$acanian analysis stems *rom the *act that it allows the *ormer to e0press itsel* and conse-uently silences the latter. (ccording to ?risteva, especially in cases o* pho"ia, the success o* the cure depends upon the analyst+s reAection o* the temptation to identi*y with the patient, since such an identi*ication would make the neutrali2ation irrevoca"le: 7analysts must ... put aside the neutrality and a"eyance that are all too similar to o"sessional de*enses7 (;<). 4owever in order to preclude the analysts+s "ecoming a 7su"Aect/presumed/to/know7 this activity should "e conceived o* as 7withdrawIalJ *rom the allocution7 (@@), to wit, *rom the non/place o* khora. 9hich "oils down to an acknowledgment that the act o* scapegoating (*or within the analytic discourse the analyst is a scapegoat) is a sel* /willed

oneI9J. (nd this is precisely why instead o* trans*orming the constative o* the sym"olic castration into a -uestion (?risteva @E/ 1=3), e0periment (.errida 199:: 93) or pro"lem (.eleu2e 19;9: ;E/ E3), the withdrawalI1=J makes the !erbe in initi undergo a trans*ormation into a phallic imperative ... according to the "est wishes o* $acan whose dictum 7the woman does not e0ist7 (19E:: ;@) is scandalous only inso*ar as it e0poses the Bemiotic (lalangue) as the e0pression o* the Bym"olic, i.e. *ar *rom "arring the woman *rom signi*ication, "ares her diso"Aecti*ied/desu"stantivi2ed status as a signi*ier which is 7primarily an imperative7 (33). %o allow *or the element o* intention in the parapra0is/practice o* everyday li*e means to stress the gap "etween an actor and his role, i.e. to conceive o* khora as 7not re*erring to the gesture o* a donor/su"Aect, the support or origin o* something which would come to "e given to someone7 (.errida 199:: 1==). %he parado0 o* simultaneous "elonging and non/"elonging o* khora/ lment !ide to the series which it coordinates (.eleu2e 19;9: ;;8 .errida 199:: 1<;) evaporates the moment we remem"er that this is precisely the *unction o* the actor in 'recht+s theater o* political education to which the theatricality o* .eleu2e and .errida+s theories "oil downI11J. %he didactic practice o* making/strange presupposes that the actor occasionally (read: khoraically, hapha2ardly) steps out o* the role and takes the place among the spectators. 1n so doing he triggers the dise-uili"rium "etween the two images/series which were neutrali2ed "y Au0taposition (c*. .eleu2e 19;@: 31, 1>=). (s a result the auditorium, viewed as a child to "e educated, is *orced to make a decision, moreover, the right one. 1n like manner, the decision is "rought a"out in Peter Pan: as a mot blanc, to wit, as an actor in the mimetic theater, Leter acts as a 7+'etwi0t/and/'etween+ who hovers "etween the island o* "irds IDeverlandJ and the nursery Iin which we are all supposed to "eJ7 (Gose <E), "ut once he steps out o* his role I7good *orm7J he introduces the dise-uili"rium "etween these two worlds, "oth e-ually seductive *or children. %he result o* his "ecoming the imperative *orces us to read the Deverland as an order never (to) land (there), i.e. to grow up, to renounce the )edipal struggle. %hus, the resolution o* the )edipus comple0, impossi"le on the mimetic scene, is achieved au einer anderen -.ene, to wit, in the theater o* poststructuralist theory which certainly "reaks the 7good *orm7 o* the myth o* eternal childhood, "ut in so doing leaves no chance to conceive o* non/didactic literature, to wit, o* a literature *or adultsI1<J. %his outcome is only too logical, since the recourse to theater is implied in the interpretive strategy which privileges gaps, ruptures, silences in/o* the narrative. 9hence the vogue enAoyed "y the notion o* trans*erence (c*. Celman). 9hatever its theoretical de*iciencies, J. Gose+s "ook supplies invalua"le historical material which allows us to clear the crucial pro"lem that continues to haunt cultural studies, namely the pro"lem o* appropriation o* the most su"versive narratives "y the cultural edi*ice. 9hat ena"les this appropriation is precisely the poststructuralist theatricality: it is not "y accident that Peter Pan 7ac-uired that status Io* a children+s classicJ only "y "eing per*ormed as a play7 (9E). 1n order to appreciate this *act let us remem"er that Creud+s appropriation o* $ittle 4ans *ollowed the same route: only a*ter having traced down 4ans+s pho"ia to a play (3<@/331), Creud was a"le to claim the )edipal interpretation and the resolution o* the castration comple0. 1t *ollows that i* the great su"versive novels sooner or latter are *ound palata"le "y the dominant culture then this is precisely due to inscription o* the theatrical structure I13J. &eaning that the *act that theatrical adaptations o* 7adult+s7 classics have never prevailed in the repertoire and more o*ten than not turn out to "e *ailures testi*ies not to the comple0ity o* the originals "ut to the super*luousness o* adaptation o* the te0ts which have already adapted themselves. )n the other hand, the *act that eventually every children+s novel has a theatrical version along with the *act that theater is so rarely themati2ed in children+s *iction, suggests that children+s *iction is *ar more threatening to the cultural edi*ice than is generally "elieved. %o prove our charge let us e0amine the elements which cannot "e placed on stage, and *or that reason are the *irst to "e e**aced in theatrical adaptation. Bigni*icantly, the elements we are speaking o* are central *rom a narratological standpoint. %hus, the element which propels the narrative o* Leter+s rivalry with aptain 4ook is Leter+s 7cockiness7 that is not e**aced even in sleep which is the khoraic gap par e0cellence, and it is this persistence o* e0aggerative discourse which precludes the didactic twist, i.e. the victory o* the 7"etter sel*7 -ua another 7taming o* the shrew7 I1>J. Leter shares this cockiness, which, rhetorically, is an e0aggeration, with edric and 4ans, and eventually, with all heroes o* children+s *iction. ertainly it is all too tempting to try to e0plain it away as an instance o* in*antile narcissism the cele"ration o* which the logocentric myth o* childhood is supposed to "e, since it is narcissism which makes

the child an o"Aect o* the desiring ga2e o* the adult. (nd yet the o"vious impossi"ility o* making this *eature !isible on stage should give us pause which will "e prolonged i* we utili2e it to reread Creud+s introduction o* narcissism. (t *irst glance, Creud+s paper does not contain anything challenging to the poststructuralist assumptions, "eing as it is an attempt to e0pose narcissism as an adult+s construction, as an e0pression o* his desire *or a lost innocence, an imaginary reward *or unavoida"le disappointments and discontents, a reward 7"ound up with denial o* an in*antile se0uality7 (1:E). %he parado0 is that the would/"e deconstruction o* logocentric mythology recon*irms its "asic assumption as regards 7the child+s non/accessi"ility I0n.ug1nglichkeitJ) 7 (1::) upon which such myth/making so vitally depends. Lut crudely and "luntly, instead o* the child which seeks a way to e0press itsel* we are le*t with the 7ine0pressi"le child7I1:J. %he result is the sel*/deconstruction o* the theory o* in*antile se0uality. 7)ne o* the main premises7 o* the latter 7is the assumption o* the primal narcissism o* the child7 (1:E) o* which the adult+s narcissism is said to "e a revitali2ation: 7what the adult proAects I !on sich hin pro+i.iertJ as his ideal is a su"stitute *or the lost narcissism o* his childhood when he was his own ideal7 (1;1). 4owever to speak a"out an ideal means to evoke the notion o* repression (1;=, 1;3), meaning that i* the child has an ideal there was repression at work. 1t *ollows that the primal narcissism presupposes the developed ego and a success*ul repression accomplished at a stage which even the ?leinians have never claimed to access. 9hence the necessity o* keeping narcissism distinct *rom repression. %he )edipal, to wit, $acanian way to do this is to conceive o* narcissism 7as the amorous captivation o* the su"Aect "y the image7 ($aplanche and Lontalis <:;) and there"y to give primacy to impression with the result sketched a"ove. %he )nti$Oedipal solution o* .eleu2e and 3uattari is the con*lation o* narcissism and auto/eroticism. %his solution owes its irony not so much to the *act that it happens to "e -uite an orthodo0ical one, "eing as it is propounded "y Creud himsel* (<:;), "ut to the implied denial o* in*antile se0uality, *or narcissism thus conceived "ecomes an a**air o* su"limation, especially in the conte0t o* polymorphous, i.e. essentially o"Aect/oriented desire cele"rated "y .eleu2e and 3uattariI1;J. Cortunately, there is another possi"ility, namely to surmise that primal and secondary narcissisms di**er -ualitatively: i* the latter allows only *or impression, the *ormer is essentially e0pressive. %he value o* the suggested innovation, which has "een always already practiced "y the authors o* children+s *iction, "ecomes immediately apparent in our conte0t. (s we have seen, J. Gose+s charge o* the impossi"ility o* children+s *iction, *ar *rom "eing original or whimsical, *ollows logically *rom the very premises o* poststructuralist theory which Gose adopts without -uestioning. (nd yet the pursuit o* this train o* thought compels us to wind up claiming the direct opposite o* the initial charge. 9hich means the sel*/deconstruction, or "etter yet, the sel*/inhi"ition which postructuralism imposes upon itsel* in order not to develop into deconstruction proper, not to grow up. 1* children+s *iction is impossi"le then "ecause it never speaks to the child, save the child within us (Gose ;;/ @E8 ?risteva 1>3). &y contention is that the matter is precisely not to speak to the child "ut to allow the child to speak, to e0press itsel*. (nd this is precisely what the primal narcissism as a writerly practice allows us to do. 9hich e0plains why children+s *iction, along with 7minor discourse(s)7 in general i* properly read, su"verts the discourse o* desire, to wit, ethics and aesthetics o* the gap along with (post)pedagogy and hermeneutics grounded in the same notion. %he *act that Leter+s cockiness makes him present when he is a"sent (sleeping) suggests that primal narcissism has nothing to do with the metaphysics o* presence. 9itness the rage o* the Cather Cigure, the rage which stems *rom the *act that this narcissism makes the Cather dou"t his own e0istence: %hey IpiratesJ were his I aptain 4ook+sJ dogs snapping at him, "ut, tragic *igure though he had "ecome, he scarcely heeded them. (gainst such *ear*ul evidence it was not their belie in him that he needed, it was his own. 4e *elt his ego slipping *rom him (E@8 italics added) 1t remains to spell out the promise o* this passage *or the on/going de"ate on the (im)possi"ilities o* deconstructing the logocentric identities/gender roles and reconstructing them "eyond patriarchal paradigm. 1* the most radical attempts in this direction constantly *ail, then "ecause, contrary to general "elie*

(c*. i0ous >@8 9illiams 13>), it is not symmetry "ut dis"alance, dise-uili"rium that logocentrism has always "een a"out. %o ac-uiesce with the )edipal imperative means to concede to the e0change which is *ar *rom "eing 7e-ual7, to accept the promise that the losses are lesser than the gains. 9ere it not *or this "asic dis"alance o* the discourse o* desire, the *ounding act o* logocentric epistemology, an act which posits one term as a norm, the other as lacking, would have "een impossi"leI1EJ. Crom this point o* view it seems that .eleu2e and .errida "y introducing the third party as a khoraic element, as a 7minimum shared "y the real, possi"le and impossi"le7I1@J (Logic >98 Name 99/1==), highlight the way to circumvent the di**iculty. Buppose that the adult "inary de*ines itsel* against the childhood se0uality without e0cluding/scapegoating it. 4owever, as our recourse to 'urnett+s novel has proved, this would leave untouched the most demanding pro"lem // that o* the third party e0pressing itsel*. Cor the third discourse should remain underdeveloped, to wit, share the *ate o* ?ristevan 7maternal7. 1ronically, criti-ues leveled at this notion ($ichten"erg/Kttinger8 9elchman8 de Megher) miss the point in the same way and *or the same reasons as the praises o* it do (.oan and 4odges8 Jaco"us). 9hat invalidates "oth is ina"ility to discern the real *ace o* the patriarchal adversary. %he parado0 is that, *ar *rom "eing 7unsym"oli2a"le7, ?ristevan semiotic 7maternal7 is the only possi"le sym"oli2ation o* the patriarchal Bym"olic )rder. %he only way to trigger signi*ication within the discourse o* desire is precisely to conceive o* the phallus as an underdeveloped penis or as a clitoris, *or only on these premises there will "e signi*ication -ua dissemination o* meaning (the possi"ility o* *inding maternal or phallic imagery everywhere). %here*ore it is not surprising that the proper deconstruction o* the patriarchal discourse o* the sym"olic desire will start with su"verting its semiotic e**igyI19J. %he su"versive promise o* childhood se0uality stems *rom the *act that the latter cannot stand *or anything save itsel*. 1n other words, it undermines the very mechanism o* de*ining/identi*ying -ua re*erring/relating, to wit, that nucleus o* rationality with which poststructuralism has tempered "ut *ailed to do away with entirelyI<=J. %he su"version is triggered "y the simple *act that it is neither possi"le nor impossi"le to de*ine onesel* against the child, *or such a de*inition will have neither semiotic nor anti/semiotic value. %his impossi"ility leads to the con*usion "etween the 1maginary, Geal and the Bym"olic, as well as "etween repression, denial and su"limation, ultimately, to the con*usion "etween the "asic concepts o* 9estern semiotics: something, nothing and anythingI<1J. %he parado0 is that, *ar *rom "ecoming unnama"le, this con*usion allows the child to e0press, or, to "e more precise, to represent itsel*, and to do this in a manner which the over/inclusive .eleu2ean semiotics was "ound to *ind inadmissi"le. 9hat primal narcissism "oils down to is the 7representation hollowed out o* e0pression Iactually o* impressionJ ... without which it could not "e +comprehended+ save "y chance I par ha.ardJ or *rom without Ii.e. "y staging, *etishi2ationJ7 (19;9: 1E1). )"viously, the only way to make sense o* a Creudian dictum which is reiterated all the more *re-uently the less it is understood, is to conceive o* childhood+s persistence as a constant gapless process o* e0aggerative representationI<<J, and in so doing to list narcissism as another vicissitude o* the drive, the vicissitude which reaches "eyond every kind o* "inarism, the su"lime poststructuralist "inarism o* di**erentiali2ing di**erence included.

Endnotes: 1 Bince the latter presupposes the *ormer, and not the other way, as poststructuralism would like it to "e, it seems that the 7social constructionist7 stance needs rethinking. < 7Btrictly speaking, 1 have not learned *rom this analysis anything new7 (3EE). %hen why "other to write it down, claiming moreover *or the case history 7e0emplarity7 (3EE), (las, there were khoraic moments o* an 7analyst+s despair7 when 7the situation was -uite o"scure7, when 7analysis seemed to make no progress7 (<@9). Bigni*icantly, the same spectacle is staged in one o* ?risteva+s recent analyses which attempts to transcri"e the )edipal $aw into more palata"le terms (@E/1=3). 9e shall soon return to this translation in order to *ind its analogues in .errida and .eleu2e. 3 *. 3uattari+s interview with . Btivale: B: )ren't there writers in pre!ious centuries who can also re!eal these kinds o deterritoriali.ation2 C3: 3es( certainly4 It's a problem o amiliarity4 It's a little di icult because 4 4 4 I may be saying

something stupid( but it seems to me that the e"amples o eruption o 5becoming$minor5 either ha!e been completely buried( or ha!e taken on considerable importance4 ,or e"ample( 6ean$6ac#ues /ousseau could ha!e been a minor writer( but on the contrary( he has a antastic importance 7as perhaps )rtaud will ha!e tomorrow8( being classi ied as a principal writer o the twentieth century4 I e!en think this is presently taking place4-o( I don't know4 One really has to see the 5minor5 a bit in its nascent state( one has to see it a bit closer to onesel because the historically distant 5minor5 has perhaps a di erent impact4 I don't know( I ha!en't thought about this #uestion4 Bigni*icantly, .errida, *or his part also has not considered the -uestion which is the -uestion o* poststructuralism+s validity. Do wonder that the pro"lem o* what in Diet2sche+s te0tuality has allowed *or Da2i appropriation receives no answer (9ar 3=/31). > 7... the *emale plot . . . unconsciously . . . rewrites the conditions and assumptions o* patriarchal culture7 (9illiams 13@8 italics added). : *: 7&ost dis-uieting re*lection o* all, was it not "ad *orm to think a"out good *orm,7 ('arrie, 11;). ; Bo it is not surprising that the recent reading o* $ittle 4ans *ocuses on Creud+s relation with the parents (Lutner 199:). E 9hence the impossi"ility to di**erentiate "etween .eleu2ean di**erence and the .erridaean di**5rance "y stressing the temporality o* the latter ('augh). %he irony is that the alternative view (.escom"es) does not di**er *rom the *ormer in the most crucial point, ignoring the role o* the khoraic gap in the production o* di**erence. @ Cor a thorough criti-ue o* the poststructuralist paraesthetic in its relation to )edipality consult $inetski 199;. 9 .errida is -uite e0plicit on this point, *ailing, o"viously, to think through the conse-uences o* his acknowledgement: 7%he duplicity o* this sel*/ e0clusion, the simulacrum o* this withdrawal ... %he specialists o* the nonplace IkhoraJ and o* the simulacrum Ithe *orerunners o* deconstructionJ ... do not even have to "e e0cluded *rom the city, like pharmakoi8 they e0clude themselves "y themselves7 (Name 1=@). 1= *.: 79hat is a -uestion, ... a withdrawal7 (?risteva @@). 11 Do wonder that the pursuit o* deconstruction makes the 'rechtian underpinnings more and more visi"le. %hus, .errida+s recent -pectres de :ar" starts with a -uite 'rechtian scene: 77Bome"ody, you or 1, steps *orward and says: +1+d like at last to learn and to teach to live+ ... %o learn and to teach to live. ( curious way to put it. 9ho should learn, Crom whom, %o teach to live, "ut whom, (re we ever to know, (re we ever to learn to live, (nd *irst o* all, what does it mean, +to learn and to teach to live+, (nd why, +at last+,7 (13). 1< Fnderstanda"ly, contemporary critics are reluctant to concede that it is the much hailed theatricality o* poststructuralist theory which compels them to regard didacticism as an intrinsic *eature o* the poetics o* children+s *iction, which contested on one level returns on the other (Gose ></;;). 4owever in order to read 'arrie+s novel as a didactic narrative we have to make an interte0tual, to wit, theatrical connection with Bhakespeare+s 'he 'aming o the -hrew, *or the novel as it stands care*ully avoids morali2ing trans*ormation o* edric into e0ample to "e admired and imitated even at the moments when such a trans*ormation could have "een made without pushing the point (c*. 19<). 13 *. the role o* theater in de Bade, Da"okov+s Lolita, Joyce+s 0llyses. 1> 7&astered "y his "etter sel*, he I4ookJ would have returned reluctantly up the tree "ut *or one thing. 9hat stayed him was Leter+s impertinent appearance as he slept. %he open mouth, the drooping arm, the arched knee: they were such a personi*ication o* cockiness as, taken together, will never again, one may hope, "e presented to eyes so sensitive to their o**ensiveness7 (1=9). Bigni*icantly in the narrative cele"rating 7the ama2ing, pleasing o"Aect ... the king mem"er indeedH Iguess whichJ7 ( leland 13>) sleep makes the innocent victim even more desira"le (c*. 119/13;). 1: %he title o* one o* the essays *rom ?risteva+s recent New :aladies o the -oul, which is pungently at odds with the te0t that treats the child+s di**iculties with e0pressing itsel*. 1; %he irony is that the invalidation o* the re"uke recently leveled at .eleu2e and 3uattari *or 7adoptIingJ the repressive hypothesis wholesale7 (Clieger) allows us to appreciate the critic+s insight which cannot "e maintained i* .eleu2e/3uattarian discourse was tainted "y the notion o* repression. %hat )nti$Oedipus is oedipal "ecause Creud+s )edipus is already anti/oedipal means that .eleu2e and 3uattari *oster the resolution o* the )edipus comple0 along the lines o*

su"limation *or Creud+s repression *ails to resolve it (whence the anti/oedipality o* Creud+s )edipus). 1E $ynda 4art+s criti-ue o* $eo 'ersani+s 7erotics o* su"mission7 (which, rhetorically, is a hy"rid conAunction o* the underdeveloped and *orked discourses) can "e use*ully incorporated into our analysis. %he author convincingly argues that, all the rhetorical twists notwithstanding, 'ersani+s li"ido still remains a masculini2ed one, i.e. posits male se0uality as a norm, and, conse-uently, *ails to sustain its promise to 7take us out o* the discourse o* the symptom into a nonre*erential version o* se0ual thought7, to wit, *ails to trigger 7the representational crisis7. 4owever the proposed amendments (ela"orations on the theme 7a les"ian strap/on as a per*ect simulacrum7) turn out to "e o* no avail. 9itness the concluding sentence which is a per*ect echo o* the cele"rated $acanian de*inition o* the Bym"olic )rder: 71n the les"ian imaginary, the phallus is not where it appears7 (4art), $acan: 7Cor it can literally "e said that something is missing *rom its place only o* what can change it: the sym"olic7 (19@@, >=). 1@ %he triad is "ound to remain pu22ling i* we are not to align it with $acan+s Geal, 1maginary and Bym"olic. (nd in *act, the $acanians are compelled to allot the phallus the khoraic role, acknowledging there"y its imaginary, to wit, semiotic (in the ?ristevan sense) status: 7$acan takes the imaginary phallus as the +at least one+ Ii.e. as a necessary minimumJ sym"ol o* di**erence ... the seeming impossi"ility o* psychoanalysis rests on the dis"elie* that a minimal di**erence could give rise to ma0imal e**ects7 (Gagland/ Bullivan E<). (s we have seen, poststructuralists cannot "e accused o* this kind o* scepticism. 19 (gainst the "ackdrop o* the preceding discussion it is not surprising that the phallogocentric narrative will *oreground e0actly the semiotic (in the ?ristevan sense) moments o* the khoraic Aouissance: 7$ouisa lay, pleas+d to the very heart ... she went wholly out o* her mind into that *avourite part o* her "ody, the whole intenseness o* which was so mightily *ill+d, and employ+d: there alone she e0isted, all lost in those delirious transports, those ecstasies o* the senses, which her winking eyes( the brighten'd !ermillion o her lips and cheeks( and sighs o pleasure deeply etched( so pathetically e"press'd4 In short( she was now as mere a machine 7 ( leland 19:/ 19;8 italics mine). 1* the reader "ears in mind the role allotted to the e0tra/linguistic semiotic material in the 7disciplining and punishing/curing7 discourse o* detection (psychoanalytic and otherwise), s/he will not need our prompt to recogni2e the su"versive *orce o* edric+s and Leter Lan+s constancy in maintaining the semiotic on the same e0aggerated level (c*. 'urnett 133, 13E). <= 9itness the poststructuralist notion o* the sel* as relational (c*. 'enAamin8 'raidotti <=18 Bhapiro). 9ithin the *ramework o* Leircean semiotics heralded as an alternative to the Bausserean structuralism such sel* takes the place o* the interpretant as a conAoining/articulating in/"etween. Dow it is precisely the *ocus on the interpretant which makes Leirce+s proAect appear *ar more rationalistic than the Baussurean one wherein the ar"itrary relation "etween signi*ier and signi*ied has something mysthical a"out it. <1 1t is the latter notion (khora) which is now in vogue. %he unnoticed irony is that the logical conclusion is the total aphanisis o* )nti$Oedipal desire since 7the +lost o"Aect+ Iwhich .eleu2e does not want to lose (19;9: 1@E/1@@)J ... is di**used so that any o"Aect and any part o* the "ody can "ecome an erotogenic 2one7 (4art8 italics added). << %he "est illustration o* the su"versive power o* the constant e0aggeration is 4ans+s pho"ia. 1* we are at last to allow 4ans to speak, and not to hear him (Lunter 199:) // so *ar as hearing is concerned Creud remains une-ualed // we must "elieve that he was a*raid 7o* all horses7 (<@3) instead o* dismissing his remark as a lie (<@3). %he same e0aggeration characteri2es edric+ discourse who *inds that everyone is not Aust his *riend "ut his 7greatest *riend7. %he way to tame the e0cess is to apply this term only to the grand*ather, i.e. to see in it a process o* ideal/"uilding, to wit, o* impression. 9hence .eleu2e+s stress on the selectivity o* the unconscious -ua repetition with di**erence (19;@: 3@1). "or!s Cited: (dams, Larveen, 7)* Cemale 'ondage,7 in 'rennan <>E/<;;. 'al, &ieke, Lethal Lo!e; ,eminist Literary /eadings o <iblical Lo!e -tories ('loomington: 1ndiana FL, 19@E) ////, 7&ise en a"yme et iconicite,7 Litterature <9 (19E@): 11;/1<@ 'arrie, J.&. Peter Pan ($ondon: Larragon, 1993) 'augh, 'ruce, 7&aking a .i**erence 'etween .eleu2e+s +.i**erence+ and .errida+s +.i**erance+,7

Laper delivered at .eleu2e con*erence, Lerth, :/E .ecem"er 199; 'enAamin, Jessica, 'he <onds o Lo!e (Dew Nork: Lantheon, 19@@) 'ernheimer, harles, and ?ahane, laire, Kds. In Dora's Case; ,reud $ *ysteria $ ,eminism (Dew Nork: olum"ia FL, 19@:) 'raidotti, Gosi, Nomadic -ub+ects; 9mbodiment and -e"ual Di erence in Contemporary ,eminist 'heory (Dew Nork: olum"ia FL, 199> 'racher, &ark, and Gagland/Bullivan, Kllie, Kds. Lacan and the -ub+ect o Language ($ondon: Goutledge, 1991) 'rantlinger, Latrick, 7+Lost/poststructuralist or Lrelapsarian, ultural Btudies and the Dew 4istoricism7, paper delivered at the con*erence Gethinking ulture, Fniversity o* &ontreal, (pril 3/:, 199< 'rennan, %eresa, ed., <etween ,eminism and Psychoanalysis ($ondon: Goutledge, 19@9) ////, and &artin, Jay, eds., Vision in Conte"t ($ondon: Goutledge, 199;) 'urnett, Crances 4odgson, Little Lord ,auntleroy (9are: 9ordsworth Kditions, 199>) leland, John, ,anny *ill; :emoirs o a =oman o Pleasure ($ondon: &ay*lower 'ooks, 19;3) i0ous, 4elene, 7 astration or .ecapitation,7, trans. (.?uhn, -igns E.1 (19@1): >1/:: ra*t/Cairchild, atherine, :as#uerade and >ender; Disguise and ,emale Identity in 9ighteenth$ Century ,iction by =omen (Fniversity Lark: Lennsylvania Btate FL, 1993) .eleu2e, 3illes, Logic du sense (Laris: &inuit, 19;9) ////, Di erence et /epetition (Laris: &inuit, 19;@) ////, Pourparlers (Laris: &inuit, 199=) ////, and 3uattari, Celi0, L')nti$Oedipe (Laris: &inuit, 19E<) ///, &a ka4 Pour une Litterature mineure (Laris: &inuit, 19E:) ////, ) 'housand Plateaus4 Capitalism and -chi.ophrenia ?4 %rans. 'rian &assumi (&inneapolis: &innesota FL, 19@=) .errida, Jac-ues, 'he 9ar o the Other (Dew Nork: Bchoken 'ooks, 19@:) ////, On the Name (Btan*ord: Btan*ord FL, 199:) ////, 7%he Lurveyor o* %ruth7, trans. (.'ass, in 'he Purloined Poe; Lacan( Derrida( and the Psychoanalytic /eading, ed. J.L.&uller and 9.J.Gichardson ('altimore: %he Johns 4opkins FL, 19@@) ////, -pecters de :ar" (Laris: 3alilee, 1993) .escom"es, #incent, :odern ,rench Philosophy( trans. $.Bcott/Co0 and J.&.4arding ( am"ridge: am"ridge FL, 19@=) de Megher, ., eds., Inside the Visible ('oston: &1% Lress, 199;) .oan, Janice, and 4odges, .evon, ,rom &lein to &riste!a ((nn (r"or: &ichigan FL, 199:) Celdstein, Gichard, 7%he &irror o* &anu*actured ultural Gelations,7 in Celdstein, Cink, and Jaanus 13=/1E3 ////, Cink, 'ruce, Jaanus, &aire. Kds., /eading -eminars @and ?4 Lacan's /eturn to ,reud ((l"any: BFDN, 199;) Celman, Bhoshana, 7)n Geading Loetry,7 in &uller and Gichardson 133/1:E Cliger, Jerry (line, 7)verdetermined )edipus: .esiring &achines and &ultiplicities ()r .addy+s &ommy and &e),7 paper delivered at .eleu2e con*erence, Lerth :/E .ecem"er 199; Creud, Bigmund, >esammelte =erke, hg. von (.Creud, K.'i"ring, 9.4o**er, K.?ris, ).1sakower (Crank*urt/&ain: B.Cischer, 19;E/19;9) / >= ////, 7(nalyse der Lho"ie eines *On*APrigen ?na"en,7 39, '. E, <>3/3@1 ////, 7Mur Kin*Ohrung des Dar2iQmus,7 39, '.1=, 13@/1E= 3ossy, &ary B., ,reudian -lips4 =oman( =riting( 'he ,oreign 'ongue ((nn (r"or: &ichigan FL, 199:) 3uattari, Celi0 ,7Lragmatic/&achinic7. .iscussion with Celi0 3uattari. 19@: n.pag. )nline 4art, $ynda, 7%hat was %hen, %his is Dow: K0/ hanging the Lhallus,7 Postmodern Culture >.1 (1993): n. pag. )nline 4ert2, Deil, 7.ora+s Becrets, Creud+s %echni-ues7, in 'ernheimer and ?ahane <<1/<>3 4olu", Go"ert . 79hat+s 9rong 9ith Lostmodernism,7, Postmodern Culture, <.< (199<): n. pag., )nline Jaco"us, &ary, ,irst 'hings4 /eading the :aternal Imaginary ($ondon: Goutledge, 199:) ?risteva, Julia, New :aladies o the -oul, trans. G.&.3u"erman (Dew Nork: olum"ia FL, 199:)

$acan, Jac-ues, 9ncore4 Le - minaire AA (Laris: Beuil, 19E:) ////, 7)n Creud+s +'rieb' and the Lsychoanalysts+s .esire,7 in Celdstein, Cink, Jaanus >1E/><< ////, 7Beminar on +%he Lurloined $etter+7, trans. J.&ehlman, in &uller and Gichardson <@/:> $aplanche, Jean, and Lontalis, Jean/'ertrand, 'he Language o Psycho$ )nalysis, trans. ..Dicholson/Bmith ($ondon: ?arnac 'ooks, 19@@) $ichten"erg/Kttinger, 'racha, 'he :atri"ial >a.e, Ceminist (rts and 4istory Detwork, $eeds Fniversity, 199: $inetski, #adim, 7%he Loststructuralist Laraesthetics and %he Lhantasy o* the Geversal o* 3enerations,7 Postmodern Culture E.1 (199;): n. pag. )nline &aggiori, Go"ert, 7.eleu2e/3uattari: nous deu0,7 Liberation Beptem"er 1< (1991): 1E/19 &yers, &it2i, 7)* &imicry and (9o)&an: In ans or Corked %ongue,7 Children's Literature <3 (199:): ;;/E1 Lunter, .avid, 74earing the ase / Creud+s $ittle 4ans,7 ,oreign <ody < (199:): n. pag. )nline Gagland/Bullivan, Kllie, 7%he Be0ual &as-uerade: ( $acanian %heory o* Be0ual .i**erence,7 in 'racher and Gagland/Bullivan >9/@3 Gamas, &aria, 7Creud+s .ora, .ora+s 4ysteria,7 in 'ernheimer and ?ahane 1>9/ 1@1 Gose, Jac-ueline, 'he Case o Peter Pan( or 'he Impossibility o Children's ,iction ($ondon: &acmillan, 19@>) Balecl, Genate, and Mi2ek, BlavoA, eds., >a.e and Voice as Lo!e Ob+ects (.urham: .uke FL, 199;) Bhapiro, 'ar"ara (nn, Literature and the /elational -el (Dew Nork: Dew Nork FL, 199:) Bhiach, &orag, 7+%heir +Bym"olic+ e0ists, 1t 4olds Lower / 9e, the Bowers o* .isorder, ?now 1t )nly %oo 9ell+,7 in 'rennan 1:3/1;@ Bilverman, ?aAa, 'he 'hreshold o 'he Visible =orld ($ondon: Goutledge, 199:) Bprengnether, &adelon, 7Kn*orcing )edipus: Creud and .ora7, in 'ernheimer and ?ahane, <:>/ <EE %rites, Go"erta B., 71s Clying K0traordinary, Latricia &ac$achlan+s Fse o* (poria,7 Children's Literature <3 (199:): <=</<<1 Flmer, 3regory, )pplied >rammatology4 Post7e8$pedagogy rom 6ac#ues Derrida to 6oseph <euys ('altimore: %he Johns 4opkins FL, 19@:) 9e"er, Bamuel, 7Kinmal ist ?einmal: .as 9iederhol"are und ds BingulPre,7 ,oreign <ody < (199:): n. pag. )nline ////, Institution and Interpretation (&inneapolis: F o* &innesota L, 19@E) 9eimer, Joan, <ack 'alk4 'eaching Lost -el!es to -peak ( hicago: F o* hicago L, 199:) 9ills, .avid, Prosthesis (Btan*ord: Btan*ord FL, 199:) 9elchman, J., ed., /ethinking <orders ($ondon: &acmillan, 199;) 9illiams, (nne, )rt o Darkness; ) Poetics o >othic ( hicago: F o* hicago L, 199:) 9ood, Daomi J. 79ho 9rites and 9ho 1s 9ritten, 'ar"ara Dewhall Collett and %yping the Datural hild,7 Children's Literature <3 (199:): >:/;;