Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • 08b Stavrakakis - Laclau With Lacan PDF

    Enviado por

    Cassiana Maria de Farias
    38 visualizações12 páginas

    Título original

    08b Stavrakakis - Laclau with Lacan.pdf

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    38 visualizações12 páginas

    08b Stavrakakis - Laclau With Lacan PDF

    Enviado por

    Cassiana Maria de Farias

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 12
    39 LACLAU WITH LACAN ‘Comments on the relation between discourse theory and Lacanian psychoanalysis Yannis Stavrakakis' 1 Uncons Ata recent conference devoted to the theory, the call for papers presented Ernest Before exploring the status of this dialogue in detail, however, let me very briefly address some preliminary “historical” or rather genealogical ques- tions." When did this dialogue start and what is psychoanalysis contributing to the development of discourse theory? Is it one of its driving forces ‘mere “supplement”? Isit correct to infer, for example, that Laclau’s and Moulfle’s project of arti a4 LACLAU WITH LACAN It seems to me that there are obvious problems with this kind of argument. in Laclau’s work the confluence between Lacanian psychoanalysis and ppost-marxist discourse theory was envisaged from the beginning as a pro- ject subverting any simpli ic of supplementarity. Consider the follow- ing quote from a paper Laclau published in 1986 and in which he clearly confluence as an enterprise beyond any logic of supplement or words, ereates a whole new field in ies emerge; concepts and logics concept developed at the inter analysis: Any discourse is constituted as an attempt to dominate the field of 1 flow of differences, to construct a centre. the privileged discursive points of the meaning of eign ch the signifying chain es sible—a discourse incapable of generating any fixity ‘of meaning is the discourse of the psychoti reference in Laclau’s or Laclau and Moutfe’s undermined today by the fact that it could not take into account the whole dialogue that took place after 1985—between Laclau and Zizek for instance—and which jive mark in Laclau's work—most not- 10), which was que, and in alysis such as the one staged by this. time licted,” us SOCIETY, POLITICS, IDEOLOGY begun to focus on the impact of the unconscious on all forms of politics, hhe nevertheless chooses “without disregarding to limit... his]... reading to Hegemony and This is a pity because as Emesto Laclau clearly ew conducted by D. Zeginis and myself in 19 theory played an importa ies of his theory of hegemot © Now, whether this redefin the course ofthis paper. ‘Having established then, in this introductory section, that a serious and substantive dialogue does exist between Laclau’s work and Lacanian theory and having sketched a first genealogical map of this dialogue, my aim in the ‘main body of this paper shall be to discuss the exact nature and the stakes ‘elation with Lacanian theory. Hopefully the ‘become clearer in the process, somé tages in my argumentation, the art irued as in any way it represents a kind of snapshot of the relation as itis currently developing, and thi ‘whose future form is in no way predetermined. For Laclau’s project remains fone of the most original and dynamic interventions in contemporary political theory, especially in the field in which political theory meets psychoanalysis, 1 316 LACLAU WITH LACAN answer is the following: “But politics.” Such a view has been Moutfe’s work by Jane Bellamy: the role of the individual actor in ted as a criticism of Laclau’s and In order to render more meaningful their invoking of psychoanalytic terms Laclau & Mouffe would need to be more specifie about the precise nature of the intersection between the social ... and the psychic which however fragmented, alienated and deconstructed is surely a major factor in the implementing of political actions. Their ideological henomena is too broadly deployed to allow for a con- f the individual psyche as a factor in the operations of dual psyche” ray a certain res to giving up an ul ‘What must be emp! psyche is nothing other than th ‘extremely clear inthis respect: at least for Lacan, this subject as lack. Lacan is in the term subject ... 1 am not designating the living substratum needed by this phenomenon of the subject, nor any sort of sub- stance, nor any being possessing knowledge in his pathos, his suf- fering, whether primal or secondary, nor even some incarnated logs ception of subjectivity from Hegemon terms of subj 3) to New Ref were was a tendency of reducing the subject to a neeption). Today I tend to distinguish ive subject positions and the subject as the subject of 10 what of the SOCIETY, POLITICS, IDEOLOGY Lacanian conception of the subject as lack which gives La ‘opportunity of reaching a more sophisticated mapping of beyond any psychological essentialism or reductionism. But why exactly is that? First of all because itis lack which makes necessary the constitution of every ding thus inexorably the sub- ive Ievel to the objective. It seems that Laclau realizes that by introducing. the conception of the subject as lack, and by recognizing the constitutive Wvity (the Joh Spaltung), Freudo-Lacanian psycho- not only radicalizes our understanding of the subject in politics, but ive and the What offers a coherent account of the relation between the subj obj ive orders, the latter of which pertains to the level of the “Psychoat subject.”"" Here, not only discourse theory meets Lacan but Lacan meets discourse theory—an encounter he would conclude with his theory of the four discourses. From this point of view, as Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy have put it, “there is no subject according to Lacan which is not always already a social subject.” ‘The key term for understanding this relation between the subjective and the objective is, of course, “the psychoanalytic category of identification, s explicit assertion of a lack at the root of any identity: one needs to h something because there is an originary and insurmountable * By locating thus at the place previously assigned to an individual psyche a constitutive lack, Lacanian theory avoids reductionism of the social to the individual level and opens the road to the confluence of psychoanalysis and sociopolitical analysis since this lack can only be (partially) filled by sociopolitical objects of identification. But what is even more important is that Laclau does not remain content with this schema. In my view he senses that the importance of Lacanian theory for sociopolitical analysis cannot be reduced to this, albeit important, subjective level, nor even to the relation between the subject and the social grasped through the concept of ide yn. Lacanian theory is equally concerned with the objective level, the level ofthe object of ider se (Lacanian categories such as the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary encompass the whole of human experience and not only the s0- petita display thoroughly “object kind of objectivism, hae calls the lack in the Other. As Zizek hi 3 LACLAU WITH LACAN, the most radical dimension of Lacanian theory lies not the Lacanian subject recogniz= divided, crossed-out, identical to a lack in a signifying chain”] but in realizing that the big Other, the symbolic onder itself, is also harré, erossed-out, by a fundamental idan impossible/traumatic kernel, ‘The lack in the big Other is the big secret of psychoanalysis, as Lacan calls it already from his 1958-59 Seminar. Something is always missing in the Other; there is no Other of the Other. The structure of the Other is revealed as a certain void, the void of its lack of guarantee in the real. Meaning is always based on semblance: precisely because “there is no last word”; meaning always indicates the direction toward its failure,” its failure to anchor itself ‘on the real. In that sense, it becomes legitimate to argue that Lacan's major contribution to contemporary theory is “a new picture of the social social field is revealed as a discursive field of represent Iated on the basis of the repression, the exclusion, the reduct - ately unrepresentable real; a real which is however resurfacing, making thus visible the irreducible failure inscribed at the heart of the Other of meaning: “there is a fault, hole or loss therein in the Other}.”™ Now, where does Laclaw fit in all this?” What I want to argue is that this the Other effectively translates the split character of every object of ident described as the ultimate impossibility of society. In a 1983 paper character~ joes not exist as a given, necessary, extra-discursive founda- only produced as an obj ssuture My in the previous paragraph was not ink between discourse theory by Laclau and Mouffe as M9 SOCIETY, POLITICS, IDEOLOGY fone where this filling-in would have reached its ultimate con- sequences and would have, therefore, managed to identify itself with the transparency of a closed symbolic order. Such a closure of the lack in the Other: does not mean that itis not signified through empty signifiers are produced—a concept hhas, in other words, an objer petit a qual becomes an empty signifier, as the signifier of this absence. In sense, various pol ir efforts to present their particular objectives as those which carry out the filling of that lack. To hegemonize something is exactly to carry out this filling function.” Ina review article for a Greek journal,” and also in his contribution to a volume that was recently published in German,” Thanos Lipowatz stages a critique of E. Laclau's project which is art certain psychoanalytic framework.” As I understand objection is that Ernesto Laclau ov in Laclau’s discourse an a order to help diffuse WITH LACAN attribution to the political of such an imaginary status, For that, in E. Laclau’s work, the political is always explored in social, the level of sedimented practices and social construction). For him, the social is disrupted, thereby ushering in new identificatory attemp institute it by means of imaginary/symbolic rearticulations (played 01 context of hegemonic struggles attempting to suture the lack in the Other), ‘The moment of the political is to the order of ted as a result of nor absolute. dimension this is because this dimension has been

    Você também pode gostar