The signifying chain, which represents the unconscious, is put into play. The mirror has revealed the inadequacy of the individual in the face of an extrinsic world. The phantasy of totality is redeployed as the anchoring signifier for the unconscious, the phallus. From this point all other relations of unconscious derive their "structure," or rather, it is the relation to this master signifier whence all other signifiers may be posited. The phallus founds a topographical field, a landscape, upon which may be charted desire. We must first ask, however, how this master signifier comes into play, i.e. what initiates this move of the unconscious to establish itself as anything other than a smooth screen? what occasions the transition from a nebular to a solar system?
When the presubjective individual recognizes its imago (a second-level bifurcation, for the image need not of necessity be interpreted), it finds itself within a rupture. On the one side of this interstice there emerges a concept of the individual, internal psychic life; on the other, the harsh brutality of the external world. The self projects an image into the world and this projection does not require the sanction of any intention. Nor does the projection in any way invoke the individual according to a law of internal/external correspondence. Thus, the individual is fundamentally separated from, yet always already within a world. This conjoining without conjunction places the individual within an impossible situation, as a being of agency, yet also without this same agency--a dynamic resonance within a dialectical situation sans resolution (the original solution, a phantasy of totality, was extant prior to the subjective break).
The breech of this solution, through the imposition of the law of non-correspondence, is thus of critical importance to the understanding of signification and desire. To return to the argument presented in Lacan v. Gender Pt. 2, the position of The Woman (La Femme) serves as the signifier of non-correspondence in relation to The Man. Strictu senso, the position of the non-correspondent cannot be signified within a system, for it is this non-correspondent (the coherent contradiction as Derrida might call) which guarantees the signifying system. Such an appearance by this apparition would serve as a ton of dynamite, blasting away the ramparts and eliminating any possibility of an internal/external dichotomy. Within the space of any discourse then, the other of the discourse must be annihilated simultaneously with the founding of the discourse. And yet without this non-existant other, the signifying chain would cease to function, desire would grind to a halt. There would be no animating force, nothing to prod the system into production, as it would be weighed down under its own inertia.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Lacan v. Gender Pt. 2
When Lacan writes of the non-existence of (the) woman, a few things must be taken into account. First and foremost, Lacan's writings consist predominantly of lectures. Therefore, the word as written (from the position of a speaker) corresponds to a series of demonstrations, inscriptions upon a chalkboard. Secondly, Lacan writes in the French language. The first point is evident based upon the reproductions of his chalkboard diagrams in several of his works. The second, well, Lacan gave his seminars to analysts in France.
As regards the place of the signifier, the "non-existence" of (the) woman--this is poorly rendered in English due to the structure of the language and usage of the concept of woman within academic discourse. When referencing the non-existence of woman, it is the "la" which is crossed out on the chalkboard and not the "femme." It is not "les femmes" or "une femme" which does not exist, but "la femme," the most correct translation of which, in Lacan's thought, would be "The Woman." This is a shot at hierarchy, at the attempts of reifying a dialectic wherein the feminine is the negation of masculine. This negation, strictly speaking, does not exist, as there is always something of (the) woman, which plots an exorbitant trajectory away from the domination of the masculine (entre jouissance). However, women, the plural still exists, as does a woman. It is only the overdetermined, the disciplined Woman which does not exist for a woman may still be some other than a woman without exclusion (plurality and the indeterminate exist, The One does not). Woman may only be The Woman, the negation of The Man. According to logic, then, if Man exists and Woman is the negation of Man, then Woman does not exist. This same gesture may be applied to any signifying discourse for which an absolute is posited; the indeterminate and plurality are the interminability of the signifying chain, whose beginning Lacan, with a strong degree of humor, notes with the symbol for the phallus (a regular mind-fuck, if you will, to those analysts operating within a concept of an absolute masculine/feminine opposition).
As regards the place of the signifier, the "non-existence" of (the) woman--this is poorly rendered in English due to the structure of the language and usage of the concept of woman within academic discourse. When referencing the non-existence of woman, it is the "la" which is crossed out on the chalkboard and not the "femme." It is not "les femmes" or "une femme" which does not exist, but "la femme," the most correct translation of which, in Lacan's thought, would be "The Woman." This is a shot at hierarchy, at the attempts of reifying a dialectic wherein the feminine is the negation of masculine. This negation, strictly speaking, does not exist, as there is always something of (the) woman, which plots an exorbitant trajectory away from the domination of the masculine (entre jouissance). However, women, the plural still exists, as does a woman. It is only the overdetermined, the disciplined Woman which does not exist for a woman may still be some other than a woman without exclusion (plurality and the indeterminate exist, The One does not). Woman may only be The Woman, the negation of The Man. According to logic, then, if Man exists and Woman is the negation of Man, then Woman does not exist. This same gesture may be applied to any signifying discourse for which an absolute is posited; the indeterminate and plurality are the interminability of the signifying chain, whose beginning Lacan, with a strong degree of humor, notes with the symbol for the phallus (a regular mind-fuck, if you will, to those analysts operating within a concept of an absolute masculine/feminine opposition).
Lacan v. Gender Pt. 1
The writing of Jacques Lacan relies heavily upon word play as a tactic for destratifying an ostensibly ossified linguistic landscape. The fundamental power of language lies in its ability to transmit, i.e. language always functions as a conduit, a viaduct if you will. Within Lacan's work, the structural aspects of language, when applied to the Freudian concept of the 'unconscious,' allows for a 'decoding' of the desiring subject via the subject's use of language. The structure of the unconscious is assumed to mimic the structure of Sausserian linguistics, which thereby provides the necessary key to decrypt the linguistic cipher which enshrouds the signifying subject. In this view, the individual unconscious unveils itself through the significations of the individual (as opposed to the signifying act).
When first encountering Irigaray (a student of Lacan's) translated into English, it becomes apparent that the French language is lacking something quite prevalent within the English-speaking academic landscape, namely a concept of "gender" separated from a concept of "sex." During the time of Lacan's work, the Francophone world had not yet developed a differentiated concept of gender. The term "genre," from which the English language derives the term "gender," refers to gender solely in a linguistic sense, i.e. as in the differentiation between a masculine and feminine noun. The English term "gender" is rendered in French as "sexe," which is also the term used to signify the English term "sex." Any notion of performativity within the concept of genre is thus foreclosed, as the term remains solely indicative of the "gender" status of a linguistic utterance. Based upon these structures, one may construct two rudimentary "strict" sets:
The French Set:
[M, F] - sexe
The English Set:
[Mm, Mf
Fm, Ff] - sex/gender
where M signifies what biologically is termed XY, F XX, m the masculine production of values and behaviours and f its feminine counterpart. Obviously, the English set provides a more furtile ground for the production of concepts, as its second-level contains 16 permutations versus the four permutations of the French set. The potential continuum within which one may theoretically operate vis-a-vis sex/gender thus varies significantly between the Anglophone and Francophone world (we will take a ^2 power operation to be more than adequate for this characterization). (Of course, it will be remarked that the preceding biological characterization is itself reductive, omitting the XXY, as only the most obvious of faults. This assault is valid, but for the sake of simplicity we will forgo this criticism, which action we hope the subsequent arguments will vindicate).
When first encountering Irigaray (a student of Lacan's) translated into English, it becomes apparent that the French language is lacking something quite prevalent within the English-speaking academic landscape, namely a concept of "gender" separated from a concept of "sex." During the time of Lacan's work, the Francophone world had not yet developed a differentiated concept of gender. The term "genre," from which the English language derives the term "gender," refers to gender solely in a linguistic sense, i.e. as in the differentiation between a masculine and feminine noun. The English term "gender" is rendered in French as "sexe," which is also the term used to signify the English term "sex." Any notion of performativity within the concept of genre is thus foreclosed, as the term remains solely indicative of the "gender" status of a linguistic utterance. Based upon these structures, one may construct two rudimentary "strict" sets:
The French Set:
[M, F] - sexe
The English Set:
[Mm, Mf
Fm, Ff] - sex/gender
where M signifies what biologically is termed XY, F XX, m the masculine production of values and behaviours and f its feminine counterpart. Obviously, the English set provides a more furtile ground for the production of concepts, as its second-level contains 16 permutations versus the four permutations of the French set. The potential continuum within which one may theoretically operate vis-a-vis sex/gender thus varies significantly between the Anglophone and Francophone world (we will take a ^2 power operation to be more than adequate for this characterization). (Of course, it will be remarked that the preceding biological characterization is itself reductive, omitting the XXY, as only the most obvious of faults. This assault is valid, but for the sake of simplicity we will forgo this criticism, which action we hope the subsequent arguments will vindicate).
Writing/Righting/Riting and death
We recompose ourselves upon a digitial landscape in the hope that writing might return, that the flood may overturn our seafaring vessel and deposit us upon a richer soil. A garden may take shape, or perhaps this will act solely as a monument for a failed attempt at recovering a body, trapping a voice which has already escaped our grasp. Our intellect constrains us and we wriggle as a fish caught in a net trawling the ocean floor. Should this writing give birth to a structure, any structure, then we should only be so pleased. At the very least, this will relieve congestion and allow for smoother flows across other grids. It should also be noted that this gesture evidences a particular form of exhibitionism and masochism, a desire to see ourselves ripped to shreds in the hope that we might examine these wounds and trace whence their flow emerges. This examination positions us both as doctor and pariah. We wander through the desert and it is here that we make our home.
"If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)
"If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)