Opacity of the Subject (Was: Bulter and Bad Writing)

curtiss_leung at ibi.com curtiss_leung at ibi.com
Fri Jan 29 16:31:09 PST 1999


d-m-c quotes Lacan (or Butler on Lacan? I don't have _PLOP_):

> "Opacity...opaque. The ability of a mirror to reflect is

> conditioned by its opacity. It is a pane(pain) of glass, like a

> window; but unlike a window, it is neither transparent nor

> translucent. Opacity requires the impenetrability of light. In

> order to see oneself in a mirror of one's own making, in order to be

> self-reflective, there is a fundamental opacity at the very core of

> one's being. It is an opacity that cannot be penetrated if one is

> ever to become self-reflective, to take oneself as an object of

> reflection, of thought, of consideration. This is source of both

> the agony and joy of the human condition....

But does the doctrine of the subject really give rise to this problem?

Any specific *instance* of reflection will be blind to something, but

does a conception of subjectivity as an *ongoing process* and a

process mediated by other subjects (the starting point of the

Master/Slave dialectic) fall prey to this criticism? I don't think it

does.

If the conception of subjectivity provided above doesn't give rise to

the problems in the passage quoted, is this the same as claiming you

can have an epistemology without an ontology (a previous question of

d-m-c's in a post I can't find now)? Maybe -- but the question seems

to assume that ontology has to be prior to any other type of thought,

that I have to account for capital-B Being before accounting for any

particular small-b beings. And I think that amounts to stacking the

desk against any knowledge or activity in particular, for as soon as

the priority of capital-B Being is conceded, the significance (or

insignificance) of any small-b beings -- such as the emergence of

dissident knowledge and activity -- fall prey to the charge of

ontological insufficiency. That which doesn't fall into line is

inauthentic, indefensible, uninformed, doomed to failure. For,

statements like

> the self bars the path to wholeness, unity, and reconciliation by

> deflecting desire, misrepresenting itself, misrecognizing what it

> truly desires

aren't based on any analysis of subjectivity, but on posits about what

a subject has to be prior to any actual instances.

And I think that these are not only hopeless doctrines, they're

incorrect.

The doctrine of the priority of ontology "forgets that circumstances

are changed by men and that it is essential to educate

the educator himself." And this means that theories of being and

knowledge aren't things we need have recourse to to justify our acts

and thoughts, but that they are things we *do* when we act and when we

think. Does the self present difficulties for our realizing

wholeness, unity, and reconciliation? Sure, but it's also what

enables us to experience what fleeting moments of fulfillment we find.

It's also the only means we have us pursuing fulfillment.

Final quip, and perhaps a cheap shot, but I have to say it: not all

mirrors are totally opaque. So-called pellicle mirrors, used in

motion picture cameras, both transmit and reflect light. If we must

have a metaphor for subjectivity, I prefer this one, with its strange

and fascinating possibilities.

--

Curtiss



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list