>as i recall, isn't this process of forming a coherent subject always premised
>on a split and consequently its continuation as a (seemingly) coherent
>subject requires the constant re-assertion of such splits (or what then
>become divisions between 'us' and 'them', to put it too crudely...? to put
>it another way, isn't this process not only always contradictory but can only
>sustain itself through contradictions? ie., in the above it seems to me that
>you lay it out in a somewhat synchronic way: 'we internalise x as the
>foundation of cohesion', whereas i think butler and zizek are both
>dialecticians of sorts.
I'll concede my gloom the other day was turning diachrony into synchrony.
One of Butler's longstanding obsessions, though, is how most accounts of psychic formation assume a certain coherence from the outset: as if there's some empty ego container waiting to be filled by various experiences and identifications. What's she's interested in is how that "container" is formed in the first place, and one answer is through subjection.
If I hadn't been feeling so gloomy, I might have emphasized the other part of her trademark formula - how structures, identities, whatever, have to be constantly performed anew, which makes the structure, identity, whatever vulnerable to fucking-with. Yeah, sure, she gives very few examples, and it's all too individualized/idealized, but I think something could be done with this by non-individualist non-idealists.
>so then, perceptions of threat (to identity) are important to look at (which
>is why zizek talks about racism and nationalism)
Yes, absolutely. But if psyches, at least as we know them, are structured through a kind of paranoia, then I'd really love to know how to get beyond racism & nationalism.
Doug