From: "christian a. gregory" <chrisgregory11 at email.msn.com> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 14:19:55 -0500
> In short: only psychoanalysis, thus far, grasps the paradox
> of modern subjectivity as an absent centre.
>
> My point here isn't to lay down an authoritative groundwork
Hunh? *Only* psychoanalysis does this, but this isn't a claim on an authoritative groundwork? That's only badly concealed authoritarianism (and, in that way, just like Joan Copjec). I mean, doesn't it strike you as funny that you have to trip over yourself to say that this isn't the final word? If it really weren't, if you really didn't believe in the superiority of one tradition over others, why would you say this? You've just defined the most valuable tradition as the one that gives you what you say psychoanalysis gives you. (Well, only psychoanalysis gives us the absent center, and as everybody knows, that's self-evidently good or right or interesting or ethical or whatever . . .) Sounds utterly tautological to me, in fact, suspiciously like what you say about new age stuff: "'bad' theology - openly authoritarian or conservative frameworks which, without apology or explanation, assume the [superior] validity of one historical tradition in an ahistorical manner." Sheesh.
Besides, why try to save psychoanalysis this way? Does its success as a critical language depend on, say, deconstruction's failure? I mean, accepting what you say about decon or Habermas, for example (tho both your characterization seem utterly wrong to me), why aren't those views (especially your characterization of Habermas) consistent with the absent center? More importantly: what's so great about the absent center? Where does that get you, exactly? Who cares?
Just wondering.
Christian