> 1. Isn't there a contradiction between (a) privileging metaphors of
"diagnosis" (playing a doctor) and (b) claiming at the same time that "acting
as if one knows" is bad (or as you say, "psychotic")? According to your logic,
your (or Lacan's/Zizek's) theory is bad.
I never claimed that Lacan's theory was correct. And I've often encouraged dissent. My concern from a while back on this list (which I've been followed in a scattered manner I must admit) is that no one has introduced arguments that warrant suspending notions or theories of the unconscious. Yes, it is a theoretical construct. I'd love for someone to post a good critique of all existing theories of the unconscious, something that would really make me rethink the fundamental tenets of psychoanalysis. Doug's comment via Zizek, "Why do people do strange things?" is representative enough... Why *do* people do strange things? Why do I write "I've not subbed myself to this list" when I really meant to type "I've subbed myself to this list" ?? Anyway, none of this is privileged.
> 2. As Carrol and Miles already mentioned, a "psychosis" is a misnomer and
no longer even used in medicine. You are using an obsolete term that
clinicians have decided not to use because it fails to serve the work of
diagnosis. I suppose that the reader may be led to think that a theory
that relies upon an obsolete term is likewise obsolete, but perhaps you
don't care what the reader thinks.
The word ideology isn't in medicine either. And "the end of ideology" thesis would seem to warrant avoiding that word too. Hell (which does not exist!), "the end of man" "the end of history" "the end of philosophy" "the death of metaphysics" ... are we to accept all roadkill as casualties of progress?
> 3. "Political punch" -- if there is any -- comes from the unfortunate fact
that many people think that being mentally ill is morally bad, a mental
illness is a kind of "character flaw," etc. Saying "psychotic" when you
actually mean "morally bad" reinforces the myth and implies that the
mentally ill are "responsible" for their mental illness (since without
"choice," there is no "ethics"). So, in this case, the "political punch"
actually lands on the mentally ill.
My entire point is that in psychosis people *aren't* responsible! That's my entire argument. People who are psychotic aren't responsible for their actions, because it is the Other that conducts their actions for them (there is no ego-function). Furthermore, you are trading in on a bait and switch here. Are we to limit our vocabulary based on historical uses of terms? I completely agree with Laing and others (maybe even Hillman!) that we need to "destigmatize" pathology while still recognizing that it contains insight into existing states of affairs. Anyway, when someone writes something like 'postmodernism is drivel' haven't they just stigmatized postmodernists and drivelists alike? I think we should take care in the way we phrase things - but we shouldn't let the possibility of misunderstanding terrorize us into silence.
> 4. It seems pointless & individualist to say "consumerism" is "bad."
Agreed.
Carrol wrote:
> Ken is engaged in precisely the kind of shit that first provoked my
>politicization several years before I dreamt of becoming a marxist.
>Apparently Ken's whole world revolves around put-downs of the
>bulk of the human species. He uses Lacanianism as a club. That
>is contemptible. It also brings out clearly that Lacan's theories are
>not only silly but aggessively corrupt and corrupting.
God save us from corruption! (where's my hemlock?). If you go through my posts carefully, you'll find that save the occassional flambe, I haven't directly put down anyone. On the contrary, I've defended an anarchist spirit, which essentially holds that human beings can sort things out for themselves, without the need for authority or institutions. Yeah, this is a bit naive. Most of my references are to commercials, movies, or works of literature - the discussion regarding abortion was illustrate, not material. My original impulse was to mention a historical example, Eichmann's defense, and compare the banality of evil with the highest good, but I've already done that on this list and I thought it a bit inappropriate to go over it again. So I invented an example, drawing from an ongoing conversation, and fully acknowledge that it may or may not have any concrete signified content. Theory always relies on a certain degree of speculation and abstraction. I use my 'aesthetic' examples deliberately. As far as I can see, I've defended a perspective, which basically holds that human beings often get carried away and do nasty things for apparently very strange reasons. I think the idea of the social imaginary helps sort this out. I don't understand why the term ideology escapes criticism while the term imaginary is taken as an offense to civil discourse.
>And while the incorrect technical use of "psychosis" as indicating
>a form of mental illness might possibly be excusable as due to
>invincible ignorance, its use as an ethical term puts it in the same
>category as n...... and c...
I refuse to accept that just because a panel of MD's voted on a technical meaning of a word that it should be dropped from the lexicon. Futhermore, my use of the term is embedded within an entire range of theoretical interests and technical jargon. If you disagree with the theory, that's fine. But it is unwarranted to imply that I'm "invincibly ignorant" for having a perspective.
The tragedy of this conversation rests on the fact that we would likely agree on most concrete political issues. Should minimum wage be higher than it is? Ought there be a universal medicare program? We have, simply, different reasons and explanations for arriving at these conclusions. When I recently returned to this list, I refrained from Lacanizing my discourse - as I pointed out to Rob - in favour of a more Habermasian dialect (idealism, performativity, discourse, epistemology, reconstructive sciences instead of imaginary significations, split subjects and 'Name of the Father' matrixes). Maybe I should have stuck with that. I didn't. I'm rapidly starting to regret my decision because this is stirring up more of a controversy that is otherwise required.
In my mind, there is no one "correct" way to criticize the hegemonic forces of late capitalism and the undemocratic processes of the current political economy. I've offered up one explanation - a pretty narrow explanation at that - and I've admitted that there are problems. I've tried to clarify what I take to be misunderstandings and I think I've done so in 'good faith' and a certain degree of charity. If I've come across as an arrogant asshole, my apologies. Truly, I don't understand why there is such controversy over psychoanalysis and social theory. I just don't get it. It seems to me that the intersection between Marxism and psychoanalysis is provocative and insightful. Simply saying that it is "incoherent" "offensive" "uncivil" "uninteresting" "ignorant" "boring" and so on isn't helpful (for me).
peace, solidarity and affection, ken