On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> > My major beef with the "psychobabble" as ken puts it is this:
> > the more abstract the theorizing about the unconscious and desire,
> > the more attention tends to be shifted away from the issues of
> > power and social relations I emphasize above.
>
> Psychobabble does nothing *but* examine issues of power and social relation.
>
> A man lives in a house. He redecorates. A couple days latter he
> collapses. What happened? As it turns out, in redecorating he'd move a
> picture from one wall to another, leaving a 'hole' where the picture
> formerly was. Without conscious effort, he had actually identified
> with this "misplaced picture" and was overwhelmed by the world -
> "nothing was in its proper place." He moved the picture back (and
> after a while was able to move it again) and was able to rework his
> paralytic trauma into something workable.
>
> The American point to be made is that this makes for good conformity -
> fix 'em up and put them back to work. This is both trite and banal.
> The psychobabble point is that something happened in the scene - a
> series of associations that brought about a breakdown. I can't help
> but think that this "abstract theorizing" is a mighty friend in time
> of trouble.
>
If this is your example of how psychoanalysis is relevant to understanding power relations and social arrangements, I think you just made my point. What does all of this have to do with the actual human activity that made the house, the wall hanging, the decorating supplies possible? Who benefits from the constant social pressure to redecorate homes and offices? As you illustrate, a psychoanalytic focus obscures the important social and economic questions.
Miles