A Reflection
When my group decided to split up our presentation between all the varied topics of psychoanalysis, phenomenology, and reader-response, and each present a particular theory, I was pretty sure I knew which I wanted to do most (although I do admit later, as I was putting the presentation together, I couldn’t help but wonder what I had got myself into). As I’ve mentioned previously, one of the biggest things that drew me to theory in the past was a creative writing class I took last semester with Prof. Haake. Prof. Haake loves to discuss a wide range of theory in her classes and how they relate to writing, and one of her favorites happens to be Lacan. When she first introduced Lacan’s concept of the Mirror Stage last semester I remember being immediately in awe of how we learn to identify ourselves through image and language at such a young age, and how this impacts our sense of self for all our lives ever after.
Through our readings and discussions for this class, as well as Prof. Haake’s lectures last semester and in another class I’m taking with her now, I attempted to patch together my own understanding of Lacan’s complex theories. Fittingly, I found the more I attempted to figure out how to explain these theories, the less sense I felt they made. In my head, I have this very clear idea and feeling for what they mean, and yet to explain it in language seems to destroy that deep understanding. Yet, as Lacan tells us, this doesn’t mean we should stop trying to use language to explain things – it’s a natural part of human psychology.
So I attempted to persevere through the presentation, and I was impressed with how it went. (I do admit I was a little embarrassed by how much time my portion took to present – what was intended to be five minutes wound up being over ten, possibly the longest of our group. My Communications professor would not be proud of me.) Although part of me was at all times terrified at the notion of getting it all “wrong,” I was actually really happy to get feedback from Prof. Wexler, who seemed supportive of my attempts to come up with my own explanation of the theory, even while questioning me a bit at times. I realized some confusion in my explanation might have been cleared up if I had used more of Saussure’s terms or at least discussed his theory more specifically in relation to Lacan, especially considering that I think he’s a lot more illuminating in explaining Lacan than trying to compare Lacan to Freud.
Overall, in the moment of presenting, and looking back, I’m impressed with myself in how logical (I think) I managed to be. It was very important to me to not just parrot back information from the reading, but to give my own take on it and hopefully help the class understand it a bit more. I think (and hope) I succeeded in this for the most part.
I do admit though that I’m pretty sure my reading of Lacan is entirely postmodern/poststructuralist, and this is mostly Prof. Haake’s fault. (Of course I use the word “fault” quite jokingly here, because I do prefer this reading of Lacan, really.) Considering that at the time of the presentation we hadn’t yet covered poststructualism, this made me feel a little awkward and I wonder how much sense I made because of it. I know this was pointed out by Prof. Wexler at one point when he asked, “are we clear on what the idea of language being ‘distancing’ means?” (or at least I think the word I had been using in the presentation was ‘distancing’), and then he proceeded to mention Derrida, to which I agreed that he probably helps with the understanding of the theory, and mentioned we discussed him in relation to it in another one of my classes, which was Prof. Haake’s. But more importantly, this made me realize that at the time Lacan was writing, I wonder whether his theories were taken quite in this same poststructuralist way, considering that that movement hadn’t yet happened…correct? Or at least, Derrida was writing and lecturing in the ‘60s, ten years after Lacan’s “Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I” was published. Although I suppose the two happened close enough in time that they probably impacted each other a lot.
In any case, I suppose I’m stuck viewing Lacan with a poststructuralist lens. Probably not solely the fault of Prof. Haake, but, to quote our syllabus, “our ostensible postmodern condition.” From what I can tell, especially in my higher education studies, we are a bit biased to a more postmodern/poststructuralist view of things. Or maybe just in upper division classes. Whether that’s a positive or negative, it’s worth keeping in mind.
Archive of my Presentation
Copy and pasted from the PowerPoint I used… I tried to write these in such a way that I could expand upon in class and open a discussion with. Okay, maybe the discussion part was a little optimistic, but I at least hoped we’d be able to have one with the final Harry Potter clip…unfortunately, there was an error with the internet during the presentation and it wouldn’t play. I tried to summarize it but I doubt the effect was the same, and we were short on time anyway, so a discussion never really happened. If I could have changed one thing about my presentation, it would have been that more of a discussion could have resulted, as I agree wholeheartedly with Prof. Wexler in that what good or fun are these types of classes without discussion? Theories and stories mean nothing without the reader’s thoughts on them…again, a very reader-response and postmodern standpoint. And I stick to it.
Jacques Lacan
1901-1981
Influences
• Highly influenced by Freud and Saussure
• Critiqued and expanded upon Freud’s theories
• Used Saussure’s model of the linguistic sign as both signifier and signified to expand on Freud’s work
Three Dimensions of the Psyche
The Real
• Can’t be known or discussed
• Can only be studied in relation to the Imaginary and Symbolic
The Imaginary
• Our image of ourselves as a distinct individual
• Is imaginary because it is a form - a fictional idea of wholeness we can’t actually obtain
The Symbolic
• Our attempt to communicate/experience the imaginary through language, symbols, or signs
The Mirror Stage
• Occurs from the age of six - eighteen months
• The baby sees itself in the mirror and takes joy in its image
• In this way the baby for the first time views itself abstractly, as an image of a distinct self (the Imaginary)
• The baby learns to say “I” in order to express this sense of self-identity (the Symbolic)
• This is how we learn to define ourselves as individuals - through image and language - as the idea of a distinct, whole self that never truly exists
Signification of the Phallus as Desire
• Lacan views Freud’s theory of castration fear as a bigger metaphor for the psychology of desire
• Castration for Lacan is a symbolic loss brought about by our use of language
• Through language (the Symbolic) there is a splitting off - it brings us closer to the abstract (the Imaginary) while simultaneously distancing us from our body (the phallus) and its needs (the Real?)
• This creates desire - a desire for something we can never attain, because it never existed to begin with - thus desire is insatiable
• Castration is also a separation from the mother - the child recognizes that the mother lacks something (a metaphorical phallus), realizing that the mother can’t be all they need
The Mirror of Erised - Lacanian?
I’m still not sure how well this clip fits with Lacan’s theories, but it seemed like a fun idea. The Mirror of Erised – desire spelled backwards. My take: Lacan says that the Mirror Stage, our entering into the Imaginary and Symbolic realms of the psyche in which we view the world lead to desire – our desire for the Real. In the clip, Harry desires to be with his parents in reality, but is only able to do so symbolically through the mirror. Dumbledore advises Harry not to get caught up in the imaginary and forget reality. And yet, according to Lacan, this is not possible. Our reality is always filtered through symbols and signs – they create our reality. So, in conclusion, perhaps Dumbledore must learn more about poststructuralism.
No comments:
Post a Comment