Subjective dispossession and objet a
Discourse of the University
Download 480.65 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Discourse of the Hysteric
- Decline of the Paternal Order and the Rise of the Hysteric Consumer
Discourse of the University
Dialing the Master Discourse a quarter turn to the left, one arrives at the discourse of the University. In the University discourse, S2, knowledge is in position of agent as expert, addressing objet a. University discourse as S2 represents the contemporary rule of the expert, the economist, the bio-genetic researcher, the committee on medical ethics, an officer from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the pronouncement from the central Bank regarding the functioning of the economy. In all these instances S2 addresses an other as objet a, as object, as remainder. In other words a subject as object, as something to be talked at, lectured to etc., thus producing as product of this discourse, the split subject It is the master signifier S1 that drives the university discourse but remains hidden beneath S2. That is, S1 functions here in the position of truth – what is disavowed by the speaker in the position of S2, is that she or he operates under the guise of providing cover for S1 the master signifier. As such whereas the discourse of the Master is one which states without any equivocation the Law, the University discourse sets up to provide a rationalization for the Law. Suffice it to recall the market expert who advocates strong budgetary measures (cutting welfare expenses, etc.) as a necessity imposed by his neutral expertise devoid of any ideological biases: what he conceals is the series of power-relations (from the active role of state apparatuses to ideological beliefs) that sustain the “neutral” functioning of the market mechanism. (Žižek 1998b, 79) University discourse presents knowledge in the position of an agent of knowledge who attempts to pacify the object-cause of desire with his/her expertise and explanations. The product of this exchange is the barred subject One could attribute as Žižek does, the ascendency of the discourse of the University to the decline of what he calls ‘symbolic efficiency’ and the rise of a post-Oedipal configuration which in general terms is roughly described as the breakdown of master signifiers that could hold together such grand political narratives as liberal democracy, capitalism and socialism. These were once the hotly contested political frames people used to orient their politics. But increasingly the breakdown of the ability of these S1 signifiers to quilt their respective field of signification whether that had been the definition of science or marriage, sexual relations, gender roles or the role of the church to just name a few issues that were once the ‘taken for granted’ foundation of the social. Now the ensuing breakdown has left the field open and as such people now tend to pick and choose which scientists they agree with as with their choice of news. There has been a decline in public trust in politicians and public figures. And with this a plurality of groups and entrepreneurial types of sprung up to fill this vacuum. One need only glance at the effectiveness of conservative coalitions to address the decline of the patriarchal authority in the family, the decline of Christian faith, decline of a language that speaks to ‘one nation’ and so forth. Hence the rise in ethical committees and the role of the experts, administrative technocrats, business management experts, fitness experts, health experts, financial experts, all offering their services to help navigate the confusing array of options available. Discourse of the Hysteric
Dialing the Master discourse a quarter turn to the right, one arrives at the discourse of the Hysteric. Whereas the discourse of the University is the discourse of the institution and status quo, the discourse of the Hysteric has been taken up by many to be the discourse of the dissident radical.60 The hysteric position is marked by the barred subject For Lacan, the subject is as such hysterical: hysteria is, at its most elementary, the failure of interpellation, the gnawing worm questioning the identity imposed on the subject by interpellation — “Why am I that name?”, why am I what the big Other claims I am? (Žižek 2008a, 344) The position of master S1 could be that of professor, scientist, economist or priest and it is the hysterical subject In his reply to the student uprisings in May 1968 , “What you, as revolutionaries, aspire to is a Master. You will have one” Lacan interpreted their outbursts as a hysterical cry that sought change but only insofar as they could chain themselves to a new master (Seminar XVII 207). Jodi Dean extends this critique to claim that demonstrations that call for more ‘democracy’ remain caught within the discourse of the Hysteric, seeking to show the lack in the Master, but do so only within the terms of power’s own discourse. And so, when all is said and done, the protesters pack up their signs and go home, feeling content at the attendance figures and that their message was registered in the big Other, whether that big Other is represented by the State, God, Law, Media, History or Nation. The University and the Hysteric discourses are fundamentally opposed, so that literally when these two meet, the result is a non-result, they merely end up speaking past each other. Jeanne Schroeder illustrates this with an example of a legal economist speaking the discourse of the University, being confronted by a student critic or worker who speaks in the discourse of the Hysteric: The critic, speaking the hysteric’s discourse, does not address the legal economist in his public persona as expert (S2). Rather she addresses the truth hidden below this pretense – power (S1). The legal economist, speaking the university discourse, does not address the subject subjected to law, but rather what he sees as the collective goals of society and the law. The hysteric cries, “Look what your law is doing to me!” The university replies, “The law has a purpose.” (Schroeder 2008, 154) The discourse of the University is a crucial apparatus for the hegemonization of knowledge, providing the means to sediment its purpose and reason as ‘common sense.’ Such is the case that when the hysteric cries out that the law does not operate for him, the discourse of the University replies that the working of the law is there for a sound reason: “the university’s reply is not an answer to the hysteric’s question arising out of the truth of her pain ... It does not help her integrate within the symbolic order of law but further alienates her.” The university’s response to the hysteric, Schroeder points out, “is equivalent to Ring Lardner’s immortal conversation ender, ‘Shut up,’ he explained” (178). Decline of the Paternal Order and the Rise of the Hysteric ConsumerMany North American Lacanian commentators will describe an implosion of the traditional Symbolic order that was based on repression, guilt and the paternal Law. Primarily up until cracks started to appear in the 1950s, the Symbolic was based on guilt and repression, it enforced a modicum of law and order, as everyone gave up a part of enjoyment in full knowledge that it would be a collective endeavour (McGowan 21). This is a collective repression that results in a modicum of solidarity, tradition and order, settling around the primary S1 master signifiers: Church, Family, State, Law and Order. Beginning in the 1960s the Symbolic order based on shared guilt and repression has gradually been replaced by a super-ego commandment to “Enjoy!” The messages that speak to subjects today are not ones based on linking of repression to future rewards, such as chastity, forbearance, and tradition, but instead the message is to “Realize yourself,” “Live life to your full potential,” “Enjoy!” (McGowan). As Renata Salecl points out, if one is not having great sex, a great career, great vacations, a great body, then one is simply not living properly. Between the period of 1991 and 2000 the self-help publishing industry took off. In this period of time between 33% and 50% of Americans purchased a self-help book (Salecl 2011, 29). The question then becomes: “What happens when enjoyment becomes the mandate of an entire Symbolic order?” The waning of the symbolic order of paternal law to one of enjoyment precipitates the question “what does the big Other want of me?” What am I for the Other? This question moves from narcissistic self-indulgence to an enduring capitalist theme (Boyle 2008, 10). The transition in the Symbolic order between guilt, repression to enjoyment brings about a persistent self-questioning fuelled itself by objet a, the object-cause of desire. During the reign of the Oedipal Symbolic, the object-cause of desire was sublimated into activities: community service, family outings, church activities, recreational bowling leagues etc. The breakdown of the reign of the Oedipal law, and the rise of the super-ego command to Enjoy! effectively unleashed the objet a from its Oedipal anchoring and let it run free in a metonomy of desire. And it is precisely this metonymic movement from desire to desire that capitalism post-World War II exploits and creates the hysteric-consumer, in his or her permanent quest to fill the lack in the endless aisles of mega-marts, department stores, antique shops, thrift stores, etc (11). Download 480.65 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
.
, in the position of agency addressing a master represented by S1. The product of this exchange is S2 knowledge, and the position of truth is occupied by objet a. Objet a drives the hysteric to seek answers to the question Che Vuoi? or “What does the other want of me?” “What do I mean for the Other?” In the position of the hidden truth and driver of the discourse sits objet a as cause of the hysteric’s desire, the pulsating repetitive drive to know.