Jump to content
Felix Hoenikker

Lacan Explanation

Recommended Posts

Could one possibly run the Stavrakakis style kritik as a counter-K to a Zizekian criticism with an alternative that says something along the lines of acting out against capitalism as if the revolution were present and possible... couldn't one consider that a style of utopianism and kritik it?

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could one possibly run the Stavrakakis style kritik as a counter-K to a Zizekian criticism with an alternative that says something along the lines of acting out against capitalism as if the revolution were present and possible... couldn't one consider that a style of utopianism and kritik it?

 

-G.

Anything is possible since Stavrakakis does have a few minor disagreements with Zizek on the alternative level. Since then however Zizek has responded to this disagreement and there doesn't seem to be much of one anymore. Really though the alternatives that have the potential to link to Stavrakakis of Zizek's are few and far between and the one you're citing probably isn't it. Largely because Zizek's alternative here is, in a way, anti-utopian since it is about the exhaustion of all possibilities so that the only thing we have left is the most hellish response possible. No one knows what the result of the revolution will be but he certainly doesn't say it will be pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I read Lacan and the Political, but there is one thing I didn't really get. What is the internal link between trying to create a stable identity for yourself and utopian political projects?

 

Another quick question is what is the role of framework in the Lacan debate? I've seen cards about how we should act as the aff's analyst and such. Is it more strategic to go with something along these lines, or just not even bring up framework at all and try to outweigh the aff case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I read Lacan and the Political, but there is one thing I didn't really get. What is the internal link between trying to create a stable identity for yourself and utopian political projects?

This is something that becomes a bit more evident if you're familiar with the minor shift from early to late Lacan. In the early Lacan the surplus produced by the split subject is referred to as das Ding (the Thing) which is the Real element of subjectivity that is excessively produced by the symbolic. However in the later Lacan a shift is made away from das Ding and toward the objet petit a (the partial object) which is an autonomous object that also produces its own excessive jouissance. The late Lacan makes this shift because he believes that this excluded element of subjectivity is inevitably found in our partial objects the objects of our fantasies are ultimately what attempts to cover up the gap made by the Thing. This is why political subjectivity can be about identity since the object of these political fantasies is what we try to cover up the gap of existence with.

 

Another quick question is what is the role of framework in the Lacan debate? I've seen cards about how we should act as the aff's analyst and such. Is it more strategic to go with something along these lines, or just not even bring up framework at all and try to outweigh the aff case?

The better Lacanian frameworks have more to do with discourse than anything else. Otherwise the framework debate should probably be forgone since most other framework arguments are just pleading to get impact turned.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is something that becomes a bit more evident if you're familiar with the minor shift from early to late Lacan. In the early Lacan the surplus produced by the split subject is referred to as das Ding (the Thing) which is the Real element of subjectivity that is excessively produced by the symbolic. However in the later Lacan a shift is made away from das Ding and toward the objet petit a (the partial object) which is an autonomous object that also produces its own excessive jouissance. The late Lacan makes this shift because he believes that this excluded element of subjectivity is inevitably found in our partial objects the objects of our fantasies are ultimately what attempts to cover up the gap made by the Thing. This is why political subjectivity can be about identity since the object of these political fantasies is what we try to cover up the gap of existence with.

 

This explanation is absolutely on the mark, but it is pretty inaccessible for those just starting with lacan =P

 

http://www.omgphatloots.org/Debate/Shapiro%20Cut.doc

 

The cards starting on page 8 of the word document, and going through the rest should be about good.

 

If you plan to incorporate my cutting of VC into a file, please just drop me a line via PM. I won't reply, but I'd just like to know who is using it :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alex, (or anyone who feels up to it), could you please discuss lacan's theory's as to the relationship between the Ich and the Lust, or the Ich and Jouissance? Specifically in relation to the functioning of the Id. Zizek refers to it in Law and the Postmodern Mind, which was released in Books and Articles recently.

 

thanks

 

-rett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ich is just the German word for the subject or the ego (Freud uses the word interchangeably). Jouissance is thus the excessive enjoyment produced by the objet petit a and passified through sublimation to the extent where it loses its traumatic nature. However at the point in treatment where the subject comes to embody the partial object and becomes immersed in drive jouissance is allowed direct contact with subjectivity and the symbolic breaks down. Basically, jouissance is that which is lacking in the symbolic but if actually obtained means the complete destruction of the symbolic universe. (As for lust I assume this is related to libido and as a result is also drive which = death drive without sublimation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im just starting to do some reading on lacan and edelman i just read no future what else do i need to read or what authors need to be read for greater understanding such as books by lacan or more edelman books. thanks.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of telling people to start Lacan with simple clinical Lacanians. Some people disagree with me on this point. But if you are down with that The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance by Bruce Fink is a fantastic intro.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The better Lacanian frameworks have more to do with discourse than anything else. Otherwise the framework debate should probably be forgone since most other framework arguments are just pleading to get impact turned.

 

By this do you mean somehow applying the four discourses business to framework? I've seen this kind of thing mentioned but don't really know what the arg would be. What is the argument here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any tips on how to convince judges to not totally hate this argument? I ran it last tournament, and the judges seemed to hate it nearly every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By this do you mean somehow applying the four discourses business to framework? I've seen this kind of thing mentioned but don't really know what the arg would be. What is the argument here?

I'll shoot you our framework blocks for Lacan shit after we break our Lacan aff for this topic.

Any tips on how to convince judges to not totally hate this argument? I ran it last tournament, and the judges seemed to hate it nearly every round.

Explanation with this argument is ridiculously important and you have to get rid of jargon as much as possible. Try to explain it in terms that make it sound as simple as you can without making your reading something that occludes the important elements of the technical stuff. Use metaphors a lot if you want and make a case overview if its an aff or a K proper overview if you're neg. The first time you write the overview explain it as in depth as possible and make it as long as you want then reread it and take out parts that are unnecessary, condense sentences, etc. Treat your overviews and explanations like cards you want them as concise as possible and you want every word to matter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the idea we went for, but in the 1st round the judge said we were far too fast for him to understand. Next round, we just got crushed for time, because it ended up taking like 2 minutes. The happy compromise seems impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll just take a lot of practice and time paring down the explanation. Take your time with it and before you know you'll have lay judges voting for Lacan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Mezriss is right on this one it does take time. Another tool that you can use that is often effective if the critique is something that's hard to understand easily you can not only give a quick overview explanation (that's in terms of time not how fast you're going you should probably slow down a tad on the overview) but also explain your answers to their answers in the context of your criticism. Let's pretend that you're making a cap bad argument or something for example, one thing that alot of people do when answering Lacanians for some reason is spam some Robinson evidence. So your answers could be something like this:

"They say the alt justifies mass slaughter but they've conceded our Zizek in 97 evidence which indicates that the solopsistic dance of capital in relation to the Third World makes these slaughters an inevitable and daily reality, also their Robinson evidence isn't speaking to the context of our alternative. His criticism is in reference to a sarcastic remark Zizek made in regards to a strategy of ironic engagement with Capital our alternative is about a refusal to participate in the system all together by denying the false choice that the affirmative posits between a capitalist utopia and a non-capitalist dystopia. Which, in the context of the round, means rejection of the affirmative."

Not the best example since I've not gone for Cap Bad in years now but whatever. If you want more help just add me on AIM or something and I'll see if I can help you make overviews on the argument better or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, perhaps you can help me with something.

After reading No Future I still don't understand what produces the need to eliminate future's opponents, the queer. Freud's original conception of the death drive seems to be local to the subject reliving once painful memories despite the pleasure principle. Is it this death drive that compels those bound to reproductive futurism to terminate all threats to futurity's child? Or is it simply the need to protect a fantasmic future?

Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex, perhaps you can help me with something.

 

After reading No Future I still don't understand what produces the need to eliminate future's opponents, the queer. Freud's original conception of the death drive seems to be local to the subject reliving once painful memories despite the pleasure principle. Is it this death drive that compels those bound to reproductive futurism to terminate all threats to futurity's child? Or is it simply the need to protect a fantasmic future?

 

Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Longer explanation than I have the time to or care to type at the moment. Shoot me an email address or AIM screen name or something and I'll help you out that way Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinson says the lack isn't real. That it is a self-referential myth, etc.

 

What is the best response to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem/benefit for the team reading a Lacanian critique is that these psychoanalytic concepts are non-falsifiable meaning that they can't be proved or disproved. When someone is making an argument like this you need to make that argument maybe with evidence whatever suits you and then explain to the judge that since it can't be proved or disproved all you need to do is win that the concept is good. At that point just read some cards from the Stavrakakis book on this question if its Robinson, some cards from Organs without Bodies if it's Deleuze and leverage the case against these claims. By the sounds of it there isn't any real offense here in their argument so it shouldn't be too hard to beat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One concept that keeps popping that I am unable to determine from context or explicitly find a definition for is "contingency". My everyday use of the term (as a noun basically an emergency or other "extreme situation" and as an adjective replaceable with "dependent" and damn near always used as part of a prepositional phrase - "contingent upon <x>") doesn't seem to help at all. Anyone spare a clue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...