I love to ask questions and I think that's a good approach to take at school because many intellectuals love to give answers -- and good ones at that. And so this is the question I now pose to you, and maybe it can somehow lead us to better understanding concepts like feminine (and masculine) masquerade, double consciousness, etc.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Open Question
In class yesterday, one I hope you all found very interesting and thought provoking, psychoanalysis was given a lot of attention. Some of the comments from Tara and others in class certainly left me curious. A few of you thought psychoanalysis functions in the academy as a common ground or a common language. Without thinking if this is either a good idea or a bad one, I really want to know exactly how this is used in practice. Psychoanalysis and all its strands (i.e. Lacanian, Deleuzian, Freudian) are so complex, where can you go to really engage with others in this rigorous stuff? Is it really the goal at school, in our writing, or at conferences to use language as potentially alienating as a psychoanalytic one? Yes, the academy should maintain a level of rigor or else it risks becoming a dumbed-down, pedestrian institution, and while I think psychoanalysis is one viable antidote for that risk, it's not something in my short time at the academy that I've ever seen as intstrumental in forging relationships with other intellectuals. Am I missing something?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Sean,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that psychoanalytic theory does introduce jargon to the academe which complexifies the field, some would say, even unnecessarily.
But to clarify what I meant by my comment in class that theory (and by this I do not mean only psycholanlytic theory) provides a language with which to speak, I had a specific context in mind. I wasnt quite referring to a "common language" in the literal sense of having a shared set of jargon with which to write to other academics, but "language" more in the sense of a framework or overarching world-view which informs one's politics. I cant say much about feminist theory and its early affinity for psychoanalysis because I dont consider myself well-versed enough in those areas, but when writing with an agenda to say, recuperate postcolonial positions from a tradition of accounts which sideline these positions, I find that one goes back to theory to search for that "language" or that "vocabulary" which organises one's research into a political agenda which has its place in the academic literature. For instance when thinking about my research in the performance of "savageness" or "primitivity" in colonial travelogues and ethnographic film, I find myself always returning to theories of the gaze and to Foucault or to Taussig not because I particularly am trying to rehash "acadme-speak" but because they provide a theoretical "language" which is useful. I can guess that was why psychoanalysis was signigicant in feminist theory or film theory for a significant amount of time -- it provided a theoretical framework for a field which was starting to establish itself. Like we said in class, psycholanalyis provided avenues to theorise or discuss subjecthood, desire, power, etc regardless of how flawed or problematic the approach.
Still, I am quite glad that film theory has become to incorporate a lot more that psychoanalytic theory.
I agree that we can see psychoanalysis as having great historical importance. As you put it eloquently, "it provided a theoretical framework for a field which was starting to establish itself." And there exists a wealth of writing on the subject as well. But my fear and anxiety sets in when it's taken too far, and when academics feel obligated to do so.
ReplyDeleteI must mention also (but to a lesser extent), that Foucault and Deleuze are unhealthy fixations. Let's begin instead quoting our fellow academics who are just as bright (and alive to partake in the dialogue). I love seeing a new name I've never heard being name dropped in essays! It's so democratic, right?
I posted my question right after class last week, so I didn't intend for psychoanalysis to bleed into this week's discussion (unless Tara wants for it to). Thanks for responding, Nadine. :-)