I want to start this post with my take on Freud and his ideas. I am intrigued by the unconscious. I value his exploration of that which we do not 'see' or 'know' about ourselves. I would like to think of dreams as some sort of 'escape hatch' through which the repressed seeks an outlet into the conscious mind. These ideas are fascinating to me.
Where I disagree with Freud is in his proposed ability to discover a 'definitive' answer within the unconscious. I say this with the 'Dora' case study in mind, officially titled 'Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria', in which he completely and irresponsibly misread his eighteen year old female patient. It is questionable enough to claim answers to something as complex as the unconscious mind, but to then misuse that 'knowledge' in this way is truly disgusting. Barry also acknowledges Freud's work as being overwhelmingly masculinist (what with the Oedipal complex, the phallus, and the vagina representing a 'void' or 'emptiness'). Okay, we get it! Penises are ever present, like God or Jesus or my mother's relentless nagging voice telling me I'm not good enough.
I tried to hold back, honest i did, but it was TOO good to pass up. Wonder what Freud would have to say about this?
On that note, let's talk about love. Derrida describes love as narcissistic. This statement alone feels like an unprecedented deconstruction of love. Love is supposed to be selfless and pure, right? What could be selfish about love, the most beautiful emotion that the 'human experience' has to offer? Hate to burst your bubble, dude, but Its the love for yourself that is radiating so strongly from this person, this Other. Derrida jumbles things up quite a bit when he differentiates the what and who (is it you I love or something ABOUT you?). Its all very confusing in a sort of post-structuralist-pick-apart-everything sort of way. I believe Derrida also said at one point that love cannot be generalized, so of course, this narcissist thing is not necessarily true of everyone (though the cynic in me is very much in agreement).
I also want to mention briefly Derrida's comment to the director that 'this is not my biography, this is your autobiography'. In the same way that he views love as narcissistic, as a sort of projection of the self onto the Other, the director(s) takes parts of Derrida's being and applies it to herself. This is not Derrida as he sees himself, or as he 'really' is, its Derrida through the lens of anOther. Interpreted, picked apart, and edited together in pieces.
For once I'd like to end my blog post with some sort of conclusion, instead of abruptly stopping.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with your Anti-freudness. After reading lacan i think he has a better understanding of child development and how it effects us as adults.
When Derrida speaks about love, and call is narcissistic, it makes me think that to love someone else, you have to love yourself first. Once you know who you are, and you love who you are, you then can start to focus on someone else. In this sense, love is narcissistic because you need to love yourself to love the other. I don't know if that really makes a whole lot of sense, but when Derrida spoke of love, it made me think of being narcissistic not as something bad, but as a process we must go through before we can allow ourselves to love others.
I'm really glad you put up the avalanches, and I like what you have to say about how Lacan. This is your best post yet!
Post a Comment