any result, lacanian p-analysis?

[j laari]

Greetings!

I'm afraid I'm not going to be particularly helpful. However, there is
one positive thing Lacanian kindof psychoanalysis has done to me: it
demonstrated that discussions on a more general 'level' - say, Marcuse
and Fromm on Freud in 1930s - aren't scientifically fruitful and
constructive today. (You want philosophical discussion? Then you can't
bypass questions of phenomenology, hermeneutics and deconstruction.
However, that's another problem and obviously unsuitable for a
discussion list on marxism where 20th century Standpunkt is rigorously
maintained, to say the least.) In contemporary human/social sciences
more precise and technically developed accounts has to be made.
Lacanians have at least offered more sophisticated accounts of
relations between - dare I say - 'living organism' and social
machineries like language. Personally, I find it difficult to accept
them. The vexed questions concerning 'human agency' and the likes
aren't handled properly by lacanians. But then again, that probably
wasn't their main interest.

In general, I'd suggest anyone interested in issues of emancipatory
thinking and psychoanalysis to see Joel Whitebook's book "Perversion
and Utopia". Whitebook is quite tough on lacanians as well as on
frankfurters. I think that one of his central questions concern the
loss of perspective and direction of younger Frankfurt marxians (or
leftists in general). It's a question concerning alternatives: from
where they do come from, on what ground do we construct them?
Whitebook seems to be afraid that, for example, Habermas has
theoretically closed the dimension of alternatives. Which means that
it's difficult to appreciate theoretical orientation that takes the
social world as 'given' (accepts the social world as such). I believe
it's worthy to think whether there is too much naturalism in late 21st
century marxisms. Lacanian insistence on 'symbolic' (psychic)
functions might be instrumental in questioning more or less naive
naturalism.

Sincerely, Jukka L

>  I must say that I also find the Lacian
> approach to psychoanalysis and critical theory unhelpful
> ...
> I made a confession and a new year's resolution. The confession is
> I don't really fully understand a lot of the post-modern critique of
> modernity that i read, and in particular I really don't fully understand the
> Lacanian perspective. My new year's resolution is in two parts: first, I am
> going to try to open my mind to these new ideas without assuming they are
> stupid (either the ideas or the people!), and secondly I am going to ask
> people directly to explain what they mean when they speak in language that I
> don't follow.  So I am asking. Could someone explain what the Lacian
> perspective has to offer for understanding the present dilemmas of modern
> society, the war, the social psychology of modernity and capitalism.  What
> can we get from Lacan, that we could not get from Fromm, say?