Another take on science....

[Neil McLaughlin]

Hi Ken,

I don't really think my question below is unfair at all. Fairness in
academic/intellectuals questions depends, of course, on the type of field
or intellectual discourse one operates in.
I like to think about intellectual and even philosophical questions with
some empirical reference in mind.

How does think A help us understand issue/topic/process B better than
thinker C seems to me to be reasonable question indeed.
If intellectuals are going to spend the time getting inside the complex
language of Lacan (and some comple discourses are certainly worth
mastering), it makes sense to ask what is the pay-off.
I have never read any account of Lacan in relation to the social
psychology of capitalism, or wars or whatever that made a compelling case
of the approach. I still have not heard that. And that was what I was
asking. No matter...
Different approaches....


By the way, the Fromm/Marcuse debates about Freud were in the 1950s not
the 1930s. I am certain Marcuse knew relatively little about Freud in the
1930s....

Neil McLaughlin






On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neil McLaughlin" <nmclaugh@mcmaster.ca>
>
> > ... I really don't fully understand the Lacanian perspective... What can
> we get from Lacan, that we could not get from Fromm, say?
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> Kind of an unfair question isn't it? Almost like saying, "What can we get
> from Levi-Strauss, that we could not get from Husserl?"
>

























> If you're looking for something accessible and relevant to the interests of
> the FS, I'd recommend Yannis Stavrakakis, Lacan and the Political (1999).
> I'd also recommend Zizek, but if you already have doubts then it will likely
> do nothing more than turn you off. Zizek is a demanding read, and generally
> requires a fair bit of background knowledge to follow... and you have to
> have a high tolerance for references to popular culture (Hitchcock in
> particular) scattered throughout commentary on Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and
> Paul (just for starters).
>
> The problem I generally find with criticism of Lacan and the "new Lacanians"
> (including thinkers such as Zizek, Salecl, and Copjec) is that the bulk of
> them reveal a blatant and irresponsible unfamiliarity with his work and
> thought. I don't quite understand the desire to ruthlessly criticize
> something that one really knows so little about and something that one isn't
> interested in knowing anything about ... I guess I kind of understand it,
> but I don't really see why it should be encouraged. In any event, if one is
> sympathetic to a theorist like Z. Bauman, then I don't really see why the
> Lacanian material should offend, as long as you happen to be predisposed
> towards psychoanalysis. It won't persuade you of anything if you aren't. You
> really must like Freud as a prerequisite (I hope someone is chuckling).
> Sure, Lacan gets associated with postmodernism, but so does the FS and that
> doesn't seem to bother the FSers all that much... something that is usually
> resolved by saying "the FS anticipated the postmodern critique several
> decades earlier..." (as if that means something). One could just as easily
> say "Lacan anticipated the postmodern critique... and avoided all of its
> problems." But I guess we get to say whatever we want.
>
> Oh yeah, whose postmodernism are we talking about? I get confused easily.
>
> futures past,
> ken
>
>