I have tried this whole semester to be as open as possible to everything we have been studying--to try to examine my first thought to root out what assumptions I am making based on previous conditioning and education which may have been less critical and analytical--but psychoanalysis is one stumbling block I am having. Although I can understand some of the validity in the theory and how it makes sense to view the unconscious as a language (which is specifically articulated by Lacan, not necessarily by Freud humself), I am having trouble accepting the method of the interpretations of dreams--especially the somewhat arbitrary focus on minute details which become extremely important which is explained away by the identification of the process of condensation in dreams. I think it may be possible for one to accurately interpret dreams this way, but there is absolutely no way of knowing.
I can see that perhaps that is the key to being able to accept this type of practice--remembering that we are talking about discerning the content/nature of the unconscious which Lacan, especially, asserts is unknowable. I suppose that this comes back to one of the roots of good theory, which is theory that remembers it is theory, not fact, not authority, and certainly not practice.
Here I think is one of my problems with entertaining psychoanalytic theory--it is related directly to the practical application of therapy. This I think is why I find myself uncomfortable looking for the Oedipus complex and penis envy (even in the most abstract sense) in literature--because I am constantly preoccupied by the notion of these ideas being practiced within the realm of actual therapy. I realize that I am allowing my own emotional reaction to such strongly misogynist language and concepts to cloud my analytic thinking on this matter, and I think with time I will be able to integrate some of these ideas into my critical thinking (or recognize those which are already there for what they are), but for now, they make me very uncomfortable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's good that you mention theory "remembering that it's theory, not authority." I think I let that slip at times and it can, and does, mislead. Prof. was explaining to me about the idea of Lacan as 'a theory, not the theory.' I think there's something there. Like you say, the unconscious is unknowable (according to Lacan) yet the aim is to try and know its contents. Seems paradoxical but, as with the structuralist conundrum, at least its something to go on. Making an assumption and working with it, using the tools at hand, so to speak, is far better than flailing around in the darkness when your center slips away.
The process is almost the entirety of the idea as it gives a grounding in some tenable position to an otherwise freewheeling world. The issue of 'right or wrong' is, in the light of theory, somewhat moot. Consistency is far more valuable. Consistency, and not blaming it all on God, of course...
What i like about this is that you are challenging the ideas of Freud. It is refreshing for sure. As McBride mentioned in an earlier conversation of ours, it is fine to believe in these theories but really if you truly believe something so much, like Freud, then you can really make anything into it...you can make anything into penis envy, or repression of sex...anything can be turned into anything.
I believe that there is an unconscious and that in our dream world our unconscious is the most active but to along with i really think that not all can be tied to sexual subtext unless you want it to. Dreams could simply mean something obvious...think about that.
It is really interesting that you bring up psychoanalytical theory because i really did not think of that at all. To very vaguely reference Lacan, he does not believe in indulging in the ego...then what...what do we indulge, is indulging the ego so bad. I, myself, have not had experience with either psychoanalytical practices so i am speaking from inexperience, but i would say that indulging ( and indulging may be the wrong word) would be far better then interpreting a dream into something that may not even be true.
Specifically Ms. B, but to Mr. Pike as well, I think the issue we are dealing with here is the disconnect between practice and theory, which relates to the often inevitable slip of treating theory as 'the theory'--as something concrete. As I stated in my post, I think the issue I am having with freud etc. because Freud sees the theories relating directly to practice. That I think is scary. This is somewhat of a catch-22 for me because in some ways I want to be able to apply theory to political realities (like there are many postcolonialists who want their work to effect positive political change, for example). Yet at the same time, when theory is put into practice it seems to affirm the concrete nature or the 'rightness' of the theory.
Post a Comment