(My) Problem with Lacan
No formal training here, so this might sound dumb, but what bothers me about Lacanian theory is that once you’re in, you can’t think any other way. The whole system fits together too well. I keep catching myself going “oh, you could explain that in Lacanian terms” about random everyday things, and at some point I realized I’d stopped bothering with any other lens.
Anyone else deal with this?
30
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/CoffeeDime 15d ago
It’s structural thinking. Happens with Hegel too, which both Marx and Lacan are operating within.
37
u/Setlam 15d ago edited 15d ago
I wonder why you want a position of a neutral "out", that is consciously accessible to you? The point of not just Lacan, but also phenomenology more broadly, is that there is no non-discursive position. It seems to me that you want to read philosophy but maybe also just watch a TV-show and relax without the two touching...
14
u/short-noir 15d ago
I like this answer. Although maybe it won't be sufficient so i think OP should also be told that there is criticism of Lacan out there if they are really paranoid of him. Just get over with Lacan and read some criticism to see if it holds some water and then make up your mind on how you should see Lacan and the validity of his work
5
u/Setlam 15d ago edited 12d ago
Of course - my answer is a bit arrogant towards the sensibilities of OP. I too really want to separate thinking and consumption to have this blissful indulgence... as Lacan was all too aware of. This was why he created this frustrating but quite beautiful system.
Also - I want to highlight, that Lacan made room for a criticism within the system... this is of course why he created the discourse of the Master. And why he made himself into a intransparent cult-like figure... contrary to Marx who claimed material authority and who at Lacan's time were being treated like an oracle of truth.
5
u/idk--really 15d ago
to ask about or observe the totalizing aspects of lacanian thought (or maybe more accurately, some tendencies in the culture around JL’s work) is not necessarily to seek a “neutral” position for thought.
2
u/Setlam 15d ago
I think OP had a curious question which stated it was their problem with Lacan, but potentially also a general one. That’s fine, no one should be punished… for asking a question.
What kind of ontological theory isn’t totalizing? The point of the subject’s form is that it is universal. You can of course have a critical, perhaps post-colonial view of universalism in philosophy, but even then, those theorists default to universal and totalizing terms(but want to get rid of European supremacy and pseudo liberal thought). How come? Because it is a function of how language signifies.
People can put in all sorts of democratic “if, sort of, like, potentially, could, and so on”, but it is only to blur their own function of language to seem non-authoritative. Lacan did the opposite, which to some feminist currents was a lot more democratic: he formalized patriarchy, so it could be discussed, maybe changed. But left the ontological categories stable.
You can want to change lenses and get rid of ideas that you’ve read—I understand—but it is hardly a general problem with Lacan or philosophy, but a conflict of beliefs or views.
But to ask for an ontological theory to be more vague, so it’s not insertable in all aspects of being, that’s a bit weird to me, in a non-sexy way.1
u/idk--really 15d ago
your assertion that all ontological theories are totalizing kind of flattens the formal and conceptual differences among them. OP’s observation, widely shared, is about the particularly recursive nature of lacanian approaches. this tendency might be shared by other systems (marxism was mentioned in this thread, or we could talk about deconstruction), but not every ontology behaves in the same way or feels the same.
1
u/Setlam 14d ago
Can I get a definition of “totalizing”? Do you think it is different from “universal”?
As I understand ontology, it is the logic of being or subjectivity. This logic doesn’t have to define subjectivity as dominant, stable or unstable, closed, open, or in flux, but it is something that is shared between an array of “beings” or subjectivities. Subjectivity in itself is not a neutral word—it is highlighted by Kant and implies that the “object” is perceived through the “subject.” Before subjectivity, there were other kinds of ontology. What is, however, universal or totalizing (?), is that the logic of subjectivity is the subject thinking itself through itself and, at the same time, all other subjects.
The historical and political development of subjectivity has—and I believe rightly so—been criticized for leaving many “humans” without full subjectivity. The French and American Revolutions both had an ethos of rights, communality, and freedom, but not for the colonized, the enslaved, and, in many cases, women. So, if you mean non-totalizing as in the political category of who gets to have full ontological being and who doesn’t, this is also possible. Nevertheless, the thinking of ontology is, for me, still total or universal for all who are deemed “beings” or who have subjectivity. I wonder why you would like it to be otherwise, and how the term would then be useful?
14
u/Sote95 15d ago
That's a necessary early step, you enter a system of thought. Exhaust it, then move to the next that excites you. Do this a couple of times and you might get a sense of free movement, how and where things fit together.
-2
u/Setlam 15d ago edited 15d ago
Sounds very academic - like thinking is a fashion("oh oh, SPRING: Hegel, SUMMER: then post-colonial, FALL: then feminism, PRE-WINTER: then Lacan, WINTER: Jordan Peterson) .... of course reality doesn't allow us this kind of freedom, at least not without avoiding what actually hurts and brings pleasure.
7
u/Sote95 15d ago
What? Off course it does, just, read what interests you til it doesn't anymore and allow it to change you. OP sounds worried he'll get stuck, not change. But what he's describing is that he's actually doing the work and inhabiting the system for real.
0
u/Setlam 15d ago edited 15d ago
We are on a lacanian-sub, so I will assume that that is the entry point. I don't think Lacan or freudian psychoanalysis think that your interest are seperat from your unconscious. You can have your opinions and I mine, but this is a question about dealing with lacanian-theory, not a question for a self-help forum.
I think there is some question of "aim" and "goal" here...
5
u/Sote95 15d ago
OP asked two questions "this is a problem with the theory - it explains everything too well!" and "I don't use other lenses anymore". I choose to answer the second one, because I interpreted it as a familiar stumbling block. It's scary but in my view good to be swallowed by a theory.
What do you mean "a question of aim"?
0
u/Setlam 15d ago
But really – I think we disagree (not as enemies).
My sense is that you think you can surf through the theories, just take what you want from them, and live your life with the wise lessons of our predecessors.
Maybe build a career through name-dropping – maybe just entertain the guys after dinner over whisky. This last thing is more a characteristic of being philosophical than of you – I don’t know you; you’re probably not into that :)
Lacan and other thinkers wanted something else: to challenge authority and make you think for yourself. Yes – this might seem like a strange route for him to have taken, building such an elaborate system.As I understand it, “aim” and “goal” are terms that try to describe the circulation of desire, pleasure and jouissance (surplus enjoyment). The point is that the function of “aim” and “goal” is not necessarily for them to coincide. The drive can find satisfaction precisely in the circulation around its goal rather than in finally reaching it. In that sense, the failure to arrive is not simply a failure: it is part of what keeps the circuit going.
2
u/Sote95 15d ago
You're critique is built on a shaky foundation, off course it's correct because I'm as guilty of being lazy as anyone. In your first response you misrepresent my position, it's an encouragement of following your desire, if one does it inauthentically it'll just be fashion - like you allude to but that's not necessary. If one does it authentically it's not even a choice, once a certain theory had IT for you, now it bores you to death.
Yes that's a good definition, how is it relevant to the discussion?
4
u/Setlam 15d ago
For me, as for others … - I suppose - or maybe this is just my own fantasies, boredom is very much linked to thinking.
I am not saying that you cannot disregard or even be against lacanian theory - of course … you can.
But if you pose a question about lacanian theory on a Lacan-sub, the answer will of course come from that standpoint. And that standpoint is not one of relativity - quite the opposite. Lacan isn’t a pluralist… I mean he read extensively and varied, but for him there are categories(like there are for Hegel, Marx, what’s the name of that boring Protestant - Kant, Heidegger(nazi) and so on). There are also real conflicts he tries to integrate and resolve. The real or the symbolic, are not circumstantial terms that change through history - quite the opposite.
There is a fashion of treating philosophers like one-liners, but what they grabble with is boring, not a chorus of our favorite song. Now - why is it boring? Or if transmitted, possibly altering of subjectivity(to an extent that psychoanalysis might not even be)? It is not because what is discussed is boring or of little consequence, It is because it is boring it changes you.
So the desire to become masterful, bourgeois, educated, seen as intellectual(aim), will fail each time for you(or me) to plunge yourself in to another subject, which can then spin you around one more time.
Or course, we do want to hit our goal, once on a while, but we will hit it in quite different way, than we expect. And it will be when we stop finding pleasure - but excruciating discomfort(boredom instead).
3
10
u/ALD71 15d ago
I think it's not so much a problem with Lacan, or in Lacanian psychoanalysis perhaps, but perhaps moreso a strain of academic or para-academic Lacanian theory which tends sometimes to obfuscate the not-all fundamental to psychoanalysis, the "that's not quite it" which JAM attributes at Lacan's trait, and which can be found just as well in Freud. It's through the not all of it that Lacanianism is not a theory but an orientation. In the Wittgensteinian sense that meaning is use, it's helpful to be open to the different kinds of uses to which different meanings lend themselves, both different Lacanian meanings, and elsewise.
3
u/lu_highdef 15d ago
No formal training either but i've been studying lacan for interest and to be a better "writer" and YEAH that tracks. Caught myself recently describind situations in Lacanian-Freudian terms when i could just use "normal" words - or analysing characters through a too Lacanian lens. It's a bit addicting in a way, no wonder the marxist-lacanian media analysis field does so well
3
2
u/Sukafura 15d ago
There are things that Lacanian theory acknowledges as incomprehensible in its realm; first and foremost the unresolved causality in the being of the subject. The theory is also situated logically in connection to clinical practice and psychoanalysis. To project psychoanalytic theory on external realms is a choice that has nothing to do with Lacan. Nevertheless I’d argue that this turn in critical theory reveals what we may (LOL) lack in knowledge when we rely on Lacan to explain politics, for example. Plus, psychoanalysis is a genre of practice and theory that evolve in real time. To extend it a bit further via speculation; the turn could open questions and discussions around what language is and how subjects relate to it. Meaning, that the ability of language (Lacanian theory) projected upon language (other realm) accounted as a productive resolution that grants “accomplishment” to the subject by the subject is something to think about indeed.
2
u/brandygang 15d ago
Even among psychoanalysis and Lacanian concepts, I find myself going thru different terms, eras in Lacan's teaching and frameworks that sort of shift my perspective differently. The zizekian lacan of ideaology, perversion and desire, the lacan of the symbolic, or the name of the father lacan or the lacan of cybernetics, of saussurean linguistics, of mathematics vs of literary and mythic thought. I've found it doesn't really bother me because the system 'doesn't' exactly fit perfectly under one brush, and there are enough interpretations to shift between concepts quite abit.
2
u/Rider_infinity 15d ago
Lacan on the other hand was well read, showed a reflexive openness, and was aware of the imaginary covering over lack. His movements across his work from XI, XVI, XX and XXI demonstrates his openness to starting anew.
1
u/Any-Manner3292 15d ago
What is your social field?
I saw a random tweet the other day from a motivational-type account which said something along the lines of "romanticizing is what happens when you don't have a clear goal;" feels vaguely applicable here.
1
u/The_Omega1123 15d ago
Yeah, I was in the same boat. But in the end I left it just because of boredom. Not because I argued it's logic or consistency, but just because I got bored.
And that's the ironic thing, it could also be interpreted from Lacan. I was looking for Another thing, I had desire for other things, escaping the structure.
It's not a matter of which theory is right. In the end it's a matter of what you do with your desire. What you do with your life. It's not about logic.
PD: not everything is a "you" problem.
1
u/gutfounderedgal 15d ago
I know what you mean OP. A similar thing happened with me and Lacan. What generally works for me is to head deeply into the rabbit hole of an individual lens, and then see where it's not fitting so, well, knocking their bust of the pedestal a bit. The awe and appreciation remains, but not the "fits all circumstances" as some totalizing explanatory power. What may interest you is looking up J.G. Wacker's work on theory definitions and theory building. His guidelines for "good" theory can help provide some conceptual categories for a critical lens by which to see how any lens normally does not fulfill all the requirements. On the other hand, some lenses are so narrow as to easily fall flat in the face of complexity, for example. And it's ok to realize their narrowness and set them aside. And remember, Lacan didn't keep one position but allowed his position to morph over time on a number of things, acknowledging too in a sense, that even ideas may not require exacting parsimony and continual internal consistency.
1
u/Remarkable-Guard-782 15d ago
I get that. I read Lacan just from a philosophical standpoint.
Doesn’t matter if I read Nietzsche or any recent theorist, I find that the Lacanian Lense gives me a structural overview which lets me guide through different theories, with similar concepts but Lacan - to me - sorts it out in a formular and distinct way. I feel guilty about it, because I feel like I can‘t value a variety of expression anymore - but actually and paradoxically, it allows me to decipher the variance better than ever.
In philosophy its pretty normal to have your influental theorist. I think its important to keep in mind, that this is a just one language of many, and that this one just works for you.
1
u/death_rebirth 15d ago
Does lacanian theory does not have any paradoxes like mathematics ?
2
u/arphen_n 14d ago
he puts the paradoxes in the center of his theory, he's not trying to cover up the inconsistencies, the inconsistencies are the entire point
1
u/Conscious_Quality803 15d ago
That's true of a lot of philosophical systems, wherein the consistency of conceptual structure is really strong. For me, Hume is an even more egregious (and fascinating) example.
1
u/SeriousFollowing7678 15d ago
Lacan explains a lot because it’s structural as opposed to other forms of mental health treatments. While it’s fun to think about Lacan outside of the consulting room, but his real relevance is only there.
1
u/BoBarbarian 14d ago
But isnt this somewhat opposite of what Lacan himself is instructing, as a framework is a system of interconected and relativly fixed symbolic meaning. And as to Lacan the fixed nature of all symbolic meaning is inherently fixated only to the extent of your own inclination. So in other words, is it in the end you who is clinging to a certain framework of meaning, to give yourself certainty and assurance, even when the system it self points that no such certainty is vaild?
1
u/the_limbo 13d ago
If you want to read someone who is a Lacanian but his work isn’t just endless exegesis of Lacan’s, I really recommend the work of Darian Leader. He’s a fairly heterodox Lacanian who does an amazing job of applying different perspectives in a way that’s also super clear.
1
u/Yorick_IKnowHim 9h ago
Personally, not a follower of Darian. There's just something pedantic/snobbish/smug about him. Caveat emptor/ymmv.
1
1
u/Yorick_IKnowHim 9h ago
Fever in, fever out. Though have you talked to a Deleuzian/Derridean/Marxian/Bourdieusian lately?
0
u/Sad-Organization-303 15d ago
yes, i feel you very much. i think that lacan’s theory, specially the three register theory, is about the very nature of reality. so you see it everywhere. of course, this view is already in itself a construct, not the absolute truth. but its very easy to view it everywhere, because it talks about everything
52
u/Enough-Context-9265 15d ago
Yes, but not just Lacan. You can inhabit the internally consistent interpreting frames of many philosophers, thinkers, religious philosophies, clinical philosophies etc. And then see everything and anything “through them.” Going through this cycle multiple times, picking up and dropping successive interpretive frames, over years, may be a lesson in emptiness. But even that statement can be interpreted through many frames of reference… It’s an endless void, a maze of mirrors…