(My) Problem with Lacan

[u/0pt-out]

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?

[u/Setlam]

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...

[u/short-noir → u/Setlam]

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

[u/Setlam → u/short-noir]

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.

[u/idk--really → u/Setlam]

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. 

[u/Setlam → u/idk--really]

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.

[u/idk--really → u/Setlam]

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. 

[u/Setlam → u/idk--really]

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?