Murder, Agnès Aflalo
Juan Carlos Tazedjián
The term "left Lacanian" trying to conceive of the actual event, the fact "political" on a "know-how with "the" political "can be dealt with, resolved in a different way than it does the conservative and defensive attitude that promotes the fear that" unknown "you can go with the event. This also requires separate, as far as possible, the psychoanalysis of "liberalism lucid" which sees itself as the only infallible remedy for the totalitarian threat. This liberalism is particularly difficult to assume that certain forms of exploitation and social inequality, are also corrosion of the democratic experience in civil society. (Jorge German)
seems that the work has no introduction, as it does not appear as such, but "for" and the ellipses of the title are the best possible introduction to this disturbing book.
There is in this collection of lectures, texts and debates, a thread driver to the vertebra, and is the laborious and rigorous task of contributing to serious reflection "to", "in the direction of", "toward" a future left. "The note-approach presented here, then try to give some credibility to his title," says the author.
Obviously, "left" and "Lacanian" two terms do not seem minded to be together, either in the discourse of the left or the teaching of Lacan himself. And in the attempt to make credible its articulation, German reaches far beyond what it claims, laying the groundwork, foundations, of what he calls "a eventually left "and" (...) something like a Lacanian Left. " Or doubt, or hesitation, this form of naming his invention involves locating in the designated space, both the left and psychoanalysis Freud created and recreated by Lacan: the conjecture. Space at different times in the history of psychoanalysis and the left has been colonized by dogmatism or claudication. His proposal has the incalculable value of leaving the former without falling into eclecticism of "anything goes as long as the story is well constructed" and the second, without giving way to some postmodern temptation to identify the failures of the left with a historical impossibility.
"What does being left in the XXI century?" German attempts to answer this question by developing certain working points "while he says, I will try to determine which may include what I call a Lacanian Left." And that "both" indicates that although these are not the same, not different things. There is no other way to do this show without the use of discourse that allows the Moebius strip, the topological figure that apparently has two faces, but we realize that is one when we move from outside to inside, or vice versa, without passing through any edge . Put another way: Lacan is not the inside of the left as possible neither the left is the super-structure of Lacan is at the base.
My hypothesis is that German, unassimilated left with Lacan tells us that left twenty-first century will or will not be Lacanian. Which is not to say that his speech is infused with Lacanian terms it is in Lacan's teaching on the subject, segregation, domination, the discourse of the master, the capitalist discourse, the tyranny of the superego, the ideology as "place privileged setting the subject to your fantasy reality "that we find the anchor points that allow us to think of a future left as possible, capable of producing destabilization Autistic-consumerist subject of neoliberalism.
The proposed constitution of this left, requires the deconstruction of a left after "classic" for that capitalism is a historical necessity and socialism is on the horizon the ideal of a society without antagonism, reconciled with itself, ie apolitical. Ideal of Freud and Lacan demonstrated their fantasy character, for being who comes to plug "the incurable and unsolvable fracture" of the subject, both as singular and socially. German takes over this "pessimism" Freudian-Lacanian, finding within itself, what he calls "a political opportunity." I understand this opportunity as one of the possible translations of Greek Kayros son of Chronos, whose time is the right time, the occasion. The author speaks of a different from temporary "progress" of the future perfect: "What have I been for what I am becoming ...". Temporality, in my opinion, not only opposes but is supportive of Kayros, since "what have I been" is inseparable from the timing of the decision.
This notion, originally taken up by Sartre and Lacan, is a key point of the proposed German. "... The term Lacan left, is among other things a way back to question the value of the decision, when taken from a fund undecidable and without warranty. This also means exploring what is a policy decision, especially when it does not refer to the field of utilitarian calculus of the faces, or put another way, when it comes to a decision that input is not promoted and protected by the master discourse ". This fund undecidable and without warranties is not a bug, or a lack of the German approach, by contrast, is something like the mark of origin, the opening of a seal that can be called Lacanian left, where no dogma, knowledge, prediction lit or technical evaluation of legitimacy, to clip the wings of risk, invention and creation.
For all this, the dots open a space for the not-known to the learned ignorance. Are points that remain "on hold" the reader, the purpose of bringing to bear with their decision to consent to their active inclusion in the provocation of the author. After reading the last page, someone can close the book and realize that is left or is Lacanian. But not enough to learn, as Monsieur Jourdain, who spoke in prose, it is necessary to say J.-A. Miller, "an effort of poetry." In other words, neither a leftist nor be Lacanian can think of it shape before and after the last book of Jorge German.
* Posted at No. 263, El Viejo Topo. With the kind permission of the author.
BUY ONLINE
0 comments:
Post a Comment