Re: lost papyri

By "absorbed" I didn't mean that people actually Studied Lacan. Oh no
:). I meant other people studied Lacan, and other people study those
people, and get Lacan By Extension. That's it. They may not even know
it. And, yeah, probably the people they're getting it from don't
completely understand it (not quite getting all of _Ecrits_ isn't
something to be ashamed of). I've had to read a little bit of Lacan in
my program, but could safely ignore him. Heidegger is the same way. I
didn't have to read _Being and Time_ for any particular reason, but once
I did I saw its influence...well...almost everywhere.

Of course an entire author's thought can't be summed up by one idea
(esp. someone like Lacan). That's just all that winds up getting passed
down, usually -- one, maybe two ideas. That statement reflects many
people's actual use of writers like Lacan. It's like Derrida vs. the
McDerrida that got passed around as "deconstruction" in criticism, or
chaos theory as advanced math vs. chaos theory as I've seen it badly
used in literary criticism (I haven't read enough to see it used well.
It might be sometimes).

Is all this reductive?

You bet.

Jim

Omlor@aol.com wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> For the record, Lacan is neither "passe" nor has he been "absorbed" in
> "English departments." In fact, the majority of scholars working in
> most English departments, I would wager, still have neither actually
> read a word of his nor understood much of anything that can be found
> in *Ecrits.* And, at the same time, in many departments there are
> scholars who are still working with his re-readings of Freud and the
> challenges they pose for language and reading and they are treating
> the material in new and inventive ways, even today.
>
> Even in the community of scholars who specialize in what is too easily
> called "critical theory," Lacan is still largely unread and
> misunderstood, even by many people who claim to be influenced by his
> work in their readings. But his name has neither disappeared nor been
> simply absorbed into the routine business of theory.
>
> The "fashion-as-fad" narrative that is being invoked (cultural
> criticism in "in," Lacan is "out") is a much too convenient story
> designed to make people happy and comfortable (and in some cases to
> allow them to stop reading). However, it does not accurately reflect
> the work currently being done in any number of serious journals,
> conferences, and departments around the country, not just with Lacan's
> work but with many other styles and forms and theories as well.
>
> (See for instance, the upcoming Fifth Annual University of South
> Carolina Comparative Literature Conference: "The Desire of the
> Analysts: Psychoanalysis and Cultural Criticism in the Twenty-First
> Century," February 13-15, 2003.)
>
> All of this can be easily ridiculed, of course. And it's especially
> easy when one can do it without feeling compelled to read or discuss
> any actual writing in any serious detail, amidst cocktail party
> chatter and in the attempt to score "glibness" points.
>
> However, at some point, I think embarrassment must take over. Perhaps
> the following is that point:
>
> Jim writes,
>
> "Most of these guys are good for a thorough application of a single
> idea and that's it. Once you get the idea it's time to move on."
>
> This doesn't just indicate a lack of respect for a serious body of
> detailed and heterogeneous work, but a lack of respect for serious
> reading and writing, which makes me sad. I don't always agree with
> all of Scottie's cantankerous barbs, and sometimes they seem to try
> too hard for dramatic effect rather than attempting to reach valid
> conclusions -- but at least he is not given over to the mind-numbing
> reductionism and laziness of thought that resonates in the sentence
> cited above.
>
> Just a brief interruption.
>
> Carry on,
>
> --John
>
> University of South Florida
> Honors College and
> English Department
>
>
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH