File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1996/96-11-17.131, message 6


Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:56:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Jon Beasley-Murray <jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I:*The* Unconscious; was Marxists on desire


Well, Carrol and I may have to agree to disagree on this, as he seems 
quite set in his refusal of the concept of the unconscious, and I (as he 
noted) am quite set in my acceptance that there is such a thing as the 
unconscious (if willing to grant a wide variety of views on what it is 
and how it works).

[Maybe this might be a topic to cross-post to marxism-psych, or at least 
to sound out the thoughts of folk over there, by the way.]

To state my position (and not to appear "illicit"), I think that 
reference to the unconscious is reference to the fact that we are not 
purely rational beings (for better or for worse) and that some (at least) 
of what we do is determined by forces beyond our control that are *also* 
to some extent at least an integral part of us (ie. are not merely 
external contstraints).

I think Freud is persuasive (and a very easy read, by the way) in his 
demonstrations of the impact of the unconscious--primarily, for him, 
visible in dreams, jokes and "slips."  "The ego is not master in his own 
house."  Fair enough, I say.

I do, however, tend to part company with much of psychoanalysis from 
thereon, and especially find much recent psychoanalytic theory dry and 
disabling.

Anyhow, all this just to explicate the "of course" to which Carroll took 
exception.

I think Marxist theories (indeed any liberatory praxis) have to take 
account of the unconscious (and thus desire) even if their aim is to 
subdue it.  I think Justin well exemplifies the position that the 
socialist project is to produce a rational management and understanding of 
the world, and that this necessarily involves a subjugation of the 
unconscious--"Where Id was, there Ego shall be."  I happen to be less 
comfortable with this position (and would question its viability, for a 
start), which is also the project of ego-psychology, and yet don't want 
to fall into the various Lacanian mystifications that are also premised 
upon a rejection of such ego-psychology.

Anyway, hope all this clarifies where I'm coming from, at least.

Take care

Jon

Jon Beasley-Murray
Literature Program
Duke University
jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005