File spoon-archives/marxism-psych.archive/marxism-psych_1996/96-12-11.201, message 88


Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 09:01:05 GMT
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-PSY: "The Unconscious"


I will have a go at taking up Jon's post on the 
Unconscious myself.

Although from one point of view many may regard the 
subject as academic and vague, Jon makes a link - desire -
which has the most important strategic and tactical implications
for marxism. The excuse for capitalism is that the 
abundance of commodities it brings, is better at meeting the
desire of individual purchasers, whether conscious or 
unconscious, whether of the stomach or the imagination, 
it does not matter. And there seems to be no slowing of 
the global triumph of commodity exchange.


Some comments on the concept of the "Unconscious"

1. I tend to see this as a hypostatised entity, which
is a way of descibing a process, or processes rather 
than things. It unfortunately is a noun, rather than a verb.
It tends to imply a rather static but powerful Thing
which influences the resulting picture through its power.
I prefer verbs.

2. I see it as analogous to Freud's conceptual division 
into Id, Ego and Superego. These categories seem all the more
rigid in English translation, while at least in the German 
original it was "Das Es" and "Das Ich".

BTW I always get muddled about the terms and the chronology of 
Freud's different theories. Which is the "topographical" model?

3. What makes sense to me now, concretely and 
senusously, about the main meaning of "the unconscious" is that
of which I am not currently conscious. For example a moment ago
I was unconscious of a feeling of discomfort in the small of 
my back. I am now conscious of it. But even before, it may have
contributed just that little to a certain sense of urgency and 
impatience that is driving this post hopefully to a coherent
and speedy conclusion, but may also, knowing my weaknesses,
drive me to be over inclusive. And that latter may be as a result
of various feelings of uncertainty about myself in relation
to other people, which have been shaped by a number of features,
currently mercifully forgotten, rather than repressed, but also
a few, which in deeper psychotherapy over months and years,
I might face up to and recognise were unconscious when I wrote
this letter, at this moment.

4. It is now part of modern Western culture to identify, measure
and attempt to treat "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". 
It is routinely documented now, how "flashbacks" or nightmares
reminiscent of the traumatic situation keep on breaking through
the individual's attempt to rebuild their life. In this respect
through the public media, and sounds bites, there is a mass awareness
and acceptance of "the unconscious". Last month hundreds of thousands
marched through Brussels in protest at the inadequacy of the bourgeois
state in protecting children from sexual and physical trauma. 
Many of those who marched, may have had experiences, hopefully less
severe, but painful enough in their minds, in the twilight between
conciousness and unconsciousness.

5. I suppose I am saying that material changes in the means of 
communication are shifting the concept of a division between
"the unconscious" on the one hand and the rational consciousness
of civilised bourgeois Viennese man (sic). There is more of a 
continuum. The unconscious is no longer an exciting preserve
of women, blacks, Picasso, DH Lawrence. It is now the mystified
preserve of porn movies and the internet.

6. Jon raises the interesting point of how much USA "ego" psychology
is still reflecting this division between "the Id" and "the Ego" or
it has moved on from there. And how much Lacan and his followers
are reacting against "Ego Psychology" for pertinent reasons.


Before I nervously finger my copy of "Lacan for Beginners" again,
could I request people to help with some of these technical
point about Freud, his followers and his detractors, above all with
explanations which help to bridge the gap between the specialist
and the lay person? How do others see this?


Chris Burford

London.

__________________



From: Jon Beasley-Murray <jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:56:28 -0500 (EST)
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-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---






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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005