Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 11:32:13 -0500 From: Lou Caton <lcaton-AT-wisdom.wsc.ma.edu> Subject: PLC: THE WISH NOT TO KNOW, a reply Regarding the note below on psychology, history, and not knowing... I'm a bit confused about what the writer below is observing. It seems to me that there are many approaches to history, subjectivity, and "not knowing" that carry a psychological bent. What would the writer say about Lacan, Deleuze, Guattari, Brown, Foucault, and/or Laing to mention just a quick few? Aren't these writers doing exactly a psychological interpretation of history? Lou Caton Westfield State College lcaton-AT-wisdom.wsc.ma.edu PsycheCulture-AT-cs.com wrote: > Why have psychological approaches to the study of culture not > become the dominant interpretative strategy? > > I suggested in recent posts that those with a knowledge of > psychology must begin to get out of their shells in order to > "encounter the manner in which unconscious phantasies are PLAYED OUT > ON THE STAGE OF SOCIAL REALITY." > > In his important book, DERACINATION, Walter Davis states that > "History is a practice grounded in a system of guarantees...That > system has as its deepest motive and appeal the assurance that certain > things will not be known ( p. 7)." > > One would expect that the "psychoanalysis of culture and > history" would be the master social science, that the disciplines of > anthropology, sociology and history, not to mention to the humanities, > would be dominated and perm eated by the effort to ascertain the > PSYCHIC SOURCES of societal ideas, ideologies, events, etc. > > The objective would be to explain the purpose and meaning of > cultural and historical process as a reflection and articulation of > unconscious conflicts, anxieties, fantasies, etc. > > We must entertain the view that disciplines exist PRECISELY IN > ORDER TO NOT KNOW THINGS, that the fundamental meaning and purpose of > much (academic) thought is to NOT KNOW (this is what Freud meant by > "repression"). > > Davis talks about the horror of history, and the willingness to > begin to recognize that the horror "comes from us and not from > somewhere else." > > The fundamental resistance--the essence of contemporary > thought--lies in the idea that what is happening out there COMES FROM > SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN OURSELVES. History, sociology and anthropology as > conventionally practiced re present the effort to SPLIT OFF THE > SUBJECT FROM THAT WHICH THE SUBJECT CREATES AND DESIRES, to pretend > that the horrors (war, genocide, the atom bomb, etc.) come from > discourses that are SEPARATE FROM THE HUMAN BEINGS WHO CREATE THE > THEM. > > Everyone strives to know nothing by splitting off the self into > culture and history, then pretending that it's all coming from "up > above" or "out there," as if we are not constantly in the process of > creating culture and his tory through the externalization and > projection of our own unconscious fantasies, anxieties and conflicts. > > Of course, reality is a social construction. Of course, > cognition is shaped by discourses that are "culturally constituted." > However, the fundamental question is WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THOSE > FORMS OF SOCIAL REALITY THAT HUM AN BEINGS HAVE CONSTRUCTED? > > The academic enterprise builds upon the effort to avoiding > posing and answering this question. It's not that "the subject does > not exist" (the current hegemonic discourse), but that the academic > enterprise strives to DENY TH E REALITY OF THE SUBJECT in order to > pretend that HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE. > > This is mysterious obfuscation. It's as if it all happens by > itself in a realm separate from human beings. It's fundamentally a > religious perspective. > > With regards, > > Richard Koenigsberg > > > Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D. > Director, Library of Social Science
HTML VERSION:
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005