File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2003/postanarchism.0307, message 34

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [postanarchism] Always leaving the party early? Part 2

[Part 1 raised the question of the relationship between postanarchism and
poststructuralism in Newman's work.]

_From Bakunin to Lacan_, as i mentioned, positions various poststructuralist
thinkers as stepping stones "from B to L." There is something suspiciously
linear and progressive about Newman's account, in part because his
stepping stone thinkers were contemporaries (or nearly so) and had
personal and theoretical relationships among themselves not well
represented by Newman's very partial account. Some time ago, Jesse raised
the issue of the "" construction, and the ways in which it
might play out. In this instance, where contemporaries are concerned, and
where their relationships have been complex - and complexly narrativized -
we can't escape any of the possible complications. Getting back to the
question of Newman's "traverse of poststructuralism," the problem of the
"" (in some sense of "before" and "after," concepts with a
rich history in the writings we're concerned with, particularly those of
Derrida) is in part a problem of intellectual histories. To go "from
Derrida to Lacan" is almost inescapably a *return.* Derrida has spoken
about the importance of Lacan in setting certain explorations and
conflicts, including some of his own, into motion. Some of Derrida's most
important work is a response to Lacan. And reference to Lacan, and to the
whole range of psychoanalytic concerns, recurs frequently in Derrida's
recent, most clearly political works. "...from Lacan to Derrida to
Lacan..." - this seems implicit in Newman's scheme, at which point we
still need to account for the detour.

[more to follow...]



Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005