Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:57:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Shawn P. Wilbur" <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org> 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 "from...to..." 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 "from...to..." (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...] -shawn
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005