Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 23:36:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Amardeep Singh <asingh-AT-emerald.tufts.edu>
Subject: Re: African Americans and psychoanalysis


Claudia,

Although it may be true that there's not as large a body of 
Af-Am Studies psychoanalytic criticsm, there certainly is a small 
contingent following people like Fanon and Mannoni out there. In 
particular, I read an article by Henry Louis Gates, Jr., called "Critical 
Fanonism" in _Critical Inquiry_ that deals very effectively with the 
recent reappearance of Fanon in (mostly postcolonial) theory. 

As for whether African-American studies refuses to accept "any of the 
tenets of psychoanalysis" I might disagree. Contemporary critical theory 
relies heavily on a jargon that is partially psychoanalytic (and 
partially Marxist, and partially deconstructive/Derridean) in origin. 
People like bell hooks or Cornel West, even if they would claim no 
affiliation with psychonalysis, use reading strategies that frequently 
build on Lacanian ideas of figuration or difference. (I have a fairly 
broad aand perhaps revisionist understanding of Lacan...)

I might also contest whether psychoanalytic theory (where I assume you're 
referring to Lacan and his followers) is inherently "hostile to women." 
One way of using it is to attempt to expose the psychic structures that 
underlie misogyny, where misogyny is given as a (perhaps foundational) 
aspect of social relations. Such a use of psychoanalysis differs from a 
contemporary 'feminist' (cf. Judith Butler) reading of power relations in 
the context of gender in one way: it suggests no solution. 

-deep

On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Claudia Tate wrote:

> I am trying to construct the reasons why  African-American literary 
> theory refuses to engage any of the tenets of psychoanalysis.  (I want to 
> get beyond the allegation that psychoanalysis is a hegemonic discourse to 
> specificity.  For instance, psychoanalysis is certainly hostile to women 



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---