All entries for Tuesday 28 September 2010
September 28, 2010
They — the "big Other" — were not receptive to Lacanian psychoanalysis for decades. His reputation grew and his notoriety grew with it. In 2007, I decided to give Lacan a chance — a real chance; in other words, I was ready to make the effort needed to grasp some of the most important insights offered by Lacanianism.
At first the silly puns and difficult prose were off-putting. I had grown up in a different intellectual world. I valued precision, conciseness. But over the last three years, my attitude to Lacan has grown much warmer than I'd anticipated. I find his teachings to be of genuine use. Difficult prose masking important concepts, everywhere applicable: a system to learn, a plugin for the thinking machine.
I have become sensitive to the issue of reception. Every time I open a book and think the author is a charlatan, I have to pause and remember that Lacan himself is, even now, seen as a charlatan by certain intellectual failures.
Take the example of Jacque Ranciere. He's everywhere right now. Along with Slavoj Zizek, Ranciere is one of the world's most oft-cited (and apparently most misunderstood) philosophers. I want to give him a chance — sadly, I can't get into his work. I once made the exact accusation against Ranciere that 'They' made against Lacan: that he was prone to verbiage because he had little of substance to say. But this cannot be true. Ranciere is taken seriouslyby too many intelligent people for me to dismiss him outright. Again, I have to be wary of not doing to Ranciere what 'They' did to Lacan: that is to say, I don't want simply to misunderstand him. So I've been reading several books, articles and interviews, in the hope of "getting it". Maybe I need a good glossary of terms. Maybe I need to try and apply his insights to my own activities.
You have to be careful not to reject someone's life-work as nonsense just because it's difficult. The difficulty, itself, ought even to be part of the fun.
I look forward to "discovering" the Ranciere I have hitherto failed to see.
A trend I've noticed in new blogs: Bloggers trying to justify the creation of their blogs. "I don't know why I started this blog" is a pretty typical thing to say in your first post. As though the blogger needs to explain why he's adding one more page to the e-cesspool.
Because I almost never write blog posts, and haven't done it for over two years, I also feel a weird desire to explain away what you could call the narcissism of sharing "thoughts and observations" in a public space. Despite years of posting in various online forums, the guilty feeling of trespassing seems strongest in the blogosphere. Strange self-reflexive practices emerge in the first few weeks of posting. Then the habit is lost, and you either stop blogging or you can "be yourself" at last.
When I was doing my BA I kept a silly blog for occasionally sharing interesting links. I intend to continue doing that, because it's fun. I have other motivations — all of them narcissistic — but sharing them is pointless. There's no reason to justify a blog. I'm still trying to figure out a proper format for this thing; one possibility is to comment on books that I'm reading, but I wouldn't read that, so I can't assume anyone else would, either. Another possibility is talking about stuff that happens in my daily life, but nothing happens in my daily life that warrants blogging about — and if it does, it shouldn't be blogged about. No moaning about girlfriends here. I have a maid to do my cleaning. I play the guitar and record music. I've written a couple of novels and am working on publishing a memoir about the death of my mother. My two dogs are called Whisky and Ludwig. My former housemate is living back home now, so I may have to find a new one soon. I live on the Parade in Leam. My band is called Paris and the Hiltons, and you can listen to a song here.
That is sufficient.