Aspects du marxisme
This article proposes a fresh reading of the theory of « Four Discourses » elaborated by Lacan in his Seminar XVII from the year 1969-1970. Its argument is, first, that the theory must be replaced in a double context in order for its intentions to be revealed and its dense system of allusions clarif...
Shranjeno v:
| Auteurs principaux: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Jezik: | Français |
| Izdano: |
2025
|
| Online dostop: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Izvleček: | This article proposes a fresh reading of the theory of « Four Discourses » elaborated by Lacan in his Seminar XVII from the year 1969-1970. Its argument is, first, that the theory must be replaced in a double context in order for its intentions to be revealed and its dense system of allusions clarified: the immediate aftermath of the 1968 uprising in France, when the academic institution (in which Lacan himself had become integrated) was violently contested and the idea of revolution became again extremely popular among « leftist » students, and the intellectual debate among several protagonists of the « structuralist » moment, who elaborated competing theories of « discourse », notably Foucault and Althusser (but also, in a sense, Deleuze and Guattari). Above all, it argues that the consideration of the additional « discourse » (the discourse of capitalism), insistently but also elliptically mentioned in subsequent texts and interventions, does not lead to a completion of the theory (making it possible to fill the gap between the Lacanian and the Marxian concepts of domination, through the equivalence of the « surplus enjoyment » (plus-de-jouir) and the « surplus value » (plus-value), but to a deconstruction of its latent tensions. Negatively, this leads to accepting that Lacan’s aim was to define psychoanalysis as an antipolitical discourse, neutralising the antagonism of capitalism and socialism, and stigmatizing revolutionary movements as expressing the desire of the Master. Positively, it leads to describing the « alliance » of the analyst and the patient (« hysteric ») as a radical antithesis to the dominant « discourses » (i.e. structures) of power and knowledge, and a privileged path towards the understanding of the « non-relation » (or impossible relation) that prevents every social relation from achieving stability. |
|---|