Language and the unconscious – Lacan
To say that Lacan’s “The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason, Since Freud” is somewhat of a difficult read would be a gross understatement. Those not versed in the fundamentals of psychoanalysis or Freudian Psychology would most definitely have a hard time in attempting to understand the complexities of Lacan’s discourse. My attempt to analyze Lacan’s work would do no justice as I find some of his concepts too abstract to grasp. However, for the sake of some casual blogging, I will attempt to shed light on some of the aspects that I believe Lacan was attempting to convey.
In the most general of analyses, I do believe that what Lacan was generally trying to say was that language exists in our subconscious and that through speech we are able to reflect on the world in our own subjective manner. He goes on to add that the development of speech is the beginning of the symbolic order of the universe. Put more clearly, as we reach the age in which we are able to speak, the language present in our unconscious lends itself to speech, allowing us to subjectively see the world and make sense out of it. I speculate that maybe this is why as human beings we are always striving to confirm the existence of an established order in the universe. It can sometimes be quite difficult to accept the notions of randomness and obscurity when lending interpretation to the events of our lives; order gives birth to meaning and in doing so, affirms our place in the universe. Lacan further emphasizes this point in his explanation of the signifier and the signified, in which he places primacy to the signifier. I think what he is trying to say here is that by establishing the algorithm signifier/signified, the process of signification can take place. That is, the world is composed of signs that have no inherent meaning attached to them. Instead, they [signs] garner meaning through the difference between other signs, a process that is ascribed via language. This is exactly how metaphor serves to invoke a greater meaning/lesson through seemingly unrelated language. The process at work here is one of signification; one is able to draw a deeper meaning associated with language not intended to be literal. Of course, at the heart of this is the notion of subjectivity and how as subjects we help to move along the process of signification. Therefore, just as Freud had suggested that our dreams provide insight into our unconscious and our suppressed desires and true feelings, language may serve to express our notions of how we see the world and, more provocatively, harbor the inner yearnings of our unconscious.
Louis Althusser
Best known for his theories of ideology and its impact on politics and culture, Louis Althusser was a member of the French Communist Party, he revolutionized Marxist theory. Through this work, we’ll know how Althusser interpreted and developed Marx’s work and the ideology and its significance for culture and criticism
From of all, Althusser mentioned the necessity of the reproduction of the material conditions of production and the reproduction of labour power which is ensured by the quantity of value (wages). All the “know-how” and “rules” provided at school as techniques and skills are useful to the future production, Althusser argued the reproduction of labour power should submit to the ruling ideology for the agents of exploitation and repression, and he thought we should post questions about the essential of the existence and nature of superstructure from the point of view of reproduction. Then Althusser analyzed the State and Ideology and he explained the conception of “descriptive theory”—a beginning of the theory but requires a development of the theory which goes beyond the form of “description”—to help understand further the mechanisms of the State in its functioning as State power. Then he described the distinction between State power and State apparatus.
About the infrastructure and superstructure, Althusser insisted Marx’s theory, the economic base is the basement of the politico-legal and ideology, and the superstructure has a “reciprocal action” on the base.
Althusser listed a large number of ideological State apparatuses in capitalist social formations: the educational apparatus, the religious apparatus, the family apparatus, the political apparatus, the “cultural” apparatus, etc. Althusser clarifies the distinction between the Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses and emphasized their double “functioning” by repression and by ideology. “no class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the State Ideological Apparatus ”(page 20), Althusser said the Ideological State Apparatus is secured by the ruling ideology—the ideology of “the ruling class” which holds State power.
The ideologies are realized in institutions, in their rituals and their practices, in the Ideological State Apparatus. The ideological hegemony is the result of political and ideological struggles and it contributes to the reproduction of capitalist relations of production—the relation of exploited to exploiters and exploiters to exploited. These mechanisms functioning for the capitalist regime are always concealed by the ideology of the School—one of the essential forms of the ruling bourgeois ideology, which has replaced the Church—the old dominant Ideological State Apparatus.
Then, there started the discussion of “ideology”, Marx defined “ideology” as “the system of the ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or a social group.” Althusser cited the opinion of Marx and The German Ideology, he expressed: ideology has no history. It is conceived as a pure illusion, all its reality is external to it. But Althusser thought ideology has a history of its own, and adopted Freud’s expressions—ideology is eternal, exactly like the unconscious.
To approach the central thesis on the structure and functioning of ideology, Althusser presented two theses to state the imaginary from and the materiality of ideology. First, we take ideology as illusion or allusion, it is “interpreted” to discover the reality behind the imaginary representation of the reality, this is a method used by cynical men to control others minds or it could respond to the alienation in the imaginary of the representation of men’s conditions of existence. The ideological State apparatuses and their practices are the realizations of ideology, an ideology always exists in an apparatus and its practices, the existence is material. People inscribe their ideas as a free subject in the actions of their material practices, which are governed by material rituals within the material ideological apparatus.
Althusser deemed all ideology has the function of “constituting” concrete individuals as subjects; man is an ideological animal by nature. We are all ideological subjects, a material individual is always already an ideological subject—the elementary and peculiar ideological effect. We also function in the practical rituals of ideological recognition. Althusser took the existence of ideology and the hailing or interpellation of individuals as subjects as the same thing, this argument resembles to Lacan’s Mirror Stage. What happens in ideology also takes place outside ideology. Then Althusser gave us an example of the Christian religious ideology—God duplicates himself to a man, a subject subjected to God, and interpellates more individuals as subjects to submit freely to the commandments of the Subjects. There is a mutual recognition of subjects and Subject as well (mirror recognition). All the subjects are inserted into practices governed by the ritual of the Ideological State Apparatus.
Althusser’s writing changed the face of literary and cultural studies, and continues to influence Marxist Philosophy, his argument of interpellation and the concept of Ideological State Apparatuses have been popularized among later philosophers.
The Instance of the Letter – Jacques Lacan
Lacan followed Saussure’s structural linguistics and integrates Saussure’s theories in his own opinions. Lacan thought the unity with mother’s body is our primordial experience, all desire is determined by this original lost unity which is unattainable even though all desired objects are signifying it. Desired objects are just substitutes for the unattainable goal. Desire, stay in the conscious but influenced by unconscious, moves along the chain of desired objects, a chain of signifiers which circulates unceasingly without anchorage, in the chain of signifiers, one signifier can point to another signifier, but never the signified. Like the function of dictionary, one word can give you an explanation composed of other words, but never the object signified by the word. As to Lacan, this is unconscious. He compared a bar separating the signifier from the signified to the bar separating consciousness from the unconscious. Unconscious can be signified but never be inaccessible. Unconscious is neither primordial nor instinctual, it’s a group of elements of the signifier, a group of all the existence. Lacan used an example of two same doors with different signs to symbolize how signifier and signified reinforce each other’s function. Through the story of a little boy and a little girl who notice the signifiers signifying the opposite sex, I think Lacan believed every child develops their comprehension of the nomination of objects and the relation between the signifier and signified in the process of nomination.
As “the most controversial psycho-analyst since Freud”, Lacan pointed out that Freud’s works indicate “connection” and “substitution” of signifier to explain unconscious. Lacan believed “significance of the dream” can be obtained by us because we take dream-images as signifiers, the linguistic structure is fundamental for the interpretation of dreams. This thought is based on the two principal mechanisms posed by Freud—condensation and displacement—which are naturally linguistic phenomena. The signification is condensed by metaphor or displaced by metonymy.
Lacan thought the order and methods of psychoanalytic mediation of Freud were no longer true. Freud believed “where the unconscious was, consciousness shall go”. Freud hoped to merge the unconscious into consciousness to dispel the depression and neurosis. Freud emphasized on the integration of “ego” and consciousness, which could become stronger than unconscious. But Lacan deemed “ego” could not replace or control unconscious, he thought “ego” was just an illusion, a product of unconscious itself. He elaborated in his essay on the mirror stage, a psychoanalytic theory which explains the process of an infant obtaining the illusion of the “ego” from the mirror and how he induces apperception of a whole integrity. Then we can know the human subjectivity is inherent. Although a child can get the conception of “ego”, he takes the image in the mirror as “himself”, but it’s not the reality, what shows in the mirror is only an image, an incorrect identification, this concept in the psychoanalytic theory of Lacan shows that the “ego” is the product of misunderstanding.
Ideology and power – Louis Althusser
In “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, Althusser begins by explaining that the ultimate condition of production is the reproduction of the conditions of production. This can happen in precisely two ways: the reproduction of the productive forces and the reproduction of the relations of production. What he means by the reproduction of productive forces is the reproduction of labor power. The reproduction of labor power requires not only a reproduction of skills but also a reproduction of submission to the rules of the established order. School serves to teach the “know-how” and guarantees the subjection to the ruling ideology. It is only under forms of ideological subjection that it can become possible for reproducing the skills of labor power. Although Marx represents a society using the metaphor of an edifice, Althusser argues that this is only descriptive and that it is only through the point of view of reproduction that we can begin to understand the meaning of society. Marx believed the state to be a machine of repression, a Repressive State Apparatus (RSA). The RSA enabled the ruling class to ensure domination of the working class via capitalist exploitation. The RSA consists of the government, the administration, the army, the police, the courts, etc. But for Althusser, the reproduction of the relations of production becomes possible through Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA), which corresponds to private institutions such as religion, education, family, media, etc.
There are some key differences worth pointing out between the RSA and ISA. First, there is only one RSA as opposed to a plurality of ISA’s. Second, the RSA belongs to the public sphere whereas the ISA is private. And finally, the RSA functions primarily by violence and secondarily by ideology whereas the ISA functions predominantly by ideology and secondarily by violence. Both apparatuses function side by side in order for the dominant class to maintain its power over the working class, but I am still unsure whether or not this inverse relationship is pertinent. Basically, ideology must be reproduced in every aspect of society in order for such a relationship of power to exist. Althusser explains that this reproduction of ideology works to produce an imaginary representation of the real conditions of their existence. In other words, the ruling ideology creates a false perception of the truth in order to maintain power and control over the people. Therefore, the ruling ideology can only survive if the people accept its conditions. It is precisely through the ISA’s that willing submission to a capitalist and exploitative system is achieved whereas in the RSA, compliance is forced. Althusser also mentions that the school has replaced the church as the dominant ISA and we often see many examples of this where values of the dominant class are preached as being the only existent values in society.
Althusser makes several theses regarding ideology, but I was particularly interested by his idea that ideology exists eternally, creating subjects out of individuals always. This is somewhat questionable to me since ISA’s are the sites of class struggle. Because these sites are so plural and diverse and full of contradictions, state power cannot be as easily asserted. There then seems to be a contradiction since if ideologies interpolate individuals into defined subject positions, what happens when an individual does not assume the imposed conditions of their identity? Isn’t this possible given that the ISA’s are sites of conflict? Because it is through language that interpolation of the subject occurs, what happens if the subject does not respond? Can the power of the ISA’s continue to influence identity formation? Is this power absolute? These all seem like very pertinent questions and are later taken up by theorists such as Foucault and Butler. Interesting read!
Freud & The Communist Manifesto
Freud
One of the ideas that heavily resonated in my head while reading (for the first time) The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud, was last week’s reading of Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics and Barthes Mythologies. The most important notion and technique that I picked up from this reading Freud was that of reading a text, reading a sign. It seemed very similar to Saussure’s and Barthes’s respective projects. The most interesting part (the similarities are here) about Freud’s project is the transformation of an image (if that is what a dream is) into text. Our minds, our craniums, do not have a USB connection where we can connect a flash drive and download what is there to be analyzed in an external apparatus; in this case we would like to download the images or video, which our dreams are. If we could see these we would have images instead of writing. That’s interesting. Freud doesn’t analyze a picture, he analyzes language, writing, text, much in the same way Saussure analyzes a sign and Barthes analyzes myths (these do include images, films and other materials). To analyze the mind, the psyche, at least in Freud’s way, you inevitably have to turn what is in mind into writing. To me a dream is like one of Barthes mythologies. I may be wrong, but I like this idea. The dream thoughts and dream content stem from each word that is analyzed, and so on from each other. I’d like to think of these as signifier and signified. The dream, just like the sign, is arbitrary. It has no direct relation to anything outside of itself. The signs that constitute the dream get their meaning by their difference with the other words. Although there is a difference in the way Freud analyzes the dreams, which is somewhat different than what is given primacy in Saussure and Barthes. This difference is based on the synchronic and diachronic classes of signs. Saussure and Barthes seem to give primacy to the synchronic aspect of language; the plane where all language is without regards to time or evolution. Freud has similar concepts: ‘the work of condensation’ and ‘the work of displacement’. In the work of displacement there is a constant evolution of dream thoughts, they, as the name suggests, displace one another from a fixed, central position. There is a story being developed here which is a string tool for dream interpretation as opposed to just studying the condensed dream thoughts. I think Freud acknowledges the inseparability of the paradigmatic from the syntagmatic. All of this is housed in the unconscious. In a sense, that which is behind the sign and inseparable (signified and signifier) is in the ‘unconscious.’
The Communist Manifesto
This is my blog for The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, but first I would like to allude to a previous text on which we have commented. That would be the one on Guy de Maupassant’s short story Toine. In this story we have a man, Toine, who presides over all the land of the town. Presides is, perhaps, a soft word to use; rather, he is the owner of the land. But he is not just owner of the land; he is owner of everything on the land. He is not legally the owner of everything, but he owns the means of production and controls the labor force and also the ideological state apparatus that serves his needs. He enemies, to him, to his realization, could only be anyone like him; this is although is a not an issue because he holds a strong monopoly over the land (perhaps this is more what I mean by ‘owner of the land’). The story doesn’t start of at the beginning stage, the story of his development, up until the current situation. What is seen at the start of the story, through narrative technique, what is shown as if through a microscope, is an already developed Toine, an already advanced bourgeois. Around him we see a mingling lower middle, middle, and upper middle class. His inseparable antagonist is non-other than his wife. She is the labor force, the body, whom he exploits, and has exploited for more than thirty years, and whom has allowed him to amass the huge body that he has, due to his idleness, and also the huge amount of wealth. The time came where all Toine’s possessions cannot save him from his inevitable decline and the takeover of the labor force body, in this case his wife. This is at the end is not resolved; what is shown is his ever intent to keep his position. I have not intended to label with the proper external terms, as I deemed it, rather I argue the text shows these politics at work. There are many other discourses at work in the text, but this is at the center; the other discourses are complimentary to these politics. This story is not a retelling of the communist manifesto nor is this one of the other; again, that is not what I intend. There is although, this will be part of my argument, something very similar at work, connecting both of these works. The history of Marx’s proletariat and bourgeoisie and their current state of being details the formation of an antagonistic social body. The communist manifesto touches briefly on this point, which is the significance of bodies. The most important note it makes is when it proposes that the proletariat only has, or his most important good is, his labor to sell. Let’s remember Toine’s wife has not given him (nor received from him) anything of use but her labor; no children, no happiness. At work in the text is a discourse on the body; a politics of body. Which bodies matter? Is life just a body? What has been the the development of discourse on the body from the 19th century to the 21st? Gender is also an important part of this development… that is all for now.
Freud & The Communist Manifesto
Freud
One of the ideas that heavily resonated in my head while reading (for the first time) The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud, was last week’s reading of Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics and Barthes Mythologies. The most important notion and technique that I picked up from this reading Freud was that of reading a text, reading a sign. It seemed very similar to Saussure’s and Barthes’s respective projects. The most interesting part (the similarities are here) about Freud’s project is the transformation of an image (if that is what a dream is) into text. Our minds, our craniums, do not have a USB connection where we can connect a flash drive and download what is there to be analyzed in an external apparatus; in this case we would like to download the images or video, which our dreams are. If we could see these we would have images instead of writing. That’s interesting. Freud doesn’t analyze a picture, he analyzes language, writing, text, much in the same way Saussure analyzes a sign and Barthes analyzes myths (these do include images, films and other materials). To analyze the mind, the psyche, at least in Freud’s way, you inevitably have to turn what is in mind into writing. To me a dream is like one of Barthes mythologies. I may be wrong, but I like this idea. The dream thoughts and dream content stem from each word that is analyzed, and so on from each other. I’d like to think of these as signifier and signified. The dream, just like the sign, is arbitrary. It has no direct relation to anything outside of itself. The signs that constitute the dream get their meaning by their difference with the other words. Although there is a difference in the way Freud analyzes the dreams, which is somewhat different than what is given primacy in Saussure and Barthes. This difference is based on the synchronic and diachronic classes of signs. Saussure and Barthes seem to give primacy to the synchronic aspect of language; the plane where all language is without regards to time or evolution. Freud has similar concepts: ‘the work of condensation’ and ‘the work of displacement’. In the work of displacement there is a constant evolution of dream thoughts, they, as the name suggests, displace one another from a fixed, central position. There is a story being developed here which is a string tool for dream interpretation as opposed to just studying the condensed dream thoughts. I think Freud acknowledges the inseparability of the paradigmatic from the syntagmatic. All of this is housed in the unconscious. In a sense, that which is behind the sign and inseparable (signified and signifier) is in the ‘unconscious.’
The Communist Manifesto
This is my blog for The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, but first I would like to allude to a previous text on which we have commented. That would be the one on Guy de Maupassant’s short story Toine. In this story we have a man, Toine, who presides over all the land of the town. Presides is, perhaps, a soft word to use; rather, he is the owner of the land. But he is not just owner of the land; he is owner of everything on the land. He is not legally the owner of everything, but he owns the means of production and controls the labor force and also the ideological state apparatus that serves his needs. He enemies, to him, to his realization, could only be anyone like him; this is although is a not an issue because he holds a strong monopoly over the land (perhaps this is more what I mean by ‘owner of the land’). The story doesn’t start of at the beginning stage, the story of his development, up until the current situation. What is seen at the start of the story, through narrative technique, what is shown as if through a microscope, is an already developed Toine, an already advanced bourgeois. Around him we see a mingling lower middle, middle, and upper middle class. His inseparable antagonist is non-other than his wife. She is the labor force, the body, whom he exploits, and has exploited for more than thirty years, and whom has allowed him to amass the huge body that he has, due to his idleness, and also the huge amount of wealth. The time came where all Toine’s possessions cannot save him from his inevitable decline and the takeover of the labor force body, in this case his wife. This is at the end is not resolved; what is shown is his ever intent to keep his position. I have not intended to label with the proper external terms, as I deemed it, rather I argue the text shows these politics at work. There are many other discourses at work in the text, but this is at the center; the other discourses are complimentary to these politics. This story is not a retelling of the communist manifesto nor is this one of the other; again, that is not what I intend. There is although, this will be part of my argument, something very similar at work, connecting both of these works. The history of Marx’s proletariat and bourgeoisie and their current state of being details the formation of an antagonistic social body. The communist manifesto touches briefly on this point, which is the significance of bodies. The most important note it makes is when it proposes that the proletariat only has, or his most important good is, his labor to sell. Let’s remember Toine’s wife has not given him (nor received from him) anything of use but her labor; no children, no happiness. At work in the text is a discourse on the body; a politics of body. Which bodies matter? Is life just a body? What has been the the development of discourse on the body from the 19th century to the 21st? Gender is also an important part of this development… that is all for now.
Marx and Freud
Marx
Comunist Manifesto is one of those books that make me think about the strength of ideas and texts. I don’t mean that “the text” actually is the responsible about something, buy his reader do.
The idea that opens the text is the one that declares the philosophical perspective of the world: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. That means, in philosophical terms, taking dialectic as the main position. But, in oppose to Hegel’s dialectic, the main issue will not be the ideas, but the materialism. Or in other words, the work force. In the middle of the XIX Century, Marx is thinking about the next revolution: the proletarian revolution. This one, will put end to the modern State reigned by the bourgeoisie and will be the first step to reach the communism.
It is very interesting the idea that Marx propose about the elimination of national borders. Especially, if we consider that the author is speaking in the middle of the process of nation-building. In this way, seems to be that one of the elements that stop the communist revolution is precisely the national borders. That’s why Marx thinks that the first step to finally reach the revolution is the union of the working class all over the world.
I would like to think now about between the relation of this text and literature. For me is a little bit hard to find an strong connection between them. Even when I know that there is a long tradition of literary studies related to Marxism. I think that at least we have two ways to find a connection. The first one, is related to the content of the text. We can try to read any text in a dialectic reading of characters, means of production, society critic, etc. I think this kind of reading will support the idea that dialectic is the way the world and literature works. Other perspective, and that is more related to what have been doing in the last years what is called “The new historicism”, is to link the text to it’s material conditions of production. In this way, we can understand literature as a cultural product insert in determined context.
Freud
The main thesis of Freud is that someone (him, in this case) is able to make the “right” interpretation of dreams. For him, dreams reveal the existence of something called unconscious where lies our deepest fears and secrets.
His first step in this process of interpretation is to create the category of Dream-thoughts and Dream-content. Both of them occurred during the process of the Dream-work. The first one is related to the first interpretation. To everything that shows up in a dream (people, location, smell, etc). In his words: [they] are immediately comprehensible, as soon as we have learnt them. On the other hand, Dream-content: “is expressed as it where in a pictographic script, the characters of which have to be transposed individually into the language of the dream-thoughts”. After this, follows the process of “condensation”, where all the element mentioned before became together in one brief dream.
Is very interesting the way that Freud shows how this procedure works analyzing different dreams. First, he starts with the narration of the dream, identifying the main objects and characters that appears in the scene, and of course, the scene it self. Then, he says how the interviews with his patients and the information they were giving to him helped him to interpretate every dream.
I would like to stop a little bit around the relation of these kind of work and literary studies. I think than in some way we can try to apply Freud´s methods to literary texts. That means, try to get to the author and his unconscious through the text. This would be a very interesting approach, and I’m sure that many people have try it. However, we have to keep in mind that if we try to follow this kind of proposition we are against other kind of ideas, like Barthe`s, that there is no way to reach the author. For Freud, there is a final meaning that must be found in order to get the right interpretation.
Finally, I think that is very interesting the relation between psychology and literature. After all the crimes agains mankind of the last century, literature had become an important object of psychological analysis. May be now we are not worried about the “final interpretation” of a dream, but does matter all the links that we can establish between the author and his text (or work to use Barthe´s concept).
Marx and Freud
Marx
Comunist Manifesto is one of those books that make me think about the strength of ideas and texts. I don’t mean that “the text” actually is the responsible about something, buy his reader do.
The idea that opens the text is the one that declares the philosophical perspective of the world: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. That means, in philosophical terms, taking dialectic as the main position. But, in oppose to Hegel’s dialectic, the main issue will not be the ideas, but the materialism. Or in other words, the work force. In the middle of the XIX Century, Marx is thinking about the next revolution: the proletarian revolution. This one, will put end to the modern State reigned by the bourgeoisie and will be the first step to reach the communism.
It is very interesting the idea that Marx propose about the elimination of national borders. Especially, if we consider that the author is speaking in the middle of the process of nation-building. In this way, seems to be that one of the elements that stop the communist revolution is precisely the national borders. That’s why Marx thinks that the first step to finally reach the revolution is the union of the working class all over the world.
I would like to think now about between the relation of this text and literature. For me is a little bit hard to find an strong connection between them. Even when I know that there is a long tradition of literary studies related to Marxism. I think that at least we have two ways to find a connection. The first one, is related to the content of the text. We can try to read any text in a dialectic reading of characters, means of production, society critic, etc. I think this kind of reading will support the idea that dialectic is the way the world and literature works. Other perspective, and that is more related to what have been doing in the last years what is called “The new historicism”, is to link the text to it’s material conditions of production. In this way, we can understand literature as a cultural product insert in determined context.
Freud
The main thesis of Freud is that someone (him, in this case) is able to make the “right” interpretation of dreams. For him, dreams reveal the existence of something called unconscious where lies our deepest fears and secrets.
His first step in this process of interpretation is to create the category of Dream-thoughts and Dream-content. Both of them occurred during the process of the Dream-work. The first one is related to the first interpretation. To everything that shows up in a dream (people, location, smell, etc). In his words: [they] are immediately comprehensible, as soon as we have learnt them. On the other hand, Dream-content: “is expressed as it where in a pictographic script, the characters of which have to be transposed individually into the language of the dream-thoughts”. After this, follows the process of “condensation”, where all the element mentioned before became together in one brief dream.
Is very interesting the way that Freud shows how this procedure works analyzing different dreams. First, he starts with the narration of the dream, identifying the main objects and characters that appears in the scene, and of course, the scene it self. Then, he says how the interviews with his patients and the information they were giving to him helped him to interpretate every dream.
I would like to stop a little bit around the relation of these kind of work and literary studies. I think than in some way we can try to apply Freud´s methods to literary texts. That means, try to get to the author and his unconscious through the text. This would be a very interesting approach, and I’m sure that many people have try it. However, we have to keep in mind that if we try to follow this kind of proposition we are against other kind of ideas, like Barthe`s, that there is no way to reach the author. For Freud, there is a final meaning that must be found in order to get the right interpretation.
Finally, I think that is very interesting the relation between psychology and literature. After all the crimes agains mankind of the last century, literature had become an important object of psychological analysis. May be now we are not worried about the “final interpretation” of a dream, but does matter all the links that we can establish between the author and his text (or work to use Barthe´s concept).
Marx – Manifesto of the Communist Party
The Manifesto of the Communist Party is often considered to be one of the world’s most influential political works. The preamble of the text emphasizes the importance for the Communists to publish and express their views in aims of giving a voice to the Proletariat. Marx states that the spectre of communism is haunting Europe, giving an immediate impression or foreshadowing of the message to come: communism will replace capitalism, abolishing all forms of class struggles and conflicts. But could it really be possible?
The first line in chapter one depicts quite clearly the dominating thought throughout the manifesto: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Essentially, the main argument in the manifesto is that changes in society are motivated by the collective struggle of groups who are seeking similar economic goals and interests. This however creates a problem of power since the economic interests of the dominant classes are favored over the interests of the subordinate classes. The struggles of the dominant classes have historically, as Marx explains, taken precedent over all other subordinate classes and thus, created a significant division. It is precisely this imbalance in struggle that Marx condemns since he believes that such a capitalist system will continue to dominate the workings of contemporary society in a destructive way.
Marx provides us with a historical view of the Bourgeoisie’s journey to power and control, explaining how they managed to overthrow the dominance of the feudal nobility. He states: “We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.” The bourgeoisie’s personal struggle against the feudal aristocracy soon disappeared through its exploitation of the world market, its improvement of instruments of production and its facilitated means of communication. The bourgeoisie revolutionized the means of production and eventually established itself globally as the dominant class in the industrial world. In fact, it is through constant struggle and perseverance that the bourgeoisie succeeded in overthrowing the power of the feudal aristocracy and now, to a certain extent controls society based on its own personal interests. Ironically, despite this seemingly happy ending, the struggles and difficulties of the bourgeoisie have now been passed down to the proletariat. It is essentially another manifestation of dominant classes overpowering the subordinate classes, only the bourgeoisie no longer occupies the subordinate position. Class struggle has not at all been eliminated but simply replaced with another class, precisely the proletariat. It appears that this is what Marx strongly opposed as it produces a vicious cycle of class struggle where equality can never be achieved.
As a result, the bourgeoisie’s hunger for accumulation has allowed them to take over the modern industrial world, adopting a capitalist way of life. “The accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase in capital” creates a problematic situation for members of the working class who must compete against one another for meager wages. Since ownership of production is privatized and controlled by the bourgeoisie, members of the proletariat are essentially slaves who are being exploited by the bourgeoisie for profit and forced to work for cheap wages. What is quite disturbing about this situation is that the bourgeoisie is putting the proletariat through the same torture they went through with the feudal society. Marx thus believes, using the same logic before, that the proletariat will eventually rise to power through a revolution quite similar to that of the bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, this will simply initiate another class struggle, highlighting Marx’s point that it is only through communism that class equality can be achieved. However, could such a utopian ideal truly be achieved? Is communism as described by Marx truly what other countries such as China or Russia has tried implementing? Although I am not stating that capitalism is purely beneficial or that Marxist communism should be dismissed, but it appears to me that communism, as envisioned by Marx, has yet to be implemented.
Marx’s social unconscious
There is no lack of criticism of Marx. Modern economists are quick to dismiss his ideas and declare that both Marxism and communism are dead.
I have never understood that dismissal; much of what Marx has to say in the Manifesto rings true to me. Dismissing Marx because of communist atrocities is a bit like dismissing the Bible because of the Inquisition, or Islam because of suicide bombers, or capitalism because of US-backed atrocities in South America.The way people interpret ideas isn’t always pretty, however true the ideas may be.
The occupy movement is not composed of radical Marxists, yet they see quite clearly that there is a 99% that must endure the abuse of the 1%. Class war did not disappear with Marx, and today the poor are losing.
- This chart shows how executive pay has increased over the past years in the US.
- This discussion seems to question the comparative rates in different countries, but in the end concludes that the wage gap between the executives and the workers in the US is much greater than in other countries. Debunking the claim that it is 40 fold does not dilute the fact of the enormous difference between the US and other countries.
What is refreshing about the Manifesto is that, like Freud’s psychoanalysis, it talks about things that are most often left hidden. For Freud, it was the intimate, hidden part of the individual:
“Every man has reminiscences which he would not tell to everyone but only to his friends. He has other matters in his mind which he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret. But there are other things whicha man is afraid to tell even himself, and every decent man has a number of suchthings stored away in his mind” — Dostoyevsky
For Marx, it is that thing which is so large that it is hard to perceive: an economy that functions like a social unconscious.
It is unclear how much of the social unconscious is conditioned by the psychological unconscious and vice-versa. (Should anyone really have 80 billion dollars as Bill Gates did at one point?)
