You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Post-Lacanian or Post-Freudian Theory

thewonder August 13, 2019 at 20:22 4100 views 7 comments
Is there such a thing as Post-Lacanian or Post-Freudian theory? I like Lacan's notion of jouissance, some what he gleans of the "Other", and his interpretation of anxiety, but think that he failed not to surpass the Freudian fixation upon phallic symbolism and obsession with castration. Sexuality is a facet of the human experience and not it's sole manifestation. I also honestly suspect that the fear of castration stems from the utilization of the guillotine. It is not necessarily a natural fear.

There seems to be a real need to go beyond Freud and not to just return to him. Deleuze and Guattari lambasted Freud, and, perhaps they were right to just be done with him altogether, but I wonder if there isn't anything out there that could be likened to what Post-Structuralism is to Structuralism. I don't know that I would even agree with Post-Lacanians or Post-Freudians, but it does seem like it would make for some interesting theory.

Comments (7)

Deleteduserrc August 13, 2019 at 22:42 #315412
Kierkegaard back in his day spoke of a feverish desire to go beyond, at any cost, beyond whatever there was out there. He counselled beginning at the beginning.

But hey if you want to just go for pure new - OOO seems to fit the vibe
Streetlight August 14, 2019 at 02:56 #315461
Psychoanalysis is now so diffuse among contemporary theory that if you don't find 'post-Lacanians' or 'post-Freudians' it's because the use of psychoanalysis can no longer be neatly fitted into any particular school or movement. Not because it's not out there, but because it's everywhere, with so many taking their cue from Lacan and Freud but developing them in vastly different ways. In many ways I think this is a healthier environment than one in which one or two new 'schools' dominate and claim the mantle of paychoanalysis.

And what of other classic psychoanalysists like Winnicot, Klein, Laplanche and Pontalis? People were thinking 'beyond' Lacan even while Lacan was still around.
thewonder August 14, 2019 at 03:48 #315468
Reply to csalisbury
I plan on reading Kierkegaard once my books show up in the mail or after I reread Being and Nothingness.

Reply to StreetlightX
I think that you're right about that.

I suppose that suggesting that there should be a "Post"-Lacanianism is somewhat absurd as a number of the "Post-Structuralists" reject the label.
Deleteduserrc August 15, 2019 at 03:12 #315728
Reply to thewonder My advice in general (as someone eminently guilty) is try not to use erudition as shield and sword. Reread Being and Nothingness all day but there comes a moment when everything youve read droops down around you and youre still the same person. If you want an image of the philosopher who has it all under control, the first short of The Ballad of Buster Scruggs on netflix captures what happens well. Eventually youll be able to talk good forever but...

Philosophy (& psychoanalysis) should be supplement. Don't make too much of it.
thewonder August 15, 2019 at 03:24 #315730
Reply to csalisbury
I was just explaining that it could be a while before I get around to reading Kierkegaard as I plan on reading Being and Nothingness first. I wasn't trying to suggest that I know what I am talking about because I am someone who is willing to read Being and Nothingness.
Deleteduserrc August 15, 2019 at 03:30 #315733
Reply to thewonder My apologies if I misread you.
thewonder August 15, 2019 at 03:33 #315734
Reply to csalisbury
You don't have to apologize. I thought that your post was kind of funny.