In Freud's description of shit as the child's "gift," feces become a peculiar possession. Since it is of the body, it aligns in some sense with Locke's sense of the body as one's own possession. Yet shit is constantly disavowed, expelled, controlled. Is the fuss over potty training, over creating the division between 'clean' and 'dirty' for the child, really just the beginning of property management? Is a tutorial in loss (of physical mass, of power, of emotion)? How does this relate to Freud's description of 'toxic substances' in the third essay (81-82)? How does the formlessness of shit in Freud relate to the formlessness of spit in My Cocaine Museum's poporo? Given the emotional significance of both processes, it seems that formless human discharge becomes twice a site of inscription.
How does Freud's description of the male child's train obsession and the significance of mechanical rhythm in bodily sensation locate the human body among machines?
Freud qualifies the acts of touching and looking by putting them on a trajectory that culminates in genital intercourse; they're perverse if not consummated ["So that lingering over the stage of touching can scarcely be counted a perversion, provided that in the long run the sexual act is carried further" (22)]. When considering the fetishization of objects, could one set up a similar system, where the concept of 'proper use' is aligned with Freud's telos of intercourse, and anything that falls short is considered perverse? Is the book collector who surveys his goods, marvels at the colors, strokes the spines, but never reads a word a pervert? A scopophiliac? It seems that many could consider him greedy or philistine or plain wrong in the way he considers his objects.
- Emily
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
thingtheory said...
Response to Question 4:
Certainly, it does seem that the manner of use is essential in defining perversion for Freud. The finite act of intercourse provides 'proper use' in its finality. Intercourse is not interminable. It is accomplishable.
What is I find particularly interesting in relation to your suggestion is the authorship of the collector in the use of his collection. This collection could be of books, of items in a home, of experiences. The collector of these objects particularizes the uses of these items, no matter how conventionally. As de Certeau suggests in The Practice of Everyday Life Vol. 2; Living and Cooking, even the most mechanical gestures are individualized. What then, is the normative? the true convention? the original? the authentic? Perversion is unavoidable. Freud suggests it as natural in development. Is duration of the perversion the deciding factor in the the degree of perversity?
I would also like to suggest that your question points to use as a sort of using-up or using that completes the object (and thus the collector of it) by a process of fulfilling desire. Your colorful bibliophile seems to long for his books, despite having them. By not reading them he does not have the pleasure or accomplishment of completing them. They can remain objects of desire in this way. Continuous desire is perverse in these terms. This seems to relate to Deleuze and Guattari's BwO: a plane of connected desires. For Deleuze and Guattari, pleasure breaks this plane and creates organization. So, (how) does this situate proper use as a sort of creation of an organism or subject?
-Hollis
Post a Comment