Could somebody post it to the blog.
Thanks,
George
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Three Essays
SEXUAL ABERRATIONS
i'm curious about the "overvaluation" of the sexual object (16) in this essay. He doesn't go very far into it, but the overvaluation of the whole body -- an "extension" of the overvaluation of the genitals" -- obscures even the subject's intellectual capacities, making the subject "submit to the [sexual object's] judgements with credulity": "thus the credulity of love becomes an important, if not the most fundamental, source of authority."
There's a lot of claims being made here: the "overvaluation" of the object's whole body sounds like people's tendency to love "even their beloved's flaws"; Freud implies that a subject's intellectual capacities or capacities for rational judgement are related inversely to "the credulity of love" or the libido; there's also the notion that love can become a fundamental source of authority. This question of authority in its relation to overvaluation needs further investigation, I think. That idea has a lot of implications.
INFANTILE SEXUALITY
many of us have been noting the (quite alarming) passage on the infant's treatment of his own feces, which first seem an extension of himself and represent a sort of "gift" (as they entail the same regulatory structures as the withholding/giving of any gift) and later take on the meaning of "baby" (babies being "born through the bowels"). Apart from the symbolic shift in the account here of the significance of the baby's own feces -- it is first an extension of his body, then (or perhaps simultaneously) the "gift" if is own body, then the meaning of "baby" itself -- apparently Freud (in an essay written three years later) attached another meaning to the infant's feces: "The connections between the complexes of interest in money and of defaecation, which seem so dissimilar, appear to be the most extensive of all" (Freud, "Character and Anal Erotism"(1908), 172).
This fascinating essay extends the "gift" metaphor and presents an unconscious connection between feces and money: "In reality, wherever archaic modes of thought have predominated or persist—in the ancient civilizations, in myths, fairy tales and superstitions, in unconscious thinking, in dreams and in neuroses—money is brought into the most intimate relationship with dirt. We know that the gold which the devil gives his paramours turns into excrement after his departure, and the devil is certainly nothing else than the personification of the repressed unconscious instinctual life"; "It is possible that the contrast between the most precious substance known to men and the most worthless, which they reject as waste matter (‘refuse’), has led to this specific identification of gold with faeces";"Every doctor who has practised psycho-analysis knows that the most refractory and long-standing cases of what is described as habitual constipation in neurotics can be cured by that form of treatment. This is less surprising if we remember that that function has shown itself similarly amenable to hypnotic suggestion. But in psycho-analysis one only achieves this result if one deals with the patients’ money complex and induces them to bring it into consciousness with all its connections. It might be supposed that the neurosis is here only following an indication of common usage in speech, which calls a person who keeps too careful a hold on his money ‘dirty’ or ‘filthy’"
In a letter to Wilhelm Fleiss from around 1897 to 1902: "“I can scarcely detail for you all the things that resolve themselves into … excrement for me (a new Midas!). It fits in completely with the theory of internal stinking. Above all, money itself. I believe this proceeds via the word ‘dirty’ for ‘miserly’”.
From "History of an Infantile Neurosis"(1918):"It is equally agreed that one of the most important manifestations of the transformed erotism derived from this source is to be found in the treatment of money,1 for in the course of life this precious material attracts on to itself the psychical interest which was originally proper to faeces, the product of the anal zone. We are accustomed to trace back interest in money, in so far as it is of a libidinal and not of a rational character, to excretory pleasure, and we expect normal people to keep their relations to money entirely free from libidinal influences and regulate them according to the demands of reality"(71)
This presents new questions on the status of the gift in Three Essays. Keeping in mind the radical (albeit, as we've seen, questioned) difference between gift economies and money economies, I'm wondering what differences Freud would make of the two. Is he simply being imprecise in one of the essays? feces can't really be the gift and money: we've been learning that the shift from economy to the other is a disjunctive shift between two disparate, though related, forms of economy.
I'm wondering if Freud first saw feces as "gifts", then corrected himself three years later when realizing they have more in common with money. Another option would be that for the infant, his own feces are "gifts"; but the "gift" character of feces develops into a "money" character when the infant grows up; Freud's own examples in the essay of miserly and constipated neurotics are only images of adults.
Pablo
i'm curious about the "overvaluation" of the sexual object (16) in this essay. He doesn't go very far into it, but the overvaluation of the whole body -- an "extension" of the overvaluation of the genitals" -- obscures even the subject's intellectual capacities, making the subject "submit to the [sexual object's] judgements with credulity": "thus the credulity of love becomes an important, if not the most fundamental, source of authority."
There's a lot of claims being made here: the "overvaluation" of the object's whole body sounds like people's tendency to love "even their beloved's flaws"; Freud implies that a subject's intellectual capacities or capacities for rational judgement are related inversely to "the credulity of love" or the libido; there's also the notion that love can become a fundamental source of authority. This question of authority in its relation to overvaluation needs further investigation, I think. That idea has a lot of implications.
INFANTILE SEXUALITY
many of us have been noting the (quite alarming) passage on the infant's treatment of his own feces, which first seem an extension of himself and represent a sort of "gift" (as they entail the same regulatory structures as the withholding/giving of any gift) and later take on the meaning of "baby" (babies being "born through the bowels"). Apart from the symbolic shift in the account here of the significance of the baby's own feces -- it is first an extension of his body, then (or perhaps simultaneously) the "gift" if is own body, then the meaning of "baby" itself -- apparently Freud (in an essay written three years later) attached another meaning to the infant's feces: "The connections between the complexes of interest in money and of defaecation, which seem so dissimilar, appear to be the most extensive of all" (Freud, "Character and Anal Erotism"(1908), 172).
This fascinating essay extends the "gift" metaphor and presents an unconscious connection between feces and money: "In reality, wherever archaic modes of thought have predominated or persist—in the ancient civilizations, in myths, fairy tales and superstitions, in unconscious thinking, in dreams and in neuroses—money is brought into the most intimate relationship with dirt. We know that the gold which the devil gives his paramours turns into excrement after his departure, and the devil is certainly nothing else than the personification of the repressed unconscious instinctual life"; "It is possible that the contrast between the most precious substance known to men and the most worthless, which they reject as waste matter (‘refuse’), has led to this specific identification of gold with faeces";"Every doctor who has practised psycho-analysis knows that the most refractory and long-standing cases of what is described as habitual constipation in neurotics can be cured by that form of treatment. This is less surprising if we remember that that function has shown itself similarly amenable to hypnotic suggestion. But in psycho-analysis one only achieves this result if one deals with the patients’ money complex and induces them to bring it into consciousness with all its connections. It might be supposed that the neurosis is here only following an indication of common usage in speech, which calls a person who keeps too careful a hold on his money ‘dirty’ or ‘filthy’"
In a letter to Wilhelm Fleiss from around 1897 to 1902: "“I can scarcely detail for you all the things that resolve themselves into … excrement for me (a new Midas!). It fits in completely with the theory of internal stinking. Above all, money itself. I believe this proceeds via the word ‘dirty’ for ‘miserly’”.
From "History of an Infantile Neurosis"(1918):"It is equally agreed that one of the most important manifestations of the transformed erotism derived from this source is to be found in the treatment of money,1 for in the course of life this precious material attracts on to itself the psychical interest which was originally proper to faeces, the product of the anal zone. We are accustomed to trace back interest in money, in so far as it is of a libidinal and not of a rational character, to excretory pleasure, and we expect normal people to keep their relations to money entirely free from libidinal influences and regulate them according to the demands of reality"(71)
This presents new questions on the status of the gift in Three Essays. Keeping in mind the radical (albeit, as we've seen, questioned) difference between gift economies and money economies, I'm wondering what differences Freud would make of the two. Is he simply being imprecise in one of the essays? feces can't really be the gift and money: we've been learning that the shift from economy to the other is a disjunctive shift between two disparate, though related, forms of economy.
I'm wondering if Freud first saw feces as "gifts", then corrected himself three years later when realizing they have more in common with money. Another option would be that for the infant, his own feces are "gifts"; but the "gift" character of feces develops into a "money" character when the infant grows up; Freud's own examples in the essay of miserly and constipated neurotics are only images of adults.
Pablo
Marguerite's Questions
1. Freud keeps bringing up the notion of love in relation to sexuality, and I am wondering how such an abstract emotion fits into the formation of sexual objects and fetishes.
2. How do we go from the taking of nourishment to the orgasm?What is the connection between eating and sex, and is there any validity to or conclusion to be drawn from the link between the two?
3. Does pleasure always give rise to a need for greater pleasure?How does this fit in to a discussion of commodification and object desire?
4 (Essay on Fetishism). Freud describes the fetish as standing in for something (the mother's imagined phallus) that a boy once believed in and doesn't wish to forego. How does this fit in to a discussion of nostalgia?
--Marguerite
2. How do we go from the taking of nourishment to the orgasm?What is the connection between eating and sex, and is there any validity to or conclusion to be drawn from the link between the two?
3. Does pleasure always give rise to a need for greater pleasure?How does this fit in to a discussion of commodification and object desire?
4 (Essay on Fetishism). Freud describes the fetish as standing in for something (the mother's imagined phallus) that a boy once believed in and doesn't wish to forego. How does this fit in to a discussion of nostalgia?
--Marguerite
Monday, November 10, 2008
Questions
Fetishism
How is the assignation of value in commodity culture potentially analogous to the object choice of the fetish?
Three Essays
I. Freud posits a definition of the normal beginning with an exploration of the abnormal: “The importance of these abnormalities lies in the unexpected fact that they facilitate our understanding of normal development” (7). What groups does this classification of “normal” exclude and what effect does this have on the applicability of Freud’s ideas?
II. “Whoever can solve this riddle [of infantile amnesia] would, I think, have explained hysterical amnesia as well” (41). Here, Freud posits an understanding of the abnormal as rooted in the normal, reversing the binary established in the first essay. How does this and other binaries (for example male/female, dirty/clean) function, and how are they variously destabilized and strengthened?
III. The section of the third essay entitled “The Finding of an Object” (88) suggests that human sexuality requires external physical supplement in order to achieve sexual satisfaction. How can this object, endowed with both personal and cultural significance, function like a commodity?
--Nicole
How is the assignation of value in commodity culture potentially analogous to the object choice of the fetish?
Three Essays
I. Freud posits a definition of the normal beginning with an exploration of the abnormal: “The importance of these abnormalities lies in the unexpected fact that they facilitate our understanding of normal development” (7). What groups does this classification of “normal” exclude and what effect does this have on the applicability of Freud’s ideas?
II. “Whoever can solve this riddle [of infantile amnesia] would, I think, have explained hysterical amnesia as well” (41). Here, Freud posits an understanding of the abnormal as rooted in the normal, reversing the binary established in the first essay. How does this and other binaries (for example male/female, dirty/clean) function, and how are they variously destabilized and strengthened?
III. The section of the third essay entitled “The Finding of an Object” (88) suggests that human sexuality requires external physical supplement in order to achieve sexual satisfaction. How can this object, endowed with both personal and cultural significance, function like a commodity?
--Nicole
Questions on Freud
Part I: The Sexual Aberrations
It seems to be that Freud has absolutely no idea how to account for or explain bisexuality. What is the object and aim of bisexuals? Freud's argument seems unable to account for this sort of attraction separate from genitals. His use of the word "object" seems to focus more on the sexual organs, which are parts of a body as opposed to the entirety of the human form.
Part II: Infantile Sexuality
Freud claims that infantile sexual manifestations have three characteristics: they are attached to some vital somatic function, they do not have a sexual object (auto-erotic), their aim is dominated by an erogenous zone. So is infantile sexuality the first instance of the individual objectifying parts of the self? Do humans develop first by understanding pieces of themselves and then the whole? I'm trying not to delve into Lacan.
Part III: The Transformations of Puberty
Does viewing the mother as the first sexual object, according to Freud, lead to greater cases of inversion in females? In general, I'm wary of theories that suggest that parents are responsible for exposing their children to sexual and non-sexual love. It doesn't follow that puberty itself is responsible for fueling the transformations necessary to turn libidinal energy from the self/the mother to another individual of the opposite sex. Also, the bit about women changing their leading erogenous zones after puberty is false.
"Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defense"
If repression is the inevitable result of the ego splitting, how is this an effective defense mechanism employed by the mind? Seems to me that repression, more times than not, leads to worse consequences than acting on that desire.
--Nupur
It seems to be that Freud has absolutely no idea how to account for or explain bisexuality. What is the object and aim of bisexuals? Freud's argument seems unable to account for this sort of attraction separate from genitals. His use of the word "object" seems to focus more on the sexual organs, which are parts of a body as opposed to the entirety of the human form.
Part II: Infantile Sexuality
Freud claims that infantile sexual manifestations have three characteristics: they are attached to some vital somatic function, they do not have a sexual object (auto-erotic), their aim is dominated by an erogenous zone. So is infantile sexuality the first instance of the individual objectifying parts of the self? Do humans develop first by understanding pieces of themselves and then the whole? I'm trying not to delve into Lacan.
Part III: The Transformations of Puberty
Does viewing the mother as the first sexual object, according to Freud, lead to greater cases of inversion in females? In general, I'm wary of theories that suggest that parents are responsible for exposing their children to sexual and non-sexual love. It doesn't follow that puberty itself is responsible for fueling the transformations necessary to turn libidinal energy from the self/the mother to another individual of the opposite sex. Also, the bit about women changing their leading erogenous zones after puberty is false.
"Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defense"
If repression is the inevitable result of the ego splitting, how is this an effective defense mechanism employed by the mind? Seems to me that repression, more times than not, leads to worse consequences than acting on that desire.
--Nupur
Questions
Freud Questions:
Essay 1:
In a footnote added in 1924 to the bit about sadomasochism, Freud notes that he decided to assign sadomasochism to "a peculiar position" among the "'perversions'". Could this peculiar position, at least for the sadistic aspect (which I know, he says is inseparable in many from the masochistic, but bear with me) come from the unique need of sadism for an object that can feel pain? In other words, is sadism the only "perversion" that can't be moved over into a fetish in any way, since it so entirely depends on the idea of a conscious victim? Are we skilled enough commodity fetishists that we've given objects a strong enough theory of mind to really enjoy hurting them, sexually?
(See: office space?)
Essay 2:
This is a fact-based question: In the section, "characteristics of erotogenic zones", Freud says, "A child who is indulging in sensual sucking searches about his body and chooses some part of it to suck - a part which is afterwards preferred by him from force of habit; if he happens to hit upon one of the predestined regions (such as the nipples or genitals) no doubt it retains the preference."
Do babies suck their own nipples/genitals, and if so, does that persist? It seems like those are zones usually reserves for the mucous membranes of others to suck, whereas we get our own fingers and toes. Mechanically, it just seems difficult, and Freud saying that seems to take any significance away from the hands/feet as sole (ugh, bad pun) self-suck recipients.
Essay 3:
Is an analogue of sexual tension the driving force behind capitalism? I think it works especially in the idea of startups hoping to get big, court investors, then sell out when their brand is strongest. Is an ostensible democracy, like ours, then like the feminine quality freud describes, being forced to change its masculine monarchic character through repression at the puberty of revolution while the markets get to keep on forging ahead. Sorry, a little stretched, just stick to the first part, maybe.
Handout, #2:
I really don't understand the a-ha moment that Freud seems to be chuckling at with the "Glanz auf der Naze" thing. The idea of the change in language re-interpreting the fetish seems to cast it as a kind of mantra the kid would mutter to himself for a while before thinking it was something sexy, and during that muttering phase, he moved to Germany, and things got all wacky.
By the same token, if I was a baby, growing up in France, and fetishized grapefruits - pamplemousse - then went to northern Maine during the start of a strange environmentalist initiative, would I suddenly lust after pampered moose? Is language, and therefore its puns, what governs our sexuality?
-Sam
Essay 1:
In a footnote added in 1924 to the bit about sadomasochism, Freud notes that he decided to assign sadomasochism to "a peculiar position" among the "'perversions'". Could this peculiar position, at least for the sadistic aspect (which I know, he says is inseparable in many from the masochistic, but bear with me) come from the unique need of sadism for an object that can feel pain? In other words, is sadism the only "perversion" that can't be moved over into a fetish in any way, since it so entirely depends on the idea of a conscious victim? Are we skilled enough commodity fetishists that we've given objects a strong enough theory of mind to really enjoy hurting them, sexually?
(See: office space?)
Essay 2:
This is a fact-based question: In the section, "characteristics of erotogenic zones", Freud says, "A child who is indulging in sensual sucking searches about his body and chooses some part of it to suck - a part which is afterwards preferred by him from force of habit; if he happens to hit upon one of the predestined regions (such as the nipples or genitals) no doubt it retains the preference."
Do babies suck their own nipples/genitals, and if so, does that persist? It seems like those are zones usually reserves for the mucous membranes of others to suck, whereas we get our own fingers and toes. Mechanically, it just seems difficult, and Freud saying that seems to take any significance away from the hands/feet as sole (ugh, bad pun) self-suck recipients.
Essay 3:
Is an analogue of sexual tension the driving force behind capitalism? I think it works especially in the idea of startups hoping to get big, court investors, then sell out when their brand is strongest. Is an ostensible democracy, like ours, then like the feminine quality freud describes, being forced to change its masculine monarchic character through repression at the puberty of revolution while the markets get to keep on forging ahead. Sorry, a little stretched, just stick to the first part, maybe.
Handout, #2:
I really don't understand the a-ha moment that Freud seems to be chuckling at with the "Glanz auf der Naze" thing. The idea of the change in language re-interpreting the fetish seems to cast it as a kind of mantra the kid would mutter to himself for a while before thinking it was something sexy, and during that muttering phase, he moved to Germany, and things got all wacky.
By the same token, if I was a baby, growing up in France, and fetishized grapefruits - pamplemousse - then went to northern Maine during the start of a strange environmentalist initiative, would I suddenly lust after pampered moose? Is language, and therefore its puns, what governs our sexuality?
-Sam
¿questions?
1. I was wondering what people thought about the implications of Freud's theory of overvaluation of the sexual object. What does the over-investment of desire towards the sexual object and what Freud calls the "intellectual infatuation" with the object at hand create in terms of the subject's own perception of his relation to the object? Is the appreciations an obscuring? Does overvaluation have to exist at a primary level for people to exist with one another on a continual basis?
2. Freud's mentioning of scopophilia among children (p.58) and his earlier mentioning of sight as subsidiary to touch made me wonder how the relation between possession and viewing in modern media forms can be seen as a sort of pseudo-possession. Does this imply that looking can become a sort of power relation in terms of soothing the subject who cannot actually access the object of desire?
3. I am confused by Freud's claim under the 'The Barrier Against Incest' that states that children's sexual impulses towards their parents "are as a rule already differentiated owing to the attraction of the opposite sex"(p.93) in contrast to his claim later on that inversion is prohibited mostly by " authoritative prohibition by society." It seems as though he waivers as to whether object choice is meaningful or whether it is arbitrary. I guess the question is, can you clear this up for me?
4. The creation of a fetish as a masking of the lack of a penis acts as a means to obscure reality and accept reality at the same time. If this duel process is the case in terms of investing oneself in an object of desire, are all sexual object choices in some ways an acknowledgment of a personal lack on one hand, and a desire to obscure the personal lack, as if by association with the other one becomes it, on the other hand?
- george w.
2. Freud's mentioning of scopophilia among children (p.58) and his earlier mentioning of sight as subsidiary to touch made me wonder how the relation between possession and viewing in modern media forms can be seen as a sort of pseudo-possession. Does this imply that looking can become a sort of power relation in terms of soothing the subject who cannot actually access the object of desire?
3. I am confused by Freud's claim under the 'The Barrier Against Incest' that states that children's sexual impulses towards their parents "are as a rule already differentiated owing to the attraction of the opposite sex"(p.93) in contrast to his claim later on that inversion is prohibited mostly by " authoritative prohibition by society." It seems as though he waivers as to whether object choice is meaningful or whether it is arbitrary. I guess the question is, can you clear this up for me?
4. The creation of a fetish as a masking of the lack of a penis acts as a means to obscure reality and accept reality at the same time. If this duel process is the case in terms of investing oneself in an object of desire, are all sexual object choices in some ways an acknowledgment of a personal lack on one hand, and a desire to obscure the personal lack, as if by association with the other one becomes it, on the other hand?
- george w.
Questions on (for) Freud
1. Do the two xeroxed essays offer competing definitions of the fetish or complementary ones? Is there a relationship between trauma and the displacement of value?
2. I want to look at a footnote at the end of section 1 of "The Sexual Aberrations" on pg. 15. Are there any wider implications for Freud's belief that moderns are distinguished from ancients in believing that the sexual object must be a good object rather than the sexual object being good because it is a sexual object? How did this change occur? Why would Freud put it in a footnote instead of the body of the text?
3. What are the two "sources" of the infant sexual aim? Does Freud think pleasure works from the inside out or the outside in during infancy? Does this change as the individual ages?
4. If the fetish is the wrong sexual object, what is the wrong sexual aim? Why don't we have a word for the "dangerous" fore-pleasure that undoes end-pleasure? Can you imagine any implications of Freud's fore-pleasure in economic exchange?
---Andrew
2. I want to look at a footnote at the end of section 1 of "The Sexual Aberrations" on pg. 15. Are there any wider implications for Freud's belief that moderns are distinguished from ancients in believing that the sexual object must be a good object rather than the sexual object being good because it is a sexual object? How did this change occur? Why would Freud put it in a footnote instead of the body of the text?
3. What are the two "sources" of the infant sexual aim? Does Freud think pleasure works from the inside out or the outside in during infancy? Does this change as the individual ages?
4. If the fetish is the wrong sexual object, what is the wrong sexual aim? Why don't we have a word for the "dangerous" fore-pleasure that undoes end-pleasure? Can you imagine any implications of Freud's fore-pleasure in economic exchange?
---Andrew
Jordan's Questions
Freud’s Three Essays On the Theory of Sexuality
In Essay #1 of Freud’s Three Essays on Sexuality, Freud implements numerous edits to the concept of the “sexual object.” He states that overvaluation of the sexual object that is the primary genitalia leads to perversion, which can be “positive” or “negative.” The positive perversion is characteristic of viewing a mate’s entire body as a sexual entity, which is widely socially acceptable. Conversely, negative perversion deviates from the norm by substituting the drive for the primary genitalia for that of a solitary part of the body. Thus it appears a normative sexual view is that in which the whole body becomes object – the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” What’s wrong with this idea of a spectrum of perversion/sexual fetishism? In other words, why is it more acceptable to fetishize the entire body than a single component of it?
In essay #2, Freud touches on the childish idea of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” as a sort of precursor to voyeurism. Moreover, he states that voyeurism, in the perverse sense, beckons reciprocity as well, as the voyeur is too an exhibitionist at all times. Are these innate forms of reciprocity in anyway analogous to that of capitalist and/or gift exchange? Could this inherent existence of sexual reciprocity be the subconscious root of these more modern forms of exchange?
In essay #3 Freud implies that our parents provide the model for our future mates/objects of desire. Then to what extent is dating/the search for a mate simply a matching game, consisting of finding identical parts?
“Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence”
I was particularly intrigued by the author's use of the word "artful" to describe the mechanisms of disavowal of reality and fetishism as "displacement" of value. In what ways are these mechanisms analogous to the craft of artwork? And if similar, is it the subconscious process or the manifestations themselves?
~Jordan Carter~
In Essay #1 of Freud’s Three Essays on Sexuality, Freud implements numerous edits to the concept of the “sexual object.” He states that overvaluation of the sexual object that is the primary genitalia leads to perversion, which can be “positive” or “negative.” The positive perversion is characteristic of viewing a mate’s entire body as a sexual entity, which is widely socially acceptable. Conversely, negative perversion deviates from the norm by substituting the drive for the primary genitalia for that of a solitary part of the body. Thus it appears a normative sexual view is that in which the whole body becomes object – the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” What’s wrong with this idea of a spectrum of perversion/sexual fetishism? In other words, why is it more acceptable to fetishize the entire body than a single component of it?
In essay #2, Freud touches on the childish idea of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” as a sort of precursor to voyeurism. Moreover, he states that voyeurism, in the perverse sense, beckons reciprocity as well, as the voyeur is too an exhibitionist at all times. Are these innate forms of reciprocity in anyway analogous to that of capitalist and/or gift exchange? Could this inherent existence of sexual reciprocity be the subconscious root of these more modern forms of exchange?
In essay #3 Freud implies that our parents provide the model for our future mates/objects of desire. Then to what extent is dating/the search for a mate simply a matching game, consisting of finding identical parts?
“Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence”
I was particularly intrigued by the author's use of the word "artful" to describe the mechanisms of disavowal of reality and fetishism as "displacement" of value. In what ways are these mechanisms analogous to the craft of artwork? And if similar, is it the subconscious process or the manifestations themselves?
~Jordan Carter~
Freud Questions from Crow
1.) At the top of page 14, Freud derails a set of assumptions that had been operating in his analysis of inversion in order to allow for the many varied instances of "frequent" yet not "normal" occurrences, showing a disconnect between sexual instinct and sexual object. He has not yet established the idea that these sexual instincts appear to be influenced by sexual stimulation and parental affection in the infantile state, and after the period of latency during puberty in a further repression, and only then bringing about the possibility of fetishization. Even further, he goes on to reflect that the infantile stage is characterized by autoeroticism, which would seem to set up the self as the sexual object (if not the mothers breast etc.), which makes me wonder: What would Freud say about the fetishization of the self? Does that at all fit in with the ideas he is proposing?
2.) I find it hard to reconcile Freud's insistence that infantile sex instincts are autoerotic while he is incessantly (if not explicitly) pointing to the external factors for which bodily stimulation merely acts as emulation in the case of non-genital erotogenic zones (such as parental influence, the manipulation of seduction, the substitution of the thumb for the breast, etc.) Also, (how) can autoeroticism exist in notably penisless females? (bringing in ideas established in the other essays.)
3.) To what extent is it significant that the sexual object as fetish resulting from - among other factors in the two waves of sexual object preference - repression is necessarily unobtainable, in that the sexual appetite can be temporarily quenched, presenting periods during which sexual objects do not have desirability for normative instances of genital stimulation in the fashion of reproductive activity.
4.) Is this rift in the ego what might be considered depravity, neurosis, or perversion according to Freud's earlier works? Would these be abnormal tendencies, or do they find a parallel in fine line walked by the loving parent who stands to lose by faulting to either side of perfect balance of display of affection? Does the boy need to continue to hallucinate a penis, continue to masturbate, and simultaneously fear and deny the possibility of castration?
2.) I find it hard to reconcile Freud's insistence that infantile sex instincts are autoerotic while he is incessantly (if not explicitly) pointing to the external factors for which bodily stimulation merely acts as emulation in the case of non-genital erotogenic zones (such as parental influence, the manipulation of seduction, the substitution of the thumb for the breast, etc.) Also, (how) can autoeroticism exist in notably penisless females? (bringing in ideas established in the other essays.)
3.) To what extent is it significant that the sexual object as fetish resulting from - among other factors in the two waves of sexual object preference - repression is necessarily unobtainable, in that the sexual appetite can be temporarily quenched, presenting periods during which sexual objects do not have desirability for normative instances of genital stimulation in the fashion of reproductive activity.
4.) Is this rift in the ego what might be considered depravity, neurosis, or perversion according to Freud's earlier works? Would these be abnormal tendencies, or do they find a parallel in fine line walked by the loving parent who stands to lose by faulting to either side of perfect balance of display of affection? Does the boy need to continue to hallucinate a penis, continue to masturbate, and simultaneously fear and deny the possibility of castration?
QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
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
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
Patrick's Questions
"The Sexual Aberrations"
"A certain degree of fetishism is thus habitually present in normal love, especially in those stages of it in which the normal sexual aim seems unattainable or its fulfillment prevented" (20)
Although Freud lays out the conditions under which fetishism becomes a pathology (when "the fetish . . . takes the place of a normal aim," and "when the fetish becomes detached from a particular individual and becomes the sole sexual object"), how might Freud's conception of the "sexual object" reintroduce the pathological in the normal? Or, in Derridean terms, can the concept of "fetish" be controlled, limited, expunged from the normal, or is it a sort of dangerous supplement?
"Infantile Sexuality"
I was particularly struck by Freud's concept of infantile amnesia. What is the role of nostalgia in this formulation? Is the retrieval of a repressed trauma nostalgic? Is there a nostalgia for a certain kind of continuity? For knowledge?
"Transformations of Puberty"
"A child's affection for his parents is no doubt the most important infantile trace which, after being revived at puberty, points the way to his choice of an object" (94).
How might we read Freud's emphasis on parents' role other than as a statement of fact? For example, as an effect of his milieu? As a legitimating myth?
"Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence"
What interested me in this essay is not necessarily the specifics of the boy's case, but the way in which repression is formulated. In order to continue masturbating, the boy must repress his fear of castration, which emerges later as a symptom. My question: Is desire formulated as some kind of substance, as matter? Can the ego be similarly imagined as material?
"A certain degree of fetishism is thus habitually present in normal love, especially in those stages of it in which the normal sexual aim seems unattainable or its fulfillment prevented" (20)
Although Freud lays out the conditions under which fetishism becomes a pathology (when "the fetish . . . takes the place of a normal aim," and "when the fetish becomes detached from a particular individual and becomes the sole sexual object"), how might Freud's conception of the "sexual object" reintroduce the pathological in the normal? Or, in Derridean terms, can the concept of "fetish" be controlled, limited, expunged from the normal, or is it a sort of dangerous supplement?
"Infantile Sexuality"
I was particularly struck by Freud's concept of infantile amnesia. What is the role of nostalgia in this formulation? Is the retrieval of a repressed trauma nostalgic? Is there a nostalgia for a certain kind of continuity? For knowledge?
"Transformations of Puberty"
"A child's affection for his parents is no doubt the most important infantile trace which, after being revived at puberty, points the way to his choice of an object" (94).
How might we read Freud's emphasis on parents' role other than as a statement of fact? For example, as an effect of his milieu? As a legitimating myth?
"Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence"
What interested me in this essay is not necessarily the specifics of the boy's case, but the way in which repression is formulated. In order to continue masturbating, the boy must repress his fear of castration, which emerges later as a symptom. My question: Is desire formulated as some kind of substance, as matter? Can the ego be similarly imagined as material?
Kristen's Questions on Freud
Q1
Freud discusses the abnormalities regarding gender, referring to gender not being only male and female. He states how these abnormalities "facilitate our understanding of normal development"(7). How are fetishes (discussed later in the text) classified as normal and abnormal, and if they are even talked about in terms of normalcy? Do fetishes also require a comparison of abnormal to define them?
Q2
"That it finds its object in the infant's own body" (63). This quote is referring to infants finding objects in themselves, which seems to be active. However, throughout the text, female is referred to passive, while the male is referred to as active. How does this relate to infants?
Q3
In sec 5 of Essay III, there is the discussion of finding the object. There is assigning of the object to the self, as well as to the other. The object assigned to the self is pre-puberty, and seeing an object in others is after puberty. But is it possible to see the object in oneself in adulthood?
Q4 (Xerox article #2)
How do women experience and develop fetishes? The article only explains how men do, through the fear of castration because of seeing a woman.
Freud discusses the abnormalities regarding gender, referring to gender not being only male and female. He states how these abnormalities "facilitate our understanding of normal development"(7). How are fetishes (discussed later in the text) classified as normal and abnormal, and if they are even talked about in terms of normalcy? Do fetishes also require a comparison of abnormal to define them?
Q2
"That it finds its object in the infant's own body" (63). This quote is referring to infants finding objects in themselves, which seems to be active. However, throughout the text, female is referred to passive, while the male is referred to as active. How does this relate to infants?
Q3
In sec 5 of Essay III, there is the discussion of finding the object. There is assigning of the object to the self, as well as to the other. The object assigned to the self is pre-puberty, and seeing an object in others is after puberty. But is it possible to see the object in oneself in adulthood?
Q4 (Xerox article #2)
How do women experience and develop fetishes? The article only explains how men do, through the fear of castration because of seeing a woman.
Ryan's Traumatic Freudian Slips
1. Sexual Aberrations
At the outset, Freud “Let us call the person from whom sexual attraction proceeds the sexual object and the act towards which the instinct tends the sexual aim.” (1-2). He later argues, “We are thus warned to loosen the bond that exists in our thoughts between instinct and object. It seems probably that the sexual instinct is in the first instance independent of its object; nor is its origin likely to be due to its object’s attractions.” (14). Does drive, therefore, “create” the object? Are object relations a “function” of drive?
2.Infantile Sexuality
“To begin with, sexual activity attaches itself to functions serving the purpose of self-preservation and does not become independent of them until later...the need for repeating the sexual satisfaction now becomes detached from the need...” (48). This shift, the process whereby satisfaction can become “detached” from need, evidences a shift in understandings of childhood sexuality: how does it also suggest a dynamic process for refiguring object relations?
3.Puberty
“at a time at which the first beginnings of sexual satisfaction
are still linked with the taking of nourishment, the sexual
instinct has a sexual object outside the infant’s own body...the sexual instinct then becomes auto-erotic...The finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it” (88)
Given this trajectory (with elisions, for space’s sake), doesn’t Freud’s model seem to set up two concepts of drive, where one suggests that libido could emerge as an independent force, and the other emphasizes earlier object relations? Or is this a model where these aspects are in productive tension? Is this related to, or distinct from the nagging presence of nostalgia (Stewart) and the imprint of loss (Weiner)?
Fetishism (1928)
“the boy had refused to take cognizance of the fact perceived by him that woman has no penis. No, that cannot be true...” (162)
Here, Freud sets up the idea of disavowal, or perhaps, to be more correct, a process where a given reality is simultaneously acknowledged and denied. Marx’s process of commodity fetishism also involves an operation upon acknowledgement, upon conditions of knowledge. How do they contrast?
***agreed, Hollis, page 88 continues to reign supreme...
At the outset, Freud “Let us call the person from whom sexual attraction proceeds the sexual object and the act towards which the instinct tends the sexual aim.” (1-2). He later argues, “We are thus warned to loosen the bond that exists in our thoughts between instinct and object. It seems probably that the sexual instinct is in the first instance independent of its object; nor is its origin likely to be due to its object’s attractions.” (14). Does drive, therefore, “create” the object? Are object relations a “function” of drive?
2.Infantile Sexuality
“To begin with, sexual activity attaches itself to functions serving the purpose of self-preservation and does not become independent of them until later...the need for repeating the sexual satisfaction now becomes detached from the need...” (48). This shift, the process whereby satisfaction can become “detached” from need, evidences a shift in understandings of childhood sexuality: how does it also suggest a dynamic process for refiguring object relations?
3.Puberty
“at a time at which the first beginnings of sexual satisfaction
are still linked with the taking of nourishment, the sexual
instinct has a sexual object outside the infant’s own body...the sexual instinct then becomes auto-erotic...The finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it” (88)
Given this trajectory (with elisions, for space’s sake), doesn’t Freud’s model seem to set up two concepts of drive, where one suggests that libido could emerge as an independent force, and the other emphasizes earlier object relations? Or is this a model where these aspects are in productive tension? Is this related to, or distinct from the nagging presence of nostalgia (Stewart) and the imprint of loss (Weiner)?
Fetishism (1928)
“the boy had refused to take cognizance of the fact perceived by him that woman has no penis. No, that cannot be true...” (162)
Here, Freud sets up the idea of disavowal, or perhaps, to be more correct, a process where a given reality is simultaneously acknowledged and denied. Marx’s process of commodity fetishism also involves an operation upon acknowledgement, upon conditions of knowledge. How do they contrast?
***agreed, Hollis, page 88 continues to reign supreme...
Evan's Four Questions
Fetishism: "it [the fetish] remains a token of triumph over the threat of castration and a safeguard against it" (2). Given the way that Freud describes the fetish as forming from a kind of instinctual or survivalist need, I couldn't help but wonder how this might help characterize other fetishistic creations. Is the act of gift giving perhaps a response to a fear of isolation, or the fetish of money perhaps a response to the impermanence of material wealth in that it fixes it to an unchanging solid number?
Sexual Aberrations: "A certain degree of fetishism is thus habitually present in normal love..." (20). Freud glosses over this "normal" fetishism and uses is primarily to contrast with the aberrant sort, but I wonder not simply about how this fetish comes about, but how this fetish is received in the process of "normal" love. With the stigma that becomes associated with the aberrants and so their fetishes, fetishism has, if anything, become a fetish itself for abnormality. How does the "normal" lover relate to his or her fetish, and what does the partner make of someone else's fetish. This seems to me more inherently an anthropological than a psychiatric question but one that interests me nonetheless.
Infantile sexuality: "it [infantile sexuality] attaches itself to one of the vial somatic functions; it has as yet no sexual object" (48). It is interesting to me that there seems to be a sense that a return to infantile sexuality (auto-eroticism and objectless, fetishistic pleasure) are identified as the abnormal or as the fetishizing. Just by Freud's analogizing between sexuality and all other basic somatic functions, it seems increasingly strange that this particular one of sexuality needs to fetishize personal needs with some other object. How strange too that this object must be another agent who fetishizes their own somatic needs. I guess my question would be why is it natural that sexuality be fetishized externally? Just that that's how biology works?
Transformation of Puberty: "the eye is perhaps the zone most remote from the sexual object" (75). I was intrigued by this idea that the eye could be seen (no pun intended) as on the same level as other erotogenic zones. What is interesting about the eye is that its only stimulation comes in imagining the touch (this is a completely unqualified claim, I'm just asserting that here). It seems as though the eye imagines the touch imagines the.... eventually ending in sexual fulfillment. If we can establish this progression then, where does it start? My question here would be what is the most preliminary and anticipatory stage of sexual gratification? Is it the eye? Or can we go further and say that some unknowable part of the mind imagines first what the eye will see? Where is the sex-drive, in other words.
Sexual Aberrations: "A certain degree of fetishism is thus habitually present in normal love..." (20). Freud glosses over this "normal" fetishism and uses is primarily to contrast with the aberrant sort, but I wonder not simply about how this fetish comes about, but how this fetish is received in the process of "normal" love. With the stigma that becomes associated with the aberrants and so their fetishes, fetishism has, if anything, become a fetish itself for abnormality. How does the "normal" lover relate to his or her fetish, and what does the partner make of someone else's fetish. This seems to me more inherently an anthropological than a psychiatric question but one that interests me nonetheless.
Infantile sexuality: "it [infantile sexuality] attaches itself to one of the vial somatic functions; it has as yet no sexual object" (48). It is interesting to me that there seems to be a sense that a return to infantile sexuality (auto-eroticism and objectless, fetishistic pleasure) are identified as the abnormal or as the fetishizing. Just by Freud's analogizing between sexuality and all other basic somatic functions, it seems increasingly strange that this particular one of sexuality needs to fetishize personal needs with some other object. How strange too that this object must be another agent who fetishizes their own somatic needs. I guess my question would be why is it natural that sexuality be fetishized externally? Just that that's how biology works?
Transformation of Puberty: "the eye is perhaps the zone most remote from the sexual object" (75). I was intrigued by this idea that the eye could be seen (no pun intended) as on the same level as other erotogenic zones. What is interesting about the eye is that its only stimulation comes in imagining the touch (this is a completely unqualified claim, I'm just asserting that here). It seems as though the eye imagines the touch imagines the.... eventually ending in sexual fulfillment. If we can establish this progression then, where does it start? My question here would be what is the most preliminary and anticipatory stage of sexual gratification? Is it the eye? Or can we go further and say that some unknowable part of the mind imagines first what the eye will see? Where is the sex-drive, in other words.
Hollis' Freud Questions
Xerox:
How does the suggestion that “everything has to be paid for in one way or another” become relevant in a discourse of commodity? How is trauma become essential in this dialogue of remuneration?
I.
Can the concept of ‘instinct’ be situated or juxtaposed with Marx’s theory of the human and the sensuous?
II.
On a footnote that runs from 59-60, Freud suggests that the manifestation of sexual symbolism coincides with the first years of speech. Stewart also uses language as a tool to pry open object relations. Is this a sort of linguistic determinism, or is it the inverse? Can Freud’s terminology be seen as furthering a commodification of sexual experience?
III.
On page 88 Freud suggests that the ‘finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it.’ How can this theory of recovery be seen as relative to the trauma of loss in Weiner?
*** Interesting to note that page 88 has caught everyone' attention thusfar
How does the suggestion that “everything has to be paid for in one way or another” become relevant in a discourse of commodity? How is trauma become essential in this dialogue of remuneration?
I.
Can the concept of ‘instinct’ be situated or juxtaposed with Marx’s theory of the human and the sensuous?
II.
On a footnote that runs from 59-60, Freud suggests that the manifestation of sexual symbolism coincides with the first years of speech. Stewart also uses language as a tool to pry open object relations. Is this a sort of linguistic determinism, or is it the inverse? Can Freud’s terminology be seen as furthering a commodification of sexual experience?
III.
On page 88 Freud suggests that the ‘finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it.’ How can this theory of recovery be seen as relative to the trauma of loss in Weiner?
*** Interesting to note that page 88 has caught everyone' attention thusfar
Hans' Freud Questions
1. The Sexual Aberrations
pg 35: Why does Freud wait until he splits the sexual instinct into ‘component instincts’ before defining the concept, qualities, and problems of the human sexual instinct?
2. Infantile Sexuality
pg 52: On page 52 Freud describes the ‘gift’ of fecal matter as a form of surrendering the masturbatory stimulus in order to achieve compliance with care givers. Are “surrender” and “compliance” universal qualities inherent in the act of giving? Second question: How does one determine the difference between fecal matter retained in order to achieve a masturbatory stimulus and fecal matter as a ‘gift’? By the size of the present?
3. Puberty
pg 88: “There are thus good reasons why a child sucking at his mother’s breast has become the prototype of every relation of love. The finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it.” Does the breast as an originating object turn us all into nostalgic creatures, continually working to recapture the past? Can nostalgia manifest itself through an unconscious act of “refinding”?
4. Fetishism
Can we trace Freud’s concept of “denial” as a universal agent operating throughout the various definitions of the fetish and fetishism that fall outside the realm of psychoanalysis?
pg 35: Why does Freud wait until he splits the sexual instinct into ‘component instincts’ before defining the concept, qualities, and problems of the human sexual instinct?
2. Infantile Sexuality
pg 52: On page 52 Freud describes the ‘gift’ of fecal matter as a form of surrendering the masturbatory stimulus in order to achieve compliance with care givers. Are “surrender” and “compliance” universal qualities inherent in the act of giving? Second question: How does one determine the difference between fecal matter retained in order to achieve a masturbatory stimulus and fecal matter as a ‘gift’? By the size of the present?
3. Puberty
pg 88: “There are thus good reasons why a child sucking at his mother’s breast has become the prototype of every relation of love. The finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it.” Does the breast as an originating object turn us all into nostalgic creatures, continually working to recapture the past? Can nostalgia manifest itself through an unconscious act of “refinding”?
4. Fetishism
Can we trace Freud’s concept of “denial” as a universal agent operating throughout the various definitions of the fetish and fetishism that fall outside the realm of psychoanalysis?
Jonathan's Questions for Freud
The Aberrations: "...in surprisingly numerous individuals, the nature and importance of the sexual object recedes into the background. What is essential and constant in the sexual instinct is something else" (15). Where does Freud draw the line between dispersing sexuality into different elements and unifying it into something 'essential and constant? Why is he so adamant about preserving something essential and constant when his project at this stage is precisely that of de-essentializing sexuality?
Infant Sex: On page 64 Freud refers to thumb-sucking as a relic of breastfeeding. In what ways is he transforming or dividing up sexuality into knowable things, which gain their own histories and characteristics? More importantly, what cultural effect does this have on the experience of sexuality and consciousness in general?
Puberty: "The finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it" (88). Is he positing an originary object, or is the Oedipal origin merely a provisional method of description? How does this relate to ideas of the gift, in terms of the supposedly unique quality of gifted items?
Fetishism: "Probably no male human is spared the shock of threatened castration at the sight of the female genitals" (163). Is this meant literally? Is it meant universally?
-Jonathan
Infant Sex: On page 64 Freud refers to thumb-sucking as a relic of breastfeeding. In what ways is he transforming or dividing up sexuality into knowable things, which gain their own histories and characteristics? More importantly, what cultural effect does this have on the experience of sexuality and consciousness in general?
Puberty: "The finding of an object is in fact a refinding of it" (88). Is he positing an originary object, or is the Oedipal origin merely a provisional method of description? How does this relate to ideas of the gift, in terms of the supposedly unique quality of gifted items?
Fetishism: "Probably no male human is spared the shock of threatened castration at the sight of the female genitals" (163). Is this meant literally? Is it meant universally?
-Jonathan
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Volatile
I am being very indecisive, but think I have settled on writing about The Volatile.
- Crow Jonah Norlander
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Gritty
I will be writing on the gritty. I find that the aggregate of the coarse, the dirty, the rotten, and the decaying is the gritty. As our readings have suggested, objects such as the miniature can function as mirrors of us as both objects and humans represent a container of sorts. Both the object-container and the human-container inevitably undergo a process of deterioration. Accordingly, we are disturbed by the gritty as it reminds us of not only the transitory nature of the lives of things but also the transitory nature of our own lives. The gritty represents an object at the terminal end of its "social life" as Appadurai would say. Comparably, as we age our skin become coarse and rough like the landscape of the gritty, our organs - the very stuff we contain - become rotten and contaminated like the raw interior of the gritty. Discomforting as it may be, the gritty provides a constant and often unwelcoming projection of our inescapable future: expiration. Thus, it is unsurprising that we do not desire to obtain or claim the gritty - its demand is minimal. But in a way, the objects that occupy the realm of the gritty are "inalienable possessions" in their own right, as we cannot escape the ramifications of the sheer existence of the gritty. Regardless of the mode of interaction (be it physical or cognitive), the gritty downright disturbs us, incessantly priming us with mortality.
~Jordan Carter~
The radioactive
I'd like to write a paper about the radioactive, how we define it (and control it) culturally. It is precisely its uncontainability that interests me. Also, its formlessness which is not simply form-defying but deforming. I will revisit gestures which domesticate the radioactive, such as the use of isotopes on luminescent watch dials, also ones that profit from the radioactive, like x-ray machines and finally nuclear power, a promise of labour without labor...limitless, free energy. Everywhere, however, there is the labor of containing the radioactive, and its menace. What is the true productivity of radioactivity but accelerated genetic mutation? I wonder if new calls for nuclear energy in these end-times of the fossil fuel are linked to changing attitudes towards "the radioactive."
At present, I am still casting about for a theoretical apparatus but god-willing it will be found, if I have to split the library to do it!
--Andrew
At present, I am still casting about for a theoretical apparatus but god-willing it will be found, if I have to split the library to do it!
--Andrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)