A thought of Lacan's interpretation of the Oedipal organic provides further support for the contention that homoeroticism is both inside to and disruptive of masculine id. Lacan employs Freud in assigning a central role to the Oedipal organic and its regards to castration, but he articulates the trend in terms of his knowledge of the partnership between subject matter and signification. In Lacan's profile the subject detects his way to selfhood through the task of the signifying system. The topic does not employ the culture's signifying elements to construct an id but locates itself in signification, spoken by the signifier. With all this romance to signification, the subject's self applied, meaning and desire are articulated from the website of the Other. The externalised reference point point for the subject's self-identity creates a distance, a damage, a lack, a sense of alienation at the heart of subjectivity. Forever trying to close the distance of subjectivity the subject is continually substituting objects for the phallus in an attempt to restore a fantastic wholeness that may never have been there in the first place. Although Lacan insists that the phallus is a pure and transcendent signifier, that it is neither an object nor an organ, but only a fantasy and an excellent he often represents the phallus using conditions that evoke the penis. Also, his explanation of the way the subject realises and overcomes the castrating, alienating reduction that accompanies its access into language establishes a solid equivocation, if no identification, between the phallus and the penis.
Although all subjects go through the alienation joining the admittance into language and therefore all subject matter seek the phallus and its own fantastic substitutes, the subject comes to realise something about where the phallus and it is not, given that the Other is the foundation and site of desire. Given the desire of the Other for the subject, the subject comes to a knowledge that the Other does not have got the phallus, but is searching for it; the desire of the Other creates a longing on the part of the subject to become the phallus for the Other. Although structural terms of Lacan's information are subject and also other, implying that any desiring other could become understood as missing the phallus and needing conclusion by and through the subject. Lacan exclusively identifies the lacking Other as the lower-case other, or even more precisely, the mother. Whereas neither the topic nor the Other have an official gendered personal information when reviewed in the most basic terms, Lacan's explanation of the symbolic order requires that desiring others be positioned in specific gendered jobs so that the subject can imaginatively defeat its alienation. Actually, for the symbolic composition to operate on Lacan's understanding the only answer to the ever-circulating absence made by the self-alienation of signification that can serve to cover the gap in subjectivity is the Name-of- the-Father; there is absolutely no maternal or female equivalent. The specific dad - in a relationship comparable to that of the penis and the phallus - is, of course, always a stand-in for the symbolic Father, a vague approximation of the figure that secures regulations and halts the stream of the string of signification initiated by the desire and language of the Other. At the same time - in an account similar to the admission that the phallus is the image of the penis - where the actual father does not sufficiently approximate the symbolic Daddy, the subject is likely to succumb to psychosis, struggling to find its moorings in the ever-flowing tide of words, unable to structure a stable self.
Lacan identifies lots of ways that the actual father can neglect to resemble sufficiently or efficiently the symbolic father. First, if the real mother fails to treat the genuine daddy as an specialist physique, as a shape who could instantiate and enforce the Law, then the marriage to the symbolic Dad will be marred. Second, if the actual father's life is riven with failures to achieve the accomplishments and successes culturally assigned to male subject matter, then he'll also falter in resembling the symbolic Father. Third, if the genuine daddy is so overwhelmingly successful, establishes himself as such a detailed approximation to the symbolic Daddy, then he also reveals an issue for the topic because the actual father's inescapable weaknesses and defects can look that a lot more glaring and hypocritical with regards to the symbolic Dad he almost exactly approximates. Given the multiple ways that the actual father can neglect to resemble the symbolic Father, given Lacan's admission that the real father is often an imposter for the symbolic Dad, given his admission that even the symbolic Daddy is only a wonderful substitute for the phallus which is itself only an imaginary subject, are we compelled to summarize that nearly all subjects must be psychotic to some extent or another? Regardless of how we answer this question, Lacan's theoretical discourse reveals, at the very least, an attempt to secure a privileged function for paternal power, a longing for the (f/F)ather to rescue the subject from the chaos, absence and loss that the (m)Other's desire creates. In this manner, however is not explicitly recognized in these conditions, Lacan's theory of the topic betrays a desire for the father that Freudian discourse willingly admits.
What is lacking from this profile of alienation, desire and the phallus is any explicit reputation that the subject could go through the daddy as the desiring other. The reasoning of the Lacanian structural order demonstrates why this must be eliminated as a possibility. On the main one hand, if the daddy may be the other who desires the subject, then the dad would be accepted as missing the phallus just as that the mother does indeed. In Lacan's system, desire impulses lack; if the father is (also) a niche site of lack then the symbolic order will collapse because the Name-of-the-Father is present precisely as an answer to the ever-present, ever before circulating shortage signified by the phallus. On the other hand, if the daddy is either the foundation of a homoerotic desire for the kid or the thing of the son's homoerotic desire, then, given the sexual order that Lacan assumes and the dominant fiction presupposes, the real dad is distanced from the symbolic Daddy due to kind of sexual desire circling around him. Insofar as homoerotic desire flows between the daddy and child, psychosis undoubtedly results - i. e. , homoeroticism makes the subject's success of a do it yourself impossible. At the same time, the subject's search for an un-alienated sense of self is fuelled by way of a desire to relax secure in relation to the Father and the Father's Regulation. The longing for selfhood is discursively symbolized by Lacan as a captivation with the (F/f)ather that both is and can't be homoerotic.
Freud's representation of normative masculinity will keep homoerotic desire discursively alive since it strives to help make the objective facts of biology that institute the heterosexual and patriarchal organisation of desire and personality show up natural and inevitable. The boy will usually choose the male organ; the penis signifies maleness and indicates heterosexual desire. Because Lacan's bank account of subjectivity does not take anatomy as its base, it cannot say that the possibility of homoerotic desire into the world of masculine id without revealing the arbitrary image resolution of the alienating effects of signification in favour of the heterosexual and patriarchal status quo. If the boy detects himself in a universe comprised entirely of others, shortage and desire, then there has to be some device for fixing the relationship between many others, some lacks plus some desires, if the gendered and sexualised division of power is to be maintained.
Taking Freud's thoughts on mourning and melancholia as her principal text messages, Judith Butler argues in Gender Trouble that the lost, repressed, perpetually unacknowledged, eternally mourned thing of homosexual desire is essential to the loan consolidation of masculinity and that a strong sense of "oppositionally defined gender id" serves to keep the lost homosexual subject through a regular gesture of disavowal. Butler also shows by using a close reading of Freud and Lacan on the Oedipal complex that the interpersonal prohibition on homosexuality is transformed by their texts into a heterosexual disposition that provides heterosexual desire with an all natural rather than ethnic origin. Moreover, however, Butler concludes her dialogue of the partnership between heterosexual desire and the lost homosexual thing with a thought of the partnership between disavowed homoerotic desire and the construction of the feminine subject.
The woman-as-object must be the sign that [the masculine subject matter] not only never felt homosexual desire, but never believed the grief over its damage. Indeed, the woman-as-sign must effectively displace and conceal that preheterosexual record towards one that consecrates a smooth heterosexuality.
Butler contends that the construction of the woman as a erotic subject and the repression of the homosexual substratum of masculinity are implicated. With all this mutual implication, it seems that tracing the figuration of homoerotic desire in representations of normative masculinity gets the potential to improve the structure of women's romantic relationship to sexuality and subjectivity.
This section started out with the suspicion that there might be sites in psychoanalytic theory, in addition to discussions of masochism, where in fact the dominating fiction regarding masculine subjectivity could be unsettled. By way of a dialogue of both Freud's and Lacan's understandings of the masochism and the Oedipal organic, I have wanted to map one of these sites, to track the existence of homoeroticism in psychoanalytic representations of masculinity, even where it is absent from the explicit conditions of the discourse. Participating to the homoerotic substratum of normative masculinity provides three critical insights for the larger questions motivating the dissertation. First, based on this consideration of the partnership between normative masculinity and homoerotic desire, we can realize why masculinity resists being the object rather than the agent of the gaze. Where in fact the masculine subject matter is subjected to the gaze, erotic desire is never far behind. When erotic desire envelops the male body, it often renders that body with the capacity of homoerotic contemplation or at least suggests the likelihood of homoerotic contemplation of the male body generally. Such a presentation of the male body brings to mindful attention the slender, if not discernible, series between normative and homoerotic masculinity.
Castration, loss, absence, otherness, visibility; these are the characteristics that the dominant fiction tries to exclude from its articulation of masculine subjectivity. What makes this of exclusion, repression and displacement nearly impossible is the conjunction of masculinity's reliance on display for acquiring its privileged position and spectacle's inclination for exposing the shortage inherent in masculinity as well as the dependency of masculinity on the other to retain its ascendant position.
Masochistic fantasies help to secure the venerable and desired status of the paternal body, but they do that at the cost of demonstrating the dependence of masculine subjectivity on the ever-receding, unattainable love of your masculine other. Phallic aesthetic displays often serve to align the manhood with the phallus, however they also function to expose the insufficient and paltry aspect of the organ when put alongside the imaginary floor of its value. Narratives of woman's character as irredeemably and essentially castrated, as effortlessly and inevitably passive with regards to male (heterosexual) desire certainly constrict the ethnic possibilities available to female subjects, nonetheless they often disclose the desperate anxiety to disavow the narcissistic, homoerotic proportions of masculine subjectivity. Representation poses a dilemma for masculinity: the screen of its electricity is both necessary for the justification of its privileges and an important feature of its demise. Freud and Lacan have attemptedto cover up the splits inimical with their own enunciative function in order to secure an authoritative position for masculine subjectivity; like even the most masterful music artists, however, the discursive elements go over their progenitors; these devices is, more often than not, in lots of ways laid bare.
The dominating fiction of masculine ability, privilege and plenitude is both more resilient and more vulnerable than it might initially appear. This can make a political project that depends upon hermeneutic intervention as its key strategy, like the main one pursued here, seem to be astonishingly nave and refreshingly incisive in turn. Therefore a hermeneutically grounded eyesight of political change assumes, revelation of the dominant fiction's imaginary and political persona can be achieved only by the close study of the fiction's terms and structures. To state this promise in the conditions of the material in mind, perversion is intelligible and identifiable only with regards to the Oedipal dilemma; subversion is achieved primarily through a diagnostic, symptomatic and internal critique of the prominent fiction. This isn't an empirical say about the veracity or universality of the Oedipal structure, but rather a methodological promise about how better to do the task of transforming the prominent fictions regarding masculinity, femininity, and subjectivity. The structuring and definitional terms of the prevailing discourse must often be studied as the starting items for just about any oppositional discourse, with regard to intelligibility, legitimacy, reliability, authority. This strategy of close, but subversive, reading will continue to guide my interpretation of other representations of masculinity and the male body. The politics work of reconfiguring ethnic fantasies about the meaning of masculinity will depend, at least primarily, on the capability to re-signify the features of the relevant hegemonic discourses. Without planning on a completely new narrative outside the reigning signifying practices, this point of view is informed by a idea in the possibility of changing narratives using the conditions of the dominant signification system to disturb the hegemonic understanding of masculine personality. Whether such wish is fantastic or delusional will be exhibited partly by the examination of the next section, but can ultimately be validated only by the fantasies and tactics that such interpretive interventions instigate.
- 2, 447 words