Dear Katherine,
I certainly wouldn't want to defend Zizek completely but OwB is
interesting on Lacan. I can't say I know, or want to know!, Zizek's
mind on this but my impression is that the change is due to a closer
reading of the late Lacan/seminar 23, but it also may be the result of
his refining his position against Butler. I don't have the book in
front of me but Zizek suggests that “Lacan brings back the cut, the
gap, into the One itself”, Lorenzo Chiesa glosses this as saying "this
One-with-a-gap is to be opposed to both the notion of “One-substance”
and to that of “radical Otherness”.) To go further, it has to be
underlined how, for Lacan, the “primordial One” – or “real Real” – is
not-One precisely insofar as, to put it with Alain Badiou, it cannot be
effectively “counted as One”: it actually corresponds to a zero."
So we have no "real Real" as Zizek implied in his earlier work and we
have consistent symbolic: the One is an effect of the count.
I don't know Ozon's work, except one viewing of 8 women.
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: Katherine Ince <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:31 pm
Subject: FW: Ozon and the death of the father
> Dejan, it's not that French critics have failed to notice the
> death of the father in Ozon's films, it's just that they are
> (predictably - to me) reluctant to examine its philosophical,
> political and civilisational importance (I agree with you about
> this!), and prefer an over-hasty diagnosis of excessive perversion
> and/or psychosis. The presumption that psychosis is the
> alternative to a phallocentric Symbolic order is itself a Lacanian
> presumption, isn't it? And I have to disagree with you about
> 'Sitcom', where the polymorphously perverse family is definitely
> happier after taking on and killing the rat-father, even if it
> isn't clear what will happen next. Ozon himself doesn't tend to
> interpret the sexual and gender politics of his films, fortunately
> or unfortunately.
> If Zizek's book 'Organs without Bodies' argues that the Symbolic
> is radically inconsistent, might this be a response to the
> deconstruction of the phallocentric Symbolic order undertaken by
> feminist and queer theorists recently (e.g. Butler's 'Antigone's
> Claim')? I think it might be (I haven't read it and would also
> like to know what his argument is), in view of the dialogue that
> has been going on between Zizek and Butler for some years now.
>
> Kate
>
> Kate Ince
> Director of Graduate Studies
> Centre for European Languages and Cultures
> University of Birmingham
> Edgbaston
> Birmingham B15 2TT
> Tel: +44 121 414 5972
> Fax: +44 121 414 3834
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
> you are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask] help email: film-philosophy-
> [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|