another look at lacan and literary criticism - elizabeth wright

7/28/2019 Another Look at Lacan and Literary Criticism - Elizabeth Wright.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/another-look-at-lacan-and-literary-criticism-elizabeth-wright 1/12

Another Look at Lacan and Literary Criticism

Author(s): Elizabeth WrightSource: New Literary History, Vol. 19, No. 3, History, Critics, and Criticism: Some Inquiries(Spring, 1988), pp. 617-627Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/469092 .

Accessed: 11/05/2013 14:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

New Literary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Sat, 11 May 2013 14:21:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/469092?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/469092?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup



AnotherLook at Lacan and LiteraryCriticism

ElizabethWright

N 1977 A SPECIAL ISSUE of Yale French tudies urstupon theliter-

ary-critical cene, clearing a space for modern psychoanalyticcriticismnd becoming nstrumentaln its nstitutionalizationn

departmentsof literary tudies.' The nextmajor happening on the

scene was theadvent ofDeleuze and Guattari, n extractfromwhose"deterritorialized"version of Lacanian criticismwas recently pub-lished in thisournal.2 This turnof events would appear to call for a

realignment n thecriticaldebate.It would be absurd to begin thislatest account by attempting o

reviewpsychoanalytic riticism, ut equally absurd to make a forayintoLacanian criticismwithoutgiving ome indicationof thekind ofcriticismthas displaced, ifonly n order to show how thepresuppo-sitionsof traditionalpsychoanalytic riticismhave been challengedand made to serve a different urpose. This is nothow the editorsofthe latest nthology fLiteraturendPsychoanalysisee it: "Lacan spinsideological fantasies s he reinterpretsnd co-authors he text.As inactual analysis, nything oes. An ideologicalversionof what thepa-tientdoes in analysis s applied to the studyof literature.3" his is

surelyright nsofar s we all spin ideologicalfantasies.But theimpli-cationof theabove assertion s that"I am a critic, ou re a reader,heis a spinnerof ideological fantasies."

Thequestion

to which I am addressingmyself s what has made

Lacanian criticismo attractive, oth in thesense of attractingdula-tion and of attracting buse. Thus the designation"Lacanian criti-cism"maybe made to standboth forcriticismn the mode of Lacanand criticism fthemode of Lacan. It mayturn out that the second

type,where t s grounded in an informeddissension,willproveto bemore productivethan thefirst.

My presentationdivides itself nto threeunequal sections:first,shall briefly llude to the theory nd practiceof pre-Lacanian criti-cism,

going rapidlyover

bynowfamiliar

erritory;econd, I shall

tryto explain in some detailwhatis impliedbyLacan's returnto Freudinsofaras it has affected iterary riticism; hird, want to illustratehow thisnew criticism as latelybecome thescene for an anti-Lacan-ian criticismwhich is neverthelessgrounded in Lacan's return toFreud, which servesas a textprovidingthematerial for tsown dis-







618 NEWLITERARYISTORY

placement. As Lacan has read Freud, so Deleuze and Guattarimayread Lacan. The final section will use theirwork as an

exampleof

what a post-Lacaniancriticismmight ook like.

I

To beginwithtraditional riticism,hen,wherethescenario swellknown. t consists f thecharacter s analysand,thenarrative s case

history, nd the author as the agency which determinesmeaning,whether this is done

consciouslyor

unconsciously.There are two

"classic" positions. In the firstview literature erves the "pleasureprinciple," nd the aim is to recover latent extfrom manifest ne.The writer s regarded as a neurotic, s forexample in Marie Bona-

parte'scelebratedstudyofEdgar Allan Poe. She uses thewriter's ifeand selectsmaterialfrom hefigures n the text osupply"free" sso-ciationson theprinciple f Freud's dreamwork.This is thenotorious

applied psychoanalyticriticism,nd it s perhaps neither s intrinsi-

callywicked noras irrelevant o literature s is oftenmade out. In thesecond view iterature ervesthe

"reality rinciple,"wherebyhewrit-

er achieves a compromise.The work s seen as an outlet for"aspira-tions"or as "solvingproblems."The result s the so-called "aesthetic

ambiguity" f WilliamEmpson and the New Critics,whereby multi-

plicity f culturalmeanings s assigned to the text nd thebody'sre-bellion against that culture is ignored. The forbiddenenergies are

safely hanneled into thepermitted.Where thefirst osition,knownas "vulgar" Freudian criticism,t least pointed to the mismatchbe-tweensexuality nd socialrole,the second takes the text s a tokenofa successful

ompromise. Onlythecharacter s

neurotic;the

author,and, of course, the reader, know better. There is a thirdpositionarisingout of a combinationof the two viewswhichreversesthis as-

sumption: the currentcriticism f Norman Holland. Holland is notinterested n the author one wayor the other:the readeroccupies themost centralposition,safely onducting"transactions"with the textin order to stabilizeher/hisdentity.4uch a theorymaywell be use-ful n that t describeswhatgoes on betweenreaders and texts,but itrefuses to make a distinction etweena readingand a criticism.

II

Second, the implicationsof Lacan's returnto Freud. Central toLacan's return o Freud is hismove fromFreud's conceptofthewish







LACAN AND LITERARY CRITICISM 619

as subjective,rivate,egressive,o theconcept fdesire s intersub-jective, ublic, uture-oriented.hewishnFreud's heorys directed

toward hereactivationf a memory-imagessociatedwith past at-isfactionr frustration,n which he mother's ole s decisive. hewish ssomethingfa surrogateatisfaction,ependent n themen-tal-imagingf a memory.or Freud hiswas ccompaniedy build-up of tension nd a pleasurable elief f tension.

Lacanavoids his oncentrationnregressionymeans f a theorygrounded n structuralinguistics.o go over thisgroundyetonceagain:he takesfrom aussure he notion f anguage s a systemf

signsdetermined

ytheirdifferencerom ach other.But where

Saussure ees the ign s a unityfsignifiersound-image)ndsigni-fied concept), acansees eachsignifiers invested ith esirefromthe unconscious. gapopensbetween he nnerprivate xperienceofbodilyneedand theouterpublic nterpretationf t,becausethisdifferences notacknowledgedyeither hesubject rothers.Nei-ther the subjectnor othersrecognize hisgap; it is unconscious.Lacan's theory f "thesubject" tresses hisgap coming ntobeingwith he unconscious. he subjectmustperforce cceptthepublic

interpretation,he constraintsf the

signifier.he unconscious s

thusbroughtntobeingbythe mpositionf signifiersponneed.Through anguage, eed saddressed otheOther other ubjectsnthe ign ystem)ntheform f a demandfor bsoluteovewhich heOtherdoes nothave togive.What s eftsunassuaged esire, esireforrecognitionfmydesire.Desireentersnto very tterancendgesture, otmerely reudian lips fall kinds.Hence there anbenofixedmeaning, ither atent r manifest-towhichLacan's mind-bending hetoric earswitness.

Applied psychoanalyticriticism

peratedwith firm istinction

between onscious nd unconsciousmeaning. onscious nduncon-sciousweremutuallyxclusive, ut the conscious ontained ecod-able clues to the unconscious.n Lacan'stheoryheconscious ndunconsciousannotbe separated. he unconscious ears themarksof thesignifiersmpressedn it. The textno longerharbors egres-sivewishes utparticipatesnengagements ith ngoing esires n-compassing ast nd futurexperience. heseengagements,owev-er,are to be distinguishedrom he problemolving"nd"aesthetic

ambiguity"fego-psychologistsnd NewCriticsnthat hesceneofdesire sa battlefieldatherhan playground.So howhasthis ffectedeading,writing,nd criticism? hathad

beenseenas themoral unctionfthese ctivities aynowbe seen asan inseparableaspectof theirpoliticalfunction. he questionof whospeaks, towhom,ofwhat,fromwhatplace, is a constantprovocation







620 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

for readers, writers, nd critics.The reader is referred to various"intertexts"as in Barthes'sA Lover'sDiscourse) hat determine con-scious and unconsciousmeaningsalike. The textamalgamatesothertexts, nd like Freud's dream-work,points to the productionof itsown meaning. The intertext an be read so as to supply the "free"associationsthat re provided bythedreamer/analysandnthe courseof analysis.A Lover'sDiscoursenicely llustrates he collapsingof theunconscious/conscious istinction.nstead,theopposition s betweenthe"amorous subject," he over, nd the"greatnarrativeOther,"the

sign system.Barthesexplains his "free" associations thus: "In orderto

composethisamorous

subject, piecesof various

originhave been

'put together.'Some come fromordinaryreading,that of Goethe'sWerther.ome come from nsistent eadings (Plato's Symposium,en,psychoanalysis,certain Mystics,Nietzsche, German lieder). Somecome from conversationswith friends.And there are some whichcome frommyown life."5

Barthes wishes to show that writer s notspeakingfromtheposi-tionof a spontaneous bourgeois subject,but is rathersubjectto the

system hatplaces him.The Barthesian over mustdo the best he can,and this includes

modelinghimselfon others. The associations are

thereforehardly free," itherforthe ovesor forBarthes, incetheyare modeled on the desire of another.

The reader who returnsto Freud via Lacan does not look in thetext for atentwishesor fora defenseagainstthosewishes,but fora

recognitionof her or his desire. As a child is lured by its mirror-

image (Lacan's Imaginaryorder),whichseems to promiseit a com-

pleteness t does nothave, so the reader is lured bythe textthroughthe force of itsrepresentation.But at the same time the text s alsoLaw

(Lacan's SymbolicOrder of

language), shatteringhemirror l-

lusion and fragmenting he reader. This double view of the text snot latent/manifest,nconscious/conscious.t consists n the letter(see Lacan's "Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter' )6 beingboth lure(in it willfindmydesire)and capture initmydesirewillbe alienat-ed, subjectto another'sdesire). Psychoanalysis xplainsthisentangle-ment via thephenomena oftransference nd countertransference.

In the so-called "classicrealist" extthetensionbetween maginaryand Symbolic s experiencedas pleasurablebecause the ironyof theauthor-cum-narratoracilitates he move from ne mode to theotherand back again by apparently displacingthe burden of the conflictonto character.Only the character s hung up. In the modern textthe writer efusesto keep thiskind of contractwiththe reader. Thetextwilldeliver neither maginarynorSymbolic atisfaction.t can beseen rather s re-staging he encounterwiththeReal, that third nd








mostelusiveof Lacan's orders, he undifferentiatedroundoverwhichthe Imaginary nd Symbolicmustrange n theattempt o

makemeaning.The textprovidesno herowithwhomone mightidentify,hatteringhe illusion hatthesubjectprecedes anguageandthatmeaning recedes peech.Andthis f coursehas hadreper-cussions or iteraryriticismnthat ldtheoryndpractice avehadtobe rethoughtnorder ocopewith henewwriting.7

III

Whatthen, roadly peaking,re the twoparametersf Lacaniancriticismhat indicatednmy pening,heproandthe nti-that istosay, riticismnthemodeof Lacan and criticismfandbeyond hemode ofLacan?Examples f thefirstmaybe seen n Lacan's"Semi-nar on The Purloined etter' and Shoshana elman'sTurning heScrewof Interpretation."8ere the ure ofthe maginarys a pre-lude to thecapture f thesubjectn thesignifyinghain.Boththereading ubjectsnthetext nd thereading ubject f thetext-our-selves-are

caughtupina structuref

repetitionsee,for nstance,

the Derrida/Johnsonffect).9 he text s a trapfor the unwaryreader-cum-characterhochasesher/hismage, nly o becomepartof a chain ofsignifiers./he smade torepeat hemovementromImaginaryoSymbolic:here sa structuref narrators hopassthestory n,a mirror-mazefglancesn which hey ndthe readerbe-come enclosed.The veryfact hat getdrawn nto this tructureproves hat he textdesiresme and that desire t.One momenttreleasesme from he maginary,nserting e nto heSymbolic;n-othermoment t allows

mydesire o

escapenlettershat re never

read (both nPoe and inJames).The point boutLacaniancriticisms that he tructureanbe in-

terpreted,ntheonehand, s determining,s showinghe uprema-cyofthe ignifier,nd this s howLacanreadsPoeand Felman eadsJames. n thecaseof Felman ne candetect tendencyo echo themasternd servant chementhe tory,espite ll herprogrammaticdeclarations o thecontrary:he continuallyitesJames s a writerwhodoesn'twant oknow, utknows,s the master fthesignifier,whilethe reader s the

puredupe,the

"servant"aughtut in the

"reader-trap."he alternative,n theotherhand, stointerprethestructures escapable Derridacriticizingacan's "phallocentric"readingofPoe, focusing n the"disseminating" orceofdesire),or asresistible Leo Bersani on the continuingforce of pre-oedipal de-sire).'0The positionof thespeakingsubject s"undecidable"precisely







622 NEW ITERARY ISTORY

because there is this to and frobetween Imaginaryand Symbolic.Where one decides to lodge one's interpretation epends on one's

positionvis-a-visuthority nd power.As an example of a more radical criticism-one grounded in

Lacan's notion ofa signifyinghain,but one whichrefuses he neces-

sity f a master ignifier, f the Father'sLaw as dominant-there isthe example of Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalytic"iterary riti-cism. This is of considerable nterest o thepoststructuralistritic e-cause its subversive nalysis, close readingof all Kafka'swritingsnaccordance witha radical psychoanalytic heory,deprivesit of a se-cure

positionand

poses againthe

problemof the role that"litera-

ture" should play.Deleuze and Guattarihave won notoriety or theirAnti-Oedipus:

CapitalismndSchizophrenia."n itthey tagea rebellionagainstpsy-choanalysis for aiding and abetting capitalism by making desire

springfrom ack. For themdesire arises fromthe fundamental n-

ergythat nvests hereal-the waves and rhythmsf matter.Unfor-

tunately his ends theirconceptofdesire something f a materialist

equivalent of a lifeforce,for n theireagerness to stressthatdesirehas

nothingto do withthe lack of an

object,but is rather

somethingthatgoes out intotheworld to produce the things twants,theydonotconcern themselveswith heproblemofhow thismightbe biolog-icallyrealized-how, in otherwords, to get frommatter to mind.Whereas forLacan there sa level ofphysiological eed thatpreexistsdesire, theymaintain that need is always already contaminatedbybeingneed for a particular hing, want nduced bycapitalism.

According to Deleuze and Guattari,psychoanalysis olludes with

capitalism n banningthe productionof desire and putting tat the

mercyof a

passiveworld

alreadydefined. It discovered the uncon-

scious onlyin order to degrade itand destroy t,reducing t to slipsand parapraxes, conflicts nd compromises.Desire is too much for

psychoanalysis,whichdesignates t as "polymorphousperverse."ForDeleuze and Guattari,desire directs flowsof energy ntosatisfyingchannelsof activity. hey see bodies as material tructures,lways naction,always producing in relation to otherbodies, "desiringma-chines" thatpick up and discard at will.What is significant or De-leuze and Guattari s thatdesiringproduction s the cooperatingof

manybodies in order to

produce things, nablingan outlet

for com-munal desires,activitiesn the real whichestablishtheirown territo-ries,temporary rystallizings, hichcapitalismbreaksup and "reter-ritorializes" or tsown nefariouspurposes.

For Deleuze and Guattari,desiringproduction s at the locus ofprimal repression,and it can be productive f it is not followedby








secondary repression. They accept primal repressionas the motiveforceof the engine of desire,makingdesire intentional, ut without

its being directed,as psychoanalysishas always assumed, at wholeself-validatingbjects. There are no "missing"objects in their view:the only thingthat s missing s a fixedsubject.Productsappear outof the producing process, yielding omething o thisshifting ubjectout of the real. A natural and bodilyfeeling s thebasis of thispro-duction,and from tare drawnparticularneeds. The notionof "lack"worksagainstgenuine desire and would prevent t fromrespondingvigorously o the flows of the real.

Psychoanalysistandsaccused of

breakingthechain of desire and

of collectiveutteranceby itsimpositionof a mastersignifier.Oddlyenough, despite what some commentatorshave written,12 eleuzeand Guattari do not refuteLacan, but ratherpraise himfor eadingtheoedipal conflict o thepointof itsown self-critique,howingthat

Oedipus, lovingmotherand hatingfather, s an imaginary hingset

up by society s a conditioning tructure: The pathmarked out byLacan led in a completelydifferent irection. He is not content toturn, iketheanalytic quirrel, nsidethe wheel of the Imaginary ndthe

Symbolic;he refuses to be

caught upin the.. .

oedipalizingstructure, he imaginary dentity f personsand the structural nityof machines,everywhereknockingagainstthe impasses of a molar

representation hat the family loses round itself" (AO 308). Since

theyare against "the extractionof a transcendent omplete objectfromthe signifying hain, which served as a despotic signifier nwhichthe entirechain thereafter eems todepend" (AO 110), Lacan's

readingof "The Purloined Letter"might erve for themas an exam-

ple ofbeing"inside the wheelof theImaginary nd Symbolic," how-

ingupthe arbitrariness f

oedipalization.Instead of psychoanalysisDeleuze and Guattaripropose "schizo-

analysis":"Schizoanalysis s at once a transcendentalnd a materialist

analysis.... It sets out to explore a transcendentalunconscious,rather than a metaphysical one; an unconscious that is materialrather than ideological; schizophrenicrather than Oedipal; nonfig-urative rather than imaginary;real rather than symbolic;machinicrather than structural-an unconscious, finally, hat is molecular,microphysical, nd micrological rather than molar or gregarious;

productiveratherthanexpressive" AO 109-10).The task of schizoanalysis s to discover the nature of the libidinalinvestments f thesocial field, to overturn he theatre frepresenta-tion nto the orderofdesiringproduction" AO271), butDeleuze andGuattari's onceptof theschizophrenichas nothing o do with chizo-phrenia as an illness-a point frequentlymisunderstood. Schizo-







624 NEW ITERARY ISTORY

phrenia is the schizo-processgone wrong,turned into an entityn-stead ofa process.The critical se of thismode of

analysiss to break

up rigid categorizationsn order togetdesire to work n thepoliticaldomain. To thisend Deleuze and Guattarioperatewith new set ofterms: n addition to desiringmachinesand schizoanalysis, hey lsointroduce"rhizome" nd "lines offlight," est discussed nrelation otheir"schizoanalytic" eadingof thelifeand work of Franz Kafka.'3

For Deleuze and Guattari,Kafka's work s a rhizome;any partof arhizome can be connected to anyotherpart.It is a termwhich com-bats Aristotelianogic-trees hat dividegenera,species,and differen-tiae on a

binarybasis. It fits n with a

pictureof

language,not as a

logicalaxiomatic ystemccordingto theofficial anonsand theLawsofThought,butas intrinsically eterogeneous.Rhizomaticcategoriesenable thethinking fa-subjective, -significantarticles, efinednot

bya mastersignifier, utbytheinteraction f flows and currents fdesire. This thenserves as a new model for artistic roduction.Howbestapproach thisrhizome?Deleuze and Guattarimaintain here are

manywaysof enteringKafka'sstructures.f thestory The Burrow"seems to have onlyone, this sonlytokeep out theenemy, o hold off

interpretation,okeep

out themasterignifier.

heway

n is ratherto trace the "lines of flight"-that is to say,theway n is to discoverwhere Kafkahas found a wayout of thesystem.

In theirstudyof Kafka'swriting, heyfindthat Kafka is forced touse the language of a majorityGerman), althoughas a Jew iving nCzechoslovakiahe belongstoa minority roup.This intheirviewhasthe following ffect: n theone hand, there s the transcriptionnto

connectingchains,yetat the same time there s a dismantling f themachinic connections. The legal institution, or instance, s full ofvarious dissidentswithin he

law,so thatdesire turns

upwhere one

had expected law. Instead of transcendental aw that eems to informinstitutionsuch as the courtsor thecastle,there s an immanentfieldof desire: machinic connectionsof ustice, the apparentcorridorsof

power,reveal a decoded law and a deterritorializedesire. Machinicdesire ismaterialdesire to be partof the machine. There are various

"linkages"whichfunction o connect one part of the machine withanother, nviting machinicconversionof thetext:

The charactersnTheTrial ppearas part fa large eries hatnever topsproliferating.veryones infact functionaryra representativef ustice(and nTheCastle,veryoneassomethingo do with he astle), otonly hejudges,the awyers,hebailiffs,hepolicemen,ven he ccused, ut lso thewomen,he ittle irls, itorelli hepainter, himself.uthermore,he argeseries ubdividesnto ubseries. ndeachofthese ubseries as ts wn ort








of unlimitedchizophrenicroliferation.hus,Block imultaneouslym-ploysix awyers,ndeven hat's ot nough; itorelliroducesseries f

completelydenticalaintings;nd nall ofhis dventures,meets uriousyoung omenf he ame ype... But he irstharacteristicf hese rolif-eratingeriess that hey orko unblock situationhat adclosed lse-wherenan mpasse.K53)

Atthesame timeKafkamakesmock fOedipus.He constantlyro-ducestriangles,ormal ureaucraticriangles here wobureaucratsdependona superior,ndthese rianglesre nturn elated ofamil-ial ones,and vice versa. n the

storyThe

Metamorphosis,"or n-

stance, hebureaucraticrio f odgers akes ptheplaceof thefami-ly.Here Oedipus-father,mother, aughter-is reinstatedn theend,but Deleuze and Guattarimaintain hat n thenovels he duosandtrios reak utofthe ystem,inding lineofflight.

Linesofflightre the scapeswhich lows an makefromhehier-archical ystems.olitically,uchescapescan taketheform f indi-vidualphysical eeling,utthey an alsobe representednmassdis-obedience nd unanticipatedmassreactions,uch as migrationsf

peoplesand crusades. n Kafka'swork

desiring roductionmoves

frompole to pole,gettingrapped nd escaping, heescapetakingthe form fbecomingnimal,woman, r child,with dultsgettingcaught p inwhatDeleuzeandGuattariall"childhood locks," on-oedipalized mages f thepastwhichmergewith dulthoodK 78).Childhoodmemory,hey rgue, s"uncurably edipaland preventsdesireand blocks t ontoa photo,bends.., desire and cuts t offfrom ll itsconnections."heycontinue: the hildhood lockfunc-tionsdifferently.t is theonlyreal ife f thechild; t s deterritori-

alizing;tshiftsn

time,with

ime,nordertoreactivateesire nd

make ts connectionsroliferate... The firsthapter fTheCastlebrings childhoodblock ntooperation n an exemplarymannerwhenK, ata moment f oweredntensityhisdeceptionnfront ftheCastle), elaunchesr reactivateshewhole tructurey njectingintothe castle ower hedeterritorializingell of his native and" K78-79). New ntensitiesre producedbyturninghegazefrom hedepressivennerworld o theexternal,owardheterogeneousluidboundaries, ewcolorcombinations,ounds hatdisrupthe normal

(suchas random oundsof music n Kafka'swork).or Deleuze and

Guattari, afka'sworksopento subversiveeadings tevery oint.The despotic ignifier-theaw, he astle, he hip ndustry-canbedismantled nd made to give wayto intensities f desirewhich revealthe illusorynature of the system. verywhere hereare movingbar-riers and a-signifying lements which point to desiring production







626 NEW LITERARY HISTORY

outside theoedipal domain and rendapart repressive otalities, tes-tamentto Kafka's

experimentalmachine.

Deleuze and Guattari's chizoanalyticriticisms a provoking extu-al practicewhich recoverssome of the scandal thatpsychoanalyticcriticism ost n its variousstagesof naturalization hat sketchedoutat the beginning.The revolutionary eader/writeronducts experi-ments,trying o finda wayout of representation, rovidingdeterri-torialized mages,unformed materialofferingtself o temporaryn-vestments, demolishing the "molar" totalizing structures and

revealing the "molecular" heterogeneous elements. Deleuze andGuattari are like Lacan in

showinghow desire initiates

signifyingchain, but theywillhave no truckwithsignification, ith signifierwhich introducesthe notion of lack. On the contrary, esire flowsand is constantly n the move, mapping out new territories, luidboundaries that re constantlyhifting.nstead of a "politics f inter-

pretation" going over the past in the realm of unconsciousfantasy,theycall fora "politicsof experimentation," akinghold of existingintensities f desire to getthedesiringmechanism n touchwithhis-toricalreality.14 he reader/writers characterizedby the desire to

producewithin he real. Yet there s a

problemwith heir chizoana-

lytic riticism, or ttoo leads throughrepresentation. chizoanalysis,too, finds itself in literature, ust like psychoanalysis. Perhaps,though,theyhave spun the most ttractivedeologicalfantasy o have

emerged fromthe Lacanian scene,for tenables the critic nmeshedin thesystem o pull the textto pieces and to rearrangethepieces in

pleasing patternswhichmomentarily vade both the Imaginary, heDesire of theMother,and theSymbolic, he Law of the Father. The

patternsplease because they void thefixityfgivenoppositions, ndthis s the source of the

originalityhat

theyhave introduced ntothe

criticaldebate.

GIRTON COLLEGE,CAMBRIDGE

NOTES

1 Yale French tudies: iteraturend Psychoanalysis.heQuestion f Reading:Otherwise,No. 55/56 1977).2 See Gilles Deleuze and

F61ixGuattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature: The

Components of Expression,"NewLiterary istory,6 (1985), 591-608.3 Edith Kurzweil and WilliamPhillips, General Introduction,"nLiteraturendPsy-choanalysis,d. Edith Kurzweiland WilliamPhillips New York, 1983), p. 11.4 See, e.g., Norman Holland, "Unity dentity ext Self," nReader-Responseriticism:From ormalismoPost-Structuralism,d. JaneTompkins Baltimore, 1980), pp. 118-33.5 Roland Barthes,A Lover'sDiscourse,r. Richard Howard (New York, 1979), p. 8.








6 Jacques Lacan, "Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter,' Yale French tudies,No. 48

(1972), 48.

7 For an article whichargues and illustrates hispointvery clearly, ee Ulla Hasel-stein and Joachim Perner, "Was im Text umgeht. Uber das Unheimliche an der

Sprache-Zu Klaus Hoffer Bei den Bierisch,' in Eingebildeteexte.Affairenwischen

PsychoanalysendLiteraturwissenschaft,d. JochenH6risch and ChristophTholen (Mu-nich, 1985), pp. 26-48.8 Shoshana Felman, "Turning the Screw of Interpretation,"n Yale French tudies,No. 55/56 1977), 94-207.9 Jacques Derrida, "The Purveyorof Truth," Yale FrenchStudies,No. 52 (1975),31-113; Barbara Johnson, "The Frame of Reference: Poe, Lacan, Derrida," YaleFrench tudies,No. 55/56 1977), 457-505.10 See Derrida, "The

Purveyorof Truth," and Leo Bersani,A Future

or Astyanax:CharacterndDesire nLiteratureBoston, 1976).11 Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari,Anti-Oedipus: apitalismnd Schizophrenia,r.RobertHurley,Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane (New York, 1977), hereafter ited intext as AO.12 See Ellie Ragland Sullivan,JacquesLacan and the hilosophyfPsychoanalysisLon-don, 1986), esp. pp. 271-72.13 GillesDeleuze and FelixGuattari,Kafka:Toward MinorLiterature,r.Dana Polan

(Minneapolis, 1986), hereafter ited in text as K.14 See "Towards a Micro-Politics f Desire," in Felix Guattari,MolecularRevolution:

PsychiatryndPolitics, r.RosemarySheed (Harmondsworth,1984), pp. 82-107.

another look at lacan and literary criticism - elizabeth wright

Documents