Untitled

Language Grief: Its Nature and Function at Community Level

Christopher Robert McMahon School of Languages, Literature and Communication, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia 4811

[ Previous Article | Home | Contents | Current Article | Next Article ]

Appendix

Hysterical Academy

Mitchell & Rose on Lacan's Four Discourses:" (i) S1/$ > S2/a: discourse of the master: tyranny of the all knowing and exclusion of fantasy: primacy to the signifier (S1), retreat of subjectivity beneath its bar ($), producing its knowledge as object (S2), which stands over and against the lost object of desire (a); (ii) S2/S1 > a/$: discourse of the university: knowledge in the place of the master; primacy to discourse itself constituted as knowledge (S2) [sound familiar?- ed], over the signifier as such (S1), producing knowledge as the ultimate object of desire (a), over and against any question of the subject ($); (iii) $/a > S1/S2: discourse of the hysteric: the question of subjectivity; primacy to the division of the subject ($), over his or her fantasy (a), producing the symptom in the place of knowledge (S1), related to but divided from the signifying chain which supports it (S2); (iv) a/S2 > $/S1: discourse of the analyst: the question of desire; primacy to the object of desire (a), over and against knowledge as such (S2), producing the subject in its division ($) (a > $ as the very form of fantasy), over the signifier through which it is constituted and from which it is divided. Hence Lacan's description of psychoanalysis as the 'hysterisation of discourse'. Lacan therefore poses analysis against mastery, hysteria against knowing..." (Mitche & Rose (eds) Lacan, 1982, pp.160-161).

Discourse of the master	Discourse of the university	Discourse of the hysteric	Discourse of the analyst
Lacanian topology: S1/$ > S2/a	Lacanian topology: S2/S1 > a/$	Lacanian topology: $/a > S1/S2	Lacanian topology: a/S2 > $/S1
"Tyranny of the all knowing and exclusion of fantasy... retreat of subjectivity...." (Rose & Mitchell, 1985) Desire of the student subordinated to the demands of the Master/Teacher/Author. Under this discursive regime, students' desires are restricted to those that correspond to the desires of the teacher. Even the demands of the Institution are likely to take second place. "Masters" typically place great emphasis on their own expertise. Master's habitus as model of the field, or how the field should be. Students as receptacles for the Master. Corresponds to Foucault's description of "Societies of Discourse" in that the student is expected to be subservient to the "teacher"/text and produce commentaries that accord with the rules of a limited field. (Foucault, 1970) The ultimate in despotic classrooms where teacher says and students are not allowed to disagree. Delusion of Truth and mastery.	"Knowledge [of the Target Language] in the place of Master primacy to discourse itself constituted as knowledge, producing knowledge as the [enforced] ultimate object of desire over and against any question of the subject." (Rose & Mitchell, 1985) Under this regime the teacher typically argues for students' having to proceed in certain ways in order to come to a "correct" state of "knowledge", "competence" or "empowerment". Master's habitus must "match" the field. Students expected to operate effectively within the field. Students as reproducers and inheritors of the field. Corresponds to Foucault's description of a "Discipline" where knowledge takes primacy over the "Author" of knowledge. Students expected to conform to the limits set by the Discipline. The usual classroom where institutional demands take precedence. In English Studies, this "disciplinary" element becomes tied to the performance of commentary.	"Question of subjectivity." (Mitchell & Rose, 1985) Desire in the form of question. Corresponds to the subject who has "failed" under a discursive regime such as commentary discipline or dogma. Habituses and fields are irrelevant to the hysteric, but are used to judge the hysteric. The hysteric has no knowledge, but is supposed to love the master/analyst as the "subject supposed to know" (Lacan, 1977b & 1985). Hysterics are like sorceresses, positioned on the fringes of the polis, intermediaries between the polis and the "wild". The hysteric is mad. Repression and inscription are the enemies of the hysteric, they are what her/his body is tired of. The hysteric is the scapegoat (Cixous & Clement, 1986). accused of pretending, of hypochondria, of manipulativeness, of masochism, of selfishness, sadism, inconstancy, irrationality, and bad social skills.	"The question of [students'] desire[s]." (Rose and Mitchell, 1985) Here, the desire of the student takes precedence over the demands of either "Master" or "knowledge". If we re-read desire as bodies making connections (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987) then the normal tree-curricula or set of "spheres" needs to be re-organised in a "rhizomic" way. This is not a regime of "chaos", devotion to emphasising students' desires actually places greater demands on course structure. Field as potentially hostile or "alienating" to the students. The basics of any "intersubjective" ethics (cf: Irigaray, 1993 & Levinas, 1991). Breaches the limits set by "Societies of Discourse" and/or "Disciplines" (cf: Foucault, 1970) The classroom which utilises listening as the basis of ongoing negotiation and takes a true student-centredness as its utopian telos. Listens (on occasion) to the hysteric.

UTILISING THEORIES OF DISCURSIVE TOPOLOGY FROM LACAN (1985 EDITION). FIELDS & REGIMES FROM BOURDIEU (1988) & FOUCAULT (1970), INTERSUBJECTIvE ETHICAL CONSIDEBATIONS FROM IRIGARAY (1993) AND LEVINAS (1991) AND CONCEPTS OF SORCEROUSIHYSTERICAL DESIRE AND FLOW FROM DELEUZE AND GUATTARI (1987). IRIGARAY (1991), CIXOUS & CLEMENT (1986).

Proposed Revisions

Discourse of the exploded master	Discourse of the agonised university	Discourse of the empowered hysteric	Discourse of the ethical teacher
log/ps > (d)if/cf	(d)if/log > cf/ps	ps/cf > log/(d)if	cf/(d)if > ps/log
The question of me Master's "death". Master's tyranny and exclusion of fantasy reduced to the subjugation of the body by the logos; primacy to the logos only gives rise to iterations which raise questions about Truth, rather than declarations of Truth; fantasy liberated; objective knowledge becomes a construction of flows and connections. The Master is automatically deconstructed as the victim of a delusion grounded upon the idea that these could be an authentic utterance which gets to the eternal heart of Truth. Master revealed as despot in the service of him/herself as a microfascistic State microcosm. The body overthrows the regulative agency of the logos through the production of writing which is produced as hysteria (ie: as supplement). The idea of the hysteric's lack is overwhelmed by the supplementary and excessive power of students' desire(s). The master realises that he/she can no longer continue as if he/she had a monopoly on signification and affect. Mastery no longer functions as a legitimate means of garnering symbolic capital. Would be masters forced to change their outlook as hysterical questions are re-valorised. Decentring of the Subject supposed to know or the autonomous subject replaces the question of desire and positionalities	The question of the academy's need for democratic/ethical forms of regulation. Signifying chain is disinvested on behalf of surpluses which overload the economy of question and reply. The logos is placed as an object under iteration producing energetic students' writing which is relevant to their own structural positionalities. The university's assessment criteria are deconstructed along with the ideas of a "core", of required technical and disciplinary power/knowledge. A negotiation opens up between a powerful and heterogeneous student body and an academy in a state of flux and symbolic redistribution. Agonization of the academy results as the hysterical voice is liberated through an alliance between the listeners and the hysterics. Widespread re-organisation of assessment criteria, course design, spatiotemporal regimes, and positionalities. Symbolic capital garnered through agonization of academic practices. Radical modification of traditional fields or spheres of inquiry allowing desire to re-energise traditional technologies of reading. Theory put at the service of desire rather than as a way of regulating discourses. "Democratic" strategies utilised for the minimalisation of hegemonies. Utopian thinking becomes vindicated insofar as it can be made practical. Pragmatics of instigating an ethical regime become paramount.	The question of desire and its flows. Energetic hysterical questions producing a writing where iteration is in a position to subvert the logos. The hysterical question of the affirmation of desire becomes the starting point for discourse. Connections and flows placed at the disposal of bodies producing discourse as a question. Hysterics enter into symbiosis with Teacher/Listeners who work hard to negotiate with the hysterics in such a way as to allow desire to remain affirmative. Liberation of the body from the castrating power of the master and the limiting authority of the academy. Projects such as collages, assemblages, and other perverse interdisciplinary moves become legitimate ways of garnering symbolic capital as hysteria becomes re-valorised. The academy becomes relevant to revolutionary practices with an eye to the situations of those hysterics who have been excluded from the field. New genealogies and discursive regimes are enacted. Passion overwhelms signification. In response, the academy develops channels for the liberation of hysteria in the form of feedback systems and open course designs. Field rejuvenated by the continual questioning of the hysterics. Interdisciplinary moves negotiate with the regulatory power of the academy on more equal footing	The question of ethical practices such as listening and negotiation. Iteration placed at the service of desire giving rise to the liberation of the body and the subsequent repression of the logos and its State-oriented prescriptivities. The "open" question replaces the "closed' question. Task-based course design replaces "core" based approaches. Course design and assessment procedures are negotiated by the Listener on behalf of the academy. Ethnologies of the academy and its fields deconstruct the academy and its masters giving rise to heightened sense of the otherness of students desire and the contingent possibilities for revolutionary academic practices. Recognition of the superabundance of difference and desire disinvests ossified discursive regimes and provokes the re-situation of ethical listening practices as strategies for the garnering of symbolic capital. The text is placed at the service of the desire and the regime of commentary gives way to the prospect of multifarious textual usages, collages, and assemblages. Assessment criteria based on negotiations between the hysterics and the academy with the teacher as facilitator. Classroom becomes an agora with teacher as agent of "democratic" academic regulations.