the culture of instant gratification

What is Lacan's mirror stage?

What is Lacan's mirror stage?

1. Many invited, few chosen
2. Borges and mirrors
3. Koans and duality
4. Empirical knowledge vs. intellectual knowledge

Occupational hazard in anthropology

Occupational hazard in anthropology: losing faith in humanity, and then picking it up again.

Briidging the irreconcilable in earthling studies

Bridging social and psychological studies is notoriously difficult. First of all, the two realities they explore are based in two fundamentally different planes of existence: social life is spread over time and space and subject to constant change, whereas the primary thinking process is timeless and spaceless. Caught up between the twain is the human being with their limited conscious mental capacity, to which the mechanisms of both the social and the psychological are mostly beyond comprehension.

As opaque and incompatible as the link between the two may appear, as long as skirting this most fundamental issue continues, no social sciences research can hope to offer any satisfactory results. 

That said, we need to be wary of attempts made to marry the two on a superficial level, like in uncritical sociology and behavioural psychology, where observable facts are taken for their face value. That way, we only end up with a deeply misguided, epistemologically shaky, analysis prone to gross ideological biases.

Endeavours to go deeper, which are fortunately, rather prolific, then run into methodological challenges: quantitative vs. qualitative and staged experiment vs. various varieties of participant observation. The former approach is theoretically linked to the quantitative approach: two traits are painstakingly isolated to be expressed as a dependent variable and independent variable, which would later allow to quantify that relationship. The hard to bear truth that all social as well as psychological phenomena are overdetermined (re. Freud and Althusser) and hence cannot be reduced to two variables is conveniently shoved under the carpet in the process of operationalising (turning concepts into numbers). The main motivation here appears is trying to come across as a "proper science" with "hard data" (i.e., numbers) -  the patently obsolete, if sadly persistent, positivist slant, that many people just can't seem to kiss goodbye.  

Participant observation that results mostly in qualitative research is hard to produce and as hard to consume. It requires time- and effort-consuming training in understanding complex issues by way of mastering abstract principles of analysis that are much harder to get under your belt than maths. It also brings in philosophical and epistemological concerns that cannot be decisively resolved, only accepted as paradoxes at the heart of human existence. That leap into uncertainty proves too much for most people, so they stick to tossing numbers and flashing PowerPoint presentations. 

Another leap, from analysis to synthesis, that Weber refered to as Verstehen, turns out beyond what many are prepared to deal with, too.

The simulachra of sex: the tyranny of media images in your bedroom

 


















"Body-perfect earthlings look for other earthlings looking exactly like themselves to fornicate with media-created images in their own heads." If that does not paint a mental picture  for you, then I don't know  what will.

Now for a bit of theory.

The earthling's social persona in the symbolic order of their mind, the perception of oneself as perceived by the Other, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding: the méconnaisance of taking the Ego for one's Self, of which Lacan (1931) wrote. Amazing how many people only get the letter of the Mirror Stage, but not at all its  spirit.

The frame of reference for the building and maintenance of that social persona, both symbolic and material, is taken from the social environment: parents, family, peers, and, to an ever-increasing extent, the media. The dynamic here is two-fold. Firstly, the earthling learns of the available/possible choices for assembling its identity, consisting of multiple extensions on top of the Ego. Secondly, s/he looks into the society as if into a mirror, picking on and learning from the reactions/feedback towards his or her social persona. 

The physical re-enactment of mental pictures, often media-created, then becomes a major life pursuit. Mutual masturbation into each other, aroused subliminally by those mental pictures is the sex simulacra (Baudrillard 1981) that, unbeknownst to most earthlings, is supplanting human sexual interaction with its glossy vapidity.

* The present analysis is a result of a long-term multi-site fieldwork project undertaken by the author.

Related sources: Lacan's sexuation formulae. 

Photo by Mehmet Turgut

Big boys, big toys

After many years of diving deep into social theory and psychoanalysis, I feel that I have re-emerged at the other side of simplicity. So many things in life are simple. Never simple the way they explain to you though. Let's illustrate this with a couple of real-life examples.

Two recent events made a click somewhere in my brain. First, Tokyo winning a bid to stage Olympic games 100 miles from a leaking nuclear reactor on the seashore in a seismic zone. Second, the USA's manic sword-flailing in Syria. In both cases, the course of action pushed on by presumably responsible and educated grown-up men is not dangerous and destructive, but also counter-intuitive, counter-logical and irrational. In fact, the word that lends itself the best here is satanic. Knowingly putting lives and livelihoods of millions of people in harm's way sure can't come across as anything but that.

I am not using "satanic" for the sake of a mere hyperbole though. Psychoanalytically, "satanic" implies coming from the Shadow aspect, which all humans have. In fact, it's part and parcel of who we are, albeit mostly unbeknownst to most of us. To what extent we are aware of it and to what extent we are able not to act on it, is in many ways dependent on the pressure society and culture put on us (Freud 1923). Empathy is one of those socially constructed personality traits. Children need to be taught empathy in a certain time window, lest they grow up to be inconsiderate and cruel. 

However, it is hardly ever perfect, the extent of the empathic function of the mind varies from individual to individual and is prone to  variation. Given a chance to be inconsiderate or cruel, most earthlings would act on their Shadow impulses. (When given free reign, earthlings go out of hand). Once empathy-free or empathy-light children grow up to occupy positions in power, especially unaccountable power, such as the top echelons of government, army or business, they  will  do exactly that: only this  time they won't tear fly's wings or torture a kitten, but choose a phallic display of power or a huge vanity project at the expense of  everyone else's good.

Although, for understandable reasons, we see mostly men doing that, the glass-ceiling-smashing career effort turns women into exactly that too, so these days we never run out of examples like Hilary Clinton, Christine Lagarde, Condoleeza Rice, or Dilma Roussef presiding matter-of-fact-like over mayhem and havoc.

Individual agency vs.social structure

The more I delve into psychology and anthropology, now on the PhD level, the bigger the temptation to become cynical on account of the human race. One thing for sure: there will be no mass salvation by any means: revolution, religion, alien invasion. Each decides for themselves.