Psychoanalysis K - Michigan7 2014 HJPV

7/24/2019 Psychoanalysis K - Michigan7 2014 HJPV

1/43

{FILETITLE} GBS 2014

[AUTHORNAME

Psychoanalysis Answers HJPV


2/43


[AUTHORNAME

Tips


3/43


[AUTHORNAME

Just Some NotesIf youre going to go for arguments about why psychoanalysisis riiculous! which I suggest you o! ma"e sure the e#ienceapplies$ %ost of the psychoanalysis criti&ues that were

release ha#e nothing to o with 'acan! e(cept the best)psychoanalysis false* cars are from +obinson an hee(clusi#ely critici,es 'acan an some -i,e"$ So .ust rea thecars an ma"e sure theyre responsi#e to the criti&ue youha#e to answer$Psychoanalysis might seem a bit har to unerstan! but if youactually rea the cars I thin" youll /n some #ersions of thecriti&ue are easier to grasp$ 0or e(ample! the Naturalism 1 anthe Techno23ontrol 1 pretty much .ust say )tech ba!

managerialism ba*$ The Horrorism 1 an the Ini#iualism 1are more i4cult to unerstan! but if you spen a fewminutes .ust reaing all of the 5N3 cars! you will unerstanthe argument$ %y point is! if you ont "now what)constituti#e 'ac"* is! ont worry$6oo luc"!Quay


4/43


[AUTHORNAME

6eneral


5/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38Psycho 9rongTheir focus on the psyche as a starting point for their analysisignores beha#iors of large groups which ispro#es theirimpacts! cees the political! an means the alt cant sol#e

Volkan 03 Vamik D. Volkan is the Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia. (Psychoanalysis inInternational Relations and International Relations in Psychoanalysis! htt"#$$%%%.vamikvolkan.com$Psychoanalysis&and&International&Relations&and&International&Relations&in&Psychoanalysis."h"'

ther i4cultiesthat complicate collaboration between psychoanalysts anpractitionersand scholars of politics an international relationscome from "sychoanalysisitself. I sensed these di)culties myself as I *ecame more and more involved in colla*orative %ork %ith scholars and "ractitioners ofother disci"lines. I noted that the di)culties %ithin "sychoanalytic disci"line that hindered colla*oration *et%een "sychoanalysisand di"lomacy could *e divided into various inter&related categories. +s e,"ected! at -rst it %as di)cult for me to realie these

o*stacles and de-ne them. /ut slo%ly I %as a*le to free myself from some esta*lished "sychoanalytic assum"tions.Politicsan iplomacynecessarily eal withthe "sychology of large groups! the "sychology of leader&follo%ers!and the psychology of relationships betweenenemy groups antheir leaers.0igmund 1reud %as interested in these to"ics! *ut he also left a legacy that iscourage his followers from

pursuing them. In his letter to +l*ert Einstein!0reu(2345' was pessimistic abouthuman natureand the role of psychoanalysis in pre#enting warsor %ar&like situations. +lthough 6aco* +rlo%(2374' later suggested some o"timism in some of 1reud8s %ritings on this su*9ect! 0reus pessimism! I *elieve!playe a role in the limite psychoanalytic contributions to the /els ofpolitics an iplomacy. :here %ere! of course! e,ce"tions (;lo%er! 23


6/43


[AUTHORNAME

an ieali,e mother can initiate political processes an in:uenceinternational a;airs$ Ne#ertheless! an approach that focuses onini#iuals perceptions oes not o;er speci/city concerning a political oriplomatic process. :hus! it does not e,cite "ractitioners of "olitics and di"lomacy or receive much attention from"olitical scientists. I came to realie that %hat the "sychoanalytic tradition lacks is the study of *oth large&grou" "sychology in itso%n right and the s"eci-c elements of various mass movements.


7/43


[AUTHORNAME


8/43


[AUTHORNAME

ieas in the conte(t of their wor" with ini#iual patients an their ideascan *e e,amined in the everyday la*oratory of the thera"eutic encounter%here thevalidity of an inter"retation! for e,am"le! is a matter for dialogue *et%een thera"ist and "atient.?utsie of theconsulting room! there can be no such #eri/cation process! an the furtherone moves from the individual "atient! the less "urchase "sycho& analytic ideas can

have. utside the thera"eutic encounter! anything an e#erything can be true!psychoanalytically spea"ing$ @ut if everything is true! then nothing can *e falseand therefore nothing can *e true.

Alt cant sol#e8utopianism cant impact policy an ignoresrealityBlight 86 6ames ;. /light is a "rofessor of IR at /ro%n University8s Batson Institute for International 0tudies. (>o% ightPsychology Fontri*ute to Reducing the Risk of Cuclear BarJ! Political Psychology! Vol. 7! Co. < (Dec.! 23'! "". =27&=='

I *elieve! %ith many others! that a#oiing nuclear war is the most important public

policy problem of our time $ As a psychologist! I o not belie#e mycolleaguesand I ha#e contribute signi/cantly to its solution! which must!inmy vie%! consist of piecemeal attempts to unerstan the imensions of theris" of nuclear war an then to suggest ways of reucing that ris". I o notbelie#e that reucing the ris" of nuclear war is"rimarily a psychologists=problemalthough! as a "sychologist! I do tend to frame the issue so as to make certain "sychological as"ects of the "ro*lema""ear to *e *asic. 0ailure on the part of psychologists an psychiatrists to entermore fully into the policy ma"ers= construction of the central aspects ofnuclear ris" lay! it seems to me! behin our tenency! es"ecially at the level of intermediate causes!towar solutions we pluc" o; our own shel#es but which are not easilyintegrate into the policy ma"ers= mous operani$ It has also le! I think! totopian schemes put forwar as solutions to the eep psychologicalcauses! solutions which fail to ta"e ae&uately into account either the

historical recor or political reality.

0reu mae negati#e senseMootz 2K 1rancis 6. oot II is a Visiting Professor of @a% at Pennsylvania 0tate University in the Dickinson 0chool of @a%.(Male 6ournal of the @a% S >umanities! 25 Male 6.@. S >uman. 533! ". 423&45'

1reudian "sychoanalysis increasingly is the target of *listering criticism from a %ide variety of commentators. In a recent revie%!

1rederick Fre%s re"orts that inde"endent studies have *egun to converge to%ard a verdict...that there is literally nothing to be sai! scienti/cally or therapeutically! tothe a#antage of the entire 0reuian system or any of its componentogmas+nalysis as a %hole remains "o%erless... and understanda*ly so! *ecause athoroughgoing e"istemological critiGue! *ased oncommonly ac"nowlege

stanars of e#ience an logic decerti-es e#ery istincti#elypsychoanalytic proposition. :he most telling criticism of 1reuds "sychoanalytic theoryis that ithas "roven no more eQective in "roducing thera"eutic *ene-ts than have otherforms of "sychothera"y. A= Fritics dra% the o*vious conclusion that the *ene-ts (ifany' of "sychothera"y are neither e,"lained nor facilitated *y "sychoanalytictheories. +lthough 1reudian "sychoanalytic theory "ur"orts to "rovide a truthful account of the o"erations of the "syche andthe causes for mental distur*ances! critics argue that"sychoanalytic theory may "rove in the end to *enothing more than fancy ver*iage that tends to o*scure %hatever healing eQects


9/43


[AUTHORNAME

"sychothera"eutic dialogue may have. 1reudian "sychoanalysis failed *ecause it coulnot ma"e goo on its claim to be a rigorous an empirical science. +lthough1reuds mystiGue is "remised on a %ides"read *elief that "sychoanalysis %as a "rofound innovation made "ossi*le *y his genius!1reud claimed only that he %as e,tending the scienti-c research of his day %ithin the organiing conte,t of a *iological model of the

human mind. O45 1reuds adherents created the em*arrassing cult of "ersonality and themyth of a self&validating "sychoanalytic method only after 0reu=s empirical

claims coul not withstan critical scrutiny in accordance %ith the scienti/cmethoology demanded *y his meta"sychology.:he record is clear that1reud*elieved that "sychoanalysis%ould take its "lace among the sciences and that his clinical %ork "rovided em"iricalcon-rmation of his theories. :his *elief no% a""ears to *e completely unfoune aninefensible$ 1reuds Guest for a scienti-cally grounded "sychothera"y %as not amateurish or naive. +lthough 1reudvie%ed his Nmeta"sychology as a set of directives for constructing a scienti-c "sychology!N n= Patricia Hitcher makes a "ersuasivecase that he %as not a *lind dogmatist %ho refused to ad9ust his meta"sychology in the face of contradictory evidence. n=2

1reuds commitment to the scienti-c method! cou"led %ith his creative vision! ledhim to construct a com"rehensive and integrative meta"sychology that dre% from anum*er of scienti-c disci"linesin an im"ressive and "ersuasive manner. n=5 >o%ever! the naturaland social sciencesu"on %hich he *uilt his derivative and interdisci"linary a""roach develo"ed too ra"idlyand un"redicta*ly for him to res"ond. n=4 +s e#elopments in biology &uic"ly

unermine 0reu=s theory! he N*egan to look to linguistics and es"ecially toanthro"ology as more ho"eful sources of su""ort!N n=< *ut this strategy later in his career "rovedeGually O452 unsuccessful. n=A:he scienti-c 9usti-cation claimed *y 1reud literallyeroded %hen the "nowlege base unerlying his theory collapse! leaving hisdisci"les %ith the im"ossi*le task of defending a theory %hose "resu""ositions nolonger %ere "lausi*le according to their o%n criteria of validation. n==


10/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A389ere Still +ightPsychoanalysis oes not ispro#e our factual claims8theburen of proof is on the Neg

Yudkowsky 06(Elieer! 0ingularity Institute for +rti-cial Intelligence! Fognitive *iases "otentially aQecting 9udgment ofglo*al risks! forthcoming in ;lo*al Fatastro"hic Risks! +ugust 42'

Every true idea %hich discomforts you %ill seem to match the "attern of at least one "sychological error. Ro*ert Pirsig said# N:he

%orlds *iggest fool can say the sun is shining! *ut that doesnt make it dark out.N If you belie#e someone isguilty of a psychological error! then emonstrate your competence by-rstemolishingtheir conseGuential factual errors. If there are no factual errors! then %hat matters the "sychologyJThe temptation of psychology is that! kno%ing a little "sychology! we can mele inarguments where we ha#e no technical e(pertiseinstead sagely analying the "sychology ofthe dis"utants. If someone wrotea novel about an asteroi stri"edestroying modern civiliation!then someone might critici,e thatnovel ase,treme! dysto"ian! apocalypticK sym"tomatic of theauthors naive ina*ility to deal %ith a com"le, technological society. 9e shoul recogni,e this as aliterary criticism! not a scienti/c one K it is a*out good or *ad novels! not good or *ad hy"otheses. :oGuantify the annual "ro*a*ility of an asteroid strike in real life! one must study astronomy and the historical record# no amount of

literary criticism can "ut a num*er on it. ;arreau (5A' seems to hold that a scenario of a mind slo%ly increasing in ca"a*ility! ismore mature and so"histicated than a scenario of e,tremely ra"id intelligence increase. /utthat=s a technical&uestion! not a matter of tasteK noamount of psychologi,ing can tell youthe e,act slo"e of that curve.Its harder to a*use heuristics and *iases than "sychoanalysis. +ccusing someone of con9unction fallacy leads naturally into listingthe s"eci-c details that you think are *urdensome and drive do%n the 9oint "ro*a*ility. Even so! do not lose track of the real&%orldfacts of "rimary interestK do not let the argument *ecome a*out "sychology. Des"ite all dangers and tem"tations! it is *etter tokno% a*out "sychological *iases than to not kno%. ther%ise %e %ill %alk directly into the %hirling helico"ter *lades of life. /ut *every careful not to have too much fun accusing others of *iases. :hat is the road that leads to *ecoming a so"histicated arguersomeone %ho! faced %ith any discomforting argument! -nds at once a *ias in it. :he one %hom you must %atch a*ove all isyourself. 6erry Fleaver said# NBhat does you in is not failure to a""ly some high&level! intricate! com"licated techniGue. Its

overlooking the *asics. Cot kee"ing your eye on the *all.N Analyses shoul-nally center on testablereal&%orld assertions. Do not take your eye oQ the *all.


11/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38Biscourse Not 0irstThere is no gap between the symbolic an the real becausereality shapes languageRoskoski and !a"ody #1(atthe% and 6oe! 1lorida 0tate University! + @inguistic and Philoso"hical FritiGue of@anguage N+rgumentsN htt"#$$de*ate.uvm.edu$@i*rary$De*ate:heory@i*rary$RoskoskiSPea*ody&@angFritiGues'

/efore %e *egin to discuss the validity of the hy"othesis! %e ought -rst to note that there are t%o varieties ofthe0a"ir&Bhorfhy"othesis. :he strong version claims that language actually creates reality! %hile the %eak versionmerely claims that language in?uences reality in some %ay (;race'. +s /loom has conceded! the strong version & Nthe claim thatlanguage or languages %e learn determine the %ays %e thinkN is Nclearly untena*leN (/loom 57A'. 1urther! the %eak form of thehy"othesis %ill likely fail the direct causal ne,us test reGuired to censor s"eech. :he courts reGuire a Nclose causal ne,us *et%eens"eech and harm *efore "enaliing s"eechN (0molla 5A' and %e *elieve de*ate critics should do the same. Be dismiss the %eakform of the hy"othesis as inadeGuate to 9ustify language NargumentsN and %ill focus on the strong form. Initially! it is im"ortant tonote that the 0a"ir&Bhorf hy"othesis does not intrinsically deserve "resum"tion! although many authors assume its validity %ithoutem"irical su""ort. :he reason it does not deserve "resum"tion is that Non a "riori grounds one can contest it *y asking ho%! if %eare una*le to organie our thinking *eyond the limits set *y our native language! %e could ever *ecome a%are of those limitsN(Ro*ins 22'. +u e,"lains that N*ecause it has received so little convincing su""ort! the 0a"ir&Bhorf hy"othesis has stimulated littleresearchN (+u 23< 2A='. >o%ever! many critical scholars take the hy"othesis for granted *ecause it is a necessary *utuninteresting "recondition for the claims they really %ant to defend. Hhosroshahi e,"lains# >o%ever! the em"irical tests of thehy"othesis of linguistic relativity have yielded more eGuivocal results. /ut inde"endently of its em"irical status! Bhorfs vie% is Guite%idely held. In fact! many social movements have attem"ted reforms of language and have thus taken Bhorfs thesis for granted.

(Hhosroshahi AA'. ne reason for the hy"othesis *eing taken for granted is that on -rst glance it seems intuitively valid to some.>o%ever! after research is conducted it *ecomes clear that this intuition is no longer true. Rosch notes thatthe hy"othesisNnot only does not a""ear to *e em"irically true in any ma9or res"ect! *ut it nolonger even seems "rofoundly and ineQa*ly trueN(Rosch 57='. :he im"lication for languageNargumentsN is clear# a de*ater must do more than sim"ly read cards from feminist orcritical scholars that say language creates reality. Instead! the de*ater must su""ortthis claim %ith em"irical studies or other forms of scienti-cally valid research.ereintuition is not enough! and it is our *elief that valid em"irical studies do not su""ort the hy"othesis.+fter assessing thestudiesu" to and including 233!:akano claimed that the hy"othesis Nhas no em"iricalsu""ortN(:akano 2


12/43


[AUTHORNAME

his articles as he did entirely in EnglishN (+u 2A='. :he fourth and -nal o*9ection is that the hy"othesis cannotaccount for single %ords %ith multi"le meanings. 1or e,am"le! as :akano notes! the %ord N*ankN hasmulti"le meanings (:akano 2


13/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38'acan CBefenseDThe alternati#e estroys real action by scapegoating realprogress on engaging theoretical signi/ers$ohnston 0% +drian 6ohnston is the Professor of Philoso"hy at the University of Ce% e,ico. (:he Fynic8s 1etish# 0lavo9Xiek +nd :he Dynamis of /elief! 2A! htt"#$$iekstudies.org$inde,."h"$i9s$article$vie%1ile$$5is re9ection of ar,s "ositive "rescri"tive "rogramas anachronistic is Guite 9usti-ed. /ut! in the %ake of Xieks clearing of the ground for something Ce% in "olitics! there is still muchto *e done + *rief remark *y Xiek hints that! des"ite his some%hat "essimistic assessment of traditional ar,ism! he *asicallyagrees %ith the ar,ist conviction that the demise of ca"italism is an inevita*le! unavoida*le historical necessityLN:he ultimateans%er to the re"roach that the radical @eft "ro"osals are Uto"ian should thus *e that! today! the true Uto"ia is the *elief that the"resent li*eral&democratic ca"italist consensus could go on inde-nitely! %ithout radical changes.NN :his hurling of the charge ofuto"ianism *ack at those making it is Guite convincing. In fact! any system "roclaiming to *e the em*odiment of the end of historyNinvaria*ly a""ears to *e Uto"ian. ;iven %hat is kno%n a*out the merciless march of history! *elieving that an ultimate!unsur"assa*le socio&"olitical arrangement -nally has arrived is almost im"ossi*le. 0o! one should indeed acce"t as true theunlikelihood of ca"italism continuing on inde-nitelyK it must eventually give %ay to something else! even if this N,N cannot *e

envisioned clearly from %ithin the "resent conte,t. Conetheless! Xieks o%n theoriing calls for a great deal of cautious reservationa*out the conseGuences of em*racing this outlook as true! of falling into the tra" of (to invoke this motif once more' lying in the

guise of truth. 6ust as the com*ination of a "urely negative! critical ar,ism %iththe anticipation of the e#entof the act2miracle threatens to turn into an intellectual fetish (in the Xiekianideological sense of something that renders the "resent reality *eara*le'! so too might ackno%ledging the truth of ca"italisms-nitude have the same unfortunate side&eQect. ne can tolerate todays ca"italism! *ecause one kno%s that it cannot last foreverK

one can "assively and "atiently %ait it out (at one "oint. -i,e" ienti/es this anticipationof indeterminatechange&yet&to&comeas a isempowering lure! although he oesn=te,"licitlyac"nowlege that his own wor" on ieologysometimes appears to beenthralle by .ust such a lure'. In *oth cases! the danger is that the very analyses develo"ed *y Xiek in hisassault u"on late&ca"italist ideology might serve to facilitate the sustenance of the cynical distance %hose underlying com"licity%ith the "resent state of aQairs he descri*es so %ell.


14/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38'acan C?;enseD'acanian psychoanalysis constructs its own theory of thefantasy base on the false assumptions of the lac" as a truefact an esire as negati#e$ @ut esire oesnt lac" anything8

its the thing that lac"s esire8pushe to the en!psychoanalysis estroys esire an lea#es us trappe in aworl without action sti:ing mo#ements8turns the alternati#e&!l!uz! and Guattari '2 ;illes Deleue and 1eli, ;uattari. (+nti&edi"us! "g. 5A&57'

In "oint of fact! if desire is the lack of the real o*9ect! its very nature as a real entityde"ends u"on an Nessence of lackN that "roduces the fantasied o*9ect. Desire thusconceived of as"roduction! though merely the "roduction of fantasies! has *een e,"lained"erfectly *y "sychoanalysis . n the very lo%est level of inter"retation! this means that the realo*9ect that desire lacks is related to an e,trinsic natural or social "roduction!%hereasdesire intrinsically "roduces an imaginary o*9ect that functions as a dou*le of reality! as though there %ere a Ndreamed&of o*9ect*ehind every real o*9ect!N or a mental "roduction *ehind all real "roductions. :his conce"tion does not necessarily com"el

"sychoanalysis to engage in a study of gadgets and markets! in the form of an utterly dreary and dull "sychoanalysis of the o*9ect#"sychoanalytic studies of "ackages of noodles! cars! or Nthinguma9igs.N /ut even %hen the fantasy isinter"reted in de"th! not sim"ly as an o*9ect! *ut as a s"eci-c machine that *ringsdesire itself front and center! this machine is merely theatrical! and thecom"lementarity of %hat it sets a"art still remains# it is no% need that is de-ned interms of a relative lack and determined *y its o%n o*9ect! %hereas desire isregarded as %hat "roduces the fantasy and "roduces itself *y detaching itself fromthe o*9ect! though at the same time it intensi-es the lack *y making it a*solute# anNincura*le insu)ciency of *eing!N an Nina*ility&to&*e that is life itself.N >ence the"resentation of desire as something su""orted *y needs! %hile these needs! andtheir relationshi" to the o*9ect as something that is lacking or missing! continue to

*e the *asis of the "roductivity of desire(theory of an underlying su""ort'. In a %ord! %hen the theoreticianreduces desiring&"roduction to a "roduction of fantasy! he is content to e,"loit to the fullest the idealist "rinci"le that de-nes desireas a lack! rather than a "rocess of "roduction! of NindustrialN "roduction. Flement Rosset "uts it very %ell#every time theem"hasis is "ut on a lack that desire su""osedly suQers from as a %ay of de-ningits o*9ect! Nthe %orld acGuires as its dou*le some other sort of %orld! in accordance%ith the follo%ing line of argument# there is an o*9ect that desire feels the lack ofKhence the %orld does not contain each and every o*9ect that e,istsK there is at leastone o*9ect missing! the one that desire feels the lack ofK hence there e,ists someother "lace that contains the key to desire (missing in this %orld'.N53 If desire "roduces! its"roduct is real. If desire is "roductive! it can *e "roductive only in the real %orld andcan "roduce only reality. Desire is the set of "assive syntheses that engineer "artialo*9ects! ?o%s! and *odies! and that function as units of "roduction. :he real is theend "roduct! the result of the "assive syntheses of desire as auto"roduction of theunconscious. Desire does not lack anythingK it does not lack its o*9ect. It is! rather!the su*9ect that is missing in desire! or desire that lacks a -,ed su*9ectK there is no-,ed su*9ect unless there is re"ression.Desire and its o*9ect are one and the samething# the machine! as a machine of a machine. Desire is a machine! and the o*9ect of desire is another machine connected to it.>ence the "roduct is something removed or deducted from the "rocess of "roducing# *et%een the act of "roducing and the "roduct!

something *ecomes detached! thus giving the vaga*ond! nomad su*9ect a residuum.:he o*9ective *eing of desireis the Real in and of itself.:here is no "articular form of e,istence that can *e


15/43


[AUTHORNAME

la*eled N"sychic reality.N +s ar, notes! %hat e,ists in fact is not lack! *ut "assion! as aNnatural and sensuous o*9ect.N Desire is not *olstered *y needs! *ut rather the contraryK needsare derived from desire# they are counter&"roducts %ithin the real that desire"roduces. @ack is a counter&eQect of desireK it is de"osited! distri*uted! vacuolied%ithin a real that is natural and social. Desire al%ays remains in close touch %ith the

conditions of o*9ective e,istenceK it em*races them and follo%s them! shifts %henthey shift! and does not outlive them. 1or that reason it so often *ecomes the desire to die! %hereas need is ameasure of the %ithdra%al of a su*9ect that has lost its desire at the same time that it loses the "assive syntheses of theseconditions. :his is "recisely the signi-cance of need as a search in a void# hunting a*out! trying to ca"ture or *ecome a "arasite of"assive syntheses in %hatever vague %orld they may ha""en to e,ist in. It is no use saying# Be are not green "lantsK %e have long

since *een una*le to synthesie chloro"hyll! so its necessary to eat. . .. Desire then *ecomes this a*9ect fearof lacking something. /ut it should *e noted that this is not a "hrase uttered *ythe "oor or thedis"ossessed. n the contrary! such "eo"le kno% that they are close to grass! almost akin to it!and that desire NneedsN very fe% things&not those leftovers that chance to cometheir %ay! *ut the very things that are continually taken from them&and that %hat ismissing is not things a su*9ect feels the lack of some%here dee" do%n insidehimself! *ut rather the o*9ectivity of man! the o*9ective *eing of man! for %hom todesire is to "roduce! to "roduce %ithin the realm of the real .


16/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38'ol 9atETheir e#ience is incoherent psychobabbleMahr!r ## +lvin R.! "rofessor emeritus at the University of tta%a 0chool of Psychology! Em*arrassing Pro*lems for the1ield of Psychothera"y 6ohn Biley

S 0ons! Inc. 6 Flin Psychol AA# 22


17/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A383onsent6et out of my hea8consent is "ey an I ont gi#e it8thats aB2rule

(B) 0* +merican /oard of E,aminers in Flinical 0ocial Bork. (:>E PR+F:IFE 1 P0MF>+C+@M0I0# + 0PEFI+@:M 1 F@ICIF+@0FI+@ BRH! 6anuary 5

"ractice skills s"eci-c to that s"ecialty area. In addition! the analyst enorses coreclinical social %ork#alues! e,"ressed and am"li-ed *y the follo%ing convictions# Y to honor the ignity an well2beingof the analysan an hisFher right to self2etermination! pri#acy!con/entiality! an informe choiceY to advocate for analysands in service "rovision! access to care!and "rogram evaluation (although analysands! *y virtue of certain social and cultural characteristics! may tend not to need

advocacy in the %ays that other clients do' Yto practice ethically an legally ! %ith com"etence andintegrity! and %ith res"ect for culture and diversity (age! ethnicity! gender! and lifestyle' 5=Y to contri*ute to a society that oQers

o""ortunities to all of its mem*ers in a 9ust and non&discriminatory fashion Y to eli#er the mostappropriate treatmentand level of care! accoring tothe analysand8s needs and informeconsent.


18/43


[AUTHORNAME

Horrorism 1


19/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38Beath Bri#e 9rong+e.ect their totali,ing assertions about how the worl isstructure8the eath ri#e is a reucti#e! ogmatic theorythat oesnt e(plain beha#ior

+ar!l 06 >avi Farel is a 0enior @ecturer in Philoso"hy at the University of the Best of England. (@ife and Death in 1reud and>eidegger'

The notion of the eath ri#e ison the one hand too wie! e(plaining all types ofaggression as well as the putati#e urge towars complete rest$ This leasthe notion to be economically incoherent! as %ill *e discussed in the ne,t section. /ut a "rior "ointmust *e e,amined# are all types of aggression the sameJ 1reud suggests a "ositive ans%er! *ut as a"sychological ta,onomy this approach seems to erase important i;erences. 1or e,am"le!if both saism an masochism stem from the same aggressi#e source!shoul they be classi/e as belonging to the same groupJ Shoul they beclinically approache in a similar fashionJ :he ans%er to *oth these Guestions seems to *e no. :he"ro*lems and sym"toms characterising sadism are very diQerent from the ones characterising masochism! as is their treatment.

+nother e,am"le! group aggression an ini#iual aggressionG shoul we attemptto escribe or treat the two as belonging to the same clusterJ +gain! the ans%erseems to *e negati#e. +s to the second "oint! one could 9usti-a*ly ask# %hat does the death drive meanJ@ecause itis so general! the notion of the eath ri#e is #ague$ The eath ri#e

cannot e(plain a gi#en situation because it itself becomes meaningfulonly as a collection of situations. n 1reuds account! any beha#iour meriting thea.ecti#e =aggressi#e= arises from the eath ri#e. If %e take a certain set of aggressive*ehaviours! say! sadistic ones! the death drive %ould come to signify this set. If %e take another set of masochistic *ehaviours! the

death drive %ould mean this set. +s it stands! the signi/cance of the notion seems entirelyepenent on the obser#e phenomenon. If 0reu were ne#er to meet anymasochists! woul his notion of the eath ri#e e(clue masochismJ +nyscience relying on o*servation and em"irical data relics on this data and should *e %illing! in "rinci"le! to modify and u"date itsconce"ts in accordance %ith ne% em"irical o*servations. :he o"ening "aragra"h of Instincts and :heir Vicissitudes descri*es this"rocess. Be have often heard it maintained that sciences should *e *uilt u" on clear and shar"ly de-ned *asic conce"ts. In actualfact no science! not even the most e,act! *egins %ith such de-nitions. :he true *eginning of scienti-c activity consists rather indescri*ing "henomena and then in "roceeding to grou"! classify and correlate them. Even at the stage of descri"tion it is not"ossi*le to avoid a""lying certain a*stract ideas to the material in hand! ideas derived from some%here or other *ut certainly notfrom the ne% o*servations alone O.... :hey must at -rst necessarily "ossess some degree of inde-nitenessK there can *e noGuestion of any clear delimitation of their content. 0o long as they remain in this condition! %e come to an understanding a*out theirmeaning *y making re"eated references to the material of o*servation from %hich they a""ear to have *een derived! *ut u"on%hich! in fact! they have *een im"osed Z0H 2e sees the danger in the

shift from using aggression descri"tively to attri*uting to it an e,"lanatory and causal role.9hen accore acausal role! aggression is rei/e an becomes a natural entity! a danger that can *eavoided *y using the term strictly descri"tively. :his suggestion makes a lot of sense! *ut it %ould *e unacce"ta*le for 1reud. 1or he

is "ro"osing a metaphysical #iew! %hich cannot be ta"en to be purely escripti#e!because it is embee in a physicalist #iew of the ri#es as elements


20/43


[AUTHORNAME

connecting boy an psyche! an is meant to ha#e an e(planatory ancausal role in the e(planation of beha#iour. +lthough 1reud %ould re9ect the "urely descri"tive useof the conce"t of aggression! this suggestion %ill *e useful %hen %e discuss the reconstruction of the death drive. +s to the third

"oint! it seems that the e(planatory #alue of the eath ri#e is not satisfactory ./ecause of the t%o "ro*lems set out a*ove & the e,cessive "romiscuity of the notion of aggression and the fact that it irons

signi-cant diQerences *et%een the various "henomena L its e,"lanatory value is limitedThe conceptas "resented *y

1reud does allo% too much in and lum"s together beha#iours an tenencies whosei;erences are signi/cant. In this sense! those re.ecting the eath ri#e as an

unhelpful speculation are .usti/e in their criticism.


21/43


[AUTHORNAME


22/43


[AUTHORNAME

norms2e "rovides a detailed clinical re*uttal of the ideaof the Ndeath instinctN %hich is eGually a"t as an attack on @acanians (%ho seem una%are of Reichs intervention'. In Reichs vie%!

the masochistic tenencies 0reu associates with the eath instinct are

seconary ri#es arising from an(iety! an are attributable to =theisastrous e;ect of social conitions on the biopsychic apparatus$ Thisentaile the necessity of critici,ing the social conitions which create theneuroses 2 a necessity which the hypothesis of a biological will to su;erha circum#ente=2=. The iea of the eath instinct leas to a culturalphilosophy in which su;ering is assume to be ine#itable! whereasReichsalternative & to attribute neurosis to frustrations with origins in the socialsystem 2 leas to a critical sociological stance27. :he relevance of Reichs critiGue to the"olitical theory of constitutive lack is striking. :he Ndeath instinctN is connected to an idea of "rimordial masochism %hich! in the

form of Na"hanisisN or Nsu*9ective destitutionN! recurs throughout @acanian "olitical theory. ie"in "articular a#ocatesmasochism! in the guise of shooting at or beating oneself! as a raical

gesture which re#eals the essence of the selfand *reaks the constraints of an o""ressivereality2! although the masochistic gesture is "resent in all @acanian theorists. :he death instinct is ty"i-ed *y ]i^ek as a"athological (in the Hantian sense'! contingent attitude %hich -nds satisfaction in the "rocess of self&*lockage23. It is identical %iththe @acanian conce"t of 9ouissance or en9oyment. 1or him! en9oyment (9ouissance' is not to *e eGuated %ith "leasure# en9oyment is"recisely N"leasure in un"leasureNK it designates the "arado,ical satisfaction "rocured *y a "ainful encounter %ith a :hing that"ertur*s the eGuili*rium of the "leasure "rinci"le. In other %ords! en9oyment is located N*eyond the "leasure "rinci"leN22. It is alsothe core of the self! since en9oyment is the only Nsu*stanceN ackno%ledged *y "sychoanalysis! and the su*9ect fully Ne,istsN onlythrough en9oyment222. Primordial masochism is therefore central to the @acanian conce"t of the Real! %hich de"ends on there*eing a universal moment at %hich active desire & sometimes given the slightly misleading name of the N"leasure "rinci"leN & issus"ended! not for a greater or delayed "leasure! *ut out of a direct desire for un"leasure (i.e. a "rimary reactive desire'.1urthermore! this reactive desire is su""osed to *e ontologically "rior to active desire. Dominick @aFa"ra oQers a similar *ut distinctcritiGue to my o%n! claiming that @acanian and similar theories induce a "ost&traumatic com"ulsion re"etition or an endless! Guasi&

transcendental grieving that may *e indistinguisha*le from intermina*le melancholy225.+eich has alreaypro#ie a rebuttalof N"rimordial masochismN! %hich! "arado,ically given ]i^eks claims to radicalism! %asdenounced *y orthodo, 1reudians as communist "ro"aganda. In Reichs vie%! masochism o"erates as a relief at a lesser "ain %hicho"erates as armouring against an,iety a*out an underlying trauma224. Regardless of %hat one thinks of Reichs s"eci-c account of

the origins of masochism! %hat is crucial is his criti&ue of the iea of a eath ri#e$ =Suchhypothesesas are criticised here areoften only a sign of therapeutic failure$ 0or if onee(plains masochism by a eath instinct! one con/rmsto the"atient his Osic allegedwill to su;er=22


23/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38

in today is one from %hich the "olitical may have already disa""eared! or at least has mutated into some strange ne% sha"e. Aworl not anchore by the )us* an )them* binarisms that ?ourished as recently as theFold Bar isone sub.ect to raical instability! *oth su*9ectively and "olitically! as 6acGues Derrida "oints out in

:he Politics of 1riendshi"# :he eQects of this destructuration %ould *e countless# the Ksub.ectin Guestion woul beloo"ing for newreconstitutive enmitiesL it woul multiply little wars betweennation2statesK it %ould sustain at any "rice so&called ethnic or genocidal strugglesK it %ould seek to "ose itself! to -ndre"ose! through o""osing still identi-a*le adversaries Fhina! IslamJ


24/43


[AUTHORNAME

indess haveres"ectively termed the `illi*erality of li*eralism8 and the `li*eral government of unfreedom8.A Bithin the natural8 realm of thesocial! li*eral government has historically identi-ed manifold categories of the "o"ulation! %hose "ro"erties or acts %ere contraryto nature8 and had to *e recti-ed through governmental intervention! %hich historically has taken manifold forms! from thecon-nement of madmen to the correction of 9uvenile delinGuents.A3 It is in this "ossi*ility of governmental re&naturalisation8! %hich%e have else%here descri*ed in terms of the "edagogical technology8 of li*eralism= that %e may locate the condition ofemergence of the -gure of the foe as the enemy of li*eralism8. :he centrality of "edagogical interventions to li*eralgovernmentality demonstrates that des"ite its avo%ed naturalism! li*eralism remains conditioned *y the constitutive! asymmetricand individualising "astoral "o%er8 that 1oucault has famously identi-ed as the condition of emergence of modern governmentalityas such.=2 Bhat unites all the o*9ects of li*eral corrections! irres"ectively of %hether they are deemed to *e evil! mentally disa*led!morally de-cient or sim"ly irrational8! is their functioning in the li*eral discourse as *eings! %hose e,istence is deemed to *econtrary to nature. n the one hand! these individuals and grou"s *elong to the social realm! cast as ontologically and a,iologically"rior to government in the li*eral e"isteme. n the other hand! ho%ever! their "ractices are not in accordance %ith the li*eral visionof natural li*erty8 and thus reGuire corrective interventions of li*eral government! %hose modus o"erandi is itself ada"ted to thenatural "rocesses of the social. Catural li*erty8 is therefore not an a*original "ro"erty of the su*9ect! *ut an eQect of governmentalintervention. :he ther! %ho %as so generously let into the glo*al li*eral homeland8! is endo%ed %ith li*erty only on condition of hisor her su*9ection to the corrective interventions that eradicate his or her alterity. :his 1oucauldian thesis "arallels 0chmitt8s critiGueof the `educational theory8 involved in the valorisation of li*eral democracy# :he "eo"le can *e *rought to recognise and e,"resstheir o%n %ill correctly through the right education. :his means nothing else than that the educator identi-es his %ill at least"rovisionally %ith that of the "eo"le! not to mention that the content of education that the "u"il %ill receive is also decided *y the

educator. The conse&uenceof this educational theory is a ictatorship that suspensemocracy in the name of a true emocracy that isstill to be create.=5 :hus!li*eral government -nds its condition of ( im'"ossi*ility in the generalised illi*erality of "edagogical interventionism! %hichmanifestly violates li*eralism8s o%n naturalist "resu""ositions *ut is nonetheless essential to its e,istence! functioning in themanner of the Derridean su""lement! a strange diQerence %hich constitutes Oli*eralism *y *reaching it8.=4 In Dean8s argument!this "arado, makes li*eralism a "otentially total8 modality of government! *ecause its "rogram of self&limitation is linked to thefacilitation and augmentation of the "o%ers of civil society and its use of these "o%ers! in con9unction %ith the sovereign!

disci"linary and *io"olitical "o%ers of the state itself! to esta*lish a com"rehensive normalisation of social! economic and culturale,istence8.=< :he naturalisation of a certain artefactual conce"tion of the social "ermits "er"etual interventions in the name of itsnatural values! disavo%ing the constitutive and freGuently violent character of governmental "ractices. +t the heart of li*eralgovernment %e may therefore o*serve the a"oria %here*y the naturalist ontology is al%ays contaminated *y the logic ofsu""lementarity and every natural li*erty8 *ears traces of governmental corrective8 interventions.=A :his relationshi" is at %ork notonly in li*eral domestic "olitics! *ut also! and %ith an even greater intensity! in the international domain! %here li*eralgovernmentality is de"loyed in such diverse conte,ts as military interventions in the name of democracy8! neoli*eral "rogrammesof develo"ment assistance and economic restructuring! and even the glo*al cam"aign for the "romotion of `human rights8. +sBilliam Rasch argues in his reading of the discourse of human rights as a form of geo"olitics! the term human is not descri"tive!*ut evaluative. :o *e truly human! one needs to *e corrected.8== It is this o*9ect of li*eral corrective interventions! %hether domesticor international! that e"itomises the -gure of the foe a not truly human8 *eing "roscri*ed *y nature itself8. :he incom"lete8humanity of this creature renders it in-nitely inferior to the fully8 li*eral rights&holders! %hich 9usti-es the de"loyment of


25/43


[AUTHORNAMEasymmetric su*9ecto*9ect relations in "edagogical "ractices of correction! %hile the `unnaturality8 of this creature "rovokes adegree of a""rehension# even if the foe is in-nitely %eaker than us8! any engagement %ith him is dangerous! as one never kno%s

%hat these `monsters8 are ca"a*le of. :o recall our discussion in the "revious section! the fear of the ?therthatanimates 0chmitt8s discourse on enmity oes not isappear inthe liberal"olitical ontologyof monisticnaturalism. Instead! it is supplemente with a #iolent pro.ect of eraicatingthisdangerous alteritythat li*eralism has itself incor"orated into its universal homeland8 through manifold corrective! disci"linary

and "unitive "ractices! %hich have no rationality %hatsoever in the 0chmittian "luriverse of irreduci*le alterity. :he foe is therefore!as it %ere! a dou*le enemy# *oth a transcendental ther that is intrinsically dangerous in 0chmitt8s sense of radical alterity and anem"irical ther! %hose dangerousness is esta*lished *y his or her actual resistance to the eQorts of li*eral government to "urge thisalterity. Be may s"ecify the li*eral construct of the foe %ith the hel" of 1oucault8s idiosyncratic contrast *et%een the savage and the*ar*arian. :he savage (usually "resented as no*le8' is manifestly a natural *eing! al*eit "ro*a*ly a "rehistoric one! a *eing thate,ists *efore society and %ho is central in founding society in the mythology of the social contract8 a central "resu""osition ofli*eral "olitical ontology. oreover! for the li*eral economic rationality the savage is an essential "resu""osition that "rovides areferent to the a*stract -gure of the homo economicus8! a man %ithout "ast or a history! %ho is motivated only *y self&interest and%ho e,changes his "roduct for another "roduct8.=7 :he savage is therefore *oth a "recursor of civilisation and a condition of its"ossi*ility. :hus! %hen modern li*eral su*9ects "erceive the ther as a savage8! they may *e said to *e encountering their o%nselves in "ure essenceK hence the interest in and even a mild fondness for the `e,otic otherness8 of the savage throughout thehistory of li*eralism! from the colonial "eriod to the contem"orary multiculturalism8. :he *ar*arian! on the other hand! is someone%ho can *e understood! characterised! and de-ned only in relation to a civilisation! and *y the fact that he e,ists outside it. :herecan *e no *ar*arian unless an island of civilisation e,ists some%here! unless he lives outside it! and unless he -ghts it.8= Frucially!unlike the savage! %ho *ecomes a su*9ect only insofar as he enters or founds a civilised social relationshi"! the *ar*arian is anactive su*9ect from the outset! yet solely a negative su*9ect of refusal! resistance and destruction. Unlike the savage! the *ar*ariandoes not emerge from some natural *ackdro" to %hich he *elongs. >e a""ears only %hen civilisation already e,ists! and only %henhe is in con?ict %ith it. >e does not make his entrance into history *y founding a society! *ut *y "enetrating a civilisation! setting it

a*lae and destroying it.8=3 Bhat is the criterion that distinguishes the *ar*arian as the foe to *e *attled and annihilated from the`no*le savage8! %hose authenticity %e might revel in and %hose safe eccentricities %e might even valorise in the s"irit of li*eral`tolerance8J :he savage is manifestly the o*9ect of the li*eral "astoral! %hose transformation into a li*eral su*9ect does not! in thea"oretic ontology of li*eralism! detract from his naturality! *ut rather com"letes it! transforming a not truly human8 *eing into a full&?edged free su*9ect8. :he "edagogical endo%ment of the savage %ith a natural li*erty8 transforms this ther! that from the"ers"ective of the most e,treme "ossi*ility8 is al%ays a "otential enemy8! into a li*eral friend8! there*y creating the conditions forthe universalisation of the li*eral "eace8. In contrast! the *ar*arian is sim"ly the savage %ho resists this civilising correction andthus forfeits his o%n nature! *ecoming a monstrous foe. :he *ar*arian is thus anyone %ho does not feel at home in the universalli*eral homeland and continues to assert his therness des"ite his inclusion in glo*al civilisation. It is thus resistance and daringnessto resist that turns the savage! a mute and "assive ther! into the most e,treme form of the enemy! the enemy of *oth nature andcivilisation! insofar as in the li*eral ontology the t%o function in a mutually su""lementary manner. :he enemy of li*eralism is thus!

*y necessity! a foe! %hich entails that a 0chmittian relation of K.ust enmity isentirelyforeclose in theliberal"olitical ontology. Bhile in the latter relation a minimal identity of all interacting su*9ects as sovereign states"rovided a common frame%ork of legitimate eGuality *et%een "articularistic communities! li*eralism is constituted *y a strictdividing line *et%een societies that are in accordance %ith natural li*erty8 and those that are not. :he latter may either function inthe modality of the savage! the "assively acGuiescent o*9ects of "edagogical correctional "ractices! or! in the case of their

resistance to such interventions! are automatically cast as inhuman and unnatural foes! %ith %hom no relationshi" of legitimateeGuality may *e conceiva*le. If the transformation of the savage into a li*eral su*9ect functions as a condition for li*eral "eace8! the

ultra"olitical engagement %ith the foe may %ell *e vie%ed as the continuation of the li*eral "eace *y other means. :hus!thedistinguishing feature of the li*eral "olitics of enmity8 is that its uto"ianesire to eliminate enmityas such fromthe human condition inevita*lyleas to the return of the foreclose in the mostobscene form for li*eralism! there indeed are no enemies! 9ust friends and foes. President /ush8s infamous diatri*e youare either %ith us or against us8 should not *e read as an e,treme deviation from the li*eral standard of tolerance! *ut rather as ane,"ression! at an ina""ro"riate8 site of the transatlantic community of friends8! of the *inary li*eral logic. Bhen *oth nature andhumanity are a "riori on the side of li*eralism! there is no need for a 0chmittian re?ection on ho% to manage co&e,istence %ithradical alterity for the "ur"oses of limiting a "ermanently "ossi*le confrontation. ne is either %ith us8 or against us8! and! in thelatter case! one forfeits not merely a "lace %ithin our8 community of friends! *ut also one8s *elonging to nature and humanity.Fonclusion# /eyond the Ultra&Political :errain :he "resent hegemony of li*eral ultra&"olitics is %ell illustrated *y the contem"orary"henomenon of the glo*al %ar on terror8. :he %ar on terror8 oQers a fruitful site for inGuiring into the "olitics of enmity for t%oreasons. 1irst! the %idely "erceived undecida*ility of the category of terrorism8 to the e,tent that it is freGuently attri*uted to thevery same states that have launched the `%ar on terror8 illuminates starkly the contingency of the friendenemy distinction. :his

contingency! i.e. the a*sence of *oth essence and necessity to any "articular em"irical form of enmity! "oints to the "ermanent ga"*et%een the transcendental function of the friendenemy distinction and its "articular historical modality. :he de"loyment of theultra&"olitical o*9ecti-cation of the enemy as a terrorist rogue8 is a "urely contingent o"tion! made "ossi*le *y a fundamentalasymmetry that endo%s the su*9ects of the `%ar on terror8 %ith %hat Derrida terms the reason of the strongest8! an e"istemico&moral self&certitude that itself has something roguish a*out it# O:hose states that are a*le or are in a state to denounce or accusesome rogue state8 of violating the la%! of failing to live u" to the la%! of *eing guilty of some "erversion or deviation! those statesthat claim to u"hold international la% and that take the initiative of %ar! of "olice or "eacekee"ing o"erations *ecause they have theforce to do so! are themselves! as sovereign! the -rst rogue states. :his is true even *efore any evidence is gathered to make a caseagainst them! ho%ever useful and enlightening such a case may *e. :here are al%ays (no' more rogue states than one thinks.70econdly and conseGuently! the %ar on terror8 is of "articular interest! insofar as the "erce"tion of this fundamental ineGuality isargua*ly constitutive of the very su*9ect&"osition of the terrorist8 foe. Indeed! contem"orary terrorist violence may *e gras"ed as aretort of the foe! a "arado,ical refusal of the su*9ect&"osition! im"osed on the enemy of li*eralism! through its assum"tion in ahy"er*olic and e,cessive manner! %here*y the foe acts out8! %ith a vengeance! an identity attri*uted to him or her. @et us suggest


26/43


[AUTHORNAMEthat the s"eci-city of terrorist violence is not derivative of e,tra&"olitical factors that may function as its *ackground motives("overty! economic ineGuality! underdevelo"ment! lack of education! etc.'! *ut is rather a direct e,"ression of a "ro"erly "oliticalgrievance! a retort against the humiliation! incurred in not *eing recognised as a legitimate enemy. ur demonstration of themonistic nature of li*eral "luralism and the artefactual character of li*eral naturalism "oints to the fact that the su*9ect&"osition ofthe foe is "reconstituted in the "olitical ontology of li*eralism! insofar as the a""ro"riation of the ca"acity to ad9udicate %hat ishuman and %hat! %ithin humanity! is natural makes e,clusion and stigmatisation a "ermanently availa*le o"tion for dealing %ithe,"ressions of dissent. :he image of the terrorist foe is thus *oth entirely contingent from the stand"oint of a 0chmittiantranscendental function of enmity and al%ays&already articulated %ithin the ontological edi-ce of li*eralism. Bhile the motives for"articular acts of terrorism might *e distinct in each "articular case! %e may suggest that all these acts! -rst! take "lace in the

"reconstituted su*9ect "osition of the `enemy of li*eralism8 and! secondly! target "recisely this su*9ect "osition as a "riori inferior.:errorism is little more and nothing less than the resentful acce"tance *y the ther of the ultra&"olitical terms of engagement! if only*ecause there is no other %ay that the "resent glo*al order can *e legitimately o""osed# the refusal to *e li*eralism8s no*lesavage8 inevita*ly turns one into a *ar*arian. If our enemy can only *e a monster! should %e *e sur"rised that the acts of ourenemies are so monstrousJ :he uncanny eQect of the li*eral negation of "luralistic antagonism is that in the eyes of its adversariesli*eralism may no longer *e o""osed other than *y murderous and meaningless destruction. :o the oft&cited em"irical claims thatcontem"orary terrorism has *een "roduced as an eQect of Fold Bar "olicies of Bestern "o%ers! %e must add a conce"tual thesis#terrorism is the "ractical e,"ression of that mode of enmity %hich the li*eral Best has constituted as the sole "olitical "ossi*ility dueto its a""ro"riation of *oth nature and humanity. :he `%ar on terror8 is not an accidental deviation from the ma,ims of Besternli*eralism *ut rather an e,em"lary model of the only kind of `%ar8 that the li*eral foreclosure of "olitical enmity "ermits! i.e. a %aragainst an a "riori un9ust enemy8. It should therefore not *e sur"rising to see this model generalised *eyond its original articulation!%here*y it *ecomes a standard res"onse to the %orld%ide e,"ressions of anti&li*eral dissent. 1or this reason! one gains nothing *yattem"ting to *attle terrorism either on its constitutive ultra&"olitical terms or! as much of critical thought suggests! on the e,tra&"olitical fronts of develo"ment! "overty relief! civic education! democratisation! etc. Instead! any authentic confrontation %ithterrorism must logically "ass through the stage of Guestioning %hat confrontation! struggle and antagonism actually mean today!%ho %e -ght! ho% %e -ght and! "ossi*ly! %hether %e still have any meaningful %illingness to -ght. During the 237s! 1oucaultfreGuently lamented that the "rover*ial class struggle8 tended to *e theorised in critical thought in terms of class8 rather than

`struggle8! the latter term functioning as a mere meta"hor.72 :he same "ro*lem is still %ith us today the "roliferation of meta"hors(`culture %ars8! %ars on drugs8! -ght against "overty8' is increasingly o*scuring the re?ection on the concrete meaning ofantagonism in contem"orary "olitical life. In the inter*ellum of the 233s! one freGuently encountered discussions of %ho the ne%enemy might *e after the demise of the 0oviet Union. +s su*seGuent events have demonstrated! it is entirely redundant to attem"ta theoretical deduction of the concrete enemy! %hich is after all al%ays constituted in a "olitical decision. >o%ever! %hile the %ho8Guestion may *e entrusted to history and "olitics! %hat reGuires re?ection is a Guestion of ho% enmity is to *e managed.

Shoul we maintain the"resent ultra2politics of the foedes"ite its evident *oomerang eQectson our societies! or shoul weattem"t to return to the structure of Klegitimate enmityof the Best"halian era! e,"anding it *eyond the Euro"ean system to the entire international societyJ 0hould %e "ut our trust in andsurrender our freedom to the governmental a""aratuses of homeland security8 or should %e heed 0chmitt8s %arning that nosecurity may ever *e attained as long as our sense of the %orld is that in %hich there is only a homeland8J :his article has

demonstrated that it is impossible to e#ae these &uestionsby the"lethoric yet re"etitiveiscourse on o#ercoming enmity in the chimerical pro.ect of`%orld unity8 and that ans%ersto these Guestions reGuire an interrogation of many ontological assum"tions that frame the conduct of modern li*eral "olitics. Be

have seen that the esire to ispense with enmityas such! arising out of li*eral e"istemicomoralcertitude! has not brought about a Kuni#ersal frienshipbut rather prouce alimite but uni#ersalistic community! which permanently feels threateneue to its incomplete embrace of the globe an! for the same reason! threatense#eryone outsie itself. :he esca"e from the murderous ultra&"olitics of the foe is im"ossi*le unless it "assesthrough the stage of an ontological critiGue of li*eralism! hence the "resent im"ortance of 0chmitt.


27/43


[AUTHORNAME

Techno23ontrol 1


28/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38y"othesis! "g. bb&bbII'

To argue my case! I will use new isco#eries from geology! biology! anmost of the fossil recor. :o me! these new unerstanings are li"e a memorye(hume from some eep sleep! in reality from the dee" "ast! that shows the absolutenee to construct a new paraigm about both past an future! one thatwill re&uire a rather painful shift from the "ins of conser#ation anen#ironmentalism that are prac tice now. The philosophical unerpinningsof moern en#ironmen talism are that the planet must be returne toen#ironmental conitions that e(iste prior tothe evolution of humankindstechnological ci#ili,ation! %ith the resulting "lanet%ide changes to almost every facet of the environment.Instead! we humans must resort to whole sale planetary engineering if we areto o#ercome the tenencies of life aroun usLand those of our o%n s"eciesLto ma"e

the


29/43


[AUTHORNAME

biosphere on


30/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38+epression+epression oesnt lea to lashout+ar!l 06 >avi Farel is a 0enior @ecturer in Philoso"hy at the University of the Best of England. (@ife and Death in 1reud and>eidegger'

0econdly! the constancy "rinci"le on %hich these ideas are *ased is incom"ati*le %ith o*servational data. nce the "assive modelof the nervous system has *een discarded! there %as no need for e,ternal e,citation in order for discharge to take "lace! and more

generally! Nthe beha#ioural picture seeme to negate the notion of ri#e! as aseparate energi,er of beha#iourN >c**. 235. ".4A'. +ccording to >olt! the ner#ous systemis not passi#eL it oes not ta"e in an conuct out energy from theen#ironment! an it shows no tenency to ischarge its impulses$ =Theprinciple of constancy is &uite without any biological basisN (23=A! ". 23'. >e goes onto "resent the di)culties that arise from the "leasure "rinci"le as linked to a tension&reduction theory.The notion oftension is con#eniently ambiguous# it has "henomenological! "hysiological and a*stract meaning. /utempirical e#ience against the theory of tension reuction has beenmounting steaily an any further attempts to lin" pleasure with areuction of physiological tension are ecisi#ely refuteN (23=A! "". 225'.

+dditionally! the organism an the mental system are no longer consiereclose systems$ So the main arguments for the economic #iew collapse! asoes the entropic argument for the eath ri#e(23=A! ". 22o*son! 23! ".577'. It is an e,tension ad e,tremis of the "leasure "rinci"le! and as such is vulnera*le to all thea*ove criticisms. :he overall contem"orary vie% "rovides strong su""ort for discarding the Cirvana "rinci"le and reconstructing thedeath drive as aggression.


31/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38TranshumanismA technological relationship with nature is critical totranscening the human conitionBostro/ 0% Cick /ostrom is a /ritish +cademy Research 1ello% at ,ford University %ho has a Ph.D. in "hiloso"hy from@0E. >e %as "reviously a "rofessor at Male University in the Institute for 0ocial and Policy 0tudies. (:ranshumanist Values! Revie%of Fontem"orary Philoso"hy! Volume

:he con9ecture that there are greater values than %e can currently fathom does not im"ly that values are not de-ned in terms of ourcurrent dis"ositions. :ake! for e,am"le! a dis"ositional theory of value such as the one descri*ed *y David @e%is.OA +ccording to@e%is8s theory! something is a value for you if and only if you %ould %ant to %ant it if you %ere "erfectly acGuainted %ith it and you

%ere thinking and deli*erating as clearly as "ossi*le a*out it. n this vie%! there may be #alues that we o

not currently want! an that we o not e#en currently want to want! *ecause %e

may not *e "erfectly acGuainted %ith them or *ecause %e are not ideal deli*erators.Some #alues pertaining tocertain forms of posthuman e(istence may well be of this sortK they may *e valuesfor us no%! and they may *e so in virtue of our current dis"ositions! and yet we may not be able to fullyappreciate them with our current limite eliberati#e capacitiesand our lack of therece"tive faculties reGuired for full acGuaintance %ith them. :his "oint is im"ortant *ecause it sho%s that the transhumanist vie%

that we ought to e(plore the realm of posthuman #alues oes not entailthat we shoul forego our current #alues. :he "osthuman values can *e our current values! al*eitones that %e have not yet clearly com"rehended. Transhumanism oes not re&uire us to say


32/43


[AUTHORNAME

that we shoul fa#or posthuman beings o#er human beings! but that theright way of fa#oring human beings is by enabling us to reali,e our iealsbetter an that some of our ieals may well be locate outsie the spaceof moes of being that are accessible to us with our current biologicalconstitution.


33/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38An(iety 6ooAn(iety is gooh!ard 0'(ark! Ceuro @inguistic Programming E,"ert! +n,iety & the ultimate survival tool\!htt"#$$%%%.scri*d.com$doc$5AA2$+n,iety&:he&Ultimate&0urvival&0kill'

+s much "ain and suQering that highly sensitive "eo"le go through *ecause of our %orry and an(iety habits! these aretraits that ha#e ensure humanity=s sur#i#alsince time immemorial. Bhat do I meanJ 1irst of all you haveto understand that an(iety is a thought process$ It is not a mental isease. Bhen you arean,ious! %hat are you thinking a*outJ Bhats greatJ Bhats %onderfulJ >o% everything is going to turn out *etter than you can

"ossi*ly imagineJ Co\ Mou are imagining the %orst case scenario. An(iety is thin"ing about what youo not want to ha#e happen. :hink a*out it\ @ets ?oat *ack in time for a moment to ne ;aillion /.F. Mou arehanging out %ith your hunter gatherer *uddies and its summer time...:heres "lenty to eat and its %arm. +ll of a sudden you havean an,ious thought. Mou think of something un"leasant a*out the future. Mou suddenly think of the coming... %inter\ Mou imaginedigging through sno% drifts scavenging for %hatever scra"s of food you can -nd. Mou imagine starving. Mou imagine your children!

hungry! cold! sick. :hats an,iety. :hinking a*out %hat you do not %ant to have ha""en. Bhat its su""osedtodo is triggera resourceful response$In this case! you come u" %ith a *rilliant idea. In order to avoid starvation in the coming%inter you start drying food and storing it in underground containers. :hinking a*out the cold! you come u" %ith the idea that youcan make %arm clothing. Fome 1all you gladly trade that little summer loin cloth in for a nice %oolly mammoth coat. :hus the -rst

root cellar is *orn and the fur coat is invented! *ecause of an,iety.our ability tothink ahead and #isuali,e bathingsha""ening enables you to plan ahea an ta"e ecisi#e action to createa i;erent outcome. :his "lanning for the %inter results in your family and tri*e surviving\ Mour children and theirchildren "ass along this an,iety gene. :he Nlug&headsN %ho dont have this a*ility "erish. 0urvival is good! isnt itJ 0othosewho were able to foreseethe future and imaginethe worst were able to*etter "lan and as aresult create a better future$Co%. 1ast for%ard to today. I %ould *e %illing to *et that youve *een using this%onderful imagination of yours to imagine the %orst. :he added factor here is that your unconscious mind does not kno% thediQerence *et%een %hat is real and %hat is imagined! so %hen you imagine the %orst! your *ody reacts as if that *ad thing is reallyha""ening. :hat releases all sorts of stress hormones and chemicals in your *ody. :he "oint is to sto" *eating yourself u" for having

an,iety. An(iety ismerely an e(cellent sur#i#al tool that=s been pushe beyonits original purpose$ ou can reclaim it=s usefulness*y doing %hat ancient "eo"le did.@ecome aware of a possible negati#e outcome in the future an then ta"epositi#e! ecisi#e action to ma"e sure something better happens$ If it=s

something beyon your control! practice imagining it wor"ing outpositi#ely an see how that feels in your boy . 1or e,am"le# if you are %orried a*out your kidsdriving home from college in a sno% storm imagine them arriving safely and sitting in front of the -re si""ing hot cocoa.


34/43


[AUTHORNAME


35/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38BosBos is wrong!rtz/!n 12 Renee Lertzman has a Ph.D. and works in the Associate Faculty of Royal Roads University in Victoria !ritish "olum#ia in"anada. $%Review of Psychoanalysis and &colo'y at the &d'e of "haos( "om)le*ity +heory Deleuze,-uattari and Psychoanalysis for a "limate in "risis

#y ose)h Dodds/ 0ary Ann Lie#ert 1nc. Volume 2 1ssue 3 4e)tem#er 5675 we don8t endorse any a#leist lan'ua'e in this evidence9

>o%ever! Bos oesnt rest easy with psychoanalysisentirely. +s others have "ointed out(@ertman! 525*K Xiek! 52'! psychoanalysis has its blin spotsas %ell. 0"eci-cally! goingbac" to the legacy of 0reus e(clusi#e focus on the human2populateworl8 interpsychic an the intrapsychic imensions! also referre to asob.ect relations8psychoanalysis runs the great ris" of being tooisconnecte with the physical! breathing! an natural worl! and frankly too caughtu" in its o%n intricate theories of the human "syche to take notice of concurrent streams of ecological thought over the "ast several

decades. In other %ords! when psychoanalysts come to ecological topics! there canbe a lac" of ac"nowlegement an recognition of relate boies of wor"an research that can both support an complement the psychoanalyticcontributions. +s a result! the ris" of appearing )out of touch* an in a bubble

continues to be negotiate.


36/43


[AUTHORNAME

Naturalism 1


37/43


[AUTHORNAME

Notes'ots of answers from the Techno23ontrol 1 an theAnthroFHeiegger 1 apply here$


38/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38InterepenenceThe alternati#e fails8humans nee to be separate from natureru/"or! #6 4am +rum#ore is the minister of the First Unitarian Universalist 4ociety of Al#any. $%A "ase A'ainst Dee) &colo'y/Unitarian Universalist Fellowshi) of "harlotte "ountyhtt"#$$%%%.trum*ore.org$sam$sermons$s=5


39/43


[AUTHORNAME

%hich comes much of their meaning and satisfaction. A "in of wisom is positein these tri*es whichwe supposely ha#e lost$ Impliein the "raise of indigenous "eo"les is the message thatwe shoul cast o; our suits an ties! on a loincloth an return to the.ungle$ The #illain of course is technology ! the a""le of kno%ledge! %hich e9ects us again andagain from the ;arden. 1irst! many "rimitive tri*es %ere not and still are not terri*ly %ise in *eing ecocentric. 0ams rule is this# :hegood old days are rarely as good as %e might %ish they really %ere. Riane Eisler (author of the Fhalice and the /lade' is s"eci-c# NIf

%e carefully e,amine *oth our "ast and "resent! %e see that many peoples past an present li#ingclose to nature ha#e all too often been blinly estructi#e of theiren#ironment. Bhile many indigenous societies have a great reverence for nature! there are also *oth non&Bestern andBestern "easant and nomadic cultures that have overgraed and overcultivated land! decimated forests! and %here "o"ulation"ressures have *een severe! killed oQ animals needlessly and indiQerently. +nd %hile there is much %e can learn today from tri*alcultures! it is im"ortant not to indiscriminately idealie all non&Bestern cultures1or clearly such tri*al "ractices as canni*alism!

torture! and female genital mutilation antedate modern times.O4 Rene Du*os summaries the availa*le evidence! NAll o#erthe globe an at all times in the past! men ha#e pillage nature anisturbe the ecological e&uilibrium! usually out of ignorance! *ut also *ecause they have al%ays *eenmore concerned %ith immediate advantages than %ith long&range goalsN.O


40/43


[AUTHORNAME

Ini#iualism 1


41/43


[AUTHORNAME

Notes%any answers from the security answers /le apply here$


42/43


[AUTHORNAME

7A38SecurityPsychological threat construction is ine#itable an "ey torational ecisionma"ingysz,zynski !t al 6 :om Pysccynski is the Professor of Psychology at the University of Folorado. 0heldon 0olomon isthe Professor of Psychology at 0kidmore Follege. 6eQ ;reen*erg is the Professor of Psychology at the University of +riona. ollya,-eld %orks at the University of Folorado. (n the UniGue Psychological Im"ort of the >uman +%areness of ortality# :heme andVariations! Psychological InGuiry! Volume 27! Issue


43/43


[AUTHORNAME

of preser#ing life woul be impossible if the fear of eath were not asconstant (".

Documents

Psychoanalysis K - Michigan7 2014 HJPV