Love Zizeken

8/13/2019 Love Zizeken

1/16

ISSN 1751-8229Volume Six, Number One

Following Atheism: on a Debate inContemporary Psychoanalytic Theory

Thomas Brockelman, Philosophy Dept., Le MoyneCollege.

"Religion" is a concept of sufficient breath that any simple embrace or re!ection of hat it

encompasses is boun to be as much misleaing as true. The folloing comments confirm this

in folloing out polemics about religion ithin contemporary Lacanian#$reuian psychoanalysis.

That is, they sho the truth of the hypothesis that any effort simply to negate or, e%ually, to affirm

the religious inicates a point here some more comple& truth is being o'erlooke. But that

oesn(t mean that religion is insignificant ithin the $reuo)Lacanian traition* %uite the contrary,

it names a founational concern of the Lacanian analyst or theorist. +hat makes a iscussion

about religion in the acaemy of interest to me is the 'alue of e&posing, so as to in through to

hat psychoanalysis canteach us about it, the falsity of the easy aresses to religion in an

analytic conte&t.

The folloing comments pursue this teaching in folloing a )part agena* - start /ection

01 from a presentation of the theological element in psychoanalysis 2 from, that is, an

e&planation of a founational atheismin $reuian#Lacanian thought. 3fter that /ection 41, -

inicate ho this psychoanalytic atheism naturally leas to of its important contemporary

e&ponents 3rian 5ohnston 6 /la'o! 7i8ek9 a stuent an his teacher1 to bin psychoanalysis to

1


2/16

contemporary polemics about religion. The fact, hoe'er, that these polemics irectly oppose

each other ith 5ohnston articulating a militant anti)religiosity an 7i8ek embracing an e%ually

militant raical Christianity1 ill gi'e us the clue for the final part /ection 1 of this paper. There

- ill propose that that the atheistic ethosof $reu an Lacan has its 'alue in outlining a

nuance critical theory of contemporary society, a theory that attempts to comprehen the

changing historical status of religious belief.

1. Fundamental Fantasy: Unconscious Theism

Let me begin from hat - take to be the hien source of psychoanalysis( fruitfulness for

Lacanian thought about religion 2 hich is containe in Lacan(s iea, as introuce beginning in

about 0:;)0;1 Beginning in 0:0?, moreo'er, $reu speaks

of @primal fantasyA Urphantasie1 2 using that term in relationship to a @primal sceneA most

typically the scene of itnesse parental coitus1 that is present to the ini'iual e'en hen it

represents no actual e&perience. /ee, $reu 0:0>#=> 6 0:0=#=>1. -n such a scene, $reusees a literaliation of the reference to origins, a kin of staging or representation of ones on

conception. Laplanche 6 Pontalis 0:= 41

/o, the $reuian primal fantasy suggests a uni'erse close on itself 2 one in hich the

analysan atches her#himself come into being as that e'ent happens. +hat is this position

that inclues "e'erything" or, as ill be seen, almoste'erything1 3s /la'o! 7i8ek suggests, it

resembles the meie'al image of a complete cosmosrepresente for Eo.0 $antasy pro!ects

the real quatotality 2 hat e call "reality" )) by imagining it, at least traitionally, from the

position of transcenence, from a pri'ilege sub!ects perspecti'e. -n orer to concei'e of the

orl as @ontologically closeA e imagine a @'iepointA from whichit appears as totality.4

Fo, the elegant thing about the +olfman case is that its "primal scene" also inicates, in

hat it excludesfrom such a picture, the necessity that an irreucibly unconsciouselement enter

into the constitution of reality. The fantasy of the analysan(s on presence at his conception

inclues consciousness ofthat presence, but only in the sense that the fantasy is forit* this

consciousness remains necessarily also e&ternal to the scene, ne'er a fully represente ob!ect

2


3/16

of its representation. Gn the contrary, its conscious token is only the anxietyaccompanying the

+olfman(s repeate ream of "ol'es in a tree," an uncanny affect that tips us off as to the

peculiar half)presence of an "ob!ectile" self. The "primal fantasy" proper behin the "primal

scene" is hat eals ith this uncanny e&clusion, repressing it an thus guaranteeing that it

oes not isturb the "reality" prouce by that original sho.

Here, $reu only hints at hat Lacan an his folloers ha'e fille in ith the iea of the"funamental fantasy," namely anotheran this time necessarily unconscious formation

responsible for the stable totality of reality. To suggest thatfantasy, e might !oin Iric /antner

an 7i8ek in returning to a ifferent $reu, the speculati'e theorist of Moses and Monotheism

ho proposes that the myth of Moses the patriarch an, inee, the accompanying prouction of

a patriarchal @Eo)the)$atherA amount to responses to a represse murderof the actual

Igyptian1 Moses.> 3fter all, $reus euce lesson from the eath of the actualMoses, the

@father,A is that there are noe&ternal conse%uences, no i'ine retribution for murer. $reu0:=#=>, J0)J?1 3ccoring to this account, the funamental fantasy 2 that weare guilty of some

horrible primal crime an thus must enlessly atone for it 2 actually aims to efeat an

unbearable an&iety, to transform it intoguilt, the punishment e&acte by the superego.

The funamental fantasy, then, is the necessarily unconscious content of the act by which

reality itself, ith its %uality of apparently seamless totality, is forme. Itis unconscious because,

by transforming sub!ecti'ity into the ob!ect of the superego, it hies the incompletion of reality at

the point of the sub!ect. That is, guilt transforms the stain of sub!ecti'ity into a efinite personracke by guilt, an, in so oing, it hies the gap or hole in being emerging at that site of

an&iety. -t eli'ers up the consolation of a orl e can inhabit, but only at the price of an

enless punishment. @+eA are sinners in the Christian 'ision, originalsinners, guilty of

isrupting the basic fabric of Being1. Iffecti'ely, reality, a complete orl, is on by repressing

our on uncanny presence, a presence that the fantasy con'erts into a efinite but e&clue

element. -n such a cosmos, e as human beings are primorially guilty of isrupting the

funamental orer an therefore e&clue from it. 3n orere uni'erse, essentially complete in

itself, still hols @no placeA for the spontaneous human ill, the subject. The cosmos is hole*

only, short of the reemption posite by orthoo&y, e cannot belong to it.

Gf course, this tragic situation also brings its on consolation, in the form of the community

of sinners, or, in $reu(s terms, the form of the group of brothers ho share the social tie of guilt

an humiliation. That is, a stabilie reality is of)a)piece ith a social bon base upon share

renunciation. +e can see the other person as something other than a potential competitor or

3


4/16

enemy, so $reu an Lacan, to the e&tent that e all share in the fantasmatic casting)out of

oursel'es from paraise.

3ll that(s necessary to complete the emonstration of ho basic to psychoanalytic thought

is $reu(s atheism, is to follo the links by hich psychoanalytic treatment aims to loosen the

bons of guilt holing the analysan tohis or her misperception of the Real. $or Lacan, analysis

aims to "tra'erse the fantasy" potentially liberating the "patient" both from guilt an from theillusion of a transcenence proucing an stabiliing reality itself. Lacan, 0:=J#;4, 4=1 Fo

oner, then, that for 7i8ek an other members of the /lo'enian school of Lacanian thought, the

process of an analysis aims irectly at a kin of re'olution, a challenging of the "goo forms" of

li'e ontology. That, by this moel, such liberation sails close to maness is, of course, neither

inciental nor tri'ial to my moeling here, but that, too, must remain a theme for another ay.

2. ohnston ! "i#e$: %eligion and the Atheistic &mperati'e o( Psychoanalysis

These meitations oul seem to lea'e a clear imperati'e for contemporary psychoanalysis*

follo out the atheistic commanment by challenging those fantasmatic structures, share or

ini'iual, that stabilie any illusory social reality. 3bo'e all, this oul imply a challenge to

$reu himself ho, hile famously opposing the "illusion" of organie religion, famously oes

so in the name of an alternati'e "religion" of science, incluing the science of psychoanalysis.

?

I&actly that challenge to $reu(s positi'ism marks an important strain of 5ac%ues Lacan(s

criti%ue of $reu )) namely, the iea that the 'arious scientisms an rationalisms ith hich

$reu allie himself are not, in fact, atheistic enough, that they actually represent a resiual, if

unacknolege "religion of science" hose carry, hen couple ith the broaer cultural

construction it accompanies, efines our reality toay.;

-n se'eral recent essays an books, the ell)knon Lacanian scholar 3rian 5ohnston has

mae the case for !ust this as the inescapable logic of Lacan(s reception of the atheist $reu. -n

brief, he argues that $reu(s hien sympathies ith reucti'e scientism lea him in his ritings

on religion to mistake the emans of an early moern 'ie of nature for those of a genuine

atheism. $or e&ample, in "Conflicte Matter* 5ac%ues Lacan an the Challenge of /eculariing

Materialism," 5ohnston interprets Lacan as arguing against the 0= than 0Jth)Century

mechanists, early aherents of scientistic reucti'ism.=/uch reucti'ism implicitly totalies

reality 2 implying the "min of Eo" in hich all causal chains are complete 2 unintentionally

reinforcing the illusion of a transcenent, %uasi)i'ine gae, a gae hich assures us of the

4


5/16

continuity an self)consistency of all that is. 3s a result, 5ohnston, folloing Lacan, argues that

the apparent materialism of self)a'oe atheists like /ae, La Mettrie or Dierot but also of

more contemporary analytic philosophers of science1 is simply the e%ui'alent of, as he puts it, "a

isguise boy of religious belief espite itself." 5ohnston 4


6/16

$reuian#Lacanian atheism lea, not to a militant polemic against the religion in science, but,

rather, to a so the author claims1 sub'ersi'e embrace of one specific religious traition.

Recently calling himself an "atheist Christian," 7i8ek has !oine Thomas 3ltier in connecting

Chrisitianity ith a oubling or eepening of atheism, one apparently capable of ithstaning

reinterpretation as systematic or ogmatic belief.:

-nee, for 7i8ek Christianity is not a orl'ie but rather a kin of machine for a'oiingthe trap of a parao&ically theistic atheism. -n his account, the structure of Christian theology

emans a oubling or "paralla& shift" in our unerstaning of oursel'es as e&clue from the

ontological totality of the orl. Recall the basic economy of the funamental fantasy* it

manages to assert that the orl is complete, a totality, by e&cluing usfrom the "all." %e

oursel&esare the unruly an e&traneous element in an otherise @holeA creation, the e&ception

that allos e'ery create element to en!oy a pre)gi'en place in the cosmos. 7i8ek 4


7/16

point is not so much a systematic belief about the incompleteness of ontology as 5ohnston

takes it to be1 but rather an imperati'e to actithout the possibility of founation or groun,

ithout any possibility for a certainty about the reality upon which- act. /ee, for e&ample, 7i8ek

4


8/16

theory. $or bothof them it marks the site of a significant 2 inee, symptomatic 2 i'ersion, a

place here subtle analysis gi'es ay to polemic, so that significant %uestions are left

unaresse. -n both of these thinkers, rhetorical attack recalls the mo'e of the +iar of G

hen, in the film of that name, his a'atar emans that e "pay no attention to the man behin

the curtain."

$or 5ohnston, -('e alreay mentione this point of "religious" i'ersion, hich calls ourattention aay from a sustaine aress of ho the newreligion of moern scientistic

reuctionism isplaces an replaces the unconscious function of the funamental fantasy.

3lloing 5ohnston to maintain a iscourse entirely at the le'el of possible philosophical

"positions," this turn not only e'aes the %uestion of the relationship beteen science an the

philosophy of science but also, more essentially, ins him a relati'ely untrouble embrace of

systematicity in his ork as a hole. To put this in other ors, "religion" gains for 5ohnston the

possibility of a'oiing the %uestion of the e&tent hisposition amounts to a "orl'ie" an thushas the hien effect of reinforcing the 'ery phenomenon against hich, in its content, it

struggles.

-n the case of 7i8ek, the "funamentalist" polemical ege of his theology 2 against ne age

spirituality, against "progressi'e" or "tolerant" forms of Christianity, etc. 2 has a similarly

i'ersionary effect. -n re!ecting the entire gamut of moern an post)moern forms of

enlightene spirituality, 7i8ek ri'es contemporary theologians into a tiy, i'erting their

attention from the real remaining labor emane by his on categories 2 namely, the ork ofistinguishing betweengenuine re'olution an religious funamentalism.04 Gr, to put this in

other ors, 7i8ek tens to occlue the differencebeteen "really belie'ing" as oes the

funamentalist1 an responing ae%uately to the atheistic emans of psychoanalysis.

Hoe'er, at the 'ery least, e can say that psychoanalysis calls for something morethan a

mere leap of faith* it emans the rightleap of faith 2 a istinction that, as -('e argue

elsehere, inicates the e&tent to hich 7i8ek cannot an oul not ant to1 e'ae the 'ery

enlightenment knolege he seems to re!ect.0

Put otherise, in his theological polemics, 7i8ek treats a symptomas a cause* he suggests

irect oppositionat the le'el of theory to cultural formations like ne)age Buhism or

"suspene" religiosity1 that are themsel'es only the 'isible manifestations of funamentally

unconscious formations. -n this ay, parao&ically, e'en hen he e'aes the lure of escribing

the esire "en of treatment" as a belief)system, 7i8ek actually falls into the same trap as

5ohnston, the trap of treating a psychoanalytic critical theory of contemporary society as a kin

of prophyla&is against incorrect belief.

8


9/16

). Diagnosing the Present: The Per'ert*s Fantasy

$or all the parallels, there(s an essential ifference between5ohnston an 7i8ek here, namely,

that 7i8ek knows betterthan his theological polemics oul inicate.0> -nee, e might say

that his ork e'er since The )ublime $bject of Ideology0:J:1 has circle aroun the increase

importance toay of such non)conscious elements in social formations. These are elements that7i8ek ientifies ith fetishism an per'ersion 2 terms that, for him, name to poles of a single

personality type. To this e&tent, 7i8ek alreay aumbrates a theory of hat replacesthe

traitional funamental fantasy hen reality takes on the shape pro!ecte by moern science,

the shape that 5ohnston lea'es uninterrogate as merely "religious." Behin 7i8ek(s lou

embrace of Christianity lies a much %uieter but more poerful analysis of the specific historical

conitions meriting his inter'entions, an it is thisanalysis 2 emerging from an unerstaning of

$reu an Lacan on superego an ri'e )) that can bear fruit in figuring out !ust ho the basicstructures of faith as ell as those of fantasyare changing toay.

$reu(s iscussion of the superego in *i&ili+ation and its ,iscontentscontains a istinction

that is critical to 7i8ek an to our iscussion. Concerning the misery to hich the superego(s

operation conemns progressi'ely more "ci'ilie" human beings, $reu makes a key

obser'ation* ere the purpose or en of the superego simply the curbing of the eath ri'e in

orer to socialie us, then the saint or upright moral person oul be free from its grip. The

truth, claims $reu, is precisely the opposite* the more "correct" a person(s actions are, the morehe or she is likely to be racke by guilt, torture by a ba conscience. Ei'en such a result,

$reu retreats from the iea that the superego can simplybe e%uate ith an internalie

"father" or authority an posits instea that its primorial function is a re)irection of the eath)

ri'e back onto the sub!ect, a re)channelling of aggression back onto its source. $reu

0:4=#=>, 04?);1

+hile by the en of *i&ili+ation and its ,iscontents$reu re)captures the superego ithin a

seconary moral frameork, for Lacan an 7i8ek, the cat is out of the bag* the operations of this

"faculty" on(t originally coincie ith conscience 2 punishment for rong)oing, etc.. The

superego canork in that ay, of course. Hoe'er, it oes so only insofar as inflicting guilt for

moral transgression is one ay of punishing, an punishment is alays excessi&e alays

more than any specific isorer prouce by our "ba" acts or intentions. To put it bluntly, the

purpose of the superego is to 'isit this e&cess upon us. That(s hy, in the 'ersion of its function

that - iscusse uner the "funamental fantasy" e coul e%uate its structural operation ith

the moral catastrophe of the "$all" in Christian Theology 2 that is, ith an infiniteguilt, a guilt

9


10/16

against hich no purely human action coul be a sufficient response. The "contract" of the

fantasy guarantees the perpetual punishment of humanity e'en hile it offers the istant

promise of Eo(s reemption1 in return for a stable reality.

-t is the ongoing nature of this torture, this e&cessi'eness of its infliction rather than any

particular change in human beha'ior, that is the superego(s en. +hen Lacan translates this

superego function as "jouissance" "en!oyment"1 he intens precisely such e&cessi'eness, since,as 7i8ek points out, the o'ertones of the $rench term hich suggests se&ual orgasm, among

other things1 point toar precisely hat cannot be place in any economy of pleasures an

pains. 7i8ek 4


11/16

Gn the other han, this hole, this totality appears to ha'e a irect, superego, "ill" )) to merge

ith hich becomes the per'ert(s principle. $or this reason the "game)playing" of the per'erse

sub!ect is chillingly a)moral* he#she simply follos the superego#Gther(s commans, assuming

these, as the imperati'es of reality itself, to nee no !ustification.

$or e&ample, in .ow to /ead 0acan, 7i8ek proposes this amorality as e&planation for a

particular kin of totalitarian 'iolence, a 'iolence in hich the sub!ect seems to absol'e himselfof all responsibility. To the e&tent that -, as /talinist or Fai 7i8ek mentions the Iichmann ho

fascinates Hannah 3rent here1, take the position of "instrument of the Big Gther(s ill," "it is not

my responsibility9 it is not really me ho is oing it. - am merely an instrument of the higher

Historical Fecessity. The obscene en!oyment of this situation is generate by the fact that -

concei'e of myself as exculpated for what I am doing1 - am able to inflict pain on others ith the

full aareness that - am not responsible for it, that - merely fulfill the Gther(s +ill." 7i8ek 4


12/16

characteristics the famous %uaruple of "race, class, gener an se&ual ientity"1. /ee, 7i8ek

0:::, 40;)40=1

The point here is that the ieology of scientism 2 hat 5ohnston simply ismisses as a

renee "religion" 2 belongs inseparably ith the basic possibilities of the per'erse#fetishistic

position. 3n thatallos us to raise the %uestion that 5ohnston fails to ask, namely the one

about the unconsciousstructure alloing the per'ert(s immanent totaliation of reality. -f realitycan only be stabilie at the price of a primally represse fantasy, hat form of fantasy

characteries per'ersion -n other ors, e can in%uire into the structure of the "contract"

alternati'e to the traitional funamental fantasy, the one unerlying the per'erse# fetishistic

formation of moern reality.

-nterestingly, 7i8ek se'eral times references hat he calls "the ultimate per'erse fantasy,"

hich he also, in an essay on the +achoski(s brother(s first Matrixfilm, names "the 'ery

funamental fantasy that sustains our being toay" 2 that is, a kin of perfect re'erse)sie of theconscious fantasy of the per'ert of merging into the ynamic poer of super)egojouissance.

7i8ek 4


13/16

unpreictable an coorinate ay. 3n e, facing this threat, are alreay e&hauste, eplete,

ithout reser'es* that(s the sense ith hich the per'ert constantly li'es. This inner, fatalistic

certainty, this "sublime" sense of pening oom, is !ust the sign that our reality rests upon

another pact, another fantasm than the moralistic one constructing traitional symbolic reality.

3rme ith this account of the per'erse funamental fantasy, e at last can lea'e behin

the ari territory of "religion" an aress the %uestion of psychoanalytic atheism at the le'el itemans 2 a le'el heterogeneous toall pro) or anti)religious polemic. +e can see that the

important issue here is ho to challenge the fi&ity of reality in a ay that oesn(t simply re)

prouce it in its per'erse form. Ho to negotiate the /cylla of transcenence an the Charybis

of immanent totality That(s ultimately the challenge $reuian#Lacanian thought lea'es for us. -n

a passage from The Parallax 3iewin hich he e%uates the per'ert(s embrace of superego

e&cess ith Lacanian "eman," 7i8ek puts this as follos*

. . . +hat one nees is a demand no longer addressed to the $ther. Both esire aneman rely on the Gther 2 either a full ominipotent1 Gther of eman or a @castrateAGther of the La9 the task, therefore, is fully to assume the nonexistenceof the Gther 2e'en an also of the deadGther. 7i8ek 4


14/16

1"+hat psychoanalysis calls fantasy is the enea'or to close this gap by mis1percei'ing the pre)ontological Real as simply another, more funamental, le'el of reality )) fantasy pro!ects on to thepre)ontological Real the form of constitute reality as in the Christian notion of another,suprasensible reality1." 7i8ek 0:::, ?=12-n a passage from The 4ragile 5bsolute, 7i8ek articulates this point in relationship to se&ualfantasy* @one shoul notA 7i8ek rites, @confoun this primorially represse myth funamentalfantasy1 ith the multitue of inconsistent ayreams that alays accompany our symbolic

commitments, alloing us to enure them.A -n orer to make this istinction, he then elaborates onto preominant forms of heterose&ual1 fantasy toay ))Peter Hoegs iea, from The %oman andthe 5pe, @of a oman ho ants a strong animal partner, a potent beast, not a hysterical impotenteaklingA an the notion of the @cyberneticA lo'er from male fantasy, the @ perfectly programmeoll ho fulfils all his ishes, not a li'ing being.A The point of this e&cursion into genere se&ualfantasy is that, in this conte&t, the le'el of the fundamental fantasycoul be metaphorie through@the unbearable ideal couple of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg, the fantasmaticsupport of the normal couple of man an oman copulating.A That is, the funamental fantasy isthe fantasy ofan Gther in both senses of the geniti'e* it is the fantasmatic pro!ection of an Gtherhose perspecti'e inclues all possible perspecti'es in this case, the female an the male of thecouple1. Gn the other han, reality is concei'e by us1 as the Gthers 'iepoint or fantasy. 7i8ek4


15/16

15Gne such inconsistency concerns the "master signifier," a signifier that, ithin the structure of thetraitional fantasy, locates the presence of the Gther for the sub!ect. 7i8ek 'acillates abouthether the re'olutionary simply replaces the master signifier/ee 7i8ek 41. "Ci'iliation an its Discontents" an "The $uture of an -llusion." The

)tandard Edition of the *omplete Psychological %orks of )igmund 4reud, 'olume 40.Translate from the Eerman uner the general eitorship of 5ames /trachey. HogarthPress* Lonon.

$reu, /igmun. 0:0=#=>1. "$rom the History of an -nfantile Feurosis." The )tandard Edition ofthe *omplete Psychological %orks of )igmund 4reud, 'olume 0=. Translate from theEerman uner the general eitorship of 5ames /trachey. Hogarth Press* Lonon.

$reu, /igmun. 0:0>#=>1. "3 Case Gf Paranoia Running Counter To The Psycho)3nalyticTheory Gf The Disease." The )tandard Edition of the *omplete Psychological %orks of)igmund 4reud, 'olume 0>. Translate from the Eerman uner the general eitorship of5ames /trachey. Hogarth Press* Lonon

5ohnston, 3rian. 4


16/16

Laplanche, 5ean 6 Pontalis, 5.B. 0:=1. The 0anguage of Psychoanalysis, Donal Ficholson)/mith, transl. Forton* Fe Sork 6 Lonon.

/antner, Iric 4

Love Zizeken

Documents

Transcript of Love Zizeken