首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >The Individual and the Collective: Sociological Influences on Lacans Concept of the Relation Subject—Other
【2h】

The Individual and the Collective: Sociological Influences on Lacans Concept of the Relation Subject—Other

机译:个人和集体:社会学对拉康关系主体概念的影响-其他

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In this conceptual analysis we discuss the sociological influences on Lacan's conceptualization of the relation between the subject and the other. In his writings predating World War II Lacan defines this relation in terms of identification. However, from 1953 onward he defines it in terms of the subject of speech and the Symbolic Other. It is a popular notion to characterize this change in terms of a radical breach, influenced by the reading of Lévi-Strauss. However, through a close reading of both Lacan's early writings and their Durkheimian influences we will demonstrate that what has changed, is Lacan's conceptualization of the relation between the individual and the collective. This change was gradual rather than sudden. Moreover, it can be situated within the theoretical evolution of the contiguous fields of sociology, anthropology and psychoanalysis. Thus we reject the idea of a breach within his own thought and with what came before him. We will establish our point through a summary of how the relation between the individual and the collective was theorized before Lacan. Durkheim conceptualized this relation as dual: the individual and the collective are radically separated. Mauss attempted to unify the field of anthropology through the holistic concept of the total man. In Lévi-Straus's formalization the individual becomes a function within a structured, Symbolic system. Finally, a reading of Lacan's publications concerning the notion of the logic of the collective will testify to his attempts at formulating a notion of the subject that asserts itself against this collective while at the same time retaining its nature of a logical function. This is the conundrum that Lacan will confront time and again throughout his teachings. Lévi-Strauss merely provided him with the methodological tools of structural anthropology that helped him refine the interrogations that he had already begun.
机译:在这一概念分析中,我们讨论了社会学对拉康对主体与他人之间关系的概念化的影响。拉康在第二次世界大战之前的著作中就身份认同定义了这种关系。但是,从1953年起,他从语言主题和象征他人的角度对它进行了定义。人们普遍认为,受列维·史特劳斯(Lévi-Strauss)的阅读影响,这种根本改变是一种根本性的突破。但是,通过仔细阅读拉康的早期著作及其对涂尔干主义的影响,我们将证明发生了变化的是拉康对个人与集体之间关系的概念化。这种变化是逐渐的,而不是突然的。而且,它可以位于社会学,人类学和精神分析学连续领域的理论演进之内。因此,我们拒绝在他自己的思想范围内以及他眼前发生的违规行为。我们将通过概述拉康之前如何理论化个人与集体之间的关系来确立观点。涂尔干(Durkheim)将这种关系概念化为双重关系:个人和集体在根本上是分离的。毛斯试图通过整体人的整体概念来统一人类学领域。在Lévi-Straus的形式化中,个人成为结构化的Symbolic系统中的功能。最后,阅读拉康关于集体逻辑概念的出版物,将证明他试图提出一种主张自己反对这一集体,同时又保留其逻辑功能性质的观念。这是拉康在他的整个教学过程中将一次又一次面对的难题。列维·斯特劳斯(Lévi-Strauss)仅向他提供了结构人类学的方法论工具,从而帮助他完善了他已经开始的审讯。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号