The Unpredictable Future of Fantasy's Traversal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANGELAKI journal of the theoretical humanities volume 18 number 4 december 2013 he work of psychoanalytic theorist Jacques T Lacan has long had a vexed relationship to feminist and queer theory because of the heavy emphasis that much contemporary Lacanian discourse places on the doctrine of “sexual difference.” Lacan’s account of the psyche is often explained through reference to his early account of the interlocking imaginary, sym- bolic, and Real orders. These three registers support the fantasies that animate desiring sub- jectivity. Whereas the imaginary order is the realm of the specular image and its (mis)recog- nitions, the symbolic is that of language. The imaginary and the symbolic intersect with chris coffman each other and with the Real – the source of the most profound psychical resistance.1 More- over, Lacan claims in his early work that being THE UNPREDICTABLE a subject (rather than a psychotic) requires that one accept the “name of the father” as the FUTURE OF FANTASY’S “ fi ” primordial signi er that grounds the latter TRAVERSAL order (Seminar III 96, 150). Even though Bruce Fink clarifies that any name – not just that of the Father – could serve this function, much contemporary Lacanian discourse insists unconscious investments in constricting life pat- that the law that governs the symbolic order terns (Ruti, “The Fall of Fantasies” 498). must be that of the Father and that “sexual However, that loss clears the ground for a difference” always governs desire (Fink 56).2 future that could be lived otherwise (ibid.). ̌ As a result, feminist and queer theorists such Thus, in a queer reading of Slavoj Zizeǩ’s as Judith Butler have long viewed the Lacanian work, I argue that “(hetero)sexual difference” doctrine of “sexual difference” as unacceptably (the label I give to “sexual difference” to indi- heteronormative.3 cate its heteronormativity) “is the fantasy that However, traversing the fundamental Lacanian psychoanalytic theory needs to tra- fantasy – a movement Lacan first describes in verse in order to fully register the many possible Seminar XI – could open up the possibility of configurations of desiring subjectivities” and ̌ new configurations of language, signification, contemporary genders (“Queering Zizeǩ”). and desire. Traversing the fantasy involves, on However, in that piece I do not address the the one hand, subjective dispossession – that question of what might lie beyond that fantasy is, the subject’s loss of the fantasies that struc- – a matter that “remains unconcluded in ture subjectivity but that also motivate Lacan’s work” itself, as Lorenzo Chiesa observes ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN 1469-2899 online/13/040043-19 © 2014 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2013.869023 43 fantasy’s traversal (189). In this essay, too, I resist mapping out the may not be occupied by an actual queer. contours of such a “beyond,” for such a gesture However, on the other hand, he demonstrates would be just as prescriptive and constraining as through analysis of right-wing discourse that the fantasy of (hetero)sexual difference. homosexuality currently occupies this position However, in contrast to theorists such as Lee within a homophobic symbolic governed by Edelman, who repudiates any engagement the ideology of reproductive futurism. with futurity, in this essay I do seek to Edelman advocates embracing the figure of the embrace the productive and unpredictable sinthomosexual – and thereby traversing the futures for the signifier – and for gender and homophobic fantasy of reproductive futurism desire – that traversing the fantasy of (hetero) – rather than engaging in the imaginary and sexual difference would engender. symbolic strategies motivating both mainstream gay politics and Butler’s theories. Though Edel- ’ denying the future man s largest wager is on the potential of the sinthomosexual’s jouissance to undercut repro- Edelman’s 2004 No Future brings Lacan’s work ductive futurism, he also intimates that such a to bear on queer theory by drawing on Lacan’s traversal of the fantasy could also undermine explanation in Seminar XXIII of the way in the logic of “sexual difference,” which he which it is possible to traverse the fantasy by describes as “merely a supposition, merely a embracing the sinthome. The term “the positing” that is part of reproductive futurism’s sinthome” refers to each person’s particular edifice (No Future 139).4 form of jouissance – the experience of ecstasy Presenting “negativity as society’s constitu- that exceeds symbolic inscriptions of desire by tive antagonism,” Edelman starts from the tapping into the drive in the Real. As Yannis Žizekiaň premise that the symbolic and imagin- Stavrakakis writes, for Lacan it is only by ary orders of illusory meaning and recognition embracing the sinthome and “accepting [ … ] cover over an antagonism in the Real (“Antag- an impossible representation [ … ] that it is onism” 822). Thus discussion among queer the- possible to ‘represent’ the impossible or rather orists about No Future (and Edelman’s to identify with the impossibility of its represen- subsequent reassertions of his argument) has tation,” thereby traversing the fantasy (134). largely focused on his work’s exemplification Edelman’s book grafts these ideas into the of what Robert Caserio, in a 2006 PMLA context of queer theory by calling on queers to forum, calls the “anti-social thesis”: the argu- traverse the fantasy of “reproductive futurism” ment that queer sexuality is inherently – the pervasive ideology that holds out the child opposed to society and community. Scholars as the figure for whom the future must be have focused on Edelman’s claim that traversing secured. Edelman asserts that queers should the fantasy of reproductive futurism would embrace the structural position of the reviled entail the wholesale devastation of the symbolic sinthomosexual – a neologism he forms by order of meaning that Edelman equates with the punning on the Lacanian sinthome. The term social, and have not paid much attention to his “the sinthomosexual” designates the queer reading of Žizeǩ or to alternative accounts of figure that a homophobic symbolic order associ- fantasy’s traversal. This is unfortunate, as Edel- ates with the pure jouissance of the drives in the man’s overly pessimistic interpretation of both Real, and therefore with the refusal of reproduc- Lacan and Žizeǩ is largely responsible for the tive futurism. Edelman views “structurally controversial nihilism of No Future – for the determinative violence” against the sinthomo- way in which Edelman’s refusal to posit an sexual as inescapable, even though the identity alternative to reproductive futurism is as vehe- of those who occupy the place of the sinthomo- ment as his justifiable rage against it. While I sexual may change (“Antagonism” 822). On the am very sympathetic to Edelman’s project of one hand, he importantly insists that the sintho- reworking Žizeǩ’s theories for queer ends, I mosexual is a structural position that may or find in the latter’s work an ambivalent 44 coffman combination of pessimism and optimism that – not only of imploding all imaginary and sym- unlike the former’s book – does not exclude agi- bolic misrecognitions, homophobic or other- tation for positive structural change. Žizeǩ and wise, but also of persisting in a utopian space other Lacanian theorists present traversing the of negativity defined by the absence of their fantasy not as a refusal of all forms of futurity strictures. This utopia is not, however, as but rather as a ground-clearing gesture that is radical as Edelman’s rejection of the imaginary directed toward a future. and symbolic makes it seem, for the sinthomo- Edelman’s refusal of all modes of addressing sexual is only able to ignore the symbolic by the future is a problem because it downplays the accepting the space of jouissance that the sym- transformative aims of the very theory of “tra- bolic itself circumscribes. versing the fantasy” upon which he relies. Though Edelman’s argument leaves the Those who voluntarily enter into psychoanalysis sinthomosexual suspended in a place of jouis- are seeking transformation, and, in its clinical sance that does not ultimately challenge the form, “traversing the fantasy” is futurally symbolic’s coordinates, Tim Dean observes oriented, though it offers no guarantees that that the anti-social thesis, with its goal of “the the future that it opens up will be for the shattering of the civilized ego,” promises “not better. If, as Ruti observes, psychoanalysis’s the end of sociality but rather its inception” very goal is to expand the analysand’s options, (“The Antisocial Homosexual” 827).5 The only it is difficult to accept Edelman’s assertion participant in the 2006 PMLA forum to that all modes of futural orientation are danger- engage Edelman’s use of psychoanalysis, Dean ous (Ruti, “The Fall of Fantasies” 498). His attributes No Future’s excessive negativity to version of “traversing the fantasy” exclusively its author’sinflexible interpretation of psycho- emphasizes its phase of subjective destitution, analytic theories of the drive. In “An Impossible suggesting that queers embrace the figure of Embrace,” a further development of his PMLA the sinthomosexual in order to abandon imagin- piece, Dean reminds us that both Freud and ary misrecognitions and the symbolic order of Lacan conceive of the drive as far more unpre- illusory meaning that sustains them. Yet dictable – and far more capable of constructive Edelman disavows the way in which embracing