PERSEVERE ∵ Musical harmony after Lacan’s Panthéon period Reilly Smethurst Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Music (Honours), Master of Music Queensland Conservatorium Griffith University Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 17 December 2016 SYNOPSIS Composition, music-mathematical theory and the surnames of major European figures are not often deemed important in the so-called post-historical, post-modern or post-patriarchal era. In spite of this, I persevere with two things: a slow-paced, philological study of the doctrine of Jacques Lacan and the composition of non-octave music. As a young man, Lacan received a Catholic education that was hostile to Enlightenment philosophies. As an elderly man, Lacan declared himself an anti-philosopher and a non-progressive. He never let go of the Trinity or philological notions of the Letter qua mystery material or severe threat to common understanding. Unlike the tragedian Sigmund Freud, Lacan considered his work comic-pathetic, hence the incessant parade of insults and mockery. This is frequently overlooked by Anglophone academics. To correct this, I place an emphasis on the comic-pathetic Father figures that Lacan composed at the Panthéon from 1972 to 1980. Of secondary interest are Lacan’s four discourse- schemas from 1969 and his schema of capitalism from 1972. Figures and discourses are not the same. Lacan’s Father figures – his notorious knots and links – pilfered material from mathematics, but their form was poetic-sophistic. I treat Lacan’s Father figures as variants of Greek Muses, akin to musical compositions. Lacan’s discourse-schemas, by contrast, are gifts for musicology. I use the discourse-schemas, first, to acknowledge the silence of psychoanalysts on the subject of music, then, to categorise and delineate music’s subjection to hysteria, mastery and academia. Via Lacan’s lesser-known schema of capitalism, I examine progressive philanthropy, identitarianism and the so-called end of History, and I note their broad effects on Music faculties. Lacan insisted that, for clinical analysis, there is no progress beyond flawed Father figures and no sexual harmony. I offer a subtle yet significant variation to the theme. For proper academies of music, there is no progress beyond canonised surnames; and although there is no social or sexual harmony, it is possible to supplement disasters – in a modest, non- redemptive sense – with modern, poetic-sophistic formalisations. I demonstrate this via a folio of non-octave music. Crucial questions 1. What exactly are the Father figures that Lacan composed during his Panthéon seminars? Are they philosophical, anti-philosophical, theological, mathematical, poetic and/or sophistic? Academics from Anglophone Arts and Music faculties have not sufficiently addressed these questions. 2. From 1969 to 1972, Lacan devised schemas of hysteria, mastery, academia and capitalism in addition to his schema of psychoanalysis. Are Lacan’s extra-clinical schemas useful for musicologists that study music’s subjection to various ideologies? 3. Can something other than octave-identity, happy/sad tonality and free, improvisatory experiments seize composers that work within academia, or is the future of Music faculties limited to the ideals of progressive identitarianism, consumer satisfaction and liberal democracy? Chapter supplements 1.1: Lacan inherited the Trinitarian Father from his Catholic family; he inherited multiple, mythical Fathers from Freudian doctrine; and he inherited countless knot, chain and mystery figures from literature. It is thus a mistake to claim that Lacan’s Father figures – his peculiar knots and links – were purely mathematical. The reader is presumed to know that, as a subfield of geometric topology, knot theory is a cousin of geometry and music. A knot requires a minimum of three crossing points; a Brunnian link requires a minimum of three components. Lacan used knots and Brunnian links to parody the Trinity and to simultaneously figure the three tenets of his own doctrine: the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. In French, the initialism R.S.I. is pronounced like hérésie, ‘heresy’. 1.2: Lacan’s Panthéon seminars were frequently monologues; they were not Socratic dialogues. The name Panthéon means ‘all the gods’. When Lacan addressed non-analysts outside the Panthéon, he referred to his monologues as comic amusements. With explicit accents placed on religion and comedy, is it appropriate to refer to Lacan’s post-1968 work as philosophy? I argue it is not. Lacan’s work follows Freud’s resurrection of the ancient Phallus – the mystery of Creation. It is, therefore, poetic sophistry. 1.3: After the Second World War, liberal-democracies questioned the legitimacy of figures such as the Jewish Father, the Catholic Trinity, the Freudian Father, the Artist, the Author, the Composer and the ordinary family patriarch. This affected Lacan’s clinical practice. According to my reading, Lacan parodied liberal-democratic degeneration with his intricate Father figures – seriously sad jokes. In crude terms, Lacan invented his own transubstantiation ritual: instead of turning a Redeemer-Son into bread and wine, Lacan turned the Father into a chain from which he never escaped. He began composing his Father figures in 1972. Afterwards, he never stopped. He acknowledged that he loved them. 1.4: Mathematical studies of knots can be traced back to the eighteenth-century work of Alexandre-Théophile Vandermonde and the nineteenth-century work of figures such as Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss, Lord Kelvin, Peter Guthrie Tait and Hermann Brunn. Mathematical knot theory does not necessarily support Lacan’s figurative constructions, especially not work published after Lacan’s death. Lacan repeatedly acknowledged that his Panthéon work was a bit lame (boiteux), much like the elderly Oedipus at Colonus; yet he persevered. 1.5: Lacan did not fully explain the relationship between discourse and perverse/sublime figures; he merely resurrected and rehashed the mystery. Discourse refers to a social network, institution, ideology or bond. The term is purposefully vague, as is Father, which can refer to the grandiose Name-of-the-Father, the ordinary surname, the Creator or the potential to form collectives and family units. How so? Pater means both ‘father’ and ‘sovereign’ in Latin; a surname – nom-du-père in French – indicates familial bonds; the word religion derives from religare, ‘to rebind or retie’. Although Father figures have lost some appeal in contemporary Arts and Music faculties, Lacan’s schemas of capitalism, academia and hysteria are especially relevant. This chapter traces the development of Lacan’s discourse-schemas. 2.1: After May 1968, Lacan insisted – more than once – he was not a progressive or a preacher of self-empowerment rhetoric. By contrast, so-called Lacanian musicology is progressive, identitarian and ego-centric. According to my argument, work by the current proponents of Lacanian musicology is intolerable. The field requires a new orientation. 2.2: Progressive musicologists claim that music is subjective and that it empowers identities. (Identity is a popular euphemism for ego.) In spite of this, I argue that music is routinely subjected to various discourses’ imperatives and prejudices. Lacan’s discourse-schemas help illustrate my argument. 2.3: The present era is arguably post-historical. European, eighteenth- and nineteenth- century conceptions of History as a grand narrative are frequently derided and dismissed. Liberal-democratic ideology is evidently not the same as classical, European master-discourses. Assisted by Lacan’s schema of capitalism, I examine music’s subjection to rampant identitarianism and consumer satisfaction. 2.4: Prometheus’s over-valuation of technology and philanthropy preceded Socratic philosophy. Techno-philanthropy thus preceded modern discourses such as Freud’s and Lacan’s. Progressive musicians and musicologists, somewhat ironically, neglect modern discourses; they instead promote ancient techno-philanthropy. Their work betrays an excessive fondness for the human-animal. Stranger still, the sphere – an ancient image of wholeness, identity and self- sufficiency – frequently appears in their work. Both techno-philanthropy and the sphere are contra-Lacanian. Although I believe that techno-philanthropy should be discarded from the field of contemporary musicology, I acknowledge that it is a powerful ideology, and I explain why it is unlikely to disappear in the near future. 2.5: I do not believe that Arts and Music faculties can progress beyond philology and exceptional figures such as the troubadours, James Joyce and Olivier Messiaen. Techno- philanthropy’s sphere of progress is merely an illusion. Philology remains the best friend to Composition (as an academic subject), for it does not abandon exalted surnames or mathematical texts on harmony and rhythm. The following point is assumed and not discussed further: philology functions as a noise filter and thereby permits time for both careful reading and music listening. 2.6: Some modern, music theorists examine mathematical holes, as did Lacan, instead of symbols of wholeness or putatively empowered identities. They are far from a majority. So be it. They may acquire more followers in the future. 3.1: Overture is etymologically linked to a gap, a hole or an opening. There are still openings for modern, European music that have not been plugged and reduced to clichés. Non- octave tunings constitute prime examples. 3.2: