THE UNCANNY OBJECT: A LACANIAN ANALYSIS OF XENOPHOBIA A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY COŞKUN TAŞTAN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY DECEMBER 2003 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Sociology. Prof. Dr. Yusuf Ziya Özcan Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen Supervisor Examining Committee Members Asst. Prof. Dr. Nur Betül Çelik Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen Inst. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım ii ABSTRACT THE UNCANNY OBJECT: A LACANIAN ANALYSIS OF XENOPHOBIA Taştan, Coşkun M. S. , Department of Sociology Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen December 2003, 145 pages The study aims to define xenophobia, which is attached such meanings as ‘hostility against foreign people’ or ‘fear of alien people’, through the main concepts of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. The ‘fear of/hostility against foreign people’ is treated, in this study, by references to the subject-object relation formulated in Psychoanalysis. The study aims to give an original account of the spiral of subject- object through such concepts as ‘polarization’, ‘annexation’, and ‘ergonomy’. Under the light of this account, an attempt follows to recast the term xenophobia. The analysis focuses on three main historical lines, to check the account of the term set down in the study, as well as to fortify and clarify its limits: Capitalism, industrialization and nationalism. As a conclusion, the study maintains that both xenos (stranger) and fear dwell within the subjective field. Accordingly, the study concludes that xenophobia originates not from the ‘primary qualities’ of the object of fear/hatred (xenophile), but from the deepest ranges of the subjectivity of fear/hatred (xenophobe). Hence, it is asserted that xenophobia is a subjective delirium, rather than an objective form Keywords: Design, Difference, Lacan, Object, Psychoanalysis, Subject, Xenophobia ÖZ TEKİNSİZ NESNE: ZENOFOBİNİN LACANCI ANALİZİ Taştan, Coşkun Yüksek Lisans, Sosyoloji Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Mesut Yeğen Aralık 2003, 145 sayfa Bu çalışma, genellikle ‘yabancı insanlara karşı duyulan nefret’ veya ‘yabancı insan korkusu’ gibi anlamlar verilen zenofobi kavramını, Lacancı Psikanalizin ana kavramlarıyla tanımlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, ‘yabancı düşmanlığını/korkusunu’, Psikanalitik kuramda formüle edilen özne-nesne ilişkisine göndermeler yaparak işlemektedir. Psikanalitik kuramda ifade bulan özne-nesne sarmalı, ‘polarizasyon’, ‘ilhak’ ve ‘ergonomi’ gibi kavramlar yardımıyla özgün bir çerçeveye oturtulmaya çalışılmaktadır. Daha sonra, bu çerçeve ışığında, zenofobi kavramı yeniden tanımlanmaktadır. Analiz, hem xenofobi kavramının burada yapılan tanımını sınamak, hem de bu tanımın sınırlarını belirlemek/güçlendirmek amacıyla, üç tarihsel çizgi üzerinde odaklanmaktadır: Kapitalizm, endüstrileşme ve milliyetçilik. Sonuç olarak, hem yabancının hem de ona iliştirilen korkunın öznel alanda ikamet ettiği savı ortaya atılmaktadır. Buna paralel olarak, şöyle bir sav geliştirilmektedir: Zenofobi kaynağını korku/nefret nesnesinin ‘birincil niteliklerinden’ (xenophile) değil, öznelliğin en derin yörelerinden almaktadır. Dolayısıyla zenofobinin dışsal bir form değil, öznel bir hezeyan olduğu ileri sürülmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Fark, Lacan, Nesne, Özne, Psikanaliz, Tasarım, Zenofobi iv To My Family v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a badly unpaid debt to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mesut Yeğen for his guidance and patience throughout the study. I have been soundly influenced by his insight and academic enthusiasm. My heartfelt thanks go to Asst. Prof. Dr. Nur Betül Çelik and Inst. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım, for their valuable contributions. I am beholden to many people for their supports at various steps of the study: To Ömer Faruk and Murat Cem, I owe a large debt, since they stood by me whenever I was in trouble. Very special thanks go to Mezher, for his brilliant comments. I also have to express gratitude to my brothers Kadir, Halit and Fatih for their vast revitalizing aids. Zafer, Dinçer, Tunca, Hatem, Kâmil and Selda patiently listened to me when I was lost, and they always kindly encouraged me. vi I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Date: Signature: vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................iii ÖZ.............................................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................vi TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1 II. THE FREUDIAN OBJECT............................................................11 II.I. Fundamentals of Freud’s Theory………………………. 12 II.I.I. The Splitting of the Mind.........................................13 II.I.II. The Principle of Constancy....................................14 II.I.III. Cathexis...................................................................15 II.I.IV. The Wish..................................................................16 II.I.V. The Drive.................................................................18 II.II. The Object..............................................................................20 II.II.I. The Object As Such................................................20 II.II.II. An Object Always Arrives At Its Destination......24 II.II.III. An Object Does Not Have a Fate………………..27 II.II.IV. The Object Residing in The Subject………….32 viii III. INDIFFERENT OBJECT: LACAN’S CHALLENGE………....36 III.I. Gates to/Barricades of Lacan’s Thought……………....….37 III.I.I. The Unsaid Words: Nature of Language............37 III.I.II. The Secret of the Body……………………….....46 III.I.III. The Subject Has a Story……………………..…57 III.II. Genesis of the Object…………………………………....…67 III.II.I. The Other A and a’…………………………....71 III.II.II. Ding vs. Sache………………………………...….74 III.II.III. Object and objet a………………………….…...75 IV. RECASTING XENOPHOBIA: THE UNCANNY OBJECT…...86 IV.I. Defining the Uncanny………………………………….....…86 IV.II. The Palpable Object: Capitalism and Cathexis……...…...91 IV.III. The Obscene, The Rootless and the Metaphor: Industrialization………...107 IV.IV. The False Unconscious or the Unconscious of Nationalism………….….…124 V. CONCLUSION……………………………….…………………..133 VI. REFERENCES……………………………………………...……141 ix ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS FOR FREUD’S WORKS ÖFD Refers to Öteki Freud Dizisi, Ankara: Öteki Yayınevi, 1999-2000. SE Refers to The Standard Edition Of The Complete Psychological Works Of Sigmund Freud, volumes 1-24. London: Hogarth Press, 1953-1974. ABBREVIATIONS FOR LACAN’S WORKS E: Ecrits: A Selection. S combined with different numbers (such as S I, SII, etc. ) refers to Lacan’s Seminars: S I: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book I. Freud’s Papers on Technique 1953-54. S II: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book II. The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955. S III: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book III. The Psychoses. S VII: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis. S XI: Seminar XI: Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. S XX: Seminar XX: On Feminine Sexuality and The Limits of Love and Knowledge. T: Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment. x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the post cold-war era, ‘mankind’ is discovered one more time since Enlightenment. Together with this discovery, the enlightenment ideal of ‘universality’, which have granted an eminent ‘cosmic’ place to humankind, would be replaced by a rather moderate relativism. With this frustration, the Enlightenment design of human as ‘a superior origin, which is the source of all kind of human manifestations’ became the target of criticisms of a series of appearances, each of which had a claim for a mere origin. Each one of such ‘manifestations’ as ‘Women’, ‘Black’, ‘Easterner’, ‘Westerner’, to mention just a few of uncountable sorts, including nations and religious-political forms, started to claim to be a separate origin equivalent of ‘humanity’ as such. Furthermore, the ‘racial’ or ‘ethnic’ distinctions, which have surprisingly coincided for centuries with the ossified demarcation lines of ‘class positions’, composed the other axes of the debates on this relativity. These debates, which have provided the remarkable part of academic and the political tendencies of post-cold war era with a certain content, reached consequently such terms as ‘tolerance’ and ‘multi-culturalism’, to dissolve at least, if not solve, the fundamental impasse. The appellation tolerance, the most archaic term of neurosis, as well as the relatively young ‘multi-culturalism’,