On the ontogenic level, we become subjects through parental
prohibitions. Yes, there is the Oedipus stage, in which the law of the father
comes, denying access to the mother, and introducing us to the symbolic order
(discourses, equivalencies, the violence of an economy of signification).
More simply, though, parents are forced to tell their kids “no”
all the time. Don’t eat that candy! Don’t put that in your mouth!
Stay out of the street!
All of these repressive acts are essential to the growing
child’s survival.
As we develop, our primary instincts are more and more
canalized. Sexuality comes to mean genital sexuality, in monogamous
relationships, with the tug of reproduction often (?) at play. Work comes to
mean alienated labor, for pay, that justifies one’s very right to existence.
Forms of socially productive labor that are not alienated (that is, that one
might do for pleasure!) are rarely
recognized and rarely count as work. This is not to mention things like
housekeeping and childrearing that are time consuming and can, in our better
moments, express an aesthetics or style.
On the phylogenic level, culture depends upon the re-routing
and sublimation of eros, away from instant gratification, toward acts of “higher culture.” The bonds of
affection that join families, neighborhoods and nations, are de-sexualized
eros--aim inhibited libido. Works of art are stylized expressions of a more
primary desire.
There are many potentially interesting questions to emerge
from this. But, given that we grant Marcuse that civilization has advanced to
the point where scarcity no longer
demands (surplus)repression, and that the performance principle of constant
and necessary(il)y alienated labor might give away to something more generous,
where do we draw the line?
What is the line between primary repression (necessary to
becoming a subject) and surplus repression (necessary to uphold the performance
principle and the toil and drudgery that keeps industrial society moving
forward)?
What, if we indulge our utopian phantasies for a moment, is
the criteria by which we judge the social value of work, if the market is no
longer driving everything (how do we
know if a painting is good if there is no dollar amount attached to it)?
I’d like to invite you to think about a pedagogy that takes
this all seriously. If “no” is essential to any sense of a pedagogical
encounter, what else but “no” is also necessary?
No, but . . . ?
Repression of desire is also necessary. Schools management of child sexuality and parental fears and anxiety about their children's sexuality abound (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2175591/Is-YOUR-child-sending-sex-texts-school.html).
ReplyDeleteI also think there is an emphasis on the repression of atypical senses of the self or repression of difference. Whether young people have gender difference, sexual difference, or other kinds of difference, this presents certain pedagogical problems.
Also, at least in the higher education context, the university has become so market driven that even the types of research questions that get explored are constrained at least in part by the willingness of funding agencies to support the research. Since supported/sponsored research is a requirement for tenure at research universities, the research agendas for some scholars are driven by what can be funded (whether by government or industry forces). Those with "unfundable" interests populate institutions that don't have this same emphasis on external funding.
What would the research enterprise look like without these market forces? What if there wasn't the fear of not getting tenure? Or what if each researcher was given a budget to pursue the lines of inquiry that most developed their individual Eros?
Great questions!
ReplyDelete