Deleuze, Derrida

8/13/2019 Deleuze, Derrida

1/14

http://www.othervoices.org/1.3/vlinetski/child.html

The Promise of Expression to the 'Inexpressible Child': Deleuze,

Derrida and the Impossibility of Adult's Literatureadim Linets!i

Other Voices, v.1, n.3 (January 1999)

http://www.othervoices.org/cgi/ov/tell/tell.cgi http://www.othervoices.org/cgi/ov/tell/tell.cgi

opyright ! 1999 "y #adim $inetski, all rights reserved

... %wins ... cannot "e descri"ed "ecause we should "e sure to "e descri"ing the wrongone.

J.&.'arrie,Peter Pan

mere resem"lance, no dou"t. nly a discourse o* the sophists+ type would "e so indecent

as to misuse it. 'ut to misuse a resem"lance, isn+t that to present it as an identity, isn+t it toassimilate ne can also ponder the reasons *or resem"lance as such.

Jac-ues errida, On the Name

As the tale goes, there are many poststructuralisms. 'ut are they compati"le, can they coe0istpparently, the answer is yes, meaning that the di**erences within poststructuralism evidence the

validity o* its "asic claims as regards the irreduci"le heterogeneity. n other words, it is crucial to

the whole enterprise to preserve heterogeneity within theory in order to ensure its appeal *or thepro*ane world without. nd yet already the *act that the "ecoming*ashiona"le o* the

eleu2e/uattarian version is concomitant with the demise o* the deconstructive one should give

us pause. 4owever, a certain intellectual e**ort is necessary in order to divulge in what appears to"e a historical contingency the workings o* the logic which is the logic o* the poststructuralist

di**erence itsel*.* there should "e a di**erence "etween erridaean di**5rance and eleu2ean di**5rence, "etween

the parergonal n61 and the schi2oid synthesis o* 7... and ... and...7, then *irst and *oremost *rom the

standpoint o* sociopolitical application: as is generally "elieved, the *ault o* deconstruction is

precisely its ina"ility to contri"ute anything to the ethicopolitical de"ate *ostered "y the urgent

necessity to hear the (repressed) voice o* minorities, to secure *or them the possi"ility o* e0pression

(c*. 4olu"8 eimer).

%he imperative has nothing surprising a"out it. * the (revolutionary)

deterritoriali2ation/reassem"lage should not wind up with an act o* e0clusion/scapegoating whichgrounds logocentric tradition, then the new assem"lage has to "e an overinclusive system

('raidotti 1919;8 eleu2e,Logic


2/14

t *ollows that on these premises the world (read: the %hird orld, the world(s) o* minorities) is

onlypromisedan e0pression "ut in actual *act e0ists outside o* e0pression, cannot still e0press

itsel*. %he pro"lem which will "e addressed in this paper is whether, i* at all, the promise o*

e0pression can "e reali2ed. 'ut *irst o* all let us see whose promise is it that we are speaking o*

%he notions o* traceand inscriptionseem to "e unam"iguous pointers. Bince they are inscri"ed inthe concept o*pharmakon, it is rather tempting to conclude that the erridean model, whatever its

deconstructive merits, *ails to produce an e**ective alternative. n *act, the applications o* thescapegoatmodel e0plain how the images produced *or mass consumption are impressed upon the

pu"lic mind (c*. Celdstein 199;) "ut have nothing to say a"out the latter+s e0pressing itsel*. %his

*act alone suggests that the *ault may well lie with the pharmakon itsel* which *osters the

misrecognition o* logocentric strategies.

%hepharmakonis a *oreign "ody in the "ody o* tradition, an entity which the tradition has tried "ut

*ailed to e0pel. n other words, the possi"ility o* deconstruction is "ound up with the impossi"ilityto per*orm an act o* e0pulsion, o* sacri*ice: the tie is not severed irrepara"ly, *rom time to time the

pharmakon returns: as a specter or ghost it haunts the tradition. %he -uestion is whether this ghost

deconstructively impresses itsel* upon the haunted, or rather e0presses it.

%he scapegoating mechanism *unctions on the $acanian mirrorstage where an identi*ication can

only "e a misidenti*ication, a recognition a misrecognition: 7%hus, monoculturalists manu*acture

the scapegoated other through an oppositional process that is not dialectical "ut imaginary, since it

is "rought into "eing at the level o* sadistic *antasy that cannot "e owned "y rightwing

reactionaries intent upon disavowing aspects o* their own personality... Deoconservatives ... are*orced to disidenti*y with any re"ellious counteridenti*ication that sur*aces as a dissident counter

image7 (Celdstein 199;: 1>E8 italics added). $ogically, this can only mean that the e0cludedscapegoats, or, actually, their images manu*actured "y the dominant cultural *orces, are the true

e0pressions o* these latter, their "etter and/or true selves. %here*ore, contrary to popular preAudice,

not only has deconstruction everything to do with ethics, it is an ethical enterprise at least so long

as the current applications o* grammatology are concerned. Corsooth, the latter is a pedagogy (c*.

Flmer), un*ortunately in the patently humanistic sense o* the term. Cor the narrative o*

deconstruction is the didactic narrative o* melodrama aimed at "ringing the (logocentric) villain to

recogni2e his "etter (postructuralist) sel*. Bince it may "e argued that ethics is not such a "ad thing

a*ter all, let us more closely attend to the poststructuralist pedagogy.t the *ace o* it there is a di**erence "etween the logocentric construction and its deconstruction,

and it is this di**erence which, to "elieve the postructuralist advocates, makes all the di**erence in

the world. %he postpsychoanalytic and postdeconstructive ethics is 7an ethics o* lack concernedwith thegap"etween signs and o"Aects and how this gap is "ridged7 (Celdstein 199;: 13=8 italics

added). t is this gap, the space in"etween, which poststructuralism "ares and cherishes, whereas

the production o* the uni*ied phallogocentric sel*hood is allegedly "ound up with its erasure. n

errida+s theory this gap is known as khora7which is neither +sensi"le+ nor +intelligi"le+7 (errida,

On the Name@9) and has e0actly the *unction o* making compati"le heterogeneous series (@=,9) or 5l5ment vide () that "y virtue o* its 7non

"elonging to either o* the series is their point o* convergence, their +di**erential+7(;E8

c*.39,>9,,1,1>=,19@


3/14

cure is to e0pose the pho"ic symptom not as a *oreign "ody which impresses itsel* upon the

patient+s mind "ut as a patient+s own production, to wit, as a pathogenic e0pression o* his/her

personality. %he irony o* the matter is that to conceive o* a pho"ic representation as an e0pression

means to trans*orm the spectral pharmakonic structure o* undecida"ility into a structure o*

interpreta"ility par e"cellence, to wit, into the edipal structure. %he sine #ua non o* thistrans*ormation is precisely the insertion o* gaps into the narrative oas well as on 4ans. %his

insertion is necessitated "y the *act that the pho"ic representation is an e0aggeration, an e0cess:pho"ia makes use o* the natural discrepancy (4ans+s relative smallness and the relative "igness o*

heavy, dray horses) and e0aggerates it. $ogically, this means that i* we conceive o* pho"ic

e0aggeration as a continuous process the patient would either gradually cure him/hersel* (in a

7natural7 way "y outgrowing the *earprovoking o"Aects or 7culturally7: "y gradual

*amiliari2ationI1), or go mad, in "oth cases escaping the analysis. nd this is precisely why Creud

has to punctuate the narrative o* 4ans+s illness with gaps, pauses, moments when pho"ia is allayedor disappears (: 11). r, to "e more precise, the only possi"ility o* understanding now

le*t is precisely to conceive o* the whole a**air along the lines o* the poststructuralist 7ethics o*

lack7, which vainly strives to di**erentiate itsel* *rom the edipal ethics. n other words, the

edipal interpretation is not Aust one among many other possi"le translations (o* the discontinuousnarrative), as poststructuralism would like us to "elieve (e"er, Institution 1=;), "ut the only

interpretation precisely "ecause it actsout the movement o* its production. %he irony o* the matteris that it is this theatricality, so dear to the poststructuralist heart (c*. e"er 7Kinmal7), which

thwarts the su"versive claims o* rhi2omatic anti or contrasemiotics.

ccording to poststructuralist readers, the narrative gaps, silences and similar discontinuities are

the marks o* repression (ra*tCairchild 1993: 1, 1;, 1;9). 'asically, a repression is a *ailed

repression, it testi*ies to the desire to erase the gaps and the impossi"ility to do this. hence its

hermeneutic value. %his e0plains why the gaps inserted into the narrative o* 4ans+s illness resem"le

not so much "ottomless a"ysses as "roken "ridges, *or their *unction is to tame the e0cess, to

introduce an element o* e0pressivity into the pho"ic representation. 'ut "y the same token thee0pression remains underdeveloped. n Creud+s case this vindicates the recourse to childhood as a

proo* te0t o* psychoanalytic theory in general, that o* neuroses in particular: the neurotic is the one

who has remained a child, who has re*used to grow up. 4owever, precisely this model is whateleu2ean semiotics, which heralds as a discarding o* edipus and repression, "oils down to, *or

the gap (lment !ideom which 7one speaks7, i.e. which allows *or e0pression, is an element 7o*

one+s own sous$d!eloppement % soi Iunderdevelopment to/or within onesel*7 (eleu2e,

Pourparlers3=). $ittle wonder, then, that a*ter everything has "een said and done "y way o*

ela"orating the concept o* 7minor literature7 (c*.&aka), uattari concedes that the latter as well as7minor discourse(s)7 in general, can "e seen only 7in its nascent state7 (7Lragmatic/&achinic7), to

wit, in a state o* an underdeveloped discourse, whose su"Aect is doomed *orever to remain a child, a

poststructuralist Leter Lan.

s Jac-ueline Gose would have it, the case o* Leter Lan testi*ies to the impossi"ility o* children+s

*iction (19@>: 1) inso*ar as 7there is no child "ehind the category +children+s *iction+, other than the

one which the category itsel* sets in place, the one which it needs to "elieve is there *or its own

purposes7 (1=). %hat is, the child is an o"Aecti*ied image, a cultural myth: 7suppose, there*ore, that

Leter Lan is a little "oy who does not grow up, not "ecause he doesn+t want to, "ut "ecausesomeone else pre*ers that he shouldn+t7 (3). %he "rute *act is that it is the poststructuralist strategy

which, aiming to remove this patriarchal prohi"ition, imposes it *ar more e**ectively than thetradition was ever a"le to do.

'arrie+s narrative, says Gose, at one and the same time con*irms the patriarchal paradigm and

deconstructs it (1>1) in the same way and manner as the women writers o* the last two centuries

did (ra*tCairchild 1993: 1;>). n "oth cases deconstruction is collated with khoraic gaps (Gose

19@>: 1;), moments when 7there is no clear distinction "etween the narrator and the child Ior

woman he Ior she descri"es7 (;@). onse-uently we cannot proceed without deciding whether

and to what e0tent these gaps are intentional, *or it is the pro"lem o* appropriation on which the


4/14

theory o* a dou"levoiced discourse stands or *alls (c*. ra*tCairchild : 133). %he parado0 is that

so long as we are "ent to treat Peter Panas 7one o* the most salient representatives7 (13>) o* thementioned desire we have to concede that neither Creud+s unconscious nor eleu2e+s re*ormulation

o* the Diet2schean eternal return as a di**erence -ua repetition (19;@) o**er 7a decisive challenge to

Ithe idea o* sameness7, to 7the idea that psychic li*e is continuous, that language can give us

mastery, or that past and *uture can "e cohered into a straight*orward se-uence, and controlled7

(13>). itness the per*ectly eleu2ean manner o* Leter Lan+s 7"ecoming an animal7.

%he animal in -uestion is a crocodile that had swallowed a clock which continues to tick in his

"elly. n his way to rescue the children captured "y aptain 4ook Leter 7decided to tick, so that

wild "easts should "elieve he was the crocodile and let him pass unmolested ... Leter reached theshore without mishap, and went straight on8 his legs encountering the water as i* -uite unaware that

they had entered a new element. hus many animals pass rom land to water( but no other humanbeing o whom I know... 4e had ticked so long that he now went on ticking without knowing that

he was doing it7 ('arrie 1993: 13).

eleu2e+s di**5rence is the di**erence "etween two kinds o* repetition: the one which recon*irms the

moral and natural law and the other which transgresses "oth (19;@: 9), 7the ha2ardous repetition asdi**erence without regulari2ing concept7 (3;3). s J. Gose suggests, the logocentric myth, *or

instance the myth o* Puer )eternus, hinges vitally upon the *irst kind o* repetition. s 'arrie+snarrative shows, it is the second eleu2ean repetition which makes o* Leter Lan the modern

incarnation o* the mentioned myth.

%he seductive power o* Leter Lan, o* the logocentric myth in general, is the seductive power o* the

7repetition without concept7, to wit, o* the erridaean letter, and stems *rom the *act that it/he

7does not alwaysarrive Ireturn at Ithe promised destination7 (errida 19@@: 3), Leter sometimes returns, sometimes *orgets to. %hus


5/14

the gaps are everything else than 7gut tempeririert7: rather than "eing 7measured7 they are rythmic

(eleu2e 19;@: 33). n other words, precisely the insecurity o* Leter+s returning ne0t year secures

the children *or culture/society and, "y the same token, trans*orms Leter into a myth: i* he would

not have *orgotten to return the children would have never "egun to dou"t his e0istence, would

never have grown up. hich e0plains why the poststructuralist throw o* the dice (repetitionwithout concept) *ails to eliminate the edipal structure. %he only sense in which we are allowed to

speak a"out the deconstruction o* the edipus comple0 in schi2oanalysis is -ua its resolution in amost conventional way.

* 7it is so easy to give an edipal reading o*Peter Pan7 (Gose 3), then only "ecause the main

narrative prop, Leter+s rivalry with aptain 4ook, so o"viously resem"les the edipal rivalry with

the Cather *igure. Crom this standpoint, Leter+s killing the pirate is what makes o* the tale the

cele"ration o* a *antasy o* eternal childhood, i.e. corro"orates Gose+s claims. 4owever, the matter is

complicated "y the *act that this rivalry is depicted as rivalry not over the mother, "ut over the7good *orm7.

* the latter was to remain Leter+s property (c*. eleu2e 19;9: 31@). s we

shall momentarily see, erridaean deconstruction as well as eleu2ean schi2oanalysis are 7*ormso* psychotherapy which in*antili2es adults, without recogni2ing children any "etter7 (>1@).

ronically, thus *ar no"ody has "othered to note that, *rom the $acanian standpoint, on which

poststructuralist theories o* visuality so heavily rely (c*. 'rennan and &artin8 Balecl and Mi2ek8

Bilverman), all the talk a"out the patriarchal reduction/su"Aection o* the child/woman to an ob+ect

o* the male+s desiring ga2e/discourse (Gose


6/14

7desire is desire *or desire7 (>1@) implies, it *ollows that the party which really has reasons to

critici2e $acan *or promulgating political se0ism is the neoconservative phallocrats and not the

*eminist theorists, *or the (in)*amous "ar which grounds the discourse o* desire privileges the

woman. n e**ect, logically, the threat o* castration can only "ar the su"Aect *rom speech the "oy

that has something to loose more surely than the girl that does not. Bo long as castration is a door tocivili2ation, the "oy, prompted "y the instincts o* sel*preservation, is more likely to reason that,

whether or not the mother has a penis, in any event it is *ar more secure to renounce speech as such.%he unruly su"Aect o* the patriarchal $aw is a male one, *or, contrary to what the *eminist

orthodo0y would like us to "elieve, in case o* a emalelittle or nothing "ars her access to the

sym"olic order. %he pro"lem o* patriarchy is there*ore how to *orce the malesu"Aect to speak %he

only solution is e0actly the one suggested "y poststructuralism, namely to conceive o* parole as

prior to langue, o* Aouissance as prior to desire. nd this is what $acan does in his %wentieth

Beminar. itness his stress that the unconscious is structured not so much as the language in thesense o* Goman Jaco"son as 7maternal lalangue7 (19E: 1


7/14

world where the $aw allows only *or impression, since, as Creud has taught us, it is the impression

(introAection) o* adult+s voices (those o* parents, tutors) which produces superego/conscience

(191>: 1;3). s a result the adult world, the discursive world o* desire, to wit, o* the Bym"olic

rder, "y necessity appears as the world o* silence, muteness wherein the child is "ound to "e kept

*rom growing up, *or only *rom the position o*Puer )eternuscan a su"Aect hope to utter anything.hich means precisely the universal in*antili2ation o* which $acan has warned us and to which he

himsel* was the *irst to *all prey. nd yet this is not the last word o* poststructuralism. Dor it isours.

Buppose, write poststructuralist theorists, that the child+s e0pression is deli"erately inade-uate, that

its discourse/tongue is *orked, dou"levoiced (&yers 199), in short, that our little lords are active

adepts o* de erteau+s 7practice o* everyday li*e7. 4owever striking the resem"lance "etween the

latter and the theories o* errida and eleu2e, it is not surprising that thus *ar no"ody has "othered

to e0amine it, *or such an endeavor would -uestion one o* the *undamentals o* current theori2ing,namely the "elie* that 7taking in7 (impression) is a *orm o* 7talking "ack7 (e0pression), that

7su"Aects create themselves and their cultures ... through collage7, that 7"ricolage is a strategic

resistance7 (;@).

"viously the rhi2omatic anti or contrasemiotic o* Capitalism and -chi.ophrenia, the "asics *or

which were laid in/epetition et DierenceandLogic du sense, is an instance o* "ricolage, an over

inclusive system o* hyperconnectivity. 4owever, the antiedipal "runt and thrust would have "een

impossi"le without allotting a more active role to the conAoining 7element o* void7, to the

di**erential(i2ing) mot blanc. Dow it is no longer Aust 7le !erbe ininiti7 (19;9:


8/14

oneI9.nd this is precisely why instead o* trans*orming the constative o* the sym"olic castration

into a -uestion (?risteva @E 1=3), e0periment (errida 199: 93) or pro"lem (eleu2e 19;9: ;E

E3), the withdrawalI1=makes the !erbe ininitiundergo a trans*ormation into a phallic imperative

... according to the "est wishes o* $acan whose dictum 7the woman does not e0ist7 (19E: ;@) is

scandalous only inso*ar as it e0poses the Bemiotic (lalangue) as the e0pression o* the Bym"olic, i.e.*ar *rom "arring the woman *rom signi*ication, "ares her diso"Aecti*ied/desu"stantivi2ed status as a

signi*ier which is 7primarily an imperative7 (33).%o allow *or the element o* intention in the parapra0is/practice o* everyday li*e means to stress the

gap "etween an actor and his role, i.e. to conceive o* khora as 7not re*erring to the gesture o* a

donorsu"Aect, the support or origin o* something which would come to "e given to someone7

(errida 199: 1==). %he parado0 o* simultaneous "elonging and non"elonging o* khora/lment

!ide to the series which it coordinates (eleu2e 19;9: ;;8 errida 199: 1. Leter shares this cockiness, which, rhetorically, is an

e0aggeration, with edric and 4ans, and eventually, with all heroes o* children+s *iction. ertainly

it is all too tempting to try to e0plain it away as an instance o* in*antile narcissism the cele"ration

o* which the logocentric myth o* childhood is supposed to "e, since it is narcissism which makes


9/14

the child an o"Aect o* the desiring ga2e o* the adult. nd yet the o"vious impossi"ility o* making

this *eature !isibleon stage should give us pause which will "e prolonged i* we utili2e it to reread

Creud+s introduction o* narcissism.

t *irst glance, Creud+s paper does not contain anything challenging to the poststructuralist

assumptions, "eing as it is an attempt to e0pose narcissism as an adult+s construction, as ane0pression o* his desire *or a lost innocence, an imaginary reward *or unavoida"le disappointments

and discontents, a reward 7"ound up with denial o* an in*antile se0uality7 (1E). %he parado0 isthat the would"e deconstruction o* logocentric mythology recon*irms its "asic assumption as

regards 7the child+s nonaccessi"ility I0n.ug1nglichkeit) 7 (1) upon which such mythmaking so

vitally depends. Lut crudely and "luntly, instead o* the child which seeks a way to e0press itsel* we

are le*t with the 7ine0pressi"le child7I1.%he result is the sel*deconstruction o* the theory o*

in*antile se0uality.

7ne o* the main premises7 o* the latter 7is the assumption o* the primal narcissism o* the child7(1E) o* which the adult+s narcissism is said to "e a revitali2ation: 7what the adult proAects I !on sich

hin pro+i.iert as his ideal is a su"stitute *or the lost narcissism o* his childhood when he was his

own ideal7 (1;1). 4owever to speak a"out an ideal means to evoke the notion o* repression (1;=,

1;3), meaning that i* the child has an ideal there was repression at work. t *ollows that the primal

narcissism presupposes the developed ego and a success*ul repression accomplished at a stage

which even the ?leinians have never claimed to access. hence the necessity o* keeping

narcissism distinct *rom repression. %he edipal, to wit, $acanian way to do this is to conceive o*

narcissism 7as the amorous captivation o* the su"Aect "y the image7 ($aplanche and Lontalis


10/14

(c*. i0ous >@8 illiams 13>), it is not symmetry "ut dis"alance, dise-uili"rium that logocentrism

has always "een a"out. %o ac-uiesce with the edipal imperative means to concede to the

e0change which is *ar *rom "eing 7e-ual7, to accept the promise that the losses are lesser than the

gains. ere it not *or this "asic dis"alance o* the discourse o* desire, the *ounding act o*

logocentric epistemology, an act which posits one term as a norm, the other as lacking, would have"een impossi"leI1E. Crom this point o* view it seems that eleu2e and errida "y introducing the

third party as a khoraic element, as a 7minimum shared "y the real, possi"le and impossi"le7 I1@(Logic>98Name991==), highlight the way to circumvent the di**iculty. Buppose that the adult

"inary de*ines itsel* against the childhood se0uality without e0cluding/scapegoating it. 4owever, as

our recourse to 'urnett+s novel has proved, this would leave untouched the most demanding

pro"lem that o* the third party e0pressing itsel*. Cor the third discourse should remain

underdeveloped, to wit, share the *ate o* ?ristevan 7maternal7. ronically, criti-ues leveled at this

notion ($ichten"ergKttinger8 elchman8 de Megher) miss the point in the same way and *or thesame reasons as the praises o* it do (oan and 4odges8 Jaco"us). hat invalidates "oth is ina"ility

to discern the real *ace o* the patriarchal adversary. %he parado0 is that, *ar *rom "eing

7unsym"oli2a"le7, ?ristevan semiotic 7maternal7 is the only possi"le sym"oli2ation o* the

patriarchal Bym"olic rder. %he only way to trigger signi*ication within the discourse o* desire is

precisely to conceive o* the phallus as an underdeveloped penis or as a clitoris, *or only on these

premises there will "e signi*ication -ua dissemination o* meaning (the possi"ility o* *inding

maternal or phallic imagery everywhere). %here*ore it is not surprising that the proper

deconstruction o* the patriarchal discourse o* the sym"olic desire will start with su"verting itssemiotic e**igyI19.

%he su"versive promise o* childhood se0uality stems *rom the *act that the latter cannot stand *oranything save itsel*. n other words, it undermines the very mechanism o* de*ining/identi*ying -ua

re*erring/relating, to wit, that nucleus o* rationality with which poststructuralism has tempered "ut

*ailed to do away with entirelyI


11/14

something stupid( but it seems to me that the e"amples o eruption o 5becoming$minor5 either ha!e

been completely buried( or ha!e taken on considerable importance4 ,or e"ample( 6ean$6ac#ues

/ousseau could ha!e been a minor writer( but on the contrary( he has a antastic importance 7as

perhaps )rtaud will ha!e tomorrow8( being classiied as a principal writer o the twentieth century4

I e!en think this is presently taking place4-o( I don't know4 One really has to see the 5minor5 a bitin its nascent state( one has to see it a bit closer to onesel because the historically distant 5minor5

has perhaps a dierent impact4 I don't know( I ha!en't thought about this #uestion4Bigni*icantly, errida, *or his part also has not considered the -uestion which is the -uestion o*

poststructuralism+s validity. Do wonder that the pro"lem o* what in Diet2sche+s te0tuality has

allowed *or Da2i appropriation receives no answer (9ar3=31).

>7... the *emale plot . . . unconsciously. . . rewrites the conditions and assumptions o* patriarchal

culture7 (illiams 13@8 italics added).

*: 7&ost dis-uieting re*lection o* all, was it not "ad *orm to think a"out good *orm7 ('arrie,11;).

;Bo it is not surprising that the recent reading o* $ittle 4ans *ocuses on Creud+s relation with the

parents (Lutner 199).

E hence the impossi"ility to di**erentiate "etween eleu2ean di**erence and the erridaean

di**5rance "y stressing the temporality o* the latter ('augh). %he irony is that the alternative view

(escom"es) does not di**er *rom the *ormer in the most crucial point, ignoring the role o* the

khoraic gap in the production o* di**erence.

@Cor a thorough criti-ue o* the poststructuralist paraesthetic in its relation to edipality consult$inetski 199;.

9errida is -uite e0plicit on this point, *ailing, o"viously, to think through the conse-uences o* hisacknowledgement: 7%he duplicity o* this sel* e0clusion, the simulacrum o* this withdrawal ... %he

specialists o* the nonplace Ikhora and o* the simulacrum Ithe *orerunners o* deconstruction ... do

not even have to "e e0cluded *rom the city, like pharmakoi8 they e0clude themselves "y

themselves7 (Name1=@).

1=*.: 7hat is a -uestion ... a withdrawal7 (?risteva @@).

11Do wonder that the pursuit o* deconstruction makes the 'rechtian underpinnings more and more

visi"le. %hus, errida+s recent -pectres de :ar"starts with a -uite 'rechtian scene: 77Bome"ody,

you or , steps *orward and says: ++d like at last to learn and to teach to live+ ... %o learn and to teachto live. curious way to put it. ho should learn Crom whom %o teach to live, "ut whom re

we ever to know re we ever to learn to live nd *irst o* all, what does it mean, +to learn and to

teach to live+ nd why, +at last+7 (13).17&astered "y his "etter sel*, he I4ook would have returned reluctantly up the tree "ut *or one

thing. hat stayed him was Leter+s impertinent appearance as he slept. %he open mouth, the

drooping arm, the arched knee: they were such a personi*ication o* cockiness as, taken together,

will never again, one may hope, "e presented to eyes so sensitive to their o**ensiveness7 (1=9).Bigni*icantly in the narrative cele"rating 7the ama2ing, pleasing o"Aect ... the king mem"er indeedH

Iguess which7 (leland 13>) sleep makes the innocent victim even more desira"le (c*. 11913;).1 %he title o* one o* the essays *rom ?risteva+s recent New :aladies o the -oul, which is

pungently at odds with the te0t that treats the child+s di**iculties with e0pressing itsel*.

1;%he irony is that the invalidation o* the re"uke recently leveled at eleu2e and uattari *or

7adoptIing the repressive hypothesis wholesale7 (Clieger) allows us to appreciate the critic+s

insight which cannot "e maintained i* eleu2e/uattarian discourse was tainted "y the notion o*

repression. %hat )nti$Oedipus is oedipal "ecause Creud+s edipus is already antioedipal means

that eleu2e and uattari *oster the resolution o* the edipus comple0 along the lines o*


12/14

su"limation *or Creud+s repression *ails to resolve it (whence the antioedipality o* Creud+s

edipus).

1E$ynda 4art+s criti-ue o* $eo 'ersani+s 7erotics o* su"mission7 (which, rhetorically, is a hy"rid

conAunction o* the underdeveloped and *orked discourses) can "e use*ully incorporated into our

analysis. %he author convincingly argues that, all the rhetorical twists notwithstanding, 'ersani+sli"ido still remains a masculini2ed one, i.e. posits male se0uality as a norm, and, conse-uently, *ails

to sustain its promise to 7take us out o* the discourse o* the symptom into a nonre*erential versiono* se0ual thought7, to wit, *ails to trigger 7the representational crisis7. 4owever the proposed

amendments (ela"orations on the theme 7a les"ian strapon as a per*ect simulacrum7) turn out to "e

o* no avail. itness the concluding sentence which is a per*ect echo o* the cele"rated $acanian

de*inition o* the Bym"olic rder: 7n the les"ian imaginary, the phallus is not where it appears7

(4art), $acan: 7Cor it can literally "e said that something is missing *rom its place only o* what can

change it: the sym"olic7 (19@@, >=).1@%he triad is "ound to remain pu22ling i* we are not to align it with $acan+s Geal, maginary and

Bym"olic. nd in *act, the $acanians are compelled to allot the phallus the khoraic role,

acknowledging there"y its imaginary, to wit, semiotic (in the ?ristevan sense) status: 7$acan takes

the imaginaryphallus as the +at least one+ Ii.e. as a necessary minimum sym"ol o* di**erence ... the

seeming impossi"ility o* psychoanalysis rests on the dis"elie* that a minimal di**erence could give

rise to ma0imal e**ects7 (Gagland Bullivan E


13/14

Laper delivered at eleu2e con*erence, Lerth, E ecem"er 199;

'enAamin, Jessica, he 1

ra*tCairchild, atherine,:as#uerade and >ender; Disguise and ,emale Identity in 9ighteenth$

Century ,iction by =omen(Fniversity Lark: Lennsylvania Btate FL, 1993)

eleu2e, illes,Logic du sense(Laris: &inuit, 19;9)

,Dierence et /epetition(Laris: &inuit, 19;@)

,Pourparlers(Laris: &inuit, 199=), and uattari, Celi0,L')nti$Oedipe(Laris: &inuit, 19E.1

(1993): n. pag. nline

4ert2, Deil, 7ora+s Becrets, Creud+s %echni-ues7, in 'ernheimer and ?ahane


14/14

$acan, Jac-ues,9ncore4 Le -minaire AA(Laris: Beuil, 19E)

, 7n Creud+s +rieb'and the Lsychoanalysts+s esire,7 in Celdstein, Cink, Jaanus >1E>a.e, Ceminist rts and 4istory Detwork, $eeds

Fniversity, 199$inetski, #adim, 7%he Loststructuralist Laraesthetics and %he Lhantasy o* the Geversal o*

enerations,7Postmodern CultureE.1 (199;): n. pag. nline

&aggiori, Go"ert, 7eleu2euattari: nous deu0,7LiberationBeptem"er 1< (1991): 1E19

&yers, &it2i, 7* &imicry and (o)&an:Inansor Corked %ongue7 Children's Literature9 1@1

Gose, Jac-ueline, he Case o Peter Pan( or he Impossibility o Children's ,iction($ondon:

&acmillan, 19@>)

Balecl, Genate, and Mi2ek, BlavoA, eds., >a.e and Voice as Lo!e Ob+ects(urham: uke FL, 199;)

Bhapiro, 'ar"ara nn,Literature and the /elational -el(Dew Nork: Dew Nork FL, 199)

Bhiach, &orag, 7+%heir +Bym"olic+ e0ists, t 4olds Lower e, the Bowers o* isorder, ?now t

nly %oo ell+,7 in 'rennan 131;@

Bilverman, ?aAa, he hreshold o he Visible =orld($ondon: Goutledge, 199)Bprengnether, &adelon, 7Kn*orcing edipus: Creud and ora7, in 'ernheimer and ?ahane,

Documents

Deleuze, Derrida