I would say that, roughly, object relations refers to the mother and superego refers to the father, in the Freudian/psychoanalytic paradigm. That's very rough, but the idea it that the mother is not inherently authoritative, but nurturing, rather, whereas the father represents authority, and thus superego. This is of course all very Jewish, in the sense of being a construct that develops under both the practical and theoretical guidance of a religious patriarchy. In my original culture, female school teachers were in fact extremely authoritative, but in Australia, they have less latitude to represent something other than a nurturing mother. I think gender essentialist feminism has made this situation worse rather than better.
One of the problems relating to the discussion in terms of guiding parental principles is that it tends to be one sided. You can say, "well this was a slap that was internalized" and "this was a principle of obedience imposed from the outside", but in fact the issue is also always one that concerns nourishment. In a pluralistic society, an authoritative slap down may mean that I simply look for my nourishment elsewhere. And whilst nourishment in the feminine sense may mean a search for approval, nourishment in the masculine sense would imply a search for a different standard of discipline or testing ground, so that one may prove one's worth effectively.
Perhaps there are even stages of this, similar to Maslow's pyramid, whereby the needs to be nurtured in a feminine way are superceded by a more masculine need. But some people have unfinished work at the basic familial/feminine level. Then object relations has a greater level of significance in their psyche. In fact, I think where people are brought up too quickly and forced to become adults very early on, they do not finish this early work ever, or only with difficulty, because it is hard to be nourished in a totally open and unconditional way in adult society.
In my case, I had a lot of nourishment at the early childhood level. I had a very prolonged childhood, but not in a way that was suffocating. What I really needed and craved was a more masculine rite of passage -- which I eventually got through pushing beyond my superego limits, since my superego had placed a very narrow grid over my mind.
The old fat teacher in your story seems to have wanted some feminine level nurturing, but there is no intimacy of communication. Reality has become atrophied, even at the level of the (symbolically) feminine. I think, in general, in patriarchal societies, women are laughed at with the presumption that they are not capable of being aware of what is happening. As an example, I recently saw a site which depicted "before and after" photos of women not wearing and wearing makeup. The article was titled, "women are deceiving you". In each section, the woman was condescendingly praised for making a good effort and managing to present herself better than in the previous image. The lesson is that no matter what women may do, the feminine is an object of ridicule. It is defined only for the purpose of being negated. Well, that is what is really problematic about occupying a female subject-position under patriarchy. Lesson for those who aspire to be good female teachers: No point "changing the subject" in order to win approval -- you are, definitionally, never going to be any good. That is a condition of your gender.
Being "bad" however, is an option, as is being bad. The first is an obviation of language and the second is transgression. Both are ways out of a hostile construct of reality.
Your dream of smashing red phallic symbols against the wall? Well, a denial of masculine modes of reality -- i.e. masculine authoritativeness? One cannot proceed to this next level, anyway, if at the level of the feminine one has become atrophied. One needs extreme fluidity at this level and then one proceeds to the next level. Or one prematurely crystalises and then stays in a needy mode.
One difference I see between African children and Australian ones is that the latter is more likely to be prematurely crystalised in a mode of neediness. The African child can be playful AND can take on responsibility, but more than often the Australian child still has need of nourishment but can't really take it in and absorb it. Something blocks and prevents this, which probably leads to the high amount of misogyny in the society: the anger at "the feminine" for seeming to be withholding itself. Should one be able to regress to the level of an infant and then get all the unconditional love one had originally needed, one would perhaps be able to proceed more effectively through life. But many people are left trying to form unhealthy symbiotic relationships with others so as to extract this nourishment. The problem is, their own stomachs reject it and cannot take it in. It's like in Knut Hamsun's HUNGER, he has been hungry for so long that he cannot digest a rich steak and throws up immediately.
Perhaps all misogyny stems from this sense of hunger in a more emotional sense? That is why we have right wingers proclaiming their desire to "save the foetus", which makes no sense logically (since they are also prepared to deny life and to kill), but seems to symbolize their need for greater emotional nourishment at a stage of early development.
I had a dream last night where this was a maniac in Syria who had set up a roadside bomb so that it would kill passers by. He would beam the distressed cries of their family members immediately onto the Internet. Then I unpacked a huge sports bag I had been carrying, and suddenly out fell his head and then a human ear. I put these on the floor of the van and then I randomly decided to notify the cops. I said, "You know there is a human head in that van if you go and look." But then they looked and there was nothing there. That made sense (in my dream) because I suddenly realized I had no sequence of memory leading up to the appearance of the head, and consequently I had probably dreamed it. But it had seemed so real. Somehow I had committed to something beyond myself by telling others what I had seen.
On this Freud letter, he is a Jewish patriarch and doesn't want to offend his father by going beyond him and seeing what his father could not see and would have no interest in seeing. This level of obedience is very different from Bataille's transgression. Bataille would say: "If my father would not have been privileged enough to see this sight and if he would have found it boring, then I must certainly see it very clearly and enjoy it." There is no point in preserving tradition for its own sake. One must go beyond what exists, to create the future. But that is tricky because then one shatters the existing frame of being that has given us comfort. To accept that one cannot do certain things is easier than to push beyond what exists.
But nobody pushes into the limits without adequate nourishment. Consider an arctic voyage without stocking up and adequate supplies. One has to figure out the logistics of this, not just push willy-nilly. Part of this is accepting that what one is doing isn't easy. It's not supposed to be. So, since it is hard, one has to plan and plot along the way. Have plenty of nourishment, have plenty of "feminine" relaxation and you will be better off.
But pushing the limits in Bataille's sense will be harder for people in a society where the "feminine" is routinely devalued. They can push along in a masculine mode, but they just won't have the resources to get where they want to be going. It's hardly heroic to go exploring the mountains without adequate supplies, especially if supplies are needed. Ironically, they will never figure out how their societies and the values they have been taught to embrace are sabotaging their masculine efforts. I keep seeing this all the time, but most people can't or won't be taught.
One of the problems relating to the discussion in terms of guiding parental principles is that it tends to be one sided. You can say, "well this was a slap that was internalized" and "this was a principle of obedience imposed from the outside", but in fact the issue is also always one that concerns nourishment. In a pluralistic society, an authoritative slap down may mean that I simply look for my nourishment elsewhere. And whilst nourishment in the feminine sense may mean a search for approval, nourishment in the masculine sense would imply a search for a different standard of discipline or testing ground, so that one may prove one's worth effectively.
Perhaps there are even stages of this, similar to Maslow's pyramid, whereby the needs to be nurtured in a feminine way are superceded by a more masculine need. But some people have unfinished work at the basic familial/feminine level. Then object relations has a greater level of significance in their psyche. In fact, I think where people are brought up too quickly and forced to become adults very early on, they do not finish this early work ever, or only with difficulty, because it is hard to be nourished in a totally open and unconditional way in adult society.
In my case, I had a lot of nourishment at the early childhood level. I had a very prolonged childhood, but not in a way that was suffocating. What I really needed and craved was a more masculine rite of passage -- which I eventually got through pushing beyond my superego limits, since my superego had placed a very narrow grid over my mind.
The old fat teacher in your story seems to have wanted some feminine level nurturing, but there is no intimacy of communication. Reality has become atrophied, even at the level of the (symbolically) feminine. I think, in general, in patriarchal societies, women are laughed at with the presumption that they are not capable of being aware of what is happening. As an example, I recently saw a site which depicted "before and after" photos of women not wearing and wearing makeup. The article was titled, "women are deceiving you". In each section, the woman was condescendingly praised for making a good effort and managing to present herself better than in the previous image. The lesson is that no matter what women may do, the feminine is an object of ridicule. It is defined only for the purpose of being negated. Well, that is what is really problematic about occupying a female subject-position under patriarchy. Lesson for those who aspire to be good female teachers: No point "changing the subject" in order to win approval -- you are, definitionally, never going to be any good. That is a condition of your gender.
Being "bad" however, is an option, as is being bad. The first is an obviation of language and the second is transgression. Both are ways out of a hostile construct of reality.
Your dream of smashing red phallic symbols against the wall? Well, a denial of masculine modes of reality -- i.e. masculine authoritativeness? One cannot proceed to this next level, anyway, if at the level of the feminine one has become atrophied. One needs extreme fluidity at this level and then one proceeds to the next level. Or one prematurely crystalises and then stays in a needy mode.
One difference I see between African children and Australian ones is that the latter is more likely to be prematurely crystalised in a mode of neediness. The African child can be playful AND can take on responsibility, but more than often the Australian child still has need of nourishment but can't really take it in and absorb it. Something blocks and prevents this, which probably leads to the high amount of misogyny in the society: the anger at "the feminine" for seeming to be withholding itself. Should one be able to regress to the level of an infant and then get all the unconditional love one had originally needed, one would perhaps be able to proceed more effectively through life. But many people are left trying to form unhealthy symbiotic relationships with others so as to extract this nourishment. The problem is, their own stomachs reject it and cannot take it in. It's like in Knut Hamsun's HUNGER, he has been hungry for so long that he cannot digest a rich steak and throws up immediately.
Perhaps all misogyny stems from this sense of hunger in a more emotional sense? That is why we have right wingers proclaiming their desire to "save the foetus", which makes no sense logically (since they are also prepared to deny life and to kill), but seems to symbolize their need for greater emotional nourishment at a stage of early development.
I had a dream last night where this was a maniac in Syria who had set up a roadside bomb so that it would kill passers by. He would beam the distressed cries of their family members immediately onto the Internet. Then I unpacked a huge sports bag I had been carrying, and suddenly out fell his head and then a human ear. I put these on the floor of the van and then I randomly decided to notify the cops. I said, "You know there is a human head in that van if you go and look." But then they looked and there was nothing there. That made sense (in my dream) because I suddenly realized I had no sequence of memory leading up to the appearance of the head, and consequently I had probably dreamed it. But it had seemed so real. Somehow I had committed to something beyond myself by telling others what I had seen.
On this Freud letter, he is a Jewish patriarch and doesn't want to offend his father by going beyond him and seeing what his father could not see and would have no interest in seeing. This level of obedience is very different from Bataille's transgression. Bataille would say: "If my father would not have been privileged enough to see this sight and if he would have found it boring, then I must certainly see it very clearly and enjoy it." There is no point in preserving tradition for its own sake. One must go beyond what exists, to create the future. But that is tricky because then one shatters the existing frame of being that has given us comfort. To accept that one cannot do certain things is easier than to push beyond what exists.
But nobody pushes into the limits without adequate nourishment. Consider an arctic voyage without stocking up and adequate supplies. One has to figure out the logistics of this, not just push willy-nilly. Part of this is accepting that what one is doing isn't easy. It's not supposed to be. So, since it is hard, one has to plan and plot along the way. Have plenty of nourishment, have plenty of "feminine" relaxation and you will be better off.
But pushing the limits in Bataille's sense will be harder for people in a society where the "feminine" is routinely devalued. They can push along in a masculine mode, but they just won't have the resources to get where they want to be going. It's hardly heroic to go exploring the mountains without adequate supplies, especially if supplies are needed. Ironically, they will never figure out how their societies and the values they have been taught to embrace are sabotaging their masculine efforts. I keep seeing this all the time, but most people can't or won't be taught.
No comments:
Post a Comment