The discourse of the analyst has the same structure as the perverse discourse. The difference between the discourse of the analyst and the perverse discourse rests in the ambiguity of objet petit a<\/strong> (occupying here the position of agent).<\/p>\n Thus, whereas the pervert knows the truth of desire, the analyst knows that there is no truth of desire to know.<\/p>\n The process of traversing the fantasy, of confronting objet petit a<\/strong> as a void, involves “subjective destitution<\/span>” As the addressee of the speaking object, the subject gives up any sense of a deep special uniqueness, of certain qualities that make him who he is, and comes to see himself as an excremental remainder<\/strong>, to recognize himself as an object. Neither the symbolic order nor the imaginary realm of fantasy provides any ultimate guarantees.<\/strong> They cannot establish for the subject a clear, certain, and uncontested identity.<\/strong> they cannot provide him with fundamental, incontrovertible moral guidelines. What is left out, then, is the authority of the Master (S1<\/strong>, now in the position of production). (89)<\/p>\n \u017di\u017eek views the discourse of the analyst as homologous to revolutionary emancipatory politics. What speaks in revolutionary politics is thus like objet petit a<\/em>, <\/strong>a part that is no part, a part that cannot be recuperated into a larger symbolic or imaginary unity. Such a part, in other words, is in excess of the whole.<\/p>\n In emphasizing the structural identity between revolutionary politics and the discourse of the analyst, moreover, \u017di\u017eek is arguing that the revolutionary act proper has no intrinsic meaning. It is a risk, a venture that may succeed or fail. Precisely what makes revolution revolutionary is that it leaves out (produces as remainder) the authority of a Master: there are no guarantees.(90)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n For \u017di\u017eek, what was remarkable about Lenin was his willingness to adopt this position. \u017di\u017eek emphasizes two specific moments: 1914 and 1917. In 1914 Lenin was shocked and alone as all the European Social Democratic parties (excluding the Russian Bolsheviks and the Serb Social Democrats) turned to patriotism … falling ini with the prevailing nationalist fervor. Yet this very catastrophic shattering of a sense of international workders’ solidarity, … “cleared the ground for the Leninist event, for breaking the evolutionary historicism of the Second International \u2014 and Lenin was the only one who realized this, the only one who articulated the Truth<\/strong> of the catastrophe” … Likewise in April 1917, most of Lenin’s colleagues scorned his call for revolution. Even his wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, worried that Lenin had gone mad, but Lenin knew that there was no proper time for revolution, that there are no guarantees that it will succeed.\u00a0 More importantly he knew that waiting for such an imagined proper time<\/strong> was precisely the way to prevent revolution from occuring. … Lenin is remarkable in his willingness to take the risk and engage in an act for which there are no guarantees.<\/strong> We should recall that the odds were fully against Lenin \u2014 in peasant Russia he did not even have a working class that could take power. (90)<\/p>\n Against communist dogma regarding the laws of historical development and the proper maturity of the working class, Lenin urged pushing through with the revolution. He did not rely on objective laws of history. He also did not wait for permission or democratic support.\u00a0 He acted without grounds, inventing new solutions in a moment when it was completely unclear what would happen. He refused to wait for authorization or do what other thought he “ought” to do, doing instead what he had to do. Lenin, then, takes the position of <\/strong>objet petit a<\/strong>. <\/em>The truth of his view does not rest in\u00a0 laws of history but in its own formal position in an uncertain situation, a position marked by the Leninist Party (91).<\/p>\n Unlike (Agamben), \u017di\u017eek does not abandon law and sovereignty. Lenin’s greatness is not simply that of a risk taker but of a founder, one who takes responsibility for introducing a new order. … addressing the fundamental political problems of the day \u2014 antatgonism in an era post-property and the exclusions and violence of neoliberal capitalism \u2014 is a matter not of escaping or abandoning the law but of traversing the fantasies that support the law, confronting the\u00a0 perversity and enjoyment in our relations to law.\u00a0 … possibility of moving from law to love<\/strong>. <\/strong>(92-93)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dean, Jodi. \u017di\u017eek\u2019s Politics. New York: Routledge. 2006. Print. Discourse of the Analyst The discourse of the analyst has the same structure as the perverse discourse. The difference between the discourse of the analyst and the perverse discourse rests in the ambiguity of objet petit a (occupying here the position of agent). In the perverse … Continue reading “dean discourse of analyst pervert on lenin”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,83,24,72,76,15,70,20],"tags":[109],"class_list":["post-4309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4-discourses","category-agency","category-lacan","category-objet-a","category-sub-destitute","category-subjectivity","category-traversing-the-fantasy","category-zizek","tag-whoa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4309","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4309"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4309\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4312,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4309\/revisions\/4312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/10\/discourseAnalyst.png\" "\\"discourseAnalyst\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n