{"id":5716,"date":"2010-08-18T16:41:17","date_gmt":"2010-08-18T20:41:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=5716"},"modified":"2011-01-28T19:51:29","modified_gmt":"2011-01-28T23:51:29","slug":"subject","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2010\/08\/18\/subject\/","title":{"rendered":"subject*"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>social change is irremediably fantasmatic (206)<\/p>\n<p>The excess (*) attending the subject, to repeat, is therefore both the medium of its connection to other subjects and the obstacle to that connection. This dual function comprises the &#8220;relation of nonrelation&#8221; that undergirds the social field, a relation predicated on an obstacle to relationality.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230; because the M\u00f6bius subject encompasses both its symbolic properties (elements of the set) and its formal properties (set-ness, empty set), de-personalization doesn&#8217;t <em>rid <\/em>the subject of its ontic properties but it sets them off, revealing them as contingent (rather than necessary) bearers of meaning.\u00a0 <strong>By making visible the relation of nonrelation through symbolic divestiture <\/strong>the subject situates <em>itself <\/em>as the source of the non-orientability of the social field, without however being able to account for its own effects within that field in any predictive or comprehensive sense.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In this way, the subject takes ethical responsibility for its parallax oscillation, exposing the excess that sticks to itself (as if it were being seen from the perspective of others) and establishing distance from it, which is a prerequisite to tolerating it nondefensively (207).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>As far as I can see, <strong>the suspension of the defense against excess<\/strong> \u2014 or the neutralization of the more destructive defenses \u2014 is the only way that the subject&#8217;s transformation of its relation to its own <em>jouissance <\/em>can affect others.\u00a0 This suspension means that the subject accepts the relation of nonrelation, giving up its fruitless but often destructive efforts to locate the excess outside itself or to eradicate it.\u00a0 By refusing to defend itself (or by refusing to deploy destructive defenses such as narcissism, aggression, projection, and scapegoating), the subject decreases its contribution to the <strong>affective storm in a social field that circulates excess like a hot potato<\/strong>.\u00a0 The potentiation of affect decreases, however temporarily, when the subject absorbs some of the affective energy without releasing it back in a destructive form (207).<\/p>\n<p>&#8230; in general the absorption of affect by one member of the group provides an opening for others to change their own affective posture.<\/p>\n<p>In any case, no matter what\u00a0the specific defense aroused, <strong>the encounter with the neosubject <\/strong>will make apparent the dominant identifications and defenses of\u00a0others.\u00a0 This display\u00a0of the dominant tendencies in a particular social universe permits reflection on what works and what doesn&#8217;t, helping to aggregate and focus social energies.\u00a0 These may be actions that put the brakes on violence, stymie bullies, alleviate suffering, secure privacy, promote stability and so on.\u00a0 That is, the encounter with the <strong>neosubject<\/strong> forces into the open the <strong>rationalizations for the status-quo<\/strong>, and in so doing can foster the conditions under which people will have a choice to make at the level of practices \u2014 individual, familial, institutional.<\/p>\n<p>The <strong>setting-off of the subject&#8217;s substantive traits<\/strong> \u2014 through, for example, self-deprecating humor \u2014 both <em>exposes<\/em> the contingent meaning of those traits and <em>reflects back<\/em> to\u00a0others the way those traits get used as explanations for social discord. In this way, the subject\u00a0brings\u00a0<strong>something\u00a0<em>new <\/em>into the social field <\/strong>\u2014 not only a de-emphasis on ontic properties and a revelation of a dimension of universality independent of such properties, but also a new way of being in the social field that nondefensively accepts the<strong> relation of nonrelation<\/strong>.\u00a0 What is more, unlike the immanent cause or the exceptional cause, the <em>effects <\/em>of the deployment of the extimate cause, as it generates new behavior and new relations, can be tracked, studied, and analyzed\u00a0(208).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>social change is irremediably fantasmatic (206) The excess (*) attending the subject, to repeat, is therefore both the medium of its connection to other subjects and the obstacle to that connection. This dual function comprises the &#8220;relation of nonrelation&#8221; that undergirds the social field, a relation predicated on an obstacle to relationality. &#8230; because the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2010\/08\/18\/subject\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;subject*&#8221;<\/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":[125,38,21,24,72,123,15,118,41],"tags":[143],"class_list":["post-5716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drive","category-ethics","category-jouissance","category-lacan","category-objet-a","category-sinthome","category-subjectivity","category-symbolic","category-the-real","tag-excessive"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5716","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=5716"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5716\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6282,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5716\/revisions\/6282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}