{"id":6918,"date":"2009-10-27T16:21:25","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T21:21:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=6918"},"modified":"2011-02-18T14:22:14","modified_gmt":"2011-02-18T19:22:14","slug":"test-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2009\/10\/27\/test-2\/","title":{"rendered":"social fictions symbolic"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Campbell, Kirsten. <em>Jacques Lacan and Feminist Epistemology.<\/em> Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 2004. p 119.<\/p>\n<p>Social fictions are culturally dominant representations of how to be a subject and how to exist as a subject in relation to other subjects.<\/p>\n<p>&#8230; Lacan links what he describes as the dominant discourse of our age \u2013 <span style=\"color: red; font-weight: bold;\">the Discourse of the Master<\/span> \u2013 to the rise of capitalism and the modern ego (S17: 207), indicating that discourses are historically and culturally specific.  Accordingly, <span style=\"color: green; font-weight: bold;\">social fictions can be understood as historically and culturally specific forms of the Symbolic order, which articulate particular historical and cultural discourses<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue; font-size: 12 pt; font-weight: bold;\">Judith Butler<\/span> offers a useful reading of the Symbolic order as \u2018a register of regulatory ideality\u2019, which includes not only sexualized but racialized interpellations (1993b: 18). For <span style=\"color: blue; font-size: 12 pt; font-weight: bold;\">Butler<\/span>, the Symbolic produces \u2018regulatory norms\u2019 which demarcate and delimit forms of family, identity and love (1997b: 66). It represents \u2018reigning epistemes of cultural intelligibility\u2019 (1997b: 24), suggesting that it is a set of cultural rules which constitute social norms.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 10 pt;\">However, in this formulation, the Symbolic remains a closed and monolithic structure that produces a single normative subject. Such a conception of the Symbolic does not explain the many discourses of identity, or their historical specificity \u2013 which are precisely the grounds of <span style=\"color: blue; font-size: 12 pt;\">Butler\u2019s<\/span> critique of the Lacanian notion of the Symbolic<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue;\">\u2018Social fictions\u2019<\/span> help us to understand the \u2018register of regulatory ideality\u2019 as a discursive register of social fictions, as discourses of identity that produce it through the identification with master signifiers of sexualized and racialized subjectivity. The Symbolic order also produces racialized and sexualized relations between subjects, operating as a register of regulatory relations. While the Symbolic order structures discourses in terms of the production of sexualized and racialized subjects and intersubjective relations, <span style=\"color: blue;\">the \u2018content\u2019 of those identities and social relations will be historically and culturally articulated as social fictions<\/span>. <span style=\"background-color: yellow;\">Social fictions are therefore specific to a historical moment of that social order<\/span>. In this way, social fictions are contingent in the sense that they represent particular cultural and historical forms of the discursive production of identity. <span style=\"background-color: yellow;\">If social fictions are contingent and mobile, then they are open to political contestation and change<\/span>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Campbell, Kirsten. Jacques Lacan and Feminist Epistemology. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 2004. p 119. Social fictions are culturally dominant representations of how to be a subject and how to exist as a subject in relation to other subjects. &#8230; Lacan links what he describes as the dominant discourse of our age \u2013 the Discourse of &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2009\/10\/27\/test-2\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;social fictions symbolic&#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":[124,78,8,86,99,24,40,94,15,118,41],"tags":[105],"class_list":["post-6918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4-discourses","category-butler","category-discourse","category-gender","category-interpellation","category-lacan","category-lack","category-sexual-difference","category-subjectivity","category-symbolic","category-the-real","tag-thedebate"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6918","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=6918"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6918\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6937,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6918\/revisions\/6937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}