{"id":9892,"date":"2012-11-19T16:30:28","date_gmt":"2012-11-19T21:30:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=9892"},"modified":"2012-11-19T16:30:28","modified_gmt":"2012-11-19T21:30:28","slug":"180-gaze","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2012\/11\/19\/180-gaze\/","title":{"rendered":"180 gaze"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Slavoj, \u017di\u017eek, \u201cNeighbors and Other Monsters: A Plea for Ethical Violence.\u201d <em>The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology.<\/em> Slavoj \u017di\u017eek, Eric L. Santner, and Kenneth Reinhard. 2006. 134-190.<\/p>\n<p>This is how today\u2019s ideology functions: a successful businessman who, deep in himself, thinks that his economic activity is just a game in which he participates, while his \u201ctrue Self\u201d expresses itself in spiritual meditation that he regularly practices, is not aware that this \u201ctrue Self\u201d is a mere delusion enabling him to successfully participate in the economic activity. He is like a Jew who knows there is no God, but nonetheless obeys the kosher rules.\u00a0 179<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, is <span style=\"color: red; font-weight: bold;\">Lacan\u2019s point<\/span> not also that I am only as seen through a blind spot in what I see, through the <strong>stain in the field of the visible<\/strong> which is strictly correlative to the subject\u2019s existence? Is this not what Lacan\u2019s formula <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 14pt;\">$&lt;&gt; \u0003a<\/span> (the \u201cimpossible\u201d correlation between the void of subjectivity and the stain of the object) amounts to? 180<\/p>\n<p>Is this not also the anti-panopticon lesson of the recent trend of \u201c-cam\u201d Web sites, which realize the logic of \u201cThe Truman Show\u201d? (On these sites, we are able to follow continuously some event or place: the life of a person in his or her apartment, the view on a street, etc.) Do they not <strong>display an urgent need for the fantasmatic <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt;\">Other&#8217;s Gaze<\/span> serving as the guarantee of the subject\u2019s being<\/strong>: \u201cI exist only insofar as I am looked at all the time\u201d?<\/p>\n<p>Similar to this is the phenomenon, noted by Claude Lefort, of the TV set that is all the time turned on, even when no one effectively watches it. <strong>It serves as the minimum guarantee of the existence of a social link.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Thus, the contemporary situation is the tragicomic reversal of the Benthamic-Orwellian notion of the panopticon society in which we are (potentially) observed all the time and have no place to hide from the omnipresent <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt;\">gaze<\/span> of the Power. <strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Today, anxiety arises from the prospect of not being exposed to the <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt;\">Other&#8217;s gaze<\/span> all the time, so that the subject needs the camera\u2019s <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt;\">gaze<\/span> as a kind of ontological guarantee of his or her<\/strong> <strong>being.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>And, last but not least, is the only position outside illusion really the impossible position of a totally desubjectivized self-exposure?<\/p>\n<p>Does Wajcman not confound here two quite distinct experiences: the psychotic exposure to the all-seeing <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt;\">gaze<\/span> of the Other and the experience that <span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-weight: bold;\">nothing in truth looks back at me because \u201cthere is no big Other,\u201d because the Other is in itself inconsistent, lacking?<\/span><\/p>\n<p>In Lacan\u2019s perspective, it is wrong to say that the subject exists only insofar as it is exempted from the <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt;\">Other&#8217;s gaze<\/span>; rather, <span style=\"color: #0000ff; font-weight: bold;\">the subject\u2019s ($) existence is correlative to the lack in the Other, to the fact that the big Other itself is barred<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: red; font-weight: bold;\">There is a subject only insofar as the Other is itself traversed by the bar of an inherent impossibility<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Here, we should bear in mind that <span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic;\">l&#8217;objet petit a<\/span> signals and simultaneously fills in the lack in the Other, so that saying that the subject is correlative to <span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #0000ff; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic;\">l&#8217;objet petit a<\/span> equals saying that it is <strong>correlative to the lack in the Other.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Far from assuming this lack, the psychotic persists in the illusion of a consistent (noncastrated) Other who is not just a fiction, in other words, who is not just \u201cmy own <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt;\">gaze<\/span> in the field of the Other.\u201d 180-81<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Slavoj, \u017di\u017eek, \u201cNeighbors and Other Monsters: A Plea for Ethical Violence.\u201d The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology. Slavoj \u017di\u017eek, Eric L. Santner, and Kenneth Reinhard. 2006. 134-190. This is how today\u2019s ideology functions: a successful businessman who, deep in himself, thinks that his economic activity is just a game in which he participates, while &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2012\/11\/19\/180-gaze\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;180 gaze&#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":[72,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-objet-a","category-zizek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9892","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=9892"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9893,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9892\/revisions\/9893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}