Cristina Santamarina
desire is unthinkable from the individuality, is always inter-subjective, and probably , almost as a necessary assumption of departure, we could start by saying that the origin of the social, the big-bang of what we call a society began overflow of desire. Indeed, the social myths originating from the most archaic and individuals to the most institutionalized and spread by religions and ancient and still active, say the origin of the social has to do with an act of violence caused by an overflow of desire of an individual to another, or in his absence, the overflow of desire to a transitional object (of desire) and the consequent guilt associated to this interrelation. In Christianity, in Judaism, to name only those that are closest to us, the effectiveness of guilt is the first case the origin of society, be it the original sin, the loss of paradise or " lack foundational "for standards in psychoanalytic terms, but also more sociological. The desire leads to conflict because it involves joints of violence:
1 º) because it spreads
2 º) because it provokes rivalry
3 º) because it is a model but also as an obstacle in relation
4 º) because its nature introduces the potential of annihilation and its operation and its teaching implies the stakes of fear
... the annihilation of another or others, or oneself because all against all, which could encourage this desire always intersubjective, would result only in the all against one. But after the overflow of desire necessary to establish and institutionalize the idea of \u200b\u200blimits transgressed, the central node of the power of desire, it always appears some mechanism of forgiveness or reconciliation in order to stop the cycle of vengeance threatening.
Under the principle of an eye for an eye, as ancestrally established even in our most primal instincts, we were all blind. Ie you have to recognize our need ontologically other, the other for constituting the subjectivity and to understand that the probability of a historical development requires recognition that lack fundamental, Failing all that separates us both that binds us as social engine. It inaugurates a political sense of history, of that which began with the loss of paradise and a crime among siblings (Cain and Abel) as a principle of humanization albeit in strictly religious terms, and proposing a community relegated as the main sign membership, religation humanizes us inevitable response to the original violence and fear its spread. Faced with this mythical network that immerses us in the insubstantiality of the human condition as a work lofty thought, as the myth of purity or individuality , as being different from the tested species, a pretense of being - or stay - outside the law, to be different from the other and even more different from one another in particular (personal or collective, to historical reasons or not), it is unacceptable . Indeed, the idea of \u200b\u200bdifference, of belonging to a different substance is a cultural claim that although ancient, still lives among us: the Roma consider themselves different from the non-Roma in their beliefs just because they are born without original sin, the idea of an "Aryan race" ideological foundation - anthropological Nazism arose in the nineteenth century when linguists identified the Avestan and Sanskrit and history of the major European languages \u200b\u200bincluding Latin and Greek . Avestan and Sanskrit led them to argue that speakers of those languages \u200b\u200bbelonged to a noble ancient village of ancestor of all European peoples who were given the name of Aryan , taken from the word Sanskrit and Avestan arya meaning "noble." The sometimes mistakenly called Raza Basque was a anthropological term used by historians, writers and ethnographers, even in the nineteenth century . In relation to the Basque Most authors relate the concept of race referring to the current terms of "ethnic " or " people," socio-cultural, mixed it with connotations, and not only on biogenetic definitions. We could go for large areas of the planet usually all that different imaginary fiction PURITY is indicative of each of these cultures to self-refer as substance, as a noun originating as subjects belonging to a personal or collective originality differ other because they do not cover social deprivation, lack, emptiness.
In other words, companies are not together because they belong to a pure identity, homogeneous, Immunization and different from the others, but - instead - to make culture and history of mixtures diversity, heterogeneity, divisions, communities, all of which is always difficult, discordant, subject to divisions of various kinds and degrees. Reading the founding myths of all cultures, the Darwinian evolutionist, or the complex act of navel-gazing should remind us that we come from the other, always others when conflict that has nothing to do with the concept of purity in both that or that which is free and clear of any mixture else, not included any condition, exception or restriction or later or that is exempt from moral imperfections.
I IS OTHER
Personal identity is not insight but multiple interpersonal relationships and in all cases, circumstances of discord rather than harmony. Subjectivity is configured in response to the perception of others that we allocate places on the chain of meanings and raises, always incomplete, the possibility of self-image. To be one it takes at least three, says Oedipus. Say more, three or more and are a symbolic order, ie a micro EXPERIENCE capable of dividing. Because the division is proper social. No intrapsychic conflict is not analyzable in terms of intersubjectivity. But access to the symbolic language, the pronoun I (tu. him, etc..) Is, precisely, a division that, while, gives rise to the subject and splits, separates it without reference to its immediate psychic intimacy. Influenced by his speech to the subject destroys the direct relationship with himself. In the symbolic order the subject is represented by a substitute-yo, self, son ...-. Destroyed the immediacy of the relationship itself, the subject is constructed language, being one and another while
The subject constituted as such by their access to the symbolism but it is not because of him (the creator of that order) but rather as an effect of it. The subject, rather than speaking, is spoken by ... the set of mediations and relationships that constitute it.
said the poet Arthur Rimbaud - "I is another" - admirable in its conciseness density, open to a broad conceptual development: to be "unique", ie, identifiable as a subject in the social order, must be lost in the symbols expressed through whom the "I" always distorted, disguised, scattered in the mirror refracting the other, both signs as being offered as the figures multiplied and repeated for identifications.
After the line opened by Freud, which separates the self from itself is unconscious, an "internal foreign domination" that separates the consciousness of any identity met by "reflection" split and away the subject "true", the self of the enunciation of his ego statement, the imaginary bypass built in the intertwining of the symbolic order looks. Between the self and the self set forth, reflected in the discourse and verbal images, opens a field of fingerprints, populated by all masks and displacement that have been built in relation to others. That "other" of Rimbaud: a limited scale, which requires the third person singular where the reflection of the self is lost without finding bottom. Better still, the background is the insurmountable lack of subject as substance.
The social origins of what there is no substantive identity - totem or god, but there is a conflict, a division, a trauma, an antagonism, a gap that separated the species nature also separates of herself and always integrated whole. If the subject is what has to be absent in the deployment of metaphorical figures, the company is trying not to repair the division, antagonism, a hiatus incolmable between humans, a confrontation that is reproduced, as the heads of Hydra, in the countless nuances of the conflict that populate the social field. What gives rise is not the fullness of a substantial cause but a lack structuring, forming, in which forgetting, remembering and repeating articulates the fate of men. In this context that culture becomes tragic in so far as it has to accommodate all the procedures by which we escape the reality of imagination desires that can not be removed or satisfied.
Indeed, the prohibition of wanting what the other wants (prohibition of action par excellence of all actions, desire) is at the same time legitimizing the existence of desire (a term that exceeds the sum of all actions as only wanting constitutes us as agents and subjects of our biography), from whose social existence is based, always involves some form of violence . And founds articulating the need for social responsibility of discord, to answer the complexity of living otherness, living with the other proposing the passage of the POLIS OIKOS, community to society (because none of us is immune to the same at the common (because we can not have everything) , home to the city (because we need the law and pardon), from the particular to the general (I am not without projecting beyond my borders, of selfhood itself to the inclusion of other ( a different, distinct, and by definition, threatening) because that one, those others are different being equal, are equal, are different. From the notion of sameness of selfhood to the extent that the only possibility of an I, is the existence of a TU and a HE / SHE, including from other third parties. The inclusion of the other, in short, has required a preliminary step, knowing that without the inter despite the threat of violence, we are not human. Include the other as being different is like taking that involves violence and include it as a subject of desire but also as a contrast (relative to our own possibilities desiring), essentially as an adversary and a threat to the conflict deferred background that binds us and which is none other than the fear of indiscriminate violence.
From this view of origin, will be easier to understand that the social is always hinged on how to divide, to the point of recognizing that this division constitutes and social structuring : the structure of power structure always forms division. The social is a construct that external unfounded and therefore open to change, transformation, new forms of division. Or in other words, there is a social construct out of time because the social history is not a substance, not us human is but a process. It has no social basis and doomed to a constant search for fulfillment as only in this framework can be understood insubstantiality social conflict, discord (and even violence) to others.
The mixture becomes, - both from the perspective of the subject as the social - not so much a desire consciences thinking, progressive and kind, but a structuring principle of humanization without which we would be sentenced to two possibilities: to disappear from the planet for real extinction (annihilate each other), or diluted in all the other species nature (leaving the vector orientation of the humanization). But in the same way that we can not satisfy the desire or delete it, we can not do without the other, the other or be without them, we incorporate the paradox in the same way of understanding and conception of international relations and intrasubjective as a third means inclusive, including understanding of the history
From this notion of the subject and the social and structural divisions and space structuring thinking about the relationship with others requires not only liquidate any , a criterion of purity (personal or group) but assume that in two dimensions what emerges is a double bind, paradoxical link between the subject and others, between the social and its divisions traversed by the violence of undecidability.
For the constitution of the subject and for the future of the social will be THE OTHER, THE OTHER as subjects of plurality: BE A ONE TIME SAME AND DIFFERENT. DIVERSITY IS ONE OF THE SOCIAL SUPPORT WHILE THE CONSTANT THREAT. (As in personal relationships, which are interpersonal, that should be equal but different between subjects to interact, the identity WHO personnel is the result of a set of differences with the other, allowing a narrative and logic of implicit relational self. In THE PLOT AS SOCIAL HISTORY no greater exercise of violence that will renounce violence involved in this scheme to accept that there ACTORS AND ACTIONS BUT NO AUTHOR, nobody has written the script for what's coming, SO ONLY IS WE THINK about where we come from and how we do.
0 comments:
Post a Comment