Customer Reviews

Lacan and the Political (Thinking the Political)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

this was my real introduction to lacan. i had read several introductory accounts before, but after i sat down and read and thought about this book, it finally started to make some sense. it has an excellent explanation of lots of the basis of lacanian theory and does some good comparisons to other theories that lacan often gets misleadingly grouped into (like "postmodernism..." ugh). one of the best parts is the way that stavrakakis uses examples of actual political situations and events (environmental management, anti-semitism, the USSR, etc.) to make it clear how relevent lacan is to the real world. it's not only an explanation of lacan, but also an application to politics. stavrakakis takes great issue with utopian projects and uses various lacanian ideas to argue for a politics of radical democracy (i'd also suggest laclau if you're interested in that part of it). he may have an agenda, but whenever a friend wants to start thinking about lacanian psychoanalysis, this is the book i recommend to them.

Lacan is an inherently difficult writer to understand; Stavrakakis provides one of the most lucid introduction to his ideas, serving to ground in clear terms the applicability of Lacanian concepts to the political and the social. While I have some disagreements with his elaborations and conclusions, these stem more from the breadth of my own developed Lacanian education- entirelly thanks to Stavrakakis- rather than what I initially brought to the experience of reading this fine text.

Rarely does one read a book about post-structuralism/post-modernism/anything-having-to-do-with-those-crazy-French that is so unambiguous. Stavrakakis manages to give a stunningly clear, stunningly insightful exposition of Lacanian theory which, as he ends the essay, moves "beyond the Scylla of conformity and the Charybodis of utopianism". While this is in a different context, it does highlight something I've encountered in reading contemporary philosophy. The tension between simplicity, (which its risk of being shallow, "self-helpish") and intentional, ambiguous, "figure it out yourself" panache, characteristic especially of Lacan and Derrida, who actually claim that they keep their origional texts ambigious. Obviously, it would be useless if they dumbed down their theories to the point of idiocy, yet the risk in the opposite direction is as problematic: what relevence do you have if no one understands you? Philosophy is too busy dealing with the "death of man" when most people haven't even dealt with the "death of god"! Stavrakakis pulls it off beautifully, relating Lacan's particular Freudian conception of the "closure of metaphysics", (that is, the realization that many ethical justifications in social and political practices have only illusory basis) to a specific ethic that justifies (gasp!) good ole fashioned democracy, albeit with a depressing, French twist. If you like this, also check out "From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarian Thought and the Dislocation of Power" by Saul Newman.