De Man And Freud's Theories Of Resistance example essay topic

Theories of Resistance in Sigmund Freud and Paul de Man Freud and de Man both outline theories of resistance in interpretation- the former in his work The Interpretations of Dreams and the latter in his essay "The Resistance to Theory". By extension Freud's definition of the "dream" can be thought of as the literary text, and the retelling of this dream or literary text, as the "reading" of the text. It is through the relationship of the patient's retelling / reading and the psychoanalyst that the interpretation of this text / dream comes into being. There are many parallels and incongruities within the resistance theories named by Freud and de Man such as: the basic problem of retelling and reading of the dream / text, the influence of censorship on the interpretation, the pressures of resistance to interpretation and the notion of the "obvious" meaning. De Man and Freud attempt to illuminate the problems of interpretations in different modes.

De Mann moves for a shift from hermeneutics to semiotics, and calls for a restructuring of the trivium where emphasis is placed on reading the structure of the text, while Freud looks to restructure the mechanisms of the unconscious through psychoanalysis, that impede interpretation. One major parallel between De Man and Freud's theories of resistance is the reading / retelling of the dream and the text. According to de Mann, the current problem with textual analysis lies in the reading. The classical linguistic model of the trivium scientifically categorizes language into three parts according to "grammar", "rhetoric" and "logic".

These three parts function interdependently with one another and are in conflict and it is the rhetorical side which has won out- for now. Grammar and logic are related to the empirical aspect of language, that which is both measurable and tangible. De Man privileges this empirical aspect and calls for a reworking of the trivium that will replace the rhetorical aspect of literary theory with the "grammatical terminology". De Man declares", the attempt to treat literature theoretically may as well reign itself to the fact that it has to start out from empirical considerations". (de Man P. 5). The "application of Saussurian linguistics" to literature, which de Man advocates, is grounded in a methodology of reasoning that is "infallible". The linguistics of literature and semiotics are joined by what de Man calls "literariness" around which literary theory is centered.

This "literariness" is not to be "misunderstood" or "confused" with an "aesthetic function" of language, but rather, it is a "rhetorical function" that relates the signifier and the signified by conventioanlity. Another major parallel between de Man and Freud is the influence of censorship on the interpretation. In de Man, interpretations are heavily influenced by the institutions that produce them. .".. this success depends on the power of the system... that may well remain implicit but that determines an a priori conception of what is 'literary' by starting out from the premises of the system rather than from the literary thing itself... " For theorists who are caught in such institutions, this resistance can lead to what de Man calls a "baffling historical instability of textual meanings".

Freud in comparison sees the censorship also as something working within the system like de Man, but in Freud's case, it is a built in censor within the unconscious that attempts to edit, thereby heavily influencing this retelling or reading of the dream, read here text. In both cases we cannot escape this internal censor within the unconscious and the system in which the interpretation is produced until they are changed. Change for Freud comes when the patient opens up and reveals the resistance in the successive retelling of the dream by not revealing that aspect of the dream which is at the root of resistance. There is in de Man and Freud a pressure from the resistance to theory, a pressure not just limited to an outside force such as an institution, but also an internal pressure within the framework of interpretation. Like the unconscious as described by Freud, this resistance to theory is a defense mechanism.

The unconscious is as insecure as literary theory and seeks to, in self- defense, justify itself and cover up this weakness. De Man states, .".. it [literary theory] lapses so readily either into the language of self-justification and self-defense or else into the overcompensation of a programmatically euphoric utopianism" (de Man, P. 12). This overcompensation arises from literary theory's inadequacy as a "scientific discipline", a need to justify or validate itself against the empirical sciences of the quadrivium. In Freud, when the patient retells a dream that is psychologically uncomfortable,'s / he retells the dream in a different manner. In this sense, the unconscious seeks to protect itself from being interpreted by the psychoanalyst. De Man and Freud recognize this complication that is inherent in both systems. ".. under pressure of the resistance, he hastily covers the weak spots in the dream's disguise by replacing any expressions that threaten to betray its meaning by other less revealing one".

(Freud, P. 515) The notion of the obvious meaning plays a role in both de Man and Freud. With de Man, the obvious meaning is in fact not so obvious as Freud points out in his first example of dream interpretation in which the boy tells his father, .".. don't you see I'm burning?" . The father cannot "see" the significance or the interpretation of this dream, without the help of an outside catalyst- the psychoanalyst. "No one should expect that an interpretation... will fall into his lap like manna from the skies". (Freud, P. 522) For de Man the trouble with the obvious meaning lies in the reader's "reluctance to acknowledge the obvious". (de Man, P. 18) The reader must first, according to de Man, .".. be willing to acknowledge what he is bound to notice". (de Man, P. 18) This is contingent upon the reader's consciousness of the "rhetoric dimension" found within the text, that once found by the reader, will also produce the obvious meanings situated in "historically determined meaning" and grammar.

This resistance to notice or "see" the obvious meaning stated by de Man is communal- a "shared reluctance", that is reinforced by the emphasis in literary theory by privileging of the rhetorical dimension. De Man is pessimistic in his plan to escape from the resistance to theory, which he labels as a "resistance to reading", he tries to show how literary theory overrun by a "rhetorical terminology" should be replaced by a grammatical one- a. ".. replacement of a hermeneutical by a semiotic model... " which would lead to " a considerable progress" in literary interpretation. De Man however becomes snared in his own analysis and must give in to the theories of resistance he tries to expose and undo- .".. the universal theory of the impossibility of theory."Nothing can overcome the resistance to theory since theory is itself this resistance". Then like a magician who pulls a rabbit out of his hat, de Man, has one last trump card up his sleeve, and that is the externality of theory. Literary theory can never die because, .".. the more it is resisted, the more it flourishes... " Freud offers a bleak outlook as well with a sense of hopelessness in interpretation. .".. as soon as we endeavour to penetrate more deeply into the mental processes involved in dreaming, every path will end in darkness".

(Freud, P. 511) The further one delves into the labyrinthine structure of interpretation, the more the path becomes twisted and approaches the unfamiliar territory within language, a boundary where language begins to show its inability to interpret. The only solace is the perpetuation of literary theory, for there is never a final word. A "Second Order Observation" of Luk " acs' Notion of Realism The charges Adorno makes against Luk " acs are deeply embedded within a political context, against an authoritarian system that has heavily influenced, even altered Luk " acs' mode of analysis. Adorno weighs the latters's works on the scales of the Soviet monolith whose massive hand at the end of the Second World War cast its "shadow" of girth across all of Eastern Europe. Adorno compares Luk " acs' earlier works "the old talent" to in Adorno's words, "the destruction of Luk " acs' own reason"manifested" in his work fittingly titled The Destruction of Reason. On the surface, Adorno seems to imply an indebtedness of Luk " acs to the West, "the southwest German school" par excellence for his education and influence and at the same time he wages an attack against the "Soviet pseudo-intellectual production", claiming Luk " acs has sold out to "conformism" within the communists by "accommodate [ing] his... intellectual powers" and that he, Luk " acs, has ulterior motives in his work Realism in Our Time.

On a different level however, Adorno takes issue with Luk " acs' notion of socialist realism, and the latter's attack against modern or avant-garde literature. The core of Adorno's critique lies inside Luk " acs' notion of Realism- all modern literature not following the paradigm of socialist realism is "rejected and immediately stigmatized as decadent" (Adorno P. 219) as Adorno states. This notion of social realism is only available to the reader through a "second order of observing"- a reading of Luk " acs through Adorno in light of the absence of the text brought into play. Adorno questions Luk " acs' use of "the conservative term"decadent" citing it as "a word of abuse that covers all atrocities of persecution and extermination, and not only in Russia". (Adorno P. 219) Here again Adorno tries to score points by pulling politics into the arena of critic. Luk " acs wants the reader to believe that all avant-garde / modern works labeled as "decadent" immediately implies an isolated figure and an abstract setting removed from realism created by a bourgeoisie society, that goes against the grain of socialist realism since modern literature is in his view a "deviation from reality".

Adorno sees himself as defender of avant-garde literature and takes issue with this alienation or isolation of man and counters Luk " acs' argument- that in modern literature "man... is by nature solitary, asocial [and] unable to enter relationships with other human beings" by pointing out that this "solitude is socially mediated and... historical in substance". Using Heidegger's ontological model, "What is man"? as a basis both critics attempt to assign a role of the character or "man" both within the setting of the text and outside in the social world, in reality. For Luk " acs man or characters "cannot be separated from the context within in which they were created" (Luk " acs as quoted in Adorno P. 223). This historicism is in perfect keeping of Marxist and in this case Communist strands of theory that Adorno wants to unravel and expose; in opposition to his own perception of an "historical man"conjure [d] up [in] that world's essence".

Man is not "timeless" as Adorno charges Luk " acs with, but rather a figure distanced from present reality in modernist literature, that places him in a better position to view that reality critical and expose its myth. To use myth as a form in writing Adorno states, is against the very "stylistic principle the Luk " acs of today holds in contempt" (Adorno P. 223). Here Adorno is trying to untangle Luk " acs' web of arguments on art- specifically its form and function and claims that Luk " acs ignores the central position of literary technique, only "sticking to what is narrated". (Adorno P. 226). Art for Adorno has an "illusory character" since it has branched away from its roots as a magical, mythical function "distinct from the immediate reality from which it sprang" and is "antithetical to the status quo". Luk " acs would probably view art as a function of reality its essence and image bound- as a reflection of that reality, a historical snapshot of the time period in which it was created, he is opposed to any type of formalism and views modern art as an escape from the reality- it is a "worldless" art.

The idea of a "worldless" art is suggested by Luk " acs through Adorno's eyes is put to rest by Adorno's apocalyptic message of an "atomistic" world that has given birth to this alienation and has as a result, transformed the human figure into a shadow, devoid of color. It is an "atomization" that is produced by the bourgeoisie society, giving way to decadence or "degeneration in individuals". There is no room for the individual subject in Luk " acs' notion of social realism and the isolation or perceived "solitude" in this atomic age is reduced by Luk " acs to. ".. a mere illusion... ". .

Here, Adorno is not yet ready to give up the ghost of implicating the powers that be in his assault on Luk " acs. His words cut straight to the bone, slicing through the flesh of Luk " acs' and Communist theory like a hot knife through butter. His intent is to scare the reader to continue this cycle of "the red scare" so prevalent in the cold war era that produced a massive scale paranoia. Luk " acs in his defense is only a product of his era, and perhaps to some extent as Adorno puts it, "blinded by the powers that be". But one could also say that Luk " acs was not necessarily blinded, but rather, believed so intently in the political institution that he became absorbed by it. What is brought to the forefront in Adorno's critic of Luk " acs seems more to be an outright attack against the Soviet regime and its own methods of theoretical analysis.

He criticizes Luk " acs for his notion of realism, that he claims is not realism in actuality, charging Luk " acs with being exactly what he so adamantly appears to denounce, and that is "bourgeois". Adorno's argument may be convincing, but he lets his true colors show, his aversion to the color red while trying to debunk both Luk " acs and that red or iron curtain which separates the East and his stronghold in the West. Without a copy of the original text it would be difficult to make a clear cut validation of Adorno's critic, although he does use a scalpel to make clean and deep incisions into the corpus of Luk " acs' notion of realism, leaving Luk " acs cut open and bleeding profusely. Adorno's words are harsh and hypercritical not only of Luk " acs but of Soviet theory revealing a tendency toward communist bashing that is fueled by stark emotions within Adorno. After all punches and stops have been pulled, the only thing left standing is the isolation; for in this atomic age", solitude is inevitable".

Hans-Georg Gadamer: "Conversations" with the Text Gadamer does not view writing as exclusionary from language and speech- reducing it to "a phenomenon of exterior representation, both useless and dangerous", but rather he gives it privilege in his model of hermeneutics. Gadamer attempts to show how the significance of writing through history has evolved and produced what we call tradition. Tradition for Gadamer is linguistically mediated and is not a "remnant of the past" that needs to be interpreted, but rather, it speaks to us in the present if we open ourselves up and embrace the language of the written word. "In the form of writing all tradition is simultaneous with any present time. Moreover, it involves a unique co-existence of past and present, insofar as present consciousness has the possibility of a free access to all that is handed down in writing". (Gadamer P. 847) The written language when juxtaposed with the other modalities has an eternalness, that exists on its own- "detached" from the reader and the writer- a process that isolates the composer from the work...

The reader is capable only of communicating with the written text, and calling forth meaning and understanding, even if, inherent prejudices enter into this dialogue between the text and reader, which affects the interpretation. In Gadamer's model for hermeneutics meaning is affected not only by outside "distractions" in the reader's environment, but also internal "distractions" which interfere with the interpretation of the written work. When we try to understand a text, we are "performing an act of projection" states Gadamer. The reader "projects" a preliminary meaning onto the text, from expectations that begin before the actual reading has begun, which Gadamer calls "fore-project". During the reading of a written text, this "fore-project" is modified and updated as the words begin to speak or come alive and form meaning of their own, which in turn produces understanding and leading toward interpretation. Initial interpretations of the text are labeled as "fore-conceptions" which are overwritten by more "suitable ones".

To over come these fore-projects and fore-conceptions, the reader must. ".. remain open to the meaning of the... text" (Gadamer P. 842) To come to an understanding of the text for Gadamer is to first understand the parts that make up the whole. True understanding in Gadamer's terms is. ".. an assimilation of what is said to the point that it becomes one's own". , a process of internalizing the text, but also having the ability to separate the text's message from the message the reader "projects" onto the written language. The written word in history leaves behind a trace- marks on a page that are eternalized, as compared to the spoken language that disappears after the words have been uttered. It [written language] "confers on... an authority of a particular weight" because it is something "tangible... and that can be demonstrated and is like a proof". Gadamer therefore honors written language with the highest priorities in the process of histories. There is a trap however, in written language which the reader easily falls into and that according to Gadamer is "What is written down is not necessarily true".

Only through reason according to Gadamer and not "tradition" does the written word achieve validity. Man has acquired the ability to read the text critically from Cartesian logic that emerged from the Enlightenment. He returns to the past and looks at the text in its historical context.".. all tradition that reason shows to be impossible... can only be understood historically, i.e. by going back to the past's way of looking at things". (Gadamer P. 846) Gadamer believes the written work is removed from its creator and the reader, whose task is to resuscitate life back into the text. There is a sense of hopelessness in Gadamer's argument, for the reader can never regain that life connection of the author and the text. In this sense, the author is further removed from the work and the reader, who is forced to rely on his own interpretation of the author's intent; as Gadamer states, .".. we can never achieve a definite 'personal to temporal identity' with the author" (Gadamer P. 841) He, the reader, claims to possess the truth of knowledge found in the text, since he can only interpret that which is "spoken" to him / her through the text.

What becomes understanding to the reader then is "always more than an alien meaning: it is always possible truth". (Gadamer P. 850) The detachment of the work from the writer and reader "What is fixed in writing has detached itself from the contingency of its origin and its author and made itself free for new relationships". ... Gadamer also moves for a detachment in interpretation from the written work. .".. an interpretation is right when it is capable of disappearing in this way. And yet it is true at the same time that is must be expressed as something intended to disappear". (Gadamer P. 852) In Gadamer's Hermeneuitcal model, the text is brought to the forefront of language and given precedence over the other modalities.

The written word lies in waiting to be brought into conversation with the reader and communicate a message. Its timelessness lies in the fact that literature speaks on different levels with the contemporary reader of yesterday, today and tomorrow who has "a present involvement in what is said". In the interpretation of the text, the reader only arrives at a possible truth, that is influenced by his own preconceived notions of the author's and text's message. There is never one truth that exists in interpreting the written word, because a text communicates with the reader on an individual and personal level For Gadamer, "writing is central to the hermeneutical phenomenology, insofar as its detachment both from the writer or author and from a specifically addressed recipient or reader has given it a life of its own".

. This relationship formed between author, reader and text, is an alienation, since the author's intent can never be recaptured and the reader no matter how in tune he is with the text, can never truly know the author on an intimate level, what the reader does lay claim to is his version of truth. A lonely traveler started out on a quest to learn about literature and to interpret the stories of his contemporaries and forefathers, in an attempt to make meaning out of his own world. What began as a journey to learn how to interpret literature the "correct or widely accepted way" has only left the traveler stranded deep in the woods.

In this tangled and twisted forest of literary theory more and more trees spring up to replace those trees that had been cleared, making the winding paths that much more dense and covering his tracks from whence he came. The wanderer was left bewildered and disillusioned, his only friend, Language, had totally abandoned him, leaving him lost in the woods with no way out. And so the cycle of interpretation is perpetuated, giving life to more trees to replace the ones that had been felled.